View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
ucbart
Joined: 21 Nov 2004 Posts: 2830 Location: New York
Back to top |
Posted: 03/06/17 1:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
In Creme's latest bracketology, he has Ohio State playing Louisville in a 4/5 match up. I would love to see that game in the second round. How intriguing. Two teams were ranked in the top 10 in the preseason and were both given a legit shot to have a top seed. In November, this was viewed as a possible E8/FF match up.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
Posted: 03/06/17 1:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
ucbart wrote: |
In Creme's latest bracketology, he has Ohio State playing Louisville in a 4/5 match up. I would love to see that game in the second round. How intriguing. Two teams were ranked in the top 10 in the preseason and were both given a legit shot to have a top seed. In November, this was viewed as a possible E8/FF match up. |
The game in his bracket that intrigues me is the 3-6 matchup between Washington and Syracuse.
I don't know how well played it would be, but it certainly wouldn't be boring.
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008 Posts: 32341
Back to top |
Posted: 03/06/17 1:47 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Since Stanford beat OrSU in the P12 tourney, who should be the #2 seed in Stockton? Charlie has OrSU, but I think Stanford has given the committee an opportunity to put them there. And it would increase fan attendance for sure. Although having it in the 'boonies' in Stockton is a totally weird choice of locale anyway if they are wanting fan attendance.
_________________ For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
patsweetpat
Joined: 14 Jul 2010 Posts: 2313 Location: Culver City, CA
Back to top |
Posted: 03/06/17 2:22 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
myrtle wrote: |
Since Stanford beat OrSU in the P12 tourney, who should be the #2 seed in Stockton? Charlie has OrSU, but I think Stanford has given the committee an opportunity to put them there. And it would increase fan attendance for sure. Although having it in the 'boonies' in Stockton is a totally weird choice of locale anyway if they are wanting fan attendance. |
Despite Stanford winning the Pac-12 Tourney, I still think OrSU deserves to be slotted by the tournament committee as the best Pac-12 team, by virtue of having won the regular season conference title, and having beaten Stanford 2 out of 3 times, and having beaten every single other conference opponent at least once (which is not something Stanford can claim).
Plus, I bet the Corvallis fans would actually travel pretty well to Stockton!
If Stanford gets that Stockton siting over the Beavs, it's not that I would consider it a moral travesty or something, but if the call were up to me, I'd give the narrow nod to Oregon State.
|
|
patsweetpat
Joined: 14 Jul 2010 Posts: 2313 Location: Culver City, CA
Back to top |
Posted: 03/06/17 2:27 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
ArtBest23 wrote: |
ucbart wrote: |
In Creme's latest bracketology, he has Ohio State playing Louisville in a 4/5 match up. I would love to see that game in the second round. How intriguing. Two teams were ranked in the top 10 in the preseason and were both given a legit shot to have a top seed. In November, this was viewed as a possible E8/FF match up. |
The game in his bracket that intrigues me is the 3-6 matchup between Washington and Syracuse.
I don't know how well played it would be, but it certainly wouldn't be boring. |
NC St. vs. Kentucky is, I think, a pretty good 2nd round matchup in Creme's current bracket. Texas vs. A&M in Austin could be fun. Ditto Oregon St. vs. Tennessee. I even think Oregon vs. Baylor could be a fun-to-watch 2nd rounder.
Even though the final conclusion of this tournament is (in my eyes) all but foregone, there should be some neat fireworks to watch this March. Can't wait! Good luck to all!
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 Posts: 756 Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
Posted: 03/06/17 11:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
RULE #1:
NEVER trust Charlie Creme, Joe Lunardi or ESPN when it comes to bracket predictions.
|
|
Queenie
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 18076 Location: Queens
Back to top |
Posted: 03/06/17 11:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Stonington_QB wrote: |
RULE #1:
NEVER trust Charlie Creme, Joe Lunardi or ESPN when it comes to bracket predictions. |
That is true, most of them are amusingly wrong and occasionally forget basic bracket principles.
On the other hand, I think pilight is pretty much our only other option, and he doesn't bracket his field.
_________________ "We all have a platform. We all have a voice & they all hold weight. Silence is a luxury."
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 Posts: 756 Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
Posted: 03/06/17 11:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Queenie wrote: |
Stonington_QB wrote: |
RULE #1:
NEVER trust Charlie Creme, Joe Lunardi or ESPN when it comes to bracket predictions. |
That is true, most of them are amusingly wrong and occasionally forget basic bracket principles.
