Jeez, talk about needless semantics.
Sure, you may conventionally attribute the concept of tiers to a pyramid-type system, and I don't disagree that the outcomes of of a draft generally skew towards smaller/higher tiers at the top and bigger tiers at the bottom. That is the general distribution of an average draft, of course.
But to say that there's a one fits all structure to using tiers is not correct. Tiers are, by definition, a level or grade within a hierarchy. Does a hierarchy conventionally appear in the same distribution you talk about? Sure. But that's got nothing to do with the definition.
Talking completely hypothetically, it's not impossible for a draft to have more players in a higher tier than a lower one. The more players you assess, the more likely your evaluations are to reflect the distribution you refer to, in the same way that if you were to combine drafts, the more drafts you combine, the more it would reflect what we would all consider a conventional distribution of outcomes.
But the thing you are neglecting to consider is I have not attributed any particular outcomes or values to each tier. I see some people making their boards, and they leave gaps in tiers, (e.g. I remember last draft some people had Zion tier 1, then no one in tier, then proceeded with tier 3, because they didn't believe anyone was good enough for tier 2), but doing it that way is assigning a certain value of outcome to that tier. I'm not doing that.
I'm simply using tiers in this board to delineate value of prospects, in my subjective opinion, within the scope of the players in this draft that I have assessed. I do that, because in my opinion, it provides a more nuanced board than providing a blanket lower tier with heaps of people in it, because I know that within that tier I would have a distinct order of preference. And of course, that's what the actual is order is there for, to an extent, I'm not saying each order is an absolute wash between those guys, but the gaps I'm using are to signify a more particular jump in favor that I wanted to highlight.
Yes, most 2nd round guys may not amount to anything, but some guys may have better chances to not amount to anything than others, and some guys may have slightly higher ceilings than others. It's those particulars that I'm highlighting. That's where the other point comes in - because I'm not attributing particular levels of outcome to particular tiers, the difference in each tier is not equal. Of course, the difference in opinion I have between (eg) Ball and Vassell is greater than say, Carey and Stewart. I think that should be a pretty obvious assumption.
I usually follow a more common pyramid of tier distribution. This time I decided to break them up like that. Whether you like that or not is up to you - but to say that is 'not how tiers work' or wrong is... wrong.
It shouldn't surprise me that the person who likes getting on his pseudo-intellectual high horse the most would start such a pointless argument about such a pointless topic, and with such typical rudeness.
You guys do you.