2009 Celticsblog Draft: Voting Analysis : Team of the Future

[Gainesville Celtic]

What happens if Orlando/Philly tie again?

The tiebreaker is that the votes cast for one's own team are tossed out.  Since there are two Orlando GMs, and only one from Philly, that would break the tie.

this is why i'm considering voting for Philly...

[Roy Hobbs]

What happens if Orlando/Philly tie again?

The tiebreaker is that the votes cast for one's own team are tossed out.  Since there are two Orlando GMs, and only one from Philly, that would break the tie.

Who decided that, Dons?

Yeah.  From the first post in the voting thread:

- In the event of another tie, there will be a tiebreaker used to break the tie.  The tiebreaker will be to throw out votes cast for one's team.  This should ensure a winner if necessary. 

[Roy Hobbs]

What happens if Orlando/Philly tie again?

The tiebreaker is that the votes cast for one's own team are tossed out.  Since there are two Orlando GMs, and only one from Philly, that would break the tie.

this is why i'm considering voting for Philly...

Haha.  Why not vote for yourself, and avoid the tie in the first place?

[Gainesville Celtic]

One last push:

VOTE for ORLANDO in the eastern conf. semifinals runoff

Lebron + Jason Richardson + Kirk Hinrich + the ugliest 4 headed beast up front (M. Gasol, Villanueva, Jeff Foster, Anderson Varejao) & a darn good bench.



There's some of that patented Melo lockdown defense 

[nickagneta]

So the tie breaker was if there's a tie, Orlando loses?

That hardly seems fair since the only reason it is being brought into the situation is because Orlando has two GMs. If Lucky was just a CB member he could just as easily have chosen Orlando.

These rules on the flow can be a [mess] some times.

[Roy Hobbs]

So the tie breaker was if there's a tie, Orlando loses?

That hardly seems fair since the only reason it is being brought into the situation is because Orlando has two GMs. If Lucky was just a CB member he could just as easily have chosen Orlando.

These rules on the flow can be a be-atch some times.

I actually think it's a very fair rule.  I mean, a lot of people have advocated the "owners shouldn't be able to vote for themselves" rule.  One of the fairest ways to decide the team is to see how others view it, rather than GMs themselves.

[Lucky17]

So the tie breaker was if there's a tie, Orlando loses?

That hardly seems fair since the only reason it is being brought into the situation is because Orlando has two GMs. If Lucky was just a CB member he could just as easily have chosen Orlando.

These rules on the flow can be a be-atch some times.

Actually, I resigned as co-GM a while ago, even if GC didn't accept it. There can be only one.

I'm just your average CB member, you know. One man, one vote!

[Edgar]

lol..seems is easy to hack the system...


In other news i like my chances to reach fake NBA Finals, and if that happens I like my chances even more, My series will end before and the guys will have time to rest legs while others are in tough long series and overmatches and end just one or 2 days before opening night.

   Go Crotornats!!

[nickagneta]

So the tie breaker was if there's a tie, Orlando loses?

That hardly seems fair since the only reason it is being brought into the situation is because Orlando has two GMs. If Lucky was just a CB member he could just as easily have chosen Orlando.

These rules on the flow can be a be-atch some times.

I actually think it's a very fair rule.  I mean, a lot of people have advocated the "owners shouldn't be able to vote for themselves" rule.  One of the fairest ways to decide the team is to see how others view it, rather than GMs themselves.

While I agree with the rule, I would think that if it was a rule from the beginning it would be cool. But after a tiebreaker to throw in a rule that states we are going to disregard GM votes ONLY because one team has 2 GM's and one doesn't is bogus.

It's like playing a game of ball and setting a time limit on a game and if it's tied after the time limit saying "we will play 5 more minutes but if it's still tied, the team with the tallest player loses".

[RebusRankin]

Its seems unfair at this point to decide things that way. If that had been said from the start but to do it now seems unfair.

On a semi related note, anybody else think it was odd, there was a influx of voters who hadn't been involved prior to that in the last hour.

[Roy Hobbs]

So the tie breaker was if there's a tie, Orlando loses?

That hardly seems fair since the only reason it is being brought into the situation is because Orlando has two GMs. If Lucky was just a CB member he could just as easily have chosen Orlando.

These rules on the flow can be a be-atch some times.

I actually think it's a very fair rule.  I mean, a lot of people have advocated the "owners shouldn't be able to vote for themselves" rule.  One of the fairest ways to decide the team is to see how others view it, rather than GMs themselves.

While I agree with the rule, I would think that if it was a rule from the beginning it would be cool. But after a tiebreaker to throw in a rule that states we are going to disregard GM votes ONLY because one team has 2 GM's and one doesn't is bogus.