On the other hand, I think pilight is pretty much our only other option, and he doesn't bracket his field. |
They have been droning on all week about Baylor being a lock for #1. Maybe they still are, but I won't be surprised if it doesn't happen.
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011 Posts: 2819 Location: Indiana
Back to top |
Posted: 03/07/17 10:34 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Latest bracketology shows West Virginia as a 7 seed...with Stanford being the 2 seed and traveling all the way to Morgantown. Wouldn't that be something lol.
|
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 18371 Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011 Posts: 2819 Location: Indiana
Back to top |
Posted: 03/07/17 10:49 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Wow! That took some time.
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013 Posts: 7868 Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
Posted: 03/07/17 12:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Stonington_QB wrote: |
RULE #1:
NEVER trust Charlie Creme, Joe Lunardi or ESPN when it comes to bracket predictions. |
^^^THIS^^^^ x1000. Especially Charlie. For my money the guy is a complete dolt.
_________________ Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
Posted: 03/07/17 1:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
summertime blues wrote: |
Stonington_QB wrote: |
RULE #1:
NEVER trust Charlie Creme, Joe Lunardi or ESPN when it comes to bracket predictions. |
^^^THIS^^^^ x1000. Especially Charlie. For my money the guy is a complete dolt. |
I'd like to see you do better.
He actually does very well in predicting the field.
It's pretty hard to predict the seeding and locations accurately when the women's committee never follows its own precedent or the rules they claim to follow. He"s proposing a bracket that follows their supposed "rules". When they go off and change the rules on whim every year, it's obviously hard to project.
I actually think this is the one thing Creme does fairly well. Where he isn't worth a damn is pretending to be a WBB expert analyst, with pre-season rankings, ranking the best players, or otherwise pretending to be a Kara Lawson. He doesn't know enough. But you don't have to understand the game to crunch numbers and follow precedent and rules. Nobody asks Joe Lunardi to pretend to be Jay Bilas year round. But I guess they think they need to use Creme for other things ( for which he is not qualified) in order to justify his salary.
|
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 18371 Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
Posted: 03/07/17 2:36 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
ArtBest23 wrote: |
summertime blues wrote: |
Stonington_QB wrote: |
RULE #1:
NEVER trust Charlie Creme, Joe Lunardi or ESPN when it comes to bracket predictions. |
^^^THIS^^^^ x1000. Especially Charlie. For my money the guy is a complete dolt. |
I'd like to see you do better.
He actually does very well in predicting the field.
It's pretty hard to predict the seeding and locations accurately when the women's committee never follows its own precedent or the rules they claim to follow. He"s proposing a bracket that follows their supposed "rules". When they go off and change the rules on whim every year, it's obviously hard to project. |
X_______________________
|
|
shadowboxer
Joined: 18 Jul 2008 Posts: 2126
Back to top |
Posted: 03/07/17 6:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
pilight wrote: |
Multiple Bid Conferences
8 ACC
7 SEC
6 P12
5 B12
4 BEast
3 AAC
3 B10
2 MVC
2 Summit
2 CAA
Just Missed: Toledo, Harvard, Auburn, Indiana
Last In: Northern Iowa, Virginia, St John's Oregon
How did I arrive at this?
First, I gave two points for a win over a top 25 RPI team and one for a win over a 26-50 RPI team.
Then, I subtracted one point for a loss to a 26-50 team, and two for a loss against a sub-50 team.
I then added points based on the remaining schedule: .5 for a game remaining against a top 25 RPI team and .25 for a game against a 26-50 RPI team.
Teams more than one game under .500 in conference are not allowed in.
Many teams were moved within the same seed to prevent teams in the same conference from meeting before the conference finals or to meet the new rules about conferences with top four seeds. In this instance two teams swapped seeds to avoid this. Syracuse moved up one; Oklahoma moved down one.
Ties went in favor of the team with the most points on current wins and losses. If still tied then better RPI.
