0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Roy Hobbs on August 20, 2009, 07:19:32 PMQuote from: nickagneta on August 20, 2009, 07:17:07 PMQuote from: Roy Hobbs on August 20, 2009, 07:06:28 PMQuote from: nickagneta on August 20, 2009, 07:01:00 PMSo 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...
Quote from: nickagneta on August 20, 2009, 07:17:07 PMQuote from: Roy Hobbs on August 20, 2009, 07:06:28 PMQuote from: nickagneta on August 20, 2009, 07:01:00 PMSo 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?
Quote from: Roy Hobbs on August 20, 2009, 07:06:28 PMQuote from: nickagneta on August 20, 2009, 07:01:00 PMSo 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".
Quote from: nickagneta on August 20, 2009, 07:01:00 PMSo 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.
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.
Quote from: Gainesville Celtic on August 20, 2009, 07:24:50 PMQuote from: Roy Hobbs on August 20, 2009, 07:19:32 PMQuote from: nickagneta on August 20, 2009, 07:17:07 PMQuote from: Roy Hobbs on August 20, 2009, 07:06:28 PMQuote from: nickagneta on August 20, 2009, 07:01:00 PMSo 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...What about reverse alphabetically?
Breaking news: reports that the Orlando Magics franchise may be moving to Ohio. Cities for consideration: Akron or Youngstown.More news as details develop.
Quote from: Lucky17 on August 20, 2009, 07:38:06 PMBreaking news: reports that the Orlando Magics franchise may be moving to Ohio. Cities for consideration: Akron or Youngstown.More news as details develop.Will they also be changing their name to the Lebrons?The Akron Lebrons. It has a decent ring to it.
Quote from: Roy Hobbs on August 20, 2009, 07:50:31 PMQuote from: Lucky17 on August 20, 2009, 07:38:06 PMBreaking news: reports that the Orlando Magics franchise may be moving to Ohio. Cities for consideration: Akron or Youngstown.More news as details develop.Will they also be changing their name to the Lebrons?The Akron Lebrons. It has a decent ring to it.A championship ring?
breaking news, this is the magics mascothttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4qOKybOKXs&feature=related
Both Philadelphia and Orlando ought to be proud.