Who is Charlie Creme? | The Boneyard

Who is Charlie Creme?

#1florida

#1florida

Midwest Husky
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
288
Reaction Score
1,548
This was posted back in 2017, but, I still can't find any information on him, or his background. He works for ESPN, and just like ESPN, appears to be biased toward ACC, SEC teams. How much, if any influence does he have on the NCAA tournament brackets?
 
It appears to the lay person that ESPN pays Charlie to publish his WBB Bracketology. I assume that he uses the same data that the Committee uses with a dash of his own opinions. And because the data sources are biased towards the P5 conferences, they make up most of the non automatic qualifying choices.
IMO.
 
#1florida said:
This was posted back in 2017, but, I still can't find any information on him, or his background. He works for ESPN, and just like ESPN, appears to be biased toward ACC, SEC teams. How much, if any influence does he have on the NCAA tournament brackets?
Expand ...
He's Lennie Creme's little brother.
 
#1florida said:
This was posted back in 2017, but, I still can't find any information on him, or his background. He works for ESPN, and just like ESPN, appears to be biased toward ACC, SEC teams. How much, if any influence does he have on the NCAA tournament brackets?
Expand ...
ZERO!
 
Mel Kiper Jr
Imagine a grown man living in his Mom's basement (Baltimore area- hear the accent? That's a Bal'more accent) reading for years everything ever written about college football prospects. No one else was doing it. For some reason, it was his life. Gradually, over years, people began to respect his opinion and let's face it, he knows it all regarding college football prospects. Somehow the door to TV and ESPN comes ajar and Mel and his hair is exposed to the public. Take away Sports Center (but I like Scott) and like it or not ESPN has tremendous expertise in all sports.
Charlie Creme, who the heck is that?
 
Never research this but I thik he's quite true, somatimes good to you, someothers not, I like his brackets most of the times and when ESPN publish articles where several give their advice, his point of view is good to read, when M.Voepels are mostly losing time to read (and she earned an award, what for?) .

Then, there's no science, as Geno tells it sometimes, BB is a game!
Remember what was a game (not a BB, just a game) in the child days, just a way to enjoy the moment (sort of, that's what I hear)
 
.-.
Joe Lunardi is the same way, the best bracketologist is Jerry Palm. He was the only one to nail all teams in 2016.
He had usc over Cuse, and Lunardi had cuse
 
Creme has said he is not making out the brackets as he believes they should be but how he thinks the final committee will pick them. So any bias that may be perceived is just an attempt to get inside the procedures and heads of the committee who may have historical biases / trends.

I thought a while ago, one of our statistical BY experts did a comparison between his final predictions and the final results and he came out pretty well?

For fun, those that have the highest disdain should fill their own predictions of the committee and see how well / poorly you do against Creme with results shown on the BY of course.
 
Creme went to St Bonaventure I think at the same time as Adrian Wojnarowski. He wrote for The Sports Network and used to help Joe Lunardi put together the yearly NCAA tournament guide. ESPN asked Lunardi to do a women’s bracket like he does for the men, he declined but recommended Creme.
 
Jibariqua said:
Creme went to St Bonaventure I think at the same time as Adrian Wojnarowski. He wrote for The Sports Network and used to help Joe Lunardi put together the yearly NCAA tournament guide. ESPN asked Lunardi to do a women’s bracket like he does for the men, he declined but recommended Creme.
Expand ...
Let me know when Creme puts St. Bonaventure on the host line, :rolleyes:
 
IMO the answer to this question is a vastly overrated journalist who with the help of ESPN has designated himself as the world's best Bracketologist. It is amazing to me that someone can milk a career and prestige mostly based on just that, but he and ESPN have.
 
.-.
eebmg said:
Creme has said he is not making out the brackets as he believes they should be but how he thinks the final committee will pick them. So any bias that may be perceived is just an attempt to get inside the procedures and heads of the committee who may have historical biases / trends.

I thought a while ago, one of our statistical BY experts did a comparison between his final predictions and the final results and he came out pretty well?

