I may not like anything else judy does, it this may not equal multiple births this year, but at least she tried something out of the box to help up.
I for one enjoyed the past few weeks watching the pod competition ply out and look forward to the last few weeks. It's not perfect, but its better than anything else she has done and has been fun thus far.
From the outside, I had an Ole Miss buddy come up to me at church and ask me to explain what c-usa was doing.
I am not sure a system that gives a #5 team a better advantage than a #3 is a well thought out system...but I do agree that at least she is trying something to help.
(02-17-2019 08:07 PM)Eagle in the gym Wrote: [ -> ]I may not like anything else judy does, it this may not equal multiple births this year, but at least she tried something out of the box to help up.
I for one enjoyed the past few weeks watching the pod competition ply out and look forward to the last few weeks. It's not perfect, but its better than anything else she has done and has been fun thus far.
From the outside, I had an Ole Miss buddy come up to me at church and ask me to explain what c-usa was doing.
If you’re in Pod 1 it’s cool and all sunshine and rainbows. Outside of it NOBODY gives a shite. It’s like the annoying person that gets their way and is all happy when everyone else is blah.
Bring on baseball & football season! Spring training opening, NFL Draft is almost here and soon football practice will start!
Oh yea the NCAAs and CUSA’s 14th seed will be fun to watch too! Sure as hell won’t be our suck bus team.
I like the interest in games that needed to be more interesting.
Since Memphis left the league, I can confirm the number of non-Marshall C-USA league basketball games I have watched prior to this year was 0. A literal zero. I actually watched a few non-Herd league games this year - especially as the pods were taking shape early on, because those games had some impact and more meaning than usual. I will say that it did increase my interest in league games in the build up to the pod stage.
The way the league unfolded this year was probably the "worst case scenario" for this structure. There was no single dominant team or two, and there are probably 8 or 9 teams somewhat closely grouped that probably feel like they should have some real shot at the conference tournament. I think that is unexpected when this format was prepared.
The only deficiency I see in this format is the concept of Pod 2. Pod 1 is playing for a league title and to secure the bye as one team will not get a bye. Pod 3 is playing for 2 spots in the conference tournament with 2 not earning a bid, so there's still something to play for. Pod 2 basically have nothing to play for - they're having to play 4 games in 4 days to win the conference tournament with the only thing to be decided if you would play the #1 seed in Round 2 or the finals. As a fan of a Pod 2 team, my interest in our next 4 games is basically zero. Perhaps we've earned it with our play and the results (true), but it seems an artificially constructed framework locking teams into a box with absolutely no meaningful differentiator in the results of these Pod 2 games.
My only thought to rectify this would be the possibly consider a format where the top seed from Pod 2 does earn a tournament bye, even at the expense of the Pod 1 4th seed. In this year, its likely the Pod 2 winner is going to have a better overall record than the Pod 1 4th. I think it puts a greater emphasis on ALL Pod 1 games, and it keeps Pod 2 emotionally invested with a chance to still earn something of meaningfulness. Otherwise, you have a third of the conference that has no emotional interested in the rest of the regular season.
That's really my only critique of the pod system. If there were a really few dominant teams, we'd be happy for the way this plays out.
(02-17-2019 10:24 PM)CoachMaclid Wrote: [ -> ]Since Memphis left the league, I can confirm the number of non-Marshall C-USA league basketball games I have watched prior to this year was 0. A literal zero. I actually watched a few non-Herd league games this year - especially as the pods were taking shape early on, because those games had some impact and more meaning than usual. I will say that it did increase my interest in league games in the build up to the pod stage.
The way the league unfolded this year was probably the "worst case scenario" for this structure. There was no single dominant team or two, and there are probably 8 or 9 teams somewhat closely grouped that probably feel like they should have some real shot at the conference tournament. I think that is unexpected when this format was prepared.
The only deficiency I see in this format is the concept of Pod 2. Pod 1 is playing for a league title and to secure the bye as one team will not get a bye. Pod 3 is playing for 2 spots in the conference tournament with 2 not earning a bid, so there's still something to play for. Pod 2 basically have nothing to play for - they're having to play 4 games in 4 days to win the conference tournament with the only thing to be decided if you would play the #1 seed in Round 2 or the finals. As a fan of a Pod 2 team, my interest in our next 4 games is basically zero. Perhaps we've earned it with our play and the results (true), but it seems an artificially constructed framework locking teams into a box with absolutely no meaningful differentiator in the results of these Pod 2 games.
