Madness Draft Sign-Ups

[GeorgeMarcus]

I will copy and paste the usual rules if this gains some traction. How do we feel about the following?

All players must have played for one of the Elite 8 colleges, which will be finalized within the hour. Exception: a maximum of 2 players may have played for schools that lost in the Sweet 16. Kentucky is a big factor in beefing up the player pool, especially all star level players. Based on the guys available I think this would work for 8-10 ish drafters. Also thinking post-merger.

Sign-ups:
1. GeorgeMarcus
2. JimmyPlopper
3. Larry_Russell
4. wackbone
5. Dr P
6. durantbird
7. Laimbeer
8. Snakebites

[Snakebites]

Even with the exception (and assuming everyone uses it to draft 2 players) you’d need 48 players drafted from those 8 schools with the smallest possible pool of 8 drafters.

I don’t see enough players to make that work among the 8 teams. Like, I’m sure there’s enough players in the literal sense, but in terms of everyone being able to build a cohesive roster with the right positions and FGA budget I just don’t see it.

That’s my take.

[JimmyPlopper]

I'm in - sounds fun.

[durantbird]

I'm not sure I understand yet the scope of the draft. Waiting for clearer rules.

[Fadeaway_J]

Even with the exception (and assuming everyone uses it to draft 2 players) you’d need 48 players drafted from those 8 schools with the smallest possible pool of 8 drafters.

I don’t see enough players to make that work among the 8 teams. Like, I’m sure there’s enough players in the literal sense, but in terms of everyone being able to build a cohesive roster with the right positions and FGA budget I just don’t see it.

That’s my take.

Yeah, that's my read on it as well. At a quick glance, Texas Tech has nobody worth talking about, and a few of the others get to eight if you squint hard enough. I think you need some of the historically stronger colleges, along the lines of what kdawg suggested, to make this kind of theme viable.

[Snakebites]

I'm not sure I understand yet the scope of the draft. Waiting for clearer rules.

There are 8 colleges that are still in the NCAA tournament (haven't been eliminated yet).

6 players people draft must have come from one of those 8 schools. The other 2 may come from the 8 schools that were eliminated in this most previous round.

[GeorgeMarcus]

.

.

.

I know the pool would be more restrictive than usual but I kinda liked the idea of using 'solid but rarely used' types like McDyess, J Rich, etc. I fleshed it out and think it'd be easier than you guys realize, especially with the added positional flexibility of the exceptions. I came up with a quick 46 that didn't include competent bench players like Seth Curry, Tony Battie, Corey Brewer, etc.

All that being said, if we did 'all 8 had to make the sweet 16, at least half have to be in the elite 8' it might absolve your concerns...?

[Snakebites]

.

.

.

I know the pool would be more restrictive than usual but I kinda liked the idea of using 'solid but rarely used' types like McDyess, J Rich, etc. I fleshed it out and think it'd be easier than you guys realize, especially with the added positional flexibility of the exceptions. I came up with a quick 44 that didn't include competent bench players like Seth Curry, Tony Battie, Corey Brewer, etc.

All that being said, if we did 'all 8 had to make the sweet 16, at least half have to be in the elite 8' it might absolve your concerns...?

Even very generously including guys like Jason Richardson and Morris Peterson I counted a grand total of like 50 some guys I'd ever even remotely consider taking. And yes, as I said, that's enough from a purely technical standpoint, but you generally need way more overhead than that to ensure everyone gets 2 point guards, at least 3 capable wings, and 3 guys who can slot 4/5 within the proper budget. And that's without even considering whether or not they are fun teams to build- which is entirely subjective but harder to do when it's that restricted.

That's just my take. I'd love to see this move along with 8 people to see if I'm proven wrong though.

[JimmyPlopper]

.

.

.

I know the pool would be more restrictive than usual but I kinda liked the idea of using 'solid but rarely used' types like McDyess, J Rich, etc. I fleshed it out and think it'd be easier than you guys realize, especially with the added positional flexibility of the exceptions. I came up with a quick 44 that didn't include competent bench players like Seth Curry, Tony Battie, Corey Brewer, etc.

All that being said, if we did 'all 8 had to make the sweet 16, at least half have to be in the elite 8' it might absolve your concerns...?

Even very generously including guys like Jason Richardson and Morris Peterson I counted a grand total of like 50 some guys I'd ever even remotely consider taking. And yes, as I said, that's enough from a purely technical standpoint, but you generally need way more overhead than that to ensure everyone gets 2 point guards, at least 3 capable wings, and 3 guys who can slot 4/5 within the proper budget. And that's without even considering whether or not they are fun teams to build- which is entirely subjective but harder to do when it's that restricted.

That's just my take. I'd love to see this move along with 8 people to see if I'm proven wrong though.

I think it would just require the participants to "detach" themselves from the normal sorts of game pools that are played. Jason Richardson and Morrison Peterson were fine players whose styles of play were likely observed and well understood by most people here. Even guys like Tony Battie are so low usage that they're not going to hurt your team too much.

We would find ourselves taking very different players for sure - but I thought that would be the fun part.

[Snakebites]

I know the pool would be more restrictive than usual but I kinda liked the idea of using 'solid but rarely used' types like McDyess, J Rich, etc. I fleshed it out and think it'd be easier than you guys realize, especially with the added positional flexibility of the exceptions. I came up with a quick 44 that didn't include competent bench players like Seth Curry, Tony Battie, Corey Brewer, etc.

All that being said, if we did 'all 8 had to make the sweet 16, at least half have to be in the elite 8' it might absolve your concerns...?

