GM A TEAM 9/10 - new gm signups still needed

[Mascot]

Why not use outside judges? Main trade board mods, myself, whomever is the commish. Say you get three judges to rank the teams, that should be sufficient. And no offense to many of the participants, because I know the majority of you are incredibly aware in terms of basketball, but there's always some absolutely insane jobs of ranking. (Sacto missing the POs last time I played, for instance)

just have to make sure they are active, | had 6 guys that were willing to help me, but when I emailed them things it took a week to get a reply back from most of them so I had to make the decisions on my own.

[CellarDoor]

That's going to be a hazard of this format, but is it any more hazardous than having a convoluted game theory style problem going on in all the GM's heads, and expecting 30 of them to respond as opposed to 3?

[dockingsched]

what about using the same set of questions i proposed along with the one's roc proposed....

then, each GM has to decide which category they want to be considered for, contender or rebuild. then we vote for the opposite category. we use rebuild questions to get a score and winner for those teams, we use contender questions to get a score and winner for those teams, then we get a score for each team using all the questions and get an overall winner. cuts the judging workload in half, and does away with scoring someone low cause they are your competition in either rebuild or contender categories.

[poopdamoop]

what about using the same set of questions i proposed along with the one's roc proposed....

then, each GM has to decide which category they want to be considered for, contender or rebuild. then we vote for the opposite category. we use rebuild questions to get a score and winner for those teams, we use contender questions to get a score and winner for those teams, then we get a score for each team using all the questions and get an overall winner. cuts the judging workload in half, and does away with scoring someone low cause they are your competition in either rebuild or contender categories.

I kinda like the idea of choosing a category to be in, but it does hurt contending teams that also have lots of young talent

[Jimmy76]

That's going to be a hazard of this format, but is it any more hazardous than having a convoluted game theory style problem going on in all the GM's heads, and expecting 30 of them to respond as opposed to 3?

yeah I like the 3 judges way of doing things

[skflives]

I'll take NY or Toronto.

[babyjax13]

Kingz had moderators from each board grade how we did with the teams, that might be an interesting way to do it if they would be willing to do it again (and I am sure they would).

[bryant08]

^We've tried gathering mods before, it doesn't work. There's no way you'll find that many mods willing, and I don't really recall (although it might just be my memory) mods from every board grading our teams.

[Gremz]

I'd be available for ranking teams if a panel is needed.

[dockingsched]

^We've tried gathering mods before, it doesn't work. There's no way you'll find that many mods willing, and I don't really recall (although it might just be my memory) mods from every board grading our teams.

i don't recall that either.

[Klomp]

Guys, whenever you start, I want in. Please PM me when about to start because I don't get here often.

I think it is good to iron out rules, but in the way you are discussing them now, things will never be resolved.

My suggestion is this. For each "issue" come up with two or more possible solutions to that problem. Then, after each team has a GM. Poll each user as to what they would want. The winning solution from each category would be the winner.

Example:

Deadlines
Option A - (List the time frame of the game)
Option B - (List another time frame)

Judging
Option A - DCash's idea to judge each team individually on a set of criteria
Option B - Have outside judges come in and rank the teams
Option C - Keep the current format of the GMs ranking all the other GMs


That is what I'm talking about. Then, whichever option receives the most votes will be the one used in the game. This also gives a solid set of criteria for the game as a whole, but the GMs can still decide if they want to change the rules. Also, some people may vote to change rules now, but when the game starts in a month they are nowhere to be found.

So my thought is to come up with a list of options for some of the major areas that we feel need to be addressed, then the players in the next game can choose what they want.

[Jimmy76]

when is this getting started btw?

if we wait till offseason do we want to start it this offseason?

we should probably start before the draft at the least

[roc]

when is this getting started btw?

if we wait till offseason do we want to start it this offseason?

we should probably start before the draft at the least

Nah, 1 draft is annoying enough, no need for 2.

[jcldallas24]

Lol no he means to start the game before the actual 2010 NBA Draft....

[lukekarts]

Yes we must start before the actual draft, otherwise the game would get quite confusing.

[Mascot]

plan is to start after the playoffs are over i believe.

[roc]

Lol no he means to start the game before the actual 2010 NBA Draft....

Yeah I kind of assumed that which is why I replied the way I did.

We would end up getting stuck doing 2 drafts. the 2010 draft/2010 FA/2010-11 season/2011 draft/2011 Free Agency

Count me out on that plan.

[Mascot]

hmmm maybe we should start this now come to think of it with what rocdogg said.


May 10th - start trading
June 10th - End trading
June 14th - Rankings Due for Draft Position
June 16th - Rankings Posted for Draft Position
June 18th - Draft
June 22nd - Free Agency
July 2nd - End
July 5th - Writeups Due
July 7th - Rankings Due
July 10th - Rankings Posted

this would get the game down to 2 months also.

[babyjax13]

That sounds like a good time line to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like this is what we have agreed on (for the most part)

1. 2 Month Timeline
2. New Voting Rules

1 = a lot worse, 2 = worse, 3 = same, 4= better, 5 = a lot better

1. Is the team's talent level better 3-4 yrs down the road?

2. Is the team's talent level better this season?

3. How is the team's salary structure this season?

4. How is the team's salary structure 2-3 yrs down the road?

5. How is the chemistry/fit of the team?

6. Better Opportunity for a championship now?

7. Good opportunity to win multiple championships/get to finals several times?

But some of the issues we need to decide on are free agency, and how to treat waiving a player.

[babyjax13]

Oh, and when we start I want Indiana.