The cut off for getting in as an at large was -7 points. It took 15 points to get a #1 seed. |
Thanks for the consideration, pilight. Toledo defeated Akron in first MAC Tourney game, utilizing bench heavily, able to rest/rotate starters out frequently. The Rockets peaking at right time at end of regular season, defeating NIU and Ball State on road, with all starters healthy, versus earlier in conference play. Toledo had 3 players w/double doubles at NIU game. We're at Quicken Arena tomorrow, playing Kent, who also had late season surge. MAC definitely up for grabs, with history of deep runs for teams regardless of seeding, such as #8 seed Buffalo winning MAC Tourney last yr. Toledo also defeated #1 seed CMU earlier this year as well. No illusions any MAC team would ever be considered for a NCAA bid outside of the auto bid, however. Parity in MAC if nowhere else.
Go Rockets!
Last edited by shadowboxer on 03/07/17 7:22 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67163 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 03/07/17 6:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
One problem with just running numbers is that the non-P5 teams that don't get auto bids will almost always take an extra bad loss in the conference tournament. I'm working on ways to address that.
_________________ The truth is like poetry
Most people hate poetry
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 Posts: 756 Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
Posted: 03/08/17 11:06 am ::: |
Reply |
|
ArtBest23 wrote: |
summertime blues wrote: |
Stonington_QB wrote: |
RULE #1:
NEVER trust Charlie Creme, Joe Lunardi or ESPN when it comes to bracket predictions. |
^^^THIS^^^^ x1000. Especially Charlie. For my money the guy is a complete dolt. |
I'd like to see you do better.
He actually does very well in predicting the field.
It's pretty hard to predict the seeding and locations accurately when the women's committee never follows its own precedent or the rules they claim to follow. He"s proposing a bracket that follows their supposed "rules". When they go off and change the rules on whim every year, it's obviously hard to project.
I actually think this is the one thing Creme does fairly well. Where he isn't worth a damn is pretending to be a WBB expert analyst, with pre-season rankings, ranking the best players, or otherwise pretending to be a Kara Lawson. He doesn't know enough. But you don't have to understand the game to crunch numbers and follow precedent and rules. Nobody asks Joe Lunardi to pretend to be Jay Bilas year round. But I guess they think they need to use Creme for other things ( for which he is not qualified) in order to justify his salary. |
If the predictions are pure speculation then what is the value in it? Nobody knows how any of this is going to play out until the committee releases the brackets to the public.
It's typical ESPN... hire people to talk about how things MIGHT go, then watch as none of those things actually happen, rendering every minute spent talking about it as a total waste of time.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
Posted: 03/08/17 2:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Stonington_QB wrote: |
ArtBest23 wrote: |
summertime blues wrote: |
Stonington_QB wrote: |
RULE #1:
NEVER trust Charlie Creme, Joe Lunardi or ESPN when it comes to bracket predictions. |
^^^THIS^^^^ x1000. Especially Charlie. For my money the guy is a complete dolt. |
I'd like to see you do better.
He actually does very well in predicting the field.
It's pretty hard to predict the seeding and locations accurately when the women's committee never follows its own precedent or the rules they claim to follow. He"s proposing a bracket that follows their supposed "rules". When they go off and change the rules on whim every year, it's obviously hard to project.
I actually think this is the one thing Creme does fairly well. Where he isn't worth a damn is pretending to be a WBB expert analyst, with pre-season rankings, ranking the best players, or otherwise pretending to be a Kara Lawson. He doesn't know enough. But you don't have to understand the game to crunch numbers and follow precedent and rules. Nobody asks Joe Lunardi to pretend to be Jay Bilas year round. But I guess they think they need to use Creme for other things ( for which he is not qualified) in order to justify his salary. |
If the predictions are pure speculation then what is the value in it? Nobody knows how any of this is going to play out until the committee releases the brackets to the public.
It's typical ESPN... hire people to talk about how things MIGHT go, then watch as none of those things actually happen, rendering every minute spent talking about it as a total waste of time. |
For you to say "then watch as none of those things actually happen" I have to assume you have actually never paid attention to the selections before.
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 Posts: 756 Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
Posted: 03/08/17 3:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
ArtBest23 wrote: |
Stonington_QB wrote: |
ArtBest23 wrote: |
summertime blues wrote: |
Stonington_QB wrote: |
RULE #1:
NEVER trust Charlie Creme, Joe Lunardi or ESPN when it comes to bracket predictions. |
^^^THIS^^^^ x1000. Especially Charlie. For my money the guy is a complete dolt. |
I'd like to see you do better.
He actually does very well in predicting the field.
It's pretty hard to predict the seeding and locations accurately when the women's committee never follows its own precedent or the rules they claim to follow. He"s proposing a bracket that follows their supposed "rules". When they go off and change the rules on whim every year, it's obviously hard to project.
