Who is Charlie Creme?

[BRS24]

He's given plenty of interviews where he's talked about his background and how he got into bracketology. For those interested in attacking getting to know him, one of those interviews was on this episode of Charli Turner Thorne's podcast (starts around the 1:45 mark).

It's My Turn with CTT - Charlie Creme | RSS.com

Women's Basketball Guru & ESPN Bracketologist, Charlie Creme, joins the latest episode of "It's My Turn with CTT"

rss.com

Not attacking, just my observation of how small the info trail is on him. Will listen to the pod though.

 

[Plebe]

Not attacking, just my observation of how small the info trail is on him. Will listen to the pod though.

Not you specifically, but it seems to be an annual sport for some.

More crumbs from the info trail: here's a 2015 NYT article about Creme and Lunardi.

Bracketology’s Birth: Filling In the Blanks, Running on Caffeine (Published 2015)

Bracketology began with two die-hard college basketball fans in a tiny office watching games, eating junk food, drinking caffeinated beverages, working around the clock and wishing the weekend would never end.

www.nytimes.com

 

[oldhusky]

Show me one example of this.

Maybe I am associating to much arrogance to him, instead of his employer, but my reaction to him and ESPN's recruiting rankings is quite similar. In both cases I am just not impressed. I am not saying they are terrible, I am saying if Charlie was working for someone other than ESPN, there is a good chance we wouldn't know who he was.

ESPN promotes bracket speculation extensively, they make it a big deal, feature it on their media, and of course want their spokesman to be the one that is quoted everywhere, not just on ESPN. It helps drive ratings, I get it, but whoever ESPN put in that role was likely to achieve that status, whether they were really good or ordinary. ESPN was going to make whoever a star in that specialty field.

The reason I also find it similar to the recruits ratings, is ESPN has also marketed their ratings to a point where only theirs is frequently quoted. Media outlets everywhere say this player is the number whatever recruit, as if ESPN's was the definitive rating. they have completely succeeded in marketing as far as that is concerned, while I think their ratings are really no better than Prospect Nation, Blue Star, ASGR etc.

In both cases ESPN has successfully achieved IMO expert status that they don't quite deserve, but they know how to market, and turn it into eyeballs very well.

 

[HuskyNan]

Maybe I am associating to much arrogance to him, instead of his employer, but my reaction to him and ESPN's recruiting rankings is quite similar. In both cases I am just not impressed. I am not saying they are terrible, I am saying if Charlie was working for someone other than ESPN, there is a good chance we wouldn't know who he was.

ESPN promotes bracket speculation extensively, they make it a big deal, feature it on their media, and of course want their spokesman to be the one that is quoted everywhere, not just on ESPN. It helps drive ratings, I get it, but whoever ESPN put in that role was likely to achieve that status, whether they were really good or ordinary. ESPN was going to make whoever a star in that specialty field.

The reason I also find it similar to the recruits ratings, is ESPN has also marketed their ratings to a point where only theirs is frequently quoted. Media outlets everywhere say this player is the number whatever recruit, as if ESPN's was the definitive rating. they have completely succeeded in marketing as far as that is concerned, while I think their ratings are really no better than Prospect Nation, Blue Star, ASGR etc.

In both cases ESPN has successfully achieved IMO expert status that they don't quite deserve, but they know how to market, and turn it into eyeballs very well.

As someone who worked on the ratings for Hoopgurlz/ESPN, I’d say you’re poorly informed on how the rankings are created. I spent many hours watching AAU basketball in variety of venues in an attempt to see as many girls as many times as possible to give them an appropriate ranking. I was one of many visiting tournaments across the country. You have zero idea how much work those folks do.

 

[oldhusky]

As someone who worked on the ratings for Hoopgurlz/ESPN, I’d say you’re poorly informed on how the rankings are created. I spent many hours watching AAU basketball in variety of venues in an attempt to see as many girls as many times as possible to give them an appropriate ranking. I was one of many visiting tournaments across the country. You have zero idea how much work those folks do.

First thank you for what you do to try to make their ratings better, and for what you do on this board in so many other ways. I can only judge on the final product. I don't want to debate ratings, but let me just describe a couple of things that to me indicate an inferior product, or poor management.