My only thought to rectify this would be the possibly consider a format where the top seed from Pod 2 does earn a tournament bye, even at the expense of the Pod 1 4th seed. In this year, its likely the Pod 2 winner is going to have a better overall record than the Pod 1 4th. I think it puts a greater emphasis on ALL Pod 1 games, and it keeps Pod 2 emotionally invested with a chance to still earn something of meaningfulness. Otherwise, you have a third of the conference that has no emotional interested in the rest of the regular season.
That's really my only critique of the pod system. If there were a really few dominant teams, we'd be happy for the way this plays out.
Did you mean to say the Pod 2 winner replaces the Pod 1 fifth seed?
Btw, regarding this year perhaps being a bad year for pod play because the teams seemed to be more balanced, and we didn't have one or two teams that truly stood out. That may be the case, but it might also be that because teams knew going in, that their normal regular season would be cut short for 4 pre-tournament pod games, and that they'd be locked into those pods (1-5, 6-10, 11-14) during the tournament, they may have approached the conference schedule just a bit differently than they did in years past. After all, in years past, they knew they still had more games to move up the standings for tournament seeding. This year, any movement in the last 4 games would be limited by the pod they finished in.
So maybe the league was more competitive this season, and the teams more evenly matched, because everyone played with a higher sense of urgency than they did in years past, iow,
because of the pods. After all, knowing that pods come into play right before the conference tournament, I think it would kinda change the complexion of the whole conference schedule a bit, and make every game a little more relevant than in years past.
Just conjecturing, and I guess we won't know until we have more than just one year as our sample size.
(02-17-2019 11:09 PM)Volkmar Wrote: [ -> ]Did you mean to say the Pod 2 winner replaces the Pod 1 fifth seed?
No, because the Pod 1 fifth seed doesn't get a bye either. I'd say either alter the tournament format such that the Pod 2 top can somehow get a tournament bye so there is some relevancy for Pod 2 games.
(02-17-2019 11:09 PM)Volkmar Wrote: [ -> ]So maybe the league was more competitive this season, and the teams seemed to be more evenly matched, because everyone played with a higher sense of urgency than they did in years past, iow, because of the pods. After all, knowing that pods come into play right before the conference tournament, I think it would kinda change the complexion of the whole conference schedule a bit, and make every game a little more relevant than in years past.
Just conjecturing, and I guess we won't know until we have more than just one year as our sample size.
The type of teams this is setup to help shouldn't care if the 6th seed is playing "inspired" or not. We need the 17-1 MTSU or UAB teams of the recent past for this format to work. An 11-3 ODU isn't going to benefit their post-season resume by playing 4 top pod teams all with at least 5 conference losses each in a league, a league where 1 game separates 5th from 10th. Ideally, you'd want Pod 1 to be filled with teams that have 13-1, 12-2, and 11-3 type of league records. Best case scenario, there would be a minimum of 10 league losses in Pod 1 given our scheduling format. This year, Pod 1 teams have 24 total conference losses, which is practically the largest number of conference losses that this format would produce (yes, technically possible every team in league play could go .500 but that's not happening in real life). 24 league losses in Pod 1 is definitely not what was envisioned in the format.
(02-17-2019 11:39 PM)CoachMaclid Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2019 11:09 PM)Volkmar Wrote: [ -> ]Did you mean to say the Pod 2 winner replaces the Pod 1 fifth seed?
No, because the Pod 1 fifth seed doesn't get a bye either. I'd say either alter the tournament format such that the Pod 2 top can somehow get a tournament bye so there is some relevancy for Pod 2 games.
(02-17-2019 11:09 PM)Volkmar Wrote: [ -> ]So maybe the league was more competitive this season, and the teams seemed to be more evenly matched, because everyone played with a higher sense of urgency than they did in years past, iow, because of the pods. After all, knowing that pods come into play right before the conference tournament, I think it would kinda change the complexion of the whole conference schedule a bit, and make every game a little more relevant than in years past.
Just conjecturing, and I guess we won't know until we have more than just one year as our sample size.
The type of teams this is setup to help shouldn't care if the 6th seed is playing "inspired" or not. We need the 17-1 MTSU or UAB teams of the recent past for this format to work. An 11-3 ODU isn't going to benefit their post-season resume by playing 4 top pod teams all with at least 5 conference losses each in a league, a league where 1 game separates 5th from 10th. Ideally, you'd want Pod 1 to be filled with teams that have 13-1, 12-2, and 11-3 type of league records. Best case scenario, there would be a minimum of 10 league losses in Pod 1 given our scheduling format. This year, Pod 1 teams have 24 total conference losses, which is practically the largest number of conference losses that this format would produce (yes, technically possible every team in league play could go .500 but that's not happening in real life). 24 league losses in Pod 1 is definitely not what was envisioned in the format.