I actually think this is the one thing Creme does fairly well. Where he isn't worth a damn is pretending to be a WBB expert analyst, with pre-season rankings, ranking the best players, or otherwise pretending to be a Kara Lawson. He doesn't know enough. But you don't have to understand the game to crunch numbers and follow precedent and rules. Nobody asks Joe Lunardi to pretend to be Jay Bilas year round. But I guess they think they need to use Creme for other things ( for which he is not qualified) in order to justify his salary. |
If the predictions are pure speculation then what is the value in it? Nobody knows how any of this is going to play out until the committee releases the brackets to the public.
It's typical ESPN... hire people to talk about how things MIGHT go, then watch as none of those things actually happen, rendering every minute spent talking about it as a total waste of time. |
For you to say "then watch as none of those things actually happen" I have to assume you have actually never paid attention to the selections before. |
Why on Earth would you think that? I watch them get their predictions wrong every year.
As far as my comment on "watch as none of those things actually happen," that wasn't specific to the selections. It includes every sport they cover.
|
|
Fighting Artichoke
Joined: 12 Dec 2012 Posts: 4076
Back to top |
Posted: 03/08/17 7:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Stonington_QB wrote: |
ArtBest23 wrote: |
Stonington_QB wrote: |
ArtBest23 wrote: |
summertime blues wrote: |
Stonington_QB wrote: |
RULE #1:
NEVER trust Charlie Creme, Joe Lunardi or ESPN when it comes to bracket predictions. |
^^^THIS^^^^ x1000. Especially Charlie. For my money the guy is a complete dolt. |
I'd like to see you do better.
He actually does very well in predicting the field.
It's pretty hard to predict the seeding and locations accurately when the women's committee never follows its own precedent or the rules they claim to follow. He"s proposing a bracket that follows their supposed "rules". When they go off and change the rules on whim every year, it's obviously hard to project.
I actually think this is the one thing Creme does fairly well. Where he isn't worth a damn is pretending to be a WBB expert analyst, with pre-season rankings, ranking the best players, or otherwise pretending to be a Kara Lawson. He doesn't know enough. But you don't have to understand the game to crunch numbers and follow precedent and rules. Nobody asks Joe Lunardi to pretend to be Jay Bilas year round. But I guess they think they need to use Creme for other things ( for which he is not qualified) in order to justify his salary. |
If the predictions are pure speculation then what is the value in it? Nobody knows how any of this is going to play out until the committee releases the brackets to the public.
It's typical ESPN... hire people to talk about how things MIGHT go, then watch as none of those things actually happen, rendering every minute spent talking about it as a total waste of time. |
For you to say "then watch as none of those things actually happen" I have to assume you have actually never paid attention to the selections before. |
Why on Earth would you think that? I watch them get their predictions wrong every year.
As far as my comment on "watch as none of those things actually happen," that wasn't specific to the selections. It includes every sport they cover. |
Some people enjoy the process and get pleasure from just discussing the possibilities. Isn't that why most of us are here on this board? I think it's great fodder for discussion.
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013 Posts: 7868 Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
Posted: 03/08/17 10:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Drexel "last out", and AAC a 3 bid conference merely on the strength of a supposedly higher RPI merely because UConn is in their conference? I don't think so. For one, JMU has a better record than Drexel, and for the other, two, UConn and USF.
_________________ Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011 Posts: 1277
Back to top |
Posted: 03/09/17 8:35 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I'm not sure why Drexel is in the discussion, while I like them, they aren't remotely under consideration.
JMU deserves consideration ahead of Virginia.
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013 Posts: 7868 Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011 Posts: 1277
Back to top |
Posted: 03/09/17 9:49 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I'm not sure why Drexel is in the discussion, while I like them, they aren't remotely under consideration.
JMU deserves consideration ahead of Virginia.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
Posted: 03/09/17 9:53 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Phil wrote: |
JMU deserves consideration ahead of Virginia. |
I really doubt if the committee views it that way because James Madison hasn't beaten anyone. The only tournament team they've beaten is Elon, while UVA has better wins over A10 champ Dayton and #12 FSU. Not only did JMU get drubbed by FSU, they also have two horrible losses to #209 Towson.
I doubt if James Madison is anywhere close to UVA on the at large list, and it has nothing to do with any P5 bias. It has to do with their actual resumes.
|
|
|
|