For what seemed like at least a year or so Caroline Ducharme was listed as 5-10 on their ratings. I can see a mistake being made initially, but this obvious one persisted for what seems like an eternity. One of my other gripes is how responsive they are to when players commit.

When a player commits it spreads like wildfires on social media, but it seems to me it takes way too long to show up on ESPN's list of top players. Maybe I am being overly critical, but I don't think those kind of things should happen in a well run organization. ESPN does a great job at many things, but I suspect women's basketball recruiting is a pretty low priority for them and sometimes it shows. But keep up the good work you are doing.

 

[CocoHusky]

First thank you for what you do to try to make their ratings better, and for what you do on this board in so many other ways. I can only judge on the final product. I don't want to debate ratings, but let me just describe a couple of things that to me indicate an inferior product, or poor management.
For what seemed like at least a year or so Caroline Ducharme was listed as 5-10 on their ratings. I can see a mistake being made initially, but this obvious one persisted for what seems like an eternity. One of my other gripes is how responsive they are to when players commit.
When a player commits it spreads like wildfires on social media, but it seems to me it takes way too long to show up on ESPN's list of top players. Maybe I am being overly critical, but I don't think those kind of things should happen in a well run organization. ESPN does a great job at many things, but I suspect women's basketball recruiting is a pretty low priority for them and sometimes it shows. But keep up the good work you are doing.

You don't want to debate yet 2 full paragraphs later you are still debating?
Uhm.... Caroline's ESPN rankings rose and fell throughout her HS career. The most significant factors regarding her rise, fall or inactive periods in the ESPN ranking were due to the two major injuries she sustained and had to recover from in HS. If you are going to continue "debating" the rankings please try and educate yourself as to how ESPN treats injured players in their rankings. ESPN are also not social media trolls-meaning they are not out there checking the recruits social media for commitments.
ESPN does have a very low priority on women's basketball recruiting, you are getting exactly what you pay for. There are plenty of services available to you for a fee that might be more to your liking.

 

[HuskyNan]

You don't want to debate yet 2 full paragraphs later you are still debating?
Uhm.... Caroline's ESPN rankings rose and fell throughout her HS career. The most significant factors regarding her rise, fall or inactive periods in the ESPN ranking were due to the two major injuries she sustained and had to recover from in HS. If you are going to continue "debating" the rankings please try and educate yourself as to how ESPN treats injured players in their rankings. ESPN are also not social media trolls-meaning they are not out there checking the recruits social media for commitments.
ESPN does have a very low priority on women's basketball recruiting, you are getting exactly what you pay for. There are plenty of services available to you for a fee that might be more to your liking.

It’s not like there’s a staff of 100 out scouting and an office staff updating the database daily. When I was doing the scouting, there were 4 of us. Period.

And ESPN has its faults, to be sure, but they made a commitment to women’s basketball early, much earlier than any of the other outlets. At least they tried which is more than I can say for some.

 

[CocoHusky]

It’s not like there’s a staff of 100 out scouting and an office staff updating the database daily. When I was doing the scouting, there were 4 of us. Period.
And ESPN has its faults, to be sure, but they made a commitment to women’s basketball early, much earlier than any of the other outlets. At least they tried which is more than I can say for some.

I never understand why some people get so worked up over these rankings when every credible person involved admits to them being subjective. Bluestar for example has Ashlyn Shade ranked at 55th in her class- but you didn't hear that from me.

 

[HuskyNan]

I never understand why some people get so worked up over these rankings when every credible person involved admits to them being subjective. Bluestar for example has Ashlyn Shade ranked at 55th in her class- but you didn't hear that from me.

Usually that’s a function of how many times the kid was seen. If she was seen once or twice and had bad or middling games at that time, she might not be ranked too highly. Also, some kids just flip the switch and “get it” one game when a scout isn’t there.

Someone like Caroline, for example, may not have been seen much because she played for a NEPSAC team in New England, usually not a hotbed of talent. Once UConn showed interest, her ranking rose as people started to pay attention to her. Too bad for other schools they didn’t work the local networks like Geno does. AAU and high school coaches in New England love him because he makes an effort to meet them and stay in touch.

in sheer numbers, there aren’t a lot of girls basketball scouts and they just can’t go to all games in every state. Many have a real, I.e. paying, job and do the scouting part time, as I did. Some get missed (see Beard, Alana and Morrow, Aneesa)