I have no problem with the subjective views of the panelists, I thank you all for it. I just didn't think it was out of line to ask for some judging criteria in advance instead of when my entire roster is already assembled, especially since I think at least one them offered his up without even being asked.
I think what nick is trying to avoid is GMs structuring their teams to appeal to the panelists. He'd rather people just put together their teams in a manner that they're happy with, and worry about results later (meaning, the results are only secondary to the process, and should be seen as an added bonus where the real bonus is the fun in putting together a team).
It's a tricky thing, in my opinion. I mean, even beauty contests have criteria (trust me,
I looked it up). At the same time, who defines "beauty"? It means something different to everyone, and that's this draft, for sure. That's what panelists have to judge for themselves, and I guarantee that you'll get wildly divergent answers from me vs. Edgar vs. Dons vs. the shady organization of Illuminati / hidden panelists that nick has employed (
). We just favor different things.
My personal opinion is that there should be a baseline for comparing the teams, and I'd prefer at least uniformity in terms of what rules the teams will be competing by (i.e., is their a three point lane? How wide is the lane? What constitutes an illegal defense?, etc.) However, nick is the Commish, and he decided against doing that, which is absolutely his right. Therefore, if Edgar wants to judge teams by 1962 rules, Dons by 1995 ones, and me by the rules in place in 2011, you have to put together a strong enough team where you can argue that your team could dominate in each era.
I know for me personally, I'll have a philosophy related to judging, and I've shared some of it. At the same time, I'm not an expert, and a lot of this is just going off gut feeling. I've got conscious and unconscious biases for and against certain players, that other panelists won't buy into. Now, I think it's perfectly appropriate for panelists to brainstorm about their philosophy out loud; it's part of the "bar conversation" that Rebus mentioned, and it acknowledges the reality that judging is darn tough. At the same time, if panelists don't feel comfortable sharing their thoughts, or haven't fully developed their criteria, I think it's equally acceptable for them to hold off.
In the end, nick is right: just put together a team that you'll like, and things should work out just fine. Perhaps not everybody will win a category in the voting, but it still should be a lot of fun.
Topic: 2011 CB Historical Draft - Draft Thread (Read 688115 times)