A. Smoking sticky nugs.
B. Snorting lots of coke.
C. Living their best life with no Fs to give.
D. Eating Tide Pods.
E. All of the above.

I thought it was a great idea until I actually THOUGHT about it.

It all comes down to odds. And the odds aren't in any teams favor to improve their standing. I doubt they consulted any professional experts in odds, statistics, or math.

The positive outcomes everyone, including the conference, is talking about have like a 3% chance of happening, while there is like an 80% chance this backfires.

Sure it's "innovative" but that doesn't make it good. You don't think any other conference including G5s have thought about this before? Sure they have...and when they studied the possible outcomes...they deemed it way to risky if not downright sabotage (to their own conference) to implement.

Nationally know one, including the NET ranking system, is going to care aka needle will not move much if any team beats one of our top teams again in pod play...however...suffer a loss or two in that top pod...and it will be a killer...for that teams ranking/rating/perception. And those loss(es) are right at the end of the year too. Fresh in everyone's mind.

Also it's insanity and defeats the purpose of the Conference tourney. If you go 4-0 in the top pod (playing the 4 other best teams in the conference) you should just be crowned champions. Why start over and play a 12th seed in the "tourney". The CUSA tourney is now the lesser of the two events for a top 5 team.

F. None of the above
G. Making something to provide better competitive balance and more interesting and meaningful games
H. Wanting to F with the two MU fans (and one LATech fan) who they wanted to P*** off.


P.s. for the #1 seed to ever play the 12 seed in the tourney, the 12 seed would first have to upset the #5 and THEN the (rested) #4 seed on back-to-back days. The chance of that happening is... zero (point zero zero one)
1 opens tourney play against the 8/9 winner.

So without PODS, we are guaranteed one invite. With PODS it could backfire and we could have one invite.

(01-19-2019 10:21 AM)FAU Connoisseur Wrote:  So without PODS, we are guaranteed one invite. With PODS it could backfire and we could have one invite.

Precisely. Finally. Someone who gets it.

I do want to follow up on one of Herd1’s thoughts here. I give him some crap on this topic but this is worth pursuing in the future.

When they first announced pods I wondered if they’d modify the conf tournament format too. (I figured they didn’t want to change too much in one year)

Your point though is that winning the top pod should be worth more than a 1 seed in the current format (which is a bye into the quarterfinals). I’d like to see the 1 seed get a bye straight into the final four. That
(1) further strengthens their schedule without having to play the 8/9 seed
(2) gives them a much better chance at winning the conf tourney, and
(3) might strengthen their case even more with the at large clown committee if they don’t win the tourney.

Lots of ways to bracket it but if you kept 12 tourney berths then only #1 (final four) and #2 (quarterfinals as currently given) get byes in the tourney.

First round is 3/4/5/6/7 vs 8/9/10/11/12
Second round is
2 vs 7/8 winner
3/12 vs 6/9 winner
4/11 vs 5/10 winner

Semis pit the
1 vs survivor of the 4/11/5/10
2/3 potentially in the other semi.

Huge advantage to the 1 seed coming in fresh to play a 4 or 5 seed that just played 2 games. How’s that for a regular season reward? And some extra SoS too even if they lose in the final.

Or maybe I’ve just been snorting too much cake. It is pretty good cake.

https://deadspin.com/a-college-basketbal...1826990796

Not that it matters... some folks just enjoy the sport of shooting down the people whose jobs they wish they had... but for the other folks, maybe THEY will find this background compelling and worth a few minutes' reading...

(01-19-2019 10:44 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  I do want to follow up on one of Herd1’s thoughts here. I give him some crap on this topic but this is worth pursuing in the future.

When they first announced pods I wondered if they’d modify the conf tournament format too. (I figured they didn’t want to change too much in one year)

Your point though is that winning the top pod should be worth more than a 1 seed in the current format (which is a bye into the quarterfinals). I’d like to see the 1 seed get a bye straight into the final four. That
(1) further strengthens their schedule without having to play the 8/9 seed
(2) gives them a much better chance at winning the conf tourney, and
(3) might strengthen their case even more with the at large clown committee if they don’t win the tourney.

