RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

The Field of 64
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ucbart



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 2811
Location: New York


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/17 1:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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
PostPosted: 03/06/17 1:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 32326



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/17 1:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 2305
Location: Culver City, CA


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/17 2:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 2305
Location: Culver City, CA


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/17 2:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 755
Location: Siege Perilous


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/17 11:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

RULE #1:
NEVER trust Charlie Creme, Joe Lunardi or ESPN when it comes to bracket predictions.


Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18013
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/17 11:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.



_________________
All your Rebecca are belong to the Liberty.

(now with spelling variations)
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 755
Location: Siege Perilous


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/17 11:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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
PostPosted: 03/07/17 10:34 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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
PostPosted: 03/07/17 10:37 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote:
RULE #1:
NEVER trust Charlie Creme, Joe Lunardi or ESPN when it comes to bracket predictions.


http://www.bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html


purduefanatic



Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/07/17 10:49 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

CamrnCrz1974 wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
RULE #1:
NEVER trust Charlie Creme, Joe Lunardi or ESPN when it comes to bracket predictions.


http://www.bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html


Wow! That took some time.


summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7745
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/07/17 12:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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
PostPosted: 03/07/17 1:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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
PostPosted: 03/07/17 2:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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
PostPosted: 03/07/17 6:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/07/17 6:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 755
Location: Siege Perilous


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/17 11:06 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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
PostPosted: 03/08/17 2:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 755
Location: Siege Perilous


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/17 3:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 4040



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/17 7:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 7745
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/17 10:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 1255



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/09/17 8:35 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 7745
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/09/17 8:41 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Phil wrote:
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.


Thank you. But the committee will almost always pick a P5 over a mid-major Razz



_________________
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: 1255



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/09/17 9:49 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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
PostPosted: 03/09/17 9:53 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 8 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin