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

[nickagneta]

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.

IP and other mods were calling into question the depth of the Chicago team well before troubles started. While I think the incidences that occurred didn't help some mod objectivity in the situation, I don't think it swayed it decidedly away from Chicago because of what happened. I think most mods were already calling Toronto a better team weeks ago.

I am not going to go back and check but I am pretty sure I remember Edgar, Roy, and IP questioning the Chicago team makeup well before things dissolved. I know Redz hasn't even been involved and it was his first vote yesterday so it's unfair to bring that up. Dons has had almost no comments about team makeup except during the voting period and I think it's unfair to him as well. wdleehi, I just can't remember his stance on Chicago-Detroit. Who was the other mod?

[Rondo2287]

And as somebody that has been disciplined a good number of times by the mods including in this excersize, I dont think Im a particular favorite of any of them. 

But oh ya, Toronto is still going strong and VOTE RAPTORS

[johnnyrondo]

Congrats to Toronto, Philly and Orlando. Please move on from this topic. Thanks in advance.

[Rondo2287]

Moving on is fine however it really does kinda suck having no alliance with anybody here to have my teams legitimacy called into question.  Also to have it coming from somebody that has clearly hasnt voted for me out of spite the entire process is equally sucky.

[bdm860]

With the voting, I like the way it is with the open voting, but maybe one tweak would be to have everyone submit their vote to the commish, then the commish posts all votes.  The only reason for this is, oh I see Roy voted me real low, and IP voted me real high, well I'm going to return the favors and vote Roy low and IP high (just throwing out names, actually I think you both voted me kinda low  ).  If I didn't know who voted for me till after I voted, this could possibly be avoided.  Obviously more work for the Commish, and the thread wouldn't get bumped enough, but returning the favor is a potential problem I see with the open vote now.

I think another thing we could do is just add another element to it.  Right now the way I see it, we have: 1) open vote for all, 2) video game simulation, and 3) a mid season vote (although I have my doubts as to the participation of the midseason vote and how well it will work).  I think if we added a non-GM panel of respected posters (I can think of several who didn't participate) which would hopefully be non-biased. Or even take it a step further, since we are part of the SB Nation and CelticsBlog participates in a Power Ranking with like, what 10-15 blogs of other teams?  Maybe solicite a vote from those guys, then we'd should really have a non-biased vote.  I think we'd see totally different results from all, maybe something like:

Portland won the open vote
Chicago won the video game simulation
Buffalo won the non-GM panel vote
Toronto won the non-CB member vote

[Roy Hobbs]

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 agree with IP:  I resent the implication, as well.  As much as people would like to believe the contrary, the mods don't sit around in a dusty room and decide which posters they're going to make, and who they're going to break. 

Maybe the focus should be on the last-minute flurry of non-participants in the league who cast votes, rather than the mod staff, which has proven itself time and time again on this blog. 

Call my integrity into question all you want, but to publicly question Dons, Redz, IP, Edgar, Wdleehi, etc. just goes beyond the pale with me.  (Who is the mysterious 7th mod who supposedly voted, anyway?)

Also, of course, I've noticed that a certain Atlantic Division GM hasn't cast a single vote for the two members who were most vocally critical of his team.  That was all good faith and fair dealing, I assume.

[Roy Hobbs]

I'm thinking of linking to the Finals from the front page over the weekend, to get more participation in the matchup.  If I decide to go that route, I'd probably ask for brief (like, 250 words or so) writeups on the matchups from the perspective of the participating GMs.

What would folks think of that?

[nickagneta]

I'm thinking of linking to the Finals from the front page over the weekend, to get more participation in the matchup.  If I decide to go that route, I'd probably ask for brief (like, 250 words or so) writeups on the matchups from the perspective of the participating GMs.

What would folks think of that?

I'ld be more than happy to participate

[Rondo2287]

Id be cool with that I think it would be really fun to get a little more publicity for the finals. 

[JSD]

The alliances I was referring to is the "I'll vote for your team if you vote for mine." that went on leading up to the CF. Those numbers were different, my attempt was to show the potential bias and/or flaw that exists in our game. Roy I believe you have a strong influence.

A different system is needed. I'm ultra competitive in everything, but if things stay the same I will be approaching next year different mentally knowing it's a popularity/advertising contest and I don't have the time to win.

Also, of course, I've noticed that a certain Atlantic Division GM hasn't cast a single vote for the two members who were most vocally critical of his team.  That was all good faith and fair dealing, I assume.

Really? I don't believe that's true. What two teams are you referring to?

[Rondo2287]

Well I know now that since you voted me to lose in the first round, you have voted my openent to lose the round before and then voted them to beat me in the next round.  So I just find it funny.  Especially with voting Chicago to lose to team you ranked 10th in the conference, and saying, "I made my concerns about that team in the playoffs clear" and then having them beat me in the next round. 

[ChampKind]

The alliances I was referring to is the "I'll vote for your team if you vote for mine." that went on leading up to the CF. Those numbers were different, my attempt was to show the potential bias and/or flaw that exists in our game. Roy I believe you have a strong influence.

A different system is needed. I'm ultra competitive in everything, but if things stay the same I will be approaching next year different mentally knowing it's a popularity/advertising contest and I don't have the time to win.

Also, of course, I've noticed that a certain Atlantic Division GM hasn't cast a single vote for the two members who were most vocally critical of his team.  That was all good faith and fair dealing, I assume.

Really? I don't believe that's true. What two teams are you referring to?

Agreed that the popularity/advertising plays too big a role in things.  I think we need to put a limit on fluff posts that do nothing but present your team and say to vote for them.  Your GM press conference should take care of everything you need to say.  I feel like posts made specifically to tell people to vote for your team are just clogging up the board.

And please, please, a limit on scrolling text messages and putting stuff in colors that colorblind people have no chance of reading. 

[Roy Hobbs]

And please, please, a limit on scrolling text messages and putting stuff in colors that colorblind people have no chance of reading. 

A handful of people have commented that the scrolling text bothers them.  Can I ask why?  If it's a post just meant for fun, why can't people ignore them?

Most of the criticisms of the draft I've understood, but I just don't get that one.  If Edgar (or whoever) wants to scroll to his heart's content, I think he should be able to.  Personally, it cracks me up; it's kind of his "thing".

[KCattheStripe]

I agree with IP:  I resent the implication, as well.  As much as people would like to believe the contrary, the mods don't sit around in a dusty room and decide which posters they're going to make, and who they're going to break. 

Of course not. We all know Jeff keeps the mod's secret plotting room immaculate. Dust is unacceptable on the interwebz, it damages the motherboard.

[ChampKind]

And please, please, a limit on scrolling text messages and putting stuff in colors that colorblind people have no chance of reading. 

A handful of people have commented that the scrolling text bothers them.  Can I ask why?  If it's a post just meant for fun, why can't people ignore them?

Most of the criticisms of the draft I've understood, but I just don't get that one.  If Edgar (or whoever) wants to scroll to his heart's content, I think he should be able to.  Personally, it cracks me up; it's kind of his "thing".

I don't like having to wait to read things.  If it's one or two words scrolling, then that's fine, but when you throw a few sentences on there I typically have to wait for the whole thing to come across and more often than not I end up ignoring it. Plus, on my laptop it generally seems to take a while to load, especially when it has pictures.