Lots of ways to bracket it but if you kept 12 tourney berths then only #1 (final four) and #2 (quarterfinals as currently given) get byes in the tourney.

First round is 3/4/5/6/7 vs 8/9/10/11/12
Second round is
2 vs 7/8 winner
3/12 vs 6/9 winner
4/11 vs 5/10 winner

Semis pit the
1 vs survivor of the 4/11/5/10
2/3 potentially in the other semi.

Huge advantage to the 1 seed coming in fresh to play a 4 or 5 seed that just played 2 games. How’s that for a regular season reward? And some extra SoS too even if they lose in the final.

Makes a lot of sense from where I sit.

(01-19-2019 10:21 AM)FAU Connoisseur Wrote:  So without PODS, we are guaranteed one invite. With PODS it could backfire and we could have one invite.

False on both counts.

Sure we haven't had 2 bids in a while, but without pods it's possible (and has happened not too long ago). With pods it is virtually impossible; as one of your top 2 teams is guaranteed a loss at end of year (within the pods), and it is actually likely that both of your top 2 teams will suffer a loss in the pods. More likely than the top team going 4-0 which is what the conference and those supporting the system are hoping for.

It backfiring, which is more likely than not, could mean a second team get's left home that truly deserves it...or it could mean at a minimum our top team ends up with a worse seed because they either...1. didn't go 4-0 in the pods (which is likely), or 2. "blew their load" in the pods and got picked off in the tourney (which is possible if not likely).

Sure we've been a one bid league for a while...and this system increases the chances of that happening.

This pod system also increases the chances of our top team either getting picked off in the tourney OR getting a worse seed in the tourney. Going 4-0 in the top pod doesn't help as much as going 3-1 or 2-2 in the top pod hurts. You understand what I'm saying?

In my opinion (to take what owl at the moon said one step further)...the winner of the top Pod should even get a pass all the way to the championship game...I mean, again, you've already beaten 4 of the top 5 teams in the league which is more than the actual conference tourney requires. What a let down to win the top pod, then have to start all over again playing the 8th or 9th seed team.

(01-19-2019 01:21 PM)HERD1 Wrote:  

(01-19-2019 10:21 AM)FAU Connoisseur Wrote:  So without PODS, we are guaranteed one invite. With PODS it could backfire and we could have one invite.

False on both counts.

Sure we haven't had 2 bids in a while, but without pods it's possible (and has happened not too long ago). With pods it is virtually impossible; as one of your top 2 teams is guaranteed a loss at end of year (within the pods), and it is actually likely that both of your top 2 teams will suffer a loss in the pods. More likely than the top team going 4-0 which is what the conference and those supporting the system are hoping for.

It backfiring, which is more likely than not, could mean a second team get's left home that truly deserves it...or it could mean at a minimum our top team ends up with a worse seed because they either...1. didn't go 4-0 in the pods (which is likely), or 2. "blew their load" in the pods and got picked off in the tourney (which is possible if not likely).

Sure we've been a one bid league for a while...and this system increases the chances of that happening.

This pod system also increases the chances of our top team either getting picked off in the tourney OR getting a worse seed in the tourney. Going 4-0 in the top pod doesn't help as much as going 3-1 or 2-2 in the top pod hurts. You understand what I'm saying?

In my opinion (to take what owl at the moon said one step further)...the winner of the top Pod should even get a pass all the way to the championship game...I mean, again, you've already beaten 4 of the top 5 teams in the league which is more than the actual conference tourney requires. What a let down to win the top pod, then have to start all over again playing the 8th or 9th seed team.

UH, how is he wrong? With pods there is one guaranteed auto bid to the NCAA. Without pods, there is one guaranteed auto bid to the NCAA. Sounds correct to me.

(01-19-2019 10:21 AM)FAU Connoisseur Wrote:  So without PODS, we are guaranteed one invite. With PODS it could backfire and we could have one invite.

EXACTLY.

My gosh. This is literally the ONE innovative thing our conference has tried. Luckily its only a few arrogant know it alls who are trashing there conference for trying something new.

