Once the teams have been assembled, does it really matter where the players were selected? Does it really matter how much a GM thinks it will work or the 5000-10000 words the GM may have written about how it will work?
Subjective outside perspectives are great because they see the players as they are and not what a GM has made them into over a three week period. Sometimes players are talked about so much GMs start believing in the rhetoric. Suddenly people are believing that Wes Matthews or Kyle Lowry or Jodie Meeks or Serge Ibaka are players of a much much higher quality than they actually have shown to be and players like David West or Lebron James or Andre Iguodala or Pau Gasol or Rudy Gay are much worse players than they have shown to be.
I thought it refreshing for Redz to come in and say what he did about some of the players on the Trailblazers that had been marketed ad nauseum for 3 weeks. Not trying to pick on IP and know that Redz and IP are extremely friendly so the comment was eye opening. I think more voices like that would be great.
Wait... isn't the goal of these "panelists" to observe and give feedback during the draft process? If so, don't they become equally as invested in the arguments as anybody else?
And, alternatively, if the goal is for panelists to swoop in at the last minute to render judgment without having participated in the process, isn't there at least an argument that all the debate, etc., of the draft is worthless? I mean, if this all comes down to people deciding a winner by reputation and their own personal biases, while disregarding all the argument, stats, etc., does that really improve anything?
I'm not sure which system you're advocating for, but I agree that more outside opinion can be interesting. I'm not as sure about bestowing them with a title, and I definitely don't like any idea that anticipates that they wouldn't be involved in the draft during the drafting process. If people want to do that, that's cool. However, I'm not sure that I'd encourage it, and I'm not sure everyone would be a fan of the idea (for instance, see the Commish's comment here.)
You are putting in way to much thought into that last paragraph.
Of course they should comment throughout. Of course they will become invested and no I am not advocating them come in at the last moment to miss all the arguments and stats.
I just used Redz comment as an example of people not being in the process coming in and maybe adding a realistic view of things rather than the propagandized, over bloated view of players that those players become after people are subjected to piles and piles of words.
The reason for the titles, once again, is to keep them here.
We have advertised on the front page for participation from the outside and not received anyone.
We have started thread after thread mentioning the different aspects of the game and gotten no one.
We have advertised with threads begging people to come vote and no one.
But, if before the game starts you advertise(put it in the original thread looking for people, send out mass PMs to high quantity posters, etc.) for "Observists" to come and follow the process, comment when the want, ask questions when they want and vote at the end of the process, they might say yes because it doesn't mean the time investment of being a GM. The commish can keep in contact with them making sure they are still involved and maybe you encourage GMs to throw them TPs for doing it.
A title just makes them feel invested.
Topic: CB Draft exits interviews: What did you like, what could be better? (Read 52354 times)