Changes to the Starting Lineup procedures

What should the penalty be for campaigning outside the designated campaigning thread

  • Wear the CU Avatar of Shame

    Votes: 5 22.7%

  • Become ineligible for one category (Offense, Defense or Special Teams)

    Votes: 1 4.5%

  • Become ineligible for the entire Starting Lineup

    Votes: 11 50.0%

  • Thrown from the Tarpeian rock

    Votes: 7 31.8%
  • Total voters
    22
knapplc

knapplc

Active member
One last vote in this thing. There have been a number of good suggestions this year, and we're going to vote on them here. Let's talk about those changes in this thread, so we can hammer everything out via discussion. So don't just vote, put in your two cents. Your input is valuable.

EDIT - I had a thought about how to change the schedule but forgot to post it.

We could hold nominations for all of the Coaching positions all at once. Those nominations would last three days, Sunday - Tuesday. Elections for all positions would be Wednesday - Saturday.

The next week we do the same for all Offensive positions, QB, RB, WR, the line, etc. All nominations run Sunday - Tuesday, then all votes go Wednesday - Saturday.

The next week we do the same for Defense, and the following week we finish up with Special Teams.

The whole thing would take four weeks, there would be a longer voting period, but perhaps a bit more chaos with up to nine voting threads running at the same time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was tempted to say only be voting for one spot and nominating for another at any one time but I'm not quite convinced. It could have some good points but it might draw everything out too long (although, we do have quite a bit of the off-season left - football wise). So I went for keeping it the same.

I like the idea of a campaigning thread. Whoever came up with that idea is borderline genius. That would give people a place to shamelessly self-promote bring up people who they think should be included. But it's a good idea not to let the entire board get over-run with campaigning so I think campaigning anywhere else means your out.

 
I would like to see a schedule of something like this:

Mon-Wed: Nominations for 2 or 3 positions

Thurs - Sun: Voting for those 2 or 3 positions

I know that would stretch the whole process out, but 1. It's the offseason and there's nothing else going on and 2. I think it make it a little easier to keep track of who has been nominated/voted on already.

 
I just always find it interesting when the same people are nominated repeatedly, category after category, until they finally receive a spot in the lineup. This year I believe there was the same names brought up for nearly every position. This is fine and probably pretty unavoidable because the reality is, the staring lineup should consist of many of those repeated names. Some of our best members. I guess where I see the issue is that every position has a very well thought out description, key points as to the characteristics of the person you're nominating. Shouldn't we be more creative in our nomination process and actually put someone in the position that represents those characteristics. Some of the people actually did fit the profile, but some clearly did not.

I get that it's a popularity contest, and certain people should move up the ladder over time based on their contribution to the board so this problem is probably difficult to solve. I really have no constructive suggestions on how to fix it. I think changing it is kind of nit picky anyways. The thing goes pretty well the way it is.

 
knapplc said:
I edited the OP because I forgot to put in my suggestion for the schedule change. Sorry about that.
Click to expand...
Did you lose quite a bit of your OP when you edited it?

Edit: Nevermind. I think I was remembering more from the other thread.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure voting for more positions at the same time would work the best. The main reasons it would make sense to go the other way (only voting and nominating for one spot at a time) is because it can get confusing who's nominated for which position. And it could also split some people's votes. For example, if GSG and True are both nominated for QB and GSG is also nominated for RB (but not QB), some people who want to vote for GSG might vote for him for QB while others might vote for him for RB but everyone who wants to vote for True would be voting for him for QB. Thus GSG might get more total votes than True but not win either spot because the votes get split up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You do a really, really good job running this knapp, and keep in mind I haven't given it near the care of thought that you have. One thought that came to mind is maybe doing the whole thing more regularly so people are more used to it happening, but in smaller chunks so nobody is overwhelmed by a marathon of nomming and voting. Say, doing the defense in February at the start of the offseason, the offense in june at the start of Summer, and special teams/other in late august around the start of the season?

Lastly, I firmly believe we must do as the Romans do. For the Republic!

chucked_off_the_tarpeian_rock.jpg


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe a prerequisite for a nomination should include the reason why? I mean it doesn't have to be a novel, but referencing what True said, some guys get nominated because they fit the ideology, others get nominated because they're popular and haven't gotten a spot yet.

 
A little off topic, but I think that there should be a new category to go along with the Huskerboard starting lineup...the 'referee starting lineup.' This would be available for a few posters who don't get nominated for anything, but can penalize the starting lineup for legitimate bad posting, or go all 'Big 12 refereeing a la 2010' and make horrendous calls at will, possibly due to being bitter
default_biggrin.png


 
I think all in all it runs fairly smoothly and doesn't need to have some huge overhaul. I would defer most of how and what to do to make it better to the guy who has actually been doing it, knapp. But I will offer my ideas since they were requested.

1- I said to not have nominations and voting running concurrently and also to not allow people to be considered for multiple positions at the same time. I think this might simplify the choice and prevent the problem Mavric talked about in post #7. I think to help make up the additional length of time required, you could have a few more categories being voted on simultaneously but with each person only eligible to be voted on in one category at a time.

2- Since it sounds like there will be a campaigning thread, I think the punishment for doing it anywhere else should have some teeth. I wouldn't be opposed to the CU avatar, ineligible for the current category, and thrown from the rock. Plus we could toss in belittlement and tickling until they pee their pants.

But, I would be perfectly satisfied if nothing changed too. It's a fun activity to burn some time in the off season. No need to get overly technical about it.

 
Things I want:

-a commemorative plaque with names engraved

-a Mountain Dew branded bike (could be any speed I'm not picky)

Thats pretty much it.

 
Bucky said:
Is any serious consideration being given to making the voting public?
Click to expand...
I would like to avoid that. I don't think anyone's naive enough to think there hasn't been some shenanigans over the years, but I think the damage of public voting would be greater.

Also, if it really gets out of hand and it comes to the point where public voting would need to be an option, that's probably the time it'll just end. We shouldn't have to go that route, you know?

 
Back
Top