It's like playing a game of ball and setting a time limit on a game and if it's tied after the time limit saying "we will play 5 more minutes but if it's still tied, the team with the tallest player loses".

I don't see it that way.  Orlando has an inherent advantage:  it has two biased GMs (much like Portland).  While one extra vote usually won't make a huge difference, in a tie it obviously does. 

I don't know, I just see it as a very fair decision.  With where we are now, what would your suggestion be on how to resolve the tie?  Have yet another run off?

[nickagneta]

So the tie breaker was if there's a tie, Orlando loses?

That hardly seems fair since the only reason it is being brought into the situation is because Orlando has two GMs. If Lucky was just a CB member he could just as easily have chosen Orlando.

These rules on the flow can be a be-atch some times.

I actually think it's a very fair rule.  I mean, a lot of people have advocated the "owners shouldn't be able to vote for themselves" rule.  One of the fairest ways to decide the team is to see how others view it, rather than GMs themselves.

While I agree with the rule, I would think that if it was a rule from the beginning it would be cool. But after a tiebreaker to throw in a rule that states we are going to disregard GM votes ONLY because one team has 2 GM's and one doesn't is bogus.

It's like playing a game of ball and setting a time limit on a game and if it's tied after the time limit saying "we will play 5 more minutes but if it's still tied, the team with the tallest player loses".

I don't see it that way.  Orlando has an inherent advantage:  it has two biased GMs (much like Portland).  While one extra vote usually won't make a huge difference, in a tie it obviously does. 

I don't know, I just see it as a very fair decision.  With where we are now, what would your suggestion be on how to resolve the tie?  Have yet another run off?

If there was no rule ahead of time from the beginning and I was commissioner it would be simple. Ties lose.

Toronto goes straight to the finals.

[Roy Hobbs]

So the tie breaker was if there's a tie, Orlando loses?

That hardly seems fair since the only reason it is being brought into the situation is because Orlando has two GMs. If Lucky was just a CB member he could just as easily have chosen Orlando.

These rules on the flow can be a be-atch some times.

I actually think it's a very fair rule.  I mean, a lot of people have advocated the "owners shouldn't be able to vote for themselves" rule.  One of the fairest ways to decide the team is to see how others view it, rather than GMs themselves.

While I agree with the rule, I would think that if it was a rule from the beginning it would be cool. But after a tiebreaker to throw in a rule that states we are going to disregard GM votes ONLY because one team has 2 GM's and one doesn't is bogus.

It's like playing a game of ball and setting a time limit on a game and if it's tied after the time limit saying "we will play 5 more minutes but if it's still tied, the team with the tallest player loses".

I don't see it that way.  Orlando has an inherent advantage:  it has two biased GMs (much like Portland).  While one extra vote usually won't make a huge difference, in a tie it obviously does. 

I don't know, I just see it as a very fair decision.  With where we are now, what would your suggestion be on how to resolve the tie?  Have yet another run off?

If there was no rule ahead of time from the beginning and I was commissioner it would be simple. Ties lose.

Toronto goes straight to the finals.

Well, I think I know one GM would be happy with that scenario.

[Rondo2287]

I knew i threw my support behind nick for assistant commish for a reason!

[Gainesville Celtic]

So the tie breaker was if there's a tie, Orlando loses?

That hardly seems fair since the only reason it is being brought into the situation is because Orlando has two GMs. If Lucky was just a CB member he could just as easily have chosen Orlando.

These rules on the flow can be a be-atch some times.

I actually think it's a very fair rule.  I mean, a lot of people have advocated the "owners shouldn't be able to vote for themselves" rule.  One of the fairest ways to decide the team is to see how others view it, rather than GMs themselves.

While I agree with the rule, I would think that if it was a rule from the beginning it would be cool. But after a tiebreaker to throw in a rule that states we are going to disregard GM votes ONLY because one team has 2 GM's and one doesn't is bogus.

It's like playing a game of ball and setting a time limit on a game and if it's tied after the time limit saying "we will play 5 more minutes but if it's still tied, the team with the tallest player loses".

I don't see it that way.  Orlando has an inherent advantage:  it has two biased GMs (much like Portland).  While one extra vote usually won't make a huge difference, in a tie it obviously does. 

I don't know, I just see it as a very fair decision.  With where we are now, what would your suggestion be on how to resolve the tie?  Have yet another run off?

Hey y'all --- it's all good.

ORLANDO v. PHILADELPHIA has been an epic battle.

If we end in a tie, I suggest either (a) a coin flip or (b) just ranking the teams alphabetically...