Also, it's hard to argue whether the pod system actually works or not when your conference is terrible the year it's implemented. If we had 3-4 teams that had great seasons, it'd most likely be very successful at boosting RPI and giving our top teams chances at quality wins down the stretch instead of playing the bottom of the conference. While it sucks for those in the middle and bottom, those at the top are what we're concerned about at that point in the year.
(06-05-2019 09:00 AM)EagNBran Wrote: Also, it's hard to argue whether the pod system actually works or not when your conference is terrible the year it's implemented. If we had 3-4 teams that had great seasons, it'd most likely be very successful at boosting RPI and giving our top teams chances at quality wins down the stretch instead of playing the bottom of the conference. While it sucks for those in the middle and bottom, those at the top are what we're concerned about at that point in the year.
This is a good take. Even in the down year, I know I enjoyed UAB being in the pod play. I understand where the Sun Belt is coming from, but I think it's worth it just for the fan enjoyment. Although I know the coaching staff hated planning trips at the last minute.
(06-05-2019 09:00 AM)EagNBran Wrote: Also, it's hard to argue whether the pod system actually works or not when your conference is terrible the year it's implemented. If we had 3-4 teams that had great seasons, it'd most likely be very successful at boosting RPI and giving our top teams chances at quality wins down the stretch instead of playing the bottom of the conference. While it sucks for those in the middle and bottom, those at the top are what we're concerned about at that point in the year.
This is the distinction that a lot of people are missing. The pod system was NEVER intended to guarantee a second NCAA team or a more favorable seed for the champion. It was always meant to load the dice more in favor of good teams. But they still have to be good teams. If you have a situation like last year, where the top teams were all out of at-large consideration, the pods aren't going to help as much. But it's not the fault of the system. It's the equivalent of putting racing fuel in a 1983 Ford Escort and expecting it to beat a Bugatti Chiron off the stoplight. You're constricted by your limitations.
I think the pod system can work, even if the Elite Sun Belt disagrees. But it's going to take more than simply implementing it to determine how successful it can be.
(06-05-2019 09:00 AM)EagNBran Wrote: Also, it's hard to argue whether the pod system actually works or not when your conference is terrible the year it's implemented. If we had 3-4 teams that had great seasons, it'd most likely be very successful at boosting RPI and giving our top teams chances at quality wins down the stretch instead of playing the bottom of the conference. While it sucks for those in the middle and bottom, those at the top are what we're concerned about at that point in the year.
This is a good take. Even in the down year, I know I enjoyed UAB being in the pod play. I understand where the Sun Belt is coming from, but I think it's worth it just for the fan enjoyment. Although I know the coaching staff hated planning trips at the last minute.
Moving from RPI to NET doesn't make the pod system any more or less viable, so I'm not sure why the Sun Belt is making that argument. It's not as though there's something inherent in the NET that makes it incompatible to pod play. Now if they don't think they're in the position to take advantage of the benefits of pods (i.e. they don't have any at-large contenders and the top teams aren't high enough in the metrics to have an appreciable effect on seeding -- like what happened to CUSA this past season), that's one thing, but their NET issues seem more tied into their OOC scheduling.
Plus, even if you don't get seed-boosting benefits, the top teams at least get two more games against strong in-conference teams that they might not have gotten otherwise. It seemed like fans of the top teams here appreciated them, at least.
(06-04-2019 08:24 PM)odu09 Wrote: Wow, good one. Your smack is just as elite as your basketball league
Considering the CUSA champ had an RPI of 64 but a NET of 100, it looks to me like Judy should have had the brains to think about doing what the SBC is now going to do.
Making a short-sighted decision to cut out of a scheduling decision because your top teams' NET trailed their RPI in one season? Would you be saying this in February if your top four teams are all 100 or better in NET but they're finishing the season by playing the dregs of the conference instead of each other?
(06-05-2019 11:32 PM)Ourland Wrote: Keep the pods. There will be seasons where it pays off.
No Pods same result, Pods maybe a different result. We have nothing to lose. I think it adds a little more excitement within conference to play the top teams in your conference if in Pod 1
Sun Belt fans may have a point regarding football, but the disparity in our hoops leagues isn't close. CUSA is significantly better. The pod system does nothing for them. We have a slim chance at an at large. They have zero chance of an at large.
(06-06-2019 10:20 AM)ImfromClayton Wrote: Sun Belt fans may have a point regarding football, but the disparity in our hoops leagues isn't close. CUSA is significantly better. The pod system does nothing for them. We have a slim chance at an at large. They have zero chance of an at large.
Not to argue too much, as CUSA definitely has more schools that care about basketball than the Sun Belt, but going off conference RPI rankings
/
Sun Belt not using pod scheduling this season