I think the majority of us see it for what it is and applaud the conference for at least trying.

If you can’t beat the 3rd, 4th & 5th placed team in our conference twice you’re probably not an NCAA tourney caliber team.

(EDIT: I'm with mturn... )

So, what often is missing from the discussions like this one in my experience is an appreciation for the possibility that your conference's best teams actually AREN'T all that good and AREN'T deserving of greater regard.

And if that's the case, then under the new framework, the objection is valid that it only amounts to a black-and-blue division where the best beat up on each other and end up looking more like everyone else in the league.

But, then... that's just the truth of the matter then, and the result is as it OUGHT to be.

What you're really trying to affect here is... not that... but those situations where your best really are legitimately very good and deserving of high regard, probably higher than they get credit.

But, then.... to be fair... even in that instance, it mainly helps your best team for sure, and very possibly your second best team. It will not help your third and fourth best teams.

I'm one of those who say, let's worry about the third and fourth best teams after we get a tradition of two bids (... and I believe you can, in fact, do that through some similar but different innovative design).

Pods keeps the season interesting for the bottom of the league's fans, and that's something.

(01-19-2019 02:20 PM)Noodles Wrote:  Pods keeps the season interesting for the bottom of the league's fans, and that's something.

I think it makes the season more interesting in general. To get an at large someone will have to have a good record with some good OOC wins and no bad losses. The pods may also help our champ get a better seed. Let’s give it a few years.

(01-19-2019 02:25 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(01-19-2019 02:20 PM)Noodles Wrote:  Pods keeps the season interesting for the bottom of the league's fans, and that's something.

I think it makes the season more interesting in general. To get an at large someone will have to have a good record with some good OOC wins and no bad losses. The pods may also help our champ get a better seed. Let’s give it a few years.

Agreed. Because of the pods I have been paying much closer attention to the other CUSA games not involving my school.

(01-19-2019 02:39 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  Agreed. Because of the pods I have been paying much closer attention to the other CUSA games not involving my school.

That is... to see who else will be in Marshall's pod, right?

(01-19-2019 01:21 PM)HERD1 Wrote:  

(01-19-2019 10:21 AM)FAU Connoisseur Wrote:  So without PODS, we are guaranteed one invite. With PODS it could backfire and we could have one invite.

False on both counts.

Sure we haven't had 2 bids in a while, but without pods it's possible (and has happened not too long ago). With pods it is virtually impossible; as one of your top 2 teams is guaranteed a loss at end of year (within the pods), and it is actually likely that both of your top 2 teams will suffer a loss in the pods. More likely than the top team going 4-0 which is what the conference and those supporting the system are hoping for.

It backfiring, which is more likely than not, could mean a second team get's left home that truly deserves it...or it could mean at a minimum our top team ends up with a worse seed because they either...1. didn't go 4-0 in the pods (which is likely), or 2. "blew their load" in the pods and got picked off in the tourney (which is possible if not likely).

Sure we've been a one bid league for a while...and this system increases the chances of that happening.

This pod system also increases the chances of our top team either getting picked off in the tourney OR getting a worse seed in the tourney. Going 4-0 in the top pod doesn't help as much as going 3-1 or 2-2 in the top pod hurts. You understand what I'm saying?

In my opinion (to take what owl at the moon said one step further)...the winner of the top Pod should even get a pass all the way to the championship game...I mean, again, you've already beaten 4 of the top 5 teams in the league which is more than the actual conference tourney requires. What a let down to win the top pod, then have to start all over again playing the 8th or 9th seed team.

#1 taking a loss to #2 is better than #1 taking a late season loss to #9 while not in pods. And it happens. A lot. You still control your own destiny once pods start if you're #1-4# and the worst you can do is lose to a 5 if you **** the bed. How do people not see that as an advantage? If you go out there and drop 3-4 games in pod play you weren't really number one anyway and likely would have lost a game or more to a much lower ranking team.

Is this seriously being argued about? If you don’t think that playing the top teams in the conference, instead of whoever (including possibly 300+ RPI teams), isn’t more helpful when it comes tourney time, I don’t know what to tell you.