For fun, those that have the highest disdain should fill their own predictions of the committee and see how well / poorly you do against Creme with results shown on the BY of course.
Expand ...
Exactly! I think he does an excellent job of predicting the brackets that the NCAA "should" publish if it follows its own rules, but it never does. So you can't expect Creme or anyone to psychoanalyze the committee members to predict how they will compromise their rules in a particular year's bracket.

He only claims to offer educated guesses, and he does that. What harm does that do? (I really don't understand the intensity of the criticism, not to mention the expectation that he should get the bracket 100% "right" per the Selection Committee or he is a charlatan.)
 
No he has not “designated himself.” He was hired to do womens bracketology - a good thing! And ESPN promotes him - again a good thing.

This is a part time gig. I believe is in pharma sales or something.

No he has NO role in the NCAA bracketing.
 
Adesmar123 said:
He's Lennie Creme's little brother.
Expand ...
Is Krispy a relative?
Vowelguy said:
No he has not “designated himself.” He was hired to do womens bracketology - a good thing! And ESPN promotes him - again a good thing.

This is a part time gig. I believe is in pharma sales or something.

No he has NO role in the NCAA bracketing.
Expand ...
 
oldhuskie said:
IMO the answer to this question is a vastly overrated journalist who with the help of ESPN has designated himself as the world's best Bracketologist. It is amazing to me that someone can milk a career and prestige mostly based on just that, but he and ESPN have.
Expand ...
1646321213570.jpeg
 
.-.
Seeing that Charlie spends what apparently is a lot of time coming up with his brackets, it would not surprise me at all that members of the Selection Committee use his work as a guide. Afterall, he uses the same criteria that the Committee does.
(I have suggested the same thing in previous seasons and I have been criticized for even thinking it could happen, so here I go again.)

 
I googled him 3x and couldn't find any details about him, anywhere, other than ESPN bracketology. It's somewhat odd, as a lot of the talking heads were either college athletes, journalists, reporters, etc, etc, with a identifiable track record as to how they got from point A to now. Weird.
 
oldhuskie said:
IMO the answer to this question is a vastly overrated journalist who with the help of ESPN has designated himself as the world's best Bracketologist. It is amazing to me that someone can milk a career and prestige mostly based on just that, but he and ESPN have.
Expand ...
Show me one example of this.
 
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).

rss.com

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 rss.com
 
BRS24 said:
I googled him 3x and couldn't find any details about him, anywhere, other than ESPN bracketology. It's somewhat odd, as a lot of the talking heads were either college athletes, journalists, reporters, etc, etc, with a identifiable track record as to how they got from point A to now. Weird.
Expand ...
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).

rss.com

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 rss.com
 
.-.
All you folks trashing Creme for his “anti-UConn bias”, did you see this:

The Huskies' best chance to be placed [in Bridgeport] is to improve their seed. UConn was No. 9 overall on the committee's list Monday after being No. 11 in the reveal two weeks ago. With Paige Bueckers back, the Huskies are big favorites in the Big East tournament. Don't be surprised if UConn is a No. 2 seed and in the Bridgeport Regional after Championship Week.

www.espn.com

Women's Bracketology: LSU, Iowa open on top line, but UConn is No. 1 overall

LSU and Iowa open as top seeds along with UConn and Utah. The Huskies are No. 1 overall in our first projection for 2023-24.
www.espn.com
 
Plebe said:
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).

rss.com

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 rss.com
Expand ...
Not attacking, just my observation of how small the info trail is on him. Will listen to the pod though.
 
BRS24 said:
Not attacking, just my observation of how small the info trail is on him. Will listen to the pod though.
Expand ...

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.

www.nytimes.com

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 www.nytimes.com
 
HuskyNan said:
Show me one example of this.
Expand ...
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.
 
oldhuskie said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
HuskyNan said:
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.
Expand ...
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 must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,503
Messages
4,579,067
Members
10,489
Latest member
Djw06001


Top Bottom