Suggestions to changing next year's CB NBA Draft to make it better.

[Fafnir]

I like my format better


Edgar Suprajury.


and all do what he wants.

Only if your first declaration is cake for all.

[JSD]

I like my format better


Edgar Suprajury.


and all do what he wants.

Edgar deciding everything is an option too.  

[Redz]

I'd also just say to try and enjoy the process of the draft and try not to get to hung up about the competitive aspect of it. (But I guess that parts easy for me to say.)

[nickagneta]

I like my format better


Edgar Suprajury.


and all do what he wants.

I knew this was just another ploy for Edgar to take over and rule the world!!!

Oh the calamity!!!

[Rondo2287]

Voting For Toronto



So easy a Dinobot can do it

[nickagneta]

Voting For Toronto



So easy a Dinobot can do it

Is the Toronto franchise thinking of changing their names to the Toronto Transformers next year??

[Rondo2287]

Nah, Toronto Dinobots.

[Lucky17]

My suggestions for next year concern the voting process:

1. A second, follow-up vote during the All-Star break, when the evidence of player performance is undeniable. The voting process before the season is basically a rhetorical exercise, where the actual team rosters are secondary to GMs' ability to hype their own teams or denigrate others'. [Actually, I question the value of a pre-season vote, other than to simply pass the time.]

2. Tweaks to the voting process to remove bias:

+ Teams with a genuine stake in future playoff matches should not vote on current matchups. Call it the Survivor Syndrome: If I'd rather play against Team B in the next round because they are clearly the weaker team, I shouldn't be able to vote for them.

+ Likewise, disregard the vote for one's own team.

+ In an extreme measure, open the voting process to the entire Celticblog community, except for the 30+ participating GMs.

[indeedproceed]

My suggestions for next year concern the voting process:

1. A second, follow-up vote during the All-Star break, when the evidence of player performance is undeniable. The voting process before the season is basically a rhetorical exercise, where the actual team rosters are secondary to GMs' ability to hype their own teams or denigrate others'. [Actually, I question the value of a pre-season vote, other than to simply pass the time.]

2. Tweaks to the voting process to remove bias:

+ Teams with a genuine stake in future playoff matches should not vote on current matchups. Call it the Survivor Syndrome: If I'd rather play against Team B in the next round because they are clearly the weaker team, I shouldn't be able to vote for them.

+ Likewise, disregard the vote for one's own team.

+ In an extreme measure, open the voting process to the entire Celticblog community, except for the 30+ participating GMs.

disallowing people from voting on their own teams is one thing I will lobby for next year.

[nickagneta]

My suggestions for next year concern the voting process:

1. A second, follow-up vote during the All-Star break, when the evidence of player performance is undeniable. The voting process before the season is basically a rhetorical exercise, where the actual team rosters are secondary to GMs' ability to hype their own teams or denigrate others'. [Actually, I question the value of a pre-season vote, other than to simply pass the time.]

2. Tweaks to the voting process to remove bias:

+ Teams with a genuine stake in future playoff matches should not vote on current matchups. Call it the Survivor Syndrome: If I'd rather play against Team B in the next round because they are clearly the weaker team, I shouldn't be able to vote for them.

+ Likewise, disregard the vote for one's own team.

+ In an extreme measure, open the voting process to the entire Celticblog community, except for the 30+ participating GMs.

I like this suggestion for the regular season but not so much for the playoffs but could understand where it makes sense. I think the thing is that not every year is a two team GM team going to make the playoffs. We had two such teams this year and both were very good. That's not always going to be the case which would, in most cases render this first tiebreaker moot.

Here's my tiebreaker solution for the playoffs:

When stating the winner of the series state how the series ended. Example:

Was/NJN - Buffalo 4-3

If there is a tie then the tiebreaker is that the total amount of games won is counted.

Example after voting of 3-3

Washington 4  New Jersey 3   voter ABD
Washington 4  New Jersey 2   voter CDE
Washington 4  New Jersey 3   voter FGH
Washington 2  New Jersey 4   voter IJK
Washington 1  New Jersey 4   voter LMN
Washington 2  New Jersey 4   voter OPQ

Washington 17 New Jersey 18   Total

Winner:  New Jersey

[Roy Hobbs]

2. Tweaks to the voting process to remove bias:

+ Teams with a genuine stake in future playoff matches should not vote on current matchups. Call it the Survivor Syndrome: If I'd rather play against Team B in the next round because they are clearly the weaker team, I shouldn't be able to vote for them.

Wouldn't this, in essence, mean that the 16 playoff GMs couldn't vote, until they're eliminated?  I'm not sure that that's a whole lot of fun.

Was their evidence of a concerted effort by GMs to vote weaker opponents through to the next round?  Was their even a consensus on who the weaker opponents are?

When you get to the "Final Four", I think it's all pretty subjective.  If things go according to plan, you're talking about three division winners and the best at-large team in each conference.

[Lucky17]

2. Tweaks to the voting process to remove bias:

+ Teams with a genuine stake in future playoff matches should not vote on current matchups. Call it the Survivor Syndrome: If I'd rather play against Team B in the next round because they are clearly the weaker team, I shouldn't be able to vote for them.

Wouldn't this, in essence, mean that the 16 playoff GMs couldn't vote, until they're eliminated?  I'm not sure that that's a whole lot of fun.

Was their evidence of a concerted effort by GMs to vote weaker opponents through to the next round?  Was their even a consensus on who the weaker opponents are?

When you get to the "Final Four", I think it's all pretty subjective.  If things go according to plan, you're talking about three division winners and the best at-large team in each conference.

Evidence of systemic or concerted attempts? No. Suspicion, yes.

I liked Dons implementation of an open voting system. I think it could even be taken a step further, with votes requiring a short rationale/justification as well.

[JSD]

I'm in favor of a completely different (and fair) system in deciding playoff seeding and a winner. Bias, marketing and alliances play to big a role in this game.

Interesting tidbit from yesterday's Tor/Chi vote:

Non Mods - Bulls 16 votes, Raptors 13 votes
Mods - Raptors 7 votes, Bulls 0 votes

I'm also in favor of restricting pre-draft and draft trading, many GM's don't know what there doing until it's too late. I don't believe 1 team benefited from moving up in rounds 1 - 3.

[indeedproceed]

I'm in favor of a completely different (and fair) system in deciding playoff seeding and a winner. Bias, marketing and alliances play to big a role in this game.

Interesting tidbit from yesterday's Tor/Chi vote:

Non Mods - Bulls 16 votes, Raptors 13 votes
Mods - Raptors 7 votes, Bulls 0 votes

If you wanna call my vote into question, go ahead. I will talk about it. But, I didn't act as any part of an alliance or anything, and I didn't act toward bad feelings in any person's direction.

And I resent the implication.

[Rondo2287]

Another interesting Tidbit from yesterdays voting. 

Toronto is still in the game