CHARLIE CREME'S NEW BRACKETOLOGY

jburket · Post by **jburket** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 9:41 pm

Charlie has his new bracket up. Check out "Mr. Negativity" in his team analysis for BG. Give me a break. How could scoring ONLY 40 points be a freaking factor in the at-large bid consideration as he explicitly states? If scoring ONLY 40 points matter, then LOSING by ONLY 5 points should matter too - - AFTER winning 25 freaking games in a freaking row. Grrrrr........I know that the essence of what he is saying is true, but the "tone" of his review just grinds my gourd. I know I'm prejudiced, but still.......

And playing in the opening round in Georgia? Are you serious? Glad to know that he is just a prognosticator........

http://proxy.espn.go.com/ncw/bracketology

Dukefann9er · Post by **Dukefann9er** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:16 am

He is a tool...

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:29 am

Creme's analysis has always been a little anti-BG for some reason. He just seems to be really down on the MAC compared to other conferences, even though the conference's RPI is strong. I've never been a fan, as he's no Joe Lunardi. His bracket projections have been awful the last few years.

Metz · Post by **Metz** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:13 pm

I'd take a 12-5 match-up against Xavier!

BGFalconfromCincy · Post by **BGFalconfromCincy** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:02 am

Metz wrote:I'd take a 12-5 match-up against Xavier!

as would I (mostly because of the opponent) I would love to see us knock off X, no matter the location

bgsufalcon24 · Post by **bgsufalcon24** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:48 pm

What I don't understand is how anybody can say a 3-loss team has no shot at an at-large NCAA tournament bid. We win 25 games in a row, then have 1 bad night and all of a sudden we're not worthy?

Whatever.

HoustonFalcon · Post by **HoustonFalcon** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:30 pm

Looking over the brackets, I wouldn't argue with a whole lot. As much as I would love to say that a 3 loss team deserves to be in before some of the other teams, it's not the case here. I love BG, and I believe that they deserve to be in. But when you look at strength of schedules, the case just isn't there. It's not like we were beating inferior teams by double digits night in and night out. We were strugging against some teams that we should have. We just need to win the tournament and not worry about it.

murphdogg · Post by **murphdogg** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:38 am

bgsufalcon24 wrote:What I don't understand is how anybody can say a 3-loss team has no shot at an at-large NCAA tournament bid. We win 25 games in a row, then have 1 bad night and all of a sudden we're not worthy?

Whatever.

To be fair, our strength of schedule was so bad that we had a pretty slim shot as an at-large even before we lost to Miami

bgsufalcon24 · Post by **bgsufalcon24** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:11 am

murphdogg wrote:
bgsufalcon24 wrote:What I don't understand is how anybody can say a 3-loss team has no shot at an at-large NCAA tournament bid. We win 25 games in a row, then have 1 bad night and all of a sudden we're not worthy?

Whatever.
To be fair, our strength of schedule was so bad that we had a pretty slim shot as an at-large even before we lost to Miami

Strength of schedule shouldn't be the be-all, end-all piece of the argument. It's just one facet of information, along with the record, the RPI, and the quality wins/losses. Our RPI is good enough to get in, 39th according to realtimerpi, so we have that in our corner. It's our small school status that really is going to hurt us. You know that if we were a big name school that had a shoddy schedule but had only 3 losses we'd be a lock. If this were men's basketball, we'd be a lock. The women's committee just punishes mid-majors at every chance they get.

You mean to tell me that the last 2 teams Creme has in the field (South Florida and Minnesota) deserve to be in the field more than us? Both have double digit losses FWIW. I just don't see how a team with double digit losses deserves to make it into the field over a 3-loss team, SOS be darned.

murphdogg · Post by **murphdogg** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:18 pm

bgsufalcon24 wrote:
murphdogg wrote:
bgsufalcon24 wrote:What I don't understand is how anybody can say a 3-loss team has no shot at an at-large NCAA tournament bid. We win 25 games in a row, then have 1 bad night and all of a sudden we're not worthy?

Whatever.
To be fair, our strength of schedule was so bad that we had a pretty slim shot as an at-large even before we lost to Miami
Strength of schedule shouldn't be the be-all, end-all piece of the argument. It's just one facet of information, along with the record, the RPI, and the quality wins/losses. Our RPI is good enough to get in, 39th according to realtimerpi, so we have that in our corner. It's our small school status that really is going to hurt us. You know that if we were a big name school that had a shoddy schedule but had only 3 losses we'd be a lock. If this were men's basketball, we'd be a lock. The women's committee just punishes mid-majors at every chance they get.

You mean to tell me that the last 2 teams Creme has in the field (South Florida and Minnesota) deserve to be in the field more than us? Both have double digit losses FWIW. I just don't see how a team with double digit losses deserves to make it into the field over a 3-loss team, SOS be darned.

I dunno, maybe Billy Packer is running the selection committee