Nothing in particular - just getting the ADD back on track.
6 comments:
Anonymous
said...
wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!! Tenn doing their part to keep Vandy in the race for Babs. Minnesota toying with the last of the at larges. Notre Dame laying claim to another last spot for Babs.
and the coveted undefeated bonus - only possibility now is Butler. I am really glad that against all Iowa objections we still added this bonus in - its been a fun thing to watch
First, congrats to Babs, the CEO, Jaybird, and Hippie D for making the final four. I believe 3 of the 4 are still in contention, no?
Here are my votes:
1. B Undefeated Bonus. It's unlikely that this will happen too often (as noted above) but it's nice to award a team that runs the board for their conference season. The points are a nice bonus, but not game breaking.
2. C Pre-season Points. Adding a little spice to pre-season tourneys sounds fine. Again, this is a minimal change to make the early going a bit more interesting. It also encourages more research and attention paid to the early play which hopefully will equal more engagement as well.
3. H Trading. I like the ability to trade draft picks. Personally, I think it would be better to eliminate round restrictions, which may encourage more trading, and simply keep the numerical restriction in place (i.e. 2 picks for 2 picks). I realize that this could potentially allow for some abuse, but we could also put in a veto clause for 2/3 majority (8 players)veto for any trades that looked suspicious. This would hopefully, prevent any Mitchell Brothers or Iowa Connection shenanigans."
What's that? Akaoni actually voted for the bonus for an undefeated conference season? Astonishing that Jut would once again display such a profound lack of understanding of what NAT and my complaints were.
For the record our complaint was that Jut arbitrarily proposed 9 rule changes and that we would each vote for 3. NAT and I simply indicated that there was no option for those who simply wanted fewer than 3 rule changes, or even no changes at all.
Luckily Jut saw the light and only implemented the only change that had overwhelming support (although once again he did this unilaterally) which once again displayed his lack of comprehension of what our complaint was actually was. But that's par for the course with Jut.
for those not paying attention, bab's wins are now worth double - hence his strong and somewhat too excessive gain of late - as they say in babbelmurworld - it is not who's team scores, it is who counts the team scores.
6 comments:
wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!! Tenn doing their part to keep Vandy in the race for Babs. Minnesota toying with the last of the at larges. Notre Dame laying claim to another last spot for Babs.
I'm not complaining!
and the coveted undefeated bonus - only possibility now is Butler. I am really glad that against all Iowa objections we still added this bonus in - its been a fun thing to watch
Jut is an idiot.
Here's my post from the rule change vote thread last season:
http://babblemur.blogspot.com/2009/03/rule-change-vote.html#comments
"akaoni said...
3/30/2009 9:01 AM
First, congrats to Babs, the CEO, Jaybird, and Hippie D for making the final four. I believe 3 of the 4 are still in contention, no?
Here are my votes:
1. B Undefeated Bonus. It's unlikely that this will happen too often (as noted above) but it's nice to award a team that runs the board for their conference season. The points are a nice bonus, but not game breaking.
2. C Pre-season Points. Adding a little spice to pre-season tourneys sounds fine. Again, this is a minimal change to make the early going a bit more interesting. It also encourages more research and attention paid to the early play which hopefully will equal more engagement as well.
3. H Trading. I like the ability to trade draft picks. Personally, I think it would be better to eliminate round restrictions, which may encourage more trading, and simply keep the numerical restriction in place (i.e. 2 picks for 2 picks). I realize that this could potentially allow for some abuse, but we could also put in a veto clause for 2/3 majority (8 players)veto for any trades that looked suspicious. This would hopefully, prevent any Mitchell Brothers or Iowa Connection shenanigans."
What's that? Akaoni actually voted for the bonus for an undefeated conference season? Astonishing that Jut would once again display such a profound lack of understanding of what NAT and my complaints were.
For the record our complaint was that Jut arbitrarily proposed 9 rule changes and that we would each vote for 3. NAT and I simply indicated that there was no option for those who simply wanted fewer than 3 rule changes, or even no changes at all.
Luckily Jut saw the light and only implemented the only change that had overwhelming support (although once again he did this unilaterally) which once again displayed his lack of comprehension of what our complaint was actually was. But that's par for the course with Jut.
i actually changed points too. i was talking about musash..........
for those not paying attention, bab's wins are now worth double - hence his strong and somewhat too excessive gain of late - as they say in babbelmurworld - it is not who's team scores, it is who counts the team scores.
Post a Comment