| |
BGonline.org Forums
Giant 32 Criteria
Posted By: Perry Gartner In Response To: Giant 32 Criteria (Jake Jacobs)
Date: Tuesday, 15 September 2009, at 12:26 p.m.
Jake: At any rate, as Chuck (and "hi" to you too) mentions, it's a big job, calling for a volunteer. The Giant committee would be much more open to the vetting called for when and if such becomes feasible. Right now it simply isn't practical.
You like Rich's list idea. Rich has volunteered to help, so why not take advantage of his offer? Vetting for qualified open players seems to me to address the problem of both candidates for being a Giant and candidates for voting. Why isn't this list the same?
I think what constitutes a qualifed tournament should and could be decided on by your committee. Why not solicit input for that resolution in this forum if you are in a quandry?
My personal view is that a tournament of 32 held anywhere should be ok. Why not if they take the trouble to send in the list of entrants and there is a vetting process in place?
I don't doubt the top 32 selected by the top 32 isn't VERY different than what all voters came up with but do you mean the rankings as well? If there were one or two names that were excluded or included, or the rankings changed for a few, you might not think that worthy of "aha!", so would you define "aha!" for us?
In fact why not have a compilation of the votes of the top 32 made public in addition to all of the voter's votes? in basketball the people vote for the all-stars. But the press takes a poll of coaches and publishes this list as well.
To answer my own question I can understand why your committtee would consider the top 32 by the top 32 as diluting the standing of the top 32 by all the voters, so maybe another idea would be to have an outside the Giants committee poll the top 32 to find out their selections. I bet that would be of real interest.
Perry
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.