The unofficial online home for fans of the Old Dominion University Monarchs. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(03-11-2019 11:16 AM)Chillie Willie Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 10:57 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 08:56 AM)Chillie Willie Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 08:45 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 08:33 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  The POD systems goal is to put a system in place to allow teams to have a stronger strength of schedule at the end of the season. There is no conceivable way that the POD system fails in that regard.

It's up to the teams to win the games and improve their resume. Its the teams that failed (ODU, in particular). If you think the goal is to improve seeding....that is obviously what they want, but it's a byproduct of improved scheduling.

If you think the POD system is to get an at large team, then its going to fail a ton and everyone in the world knows that it will fail. But, there is a chance that at some point it does help a team get in, but that team has to win.

It is a failure if the leading team accumulates losses that they otherwise would not have. The "goal" of improving strength of schedule is a net negative if it causes more losses and accordingly causes worse NET rankings.

The conference did not do this to add a theoretical bump to SOS. The stated intent is to improve seeding and possibly garner at large bids, if it fails in doing both of those things in a given season, it has failed for that season. If it causes seeding to drop because the leading team takes 2 losses due to increased SOS, it has more than failed, it has worked counter to its intended purpose.

If a team takes 2 more losses due to a slight increase in SOS, then it is the team that failed, not the system. All they can do is put a system in place, the teams have to do their part.

The goal isn't to assign fault for failure to the team rather than the conference. The goal is very specifically to increase the seeding and potentially earn an at large bid (the secondary goal). Whether teams "step up" or not is not a consideration. If teams are not able to "step up" then the experiment is a failure in accomplishing the only goal that it has.

I think your putting the chicken before the egg. I'm not sure what system you could put in place that would meet the stated goals but not require the top teams to "step up". If you are saying the status quo met those goals then I disagree.

I will simplify my point... Nothing is more valuable than winning games. If a system makes it harder to do that, I doubt it will more often than not have the intended effect, which is to improve NCAAT seeding.