It is funny that we get the anomaly in the first year and everyone wants to throw the system out the window. Not saying you do, but I've seen a lot of pods suck type posts. Pods make things more interesting, pod 1 fans are rewarded with more great games, and in a year with more separation top to bottom (which we traditionally have always had, go figure) it could provide higher seedings and a second team. I see nothing wrong with the system that isn't outweighed by the benefits.
(02-17-2019 09:24 PM)nastybunch Wrote: [ -> ]I am not sure a system that gives a #5 team a better advantage than a #3 is a well thought out system...but I do agree that at least she is trying something to help.
The only way that a system like this will ever be used is by keeping the number of home and away games equal for all teams. And if you have to do that, the site selection pattern being used in all three groups is the fairest way to do it.
The #1 team has the biggest advantage by getting #2 and #3 at home while going on the road to #4 and #5. The #5 team has the biggest disadvantage getting #1 and #2 at home while having to travel to #3 and #4. And #3 is in between getting #4 and #5 at home while travelling to #1 and #2.
I like it....
I'm excited to see how the last four games of the year go. I'd like to see a "Pod Playoff" system (2 out of 3) replace a neutral site tourney, similar to the NBA, MLB and NHL to determine the NCAA Auto Bid.
clt says pods needs a rebrand tho.
Seems to me that many people are missing the point of this pod play...
I know we don't this year but if we have 3/4/5 teams that are in the T75 RPI range (which isn't unrealistic)...chances are one of those teams will prob. win the conf. tourney, while a few others will probably dip in the RPI because they're having to play RPI 250 CUSA cellar dwellers. So now, more than likely those teams (who's RPI's which were in the 50-75 range) are seeing their RPI dip into the 80-100 range and aren't even in the bubble discussion anymore...I think the idea of letting our "best" play the "best" towards the end of the regular seasons can (for future years) keep as many of our teams that might be in the bubble discussion IN the discussion...if anything...it could be the difference between having 1/2 teams dancing w/ 1/2 teams in the NIT vs. 2/3 teams dancing and 3/4 teams in the NIT.
This is what I envisioned they had in mind when deciding to go to this pod play. One of the downsides is there's a little uncertainty about senior day etc. With all it's warts, I think it'll be a good thing going forward.
(02-18-2019 10:05 AM)TTT Wrote: [ -> ]Seems to me that many people are missing the point of this pod play...
I know we don't this year but if we have 3/4/5 teams that are in the T75 RPI range (which isn't unrealistic)...chances are one of those teams will prob. win the conf. tourney, while a few others will probably dip in the RPI because they're having to play RPI 250 CUSA cellar dwellers. So now, more than likely those teams (who's RPI's which were in the 50-75 range) are seeing their RPI dip into the 80-100 range and aren't even in the bubble discussion anymore...I think the idea of letting our "best" play the "best" towards the end of the regular seasons can (for future years) keep as many of our teams that might be in the bubble discussion IN the discussion...if anything...it could be the difference between having 1/2 teams dancing w/ 1/2 teams in the NIT vs. 2/3 teams dancing and 3/4 teams in the NIT.
This is what I envisioned they had in mind when deciding to go to this pod play. One of the downsides is there's a little uncertainty about senior day etc. With all it's warts, I think it'll be a good thing going forward.
no chance of that happening with our current leadership....
perception is everything....
why folks don't acknowledge that is beyond me...
I'll have to remember where/when i posted this but to see how this pod scheduling works out for the top pod here are the NET rankings as of today so will be interesting to see where they end up come March 9
ODU - 86
WKU - 121
USM - 117
UTSA - 138
UAB - 158
pod 2
UNT - 120
Marshall - 164
FAU - 154
LT - 119
FIU - 212
pod 3
Rice - 192
MTSU - 261
Charlotte - 258
UTEP - 248
(02-18-2019 10:47 AM)usm99 Wrote: [ -> ]I'll have to remember where/when i posted this but to see how this pod scheduling works out for the top pod here are the NET rankings as of today so will be interesting to see where they end up come March 9
ODU - 86
WKU - 121
USM - 117
UTSA - 138
UAB - 158
pod 2
UNT - 120
Marshall - 164
FAU - 154
LT - 119
FIU - 212
pod 3
Rice - 192
MTSU - 261
Charlotte - 258
UTEP - 248
Great idea. In theory, it should only help those in Pod 1.