Even very generously including guys like Jason Richardson and Morris Peterson I counted a grand total of like 50 some guys I'd ever even remotely consider taking. And yes, as I said, that's enough from a purely technical standpoint, but you generally need way more overhead than that to ensure everyone gets 2 point guards, at least 3 capable wings, and 3 guys who can slot 4/5 within the proper budget. And that's without even considering whether or not they are fun teams to build- which is entirely subjective but harder to do when it's that restricted.

That's just my take. I'd love to see this move along with 8 people to see if I'm proven wrong though.

I think it would just require the participants to "detach" themselves from the normal sorts of game pools that are played. Jason Richardson and Morrison Peterson were fine players whose styles of play were likely observed and well understood by most people here. Even guys like Tony Battie are so low usage that they're not going to hurt your team too much.

We would find ourselves taking very different players for sure - but I thought that would be the fun part.

Like I said I cast a fairly wide net to even get that 55 or so guys- I did include guys like J Rich and Mo Pete who I've never seen drafted in these games. I still don't personally think it's enough.

I encourage folks to give this one a shot- I'd love it if I was proven wrong. I'm not interested in participating myself though.

[JimmyPlopper]

Even very generously including guys like Jason Richardson and Morris Peterson I counted a grand total of like 50 some guys I'd ever even remotely consider taking. And yes, as I said, that's enough from a purely technical standpoint, but you generally need way more overhead than that to ensure everyone gets 2 point guards, at least 3 capable wings, and 3 guys who can slot 4/5 within the proper budget. And that's without even considering whether or not they are fun teams to build- which is entirely subjective but harder to do when it's that restricted.

That's just my take. I'd love to see this move along with 8 people to see if I'm proven wrong though.

I think it would just require the participants to "detach" themselves from the normal sorts of game pools that are played. Jason Richardson and Morrison Peterson were fine players whose styles of play were likely observed and well understood by most people here. Even guys like Tony Battie are so low usage that they're not going to hurt your team too much.

We would find ourselves taking very different players for sure - but I thought that would be the fun part.

Like I said I cast a fairly wide net to even get that 55 or so guys- I did include guys like J Rich and Mo Pete who I've never seen drafted in these games. I still don't personally think it's enough.

I encourage folks to give this one a shot- I'd love it if I was proven wrong. I'm not interested in participating myself though.

I'm ready to point and laugh at whoever picks Cherokee Parks

[Fadeaway_J]

I know the pool would be more restrictive than usual but I kinda liked the idea of using 'solid but rarely used' types like McDyess, J Rich, etc. I fleshed it out and think it'd be easier than you guys realize, especially with the added positional flexibility of the exceptions. I came up with a quick 44 that didn't include competent bench players like Seth Curry, Tony Battie, Corey Brewer, etc.

All that being said, if we did 'all 8 had to make the sweet 16, at least half have to be in the elite 8' it might absolve your concerns...?

Even very generously including guys like Jason Richardson and Morris Peterson I counted a grand total of like 50 some guys I'd ever even remotely consider taking. And yes, as I said, that's enough from a purely technical standpoint, but you generally need way more overhead than that to ensure everyone gets 2 point guards, at least 3 capable wings, and 3 guys who can slot 4/5 within the proper budget. And that's without even considering whether or not they are fun teams to build- which is entirely subjective but harder to do when it's that restricted.

That's just my take. I'd love to see this move along with 8 people to see if I'm proven wrong though.

I think it would just require the participants to "detach" themselves from the normal sorts of game pools that are played. Jason Richardson and Morrison Peterson were fine players whose styles of play were likely observed and well understood by most people here. Even guys like Tony Battie are so low usage that they're not going to hurt your team too much.

We would find ourselves taking very different players for sure - but I thought that would be the fun part.

I have no problem with those players specifically - in fact I've taken MoPete at least twice I can think of. Actually, you can name almost any player you want and there's a decent chance I've picked him at some point given how many of these games I've played (which is a scary thought). My concern is a pool where there's basically no wiggle room, with 64 players to be picked from say, 80 or thereabouts. Doesn't give you much scope to shape your team the way you want it.

I'm not sure what it looks like with GM's latest proposal though.

[Larry_Russell]

I will play.

[durantbird]

I haven't looked at the pool thoroughly. I don't follow college so have no idea who plays at NCAA currently. But if you guys say the pool is about 80 guys, then I'm out

[Laimbeer]

How about Sweet Sixteen? A little breathing room but we still get fresh names I think.

In either way.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using RealGM mobile app

[wackbone]

How about Sweet Sixteen? A little breathing room but we still get fresh names I think.

In either way.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using RealGM mobile app

Agreed with this. Could even consider doing an exception of 1 HS or international player, OR 1 NCAA player from any other school. Still get most picks being unique but a bit more wiggle room. Would encourage the exception to have some sort of restriction as to not allow the top picks to end up getting 2 MVP level guys. Maybe never All-NBA 1st? Would still allow for guys in the Butler/Reggie/etc. tier, but remove the MVP level players.

Also in either way.

[GeorgeMarcus]

I'm open to the sweet 16 option, I'll see how we're doing with sign ups tomorrow

[Fadeaway_J]

Think I'll have to give this one a miss. I'd be relying very heavily on my spreadsheet (normally I know the pool well enough to work off memory to a large extent), and that gets difficult for me during the work week. Not to mention, I'm not that excited about the prospect of creating lists from 16 colleges.

[JimmyPlopper]

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

[Dr Positivity]

I'd play a Sweet Sixteen