(02-18-2019 10:55 AM)Ole Blue Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2019 10:47 AM)usm99 Wrote: [ -> ]I'll have to remember where/when i posted this but to see how this pod scheduling works out for the top pod here are the NET rankings as of today so will be interesting to see where they end up come March 9
ODU - 86
WKU - 121
USM - 117
UTSA - 138
UAB - 158
pod 2
UNT - 120
Marshall - 164
FAU - 154
LT - 119
FIU - 212
pod 3
Rice - 192
MTSU - 261
Charlotte - 258
UTEP - 248
Great idea. In theory, it should only help those in Pod 1.
"theory" matters naught....just look at #$#$#&$$$$
(02-18-2019 10:55 AM)Ole Blue Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2019 10:47 AM)usm99 Wrote: [ -> ]I'll have to remember where/when i posted this but to see how this pod scheduling works out for the top pod here are the NET rankings as of today so will be interesting to see where they end up come March 9
ODU - 86
WKU - 121
USM - 117
UTSA - 138
UAB - 158
pod 2
UNT - 120
Marshall - 164
FAU - 154
LT - 119
FIU - 212
pod 3
Rice - 192
MTSU - 261
Charlotte - 258
UTEP - 248
Great idea. In theory, it should only help those in Pod 1.
The whole POINT is to help those in Pod 1. That's the whole point of the pod system. To preserve those at the top of the conference...therefor increasing whatever chances they have of moving up the ladder/bubble/discussion of being a post-season team.
(02-17-2019 08:07 PM)Eagle in the gym Wrote: [ -> ]I may not like anything else judy does, it this may not equal multiple births this year, but at least she tried something out of the box to help up.
I for one enjoyed the past few weeks watching the pod competition ply out and look forward to the last few weeks. It's not perfect, but its better than anything else she has done and has been fun thus far.
From the outside, I had an Ole Miss buddy come up to me at church and ask me to explain what c-usa was doing.
No its not. It workes out for USM this year, but its an awful system that guarantees us being a 1 bid league.
Let me know when you see good leagues following suit, or any league for that matter. Cusa is the biggest joke out there.
(02-18-2019 10:05 AM)TTT Wrote: [ -> ]Seems to me that many people are missing the point of this pod play...
I know we don't this year but if we have 3/4/5 teams that are in the T75 RPI range (which isn't unrealistic)...chances are one of those teams will prob. win the conf. tourney, while a few others will probably dip in the RPI because they're having to play RPI 250 CUSA cellar dwellers. So now, more than likely those teams (who's RPI's which were in the 50-75 range) are seeing their RPI dip into the 80-100 range and aren't even in the bubble discussion anymore...I think the idea of letting our "best" play the "best" towards the end of the regular seasons can (for future years) keep as many of our teams that might be in the bubble discussion IN the discussion...if anything...it could be the difference between having 1/2 teams dancing w/ 1/2 teams in the NIT vs. 2/3 teams dancing and 3/4 teams in the NIT.
This is what I envisioned they had in mind when deciding to go to this pod play. One of the downsides is there's a little uncertainty about senior day etc. With all it's warts, I think it'll be a good thing going forward.
RPI is meaningless now.
(02-18-2019 04:29 PM)goherd24herdfans Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2019 10:05 AM)TTT Wrote: [ -> ]Seems to me that many people are missing the point of this pod play...
I know we don't this year but if we have 3/4/5 teams that are in the T75 RPI range (which isn't unrealistic)...chances are one of those teams will prob. win the conf. tourney, while a few others will probably dip in the RPI because they're having to play RPI 250 CUSA cellar dwellers. So now, more than likely those teams (who's RPI's which were in the 50-75 range) are seeing their RPI dip into the 80-100 range and aren't even in the bubble discussion anymore...I think the idea of letting our "best" play the "best" towards the end of the regular seasons can (for future years) keep as many of our teams that might be in the bubble discussion IN the discussion...if anything...it could be the difference between having 1/2 teams dancing w/ 1/2 teams in the NIT vs. 2/3 teams dancing and 3/4 teams in the NIT.
This is what I envisioned they had in mind when deciding to go to this pod play. One of the downsides is there's a little uncertainty about senior day etc. With all it's warts, I think it'll be a good thing going forward.
RPI is meaningless now.
Replace RPI with whatever meaningful metrics that's used today. The point still stands...we want our conference's best to CONTINUE to play the best towards the end of the reg. season to increase our best team's chances of either a. staying in the bubble if they are there or b. at least be in the conversation.