(05-18-2019 07:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-18-2019 05:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-18-2019 03:11 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Open to suggestions on regions which have roughly equal resources.

EDIT: Here's 6 groups of states.

West: AK, HI, WA, OR, CA, NV, ID, MT, AZ, UT

Southwest/Plains: WY, CO, NM, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX

South Central: MO, AR, LA, MS, AL, TN, KY

Southeast: FL, GA, SC, NC

Midwest: MN, IA, IL, WI, IN, OH, MI

NE/Mid A: ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, PA, NJ, MD, WV, VA

Uh, you need a Southern Geography lesson.

Southeast is MS, AL, FL, GA, TN, SC

Southwest is more LA, TX, ARK, OK, maybe Southern MO.

Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, and Louisiana are not South Central. Kentucky is more Ohio Valley and Missouri isn't really anything but could fit in 3 different groupings.

I don't need a geography lesson.

Obviously if people were trying to draw a line around "their own" region, they'd draw it differently. The purpose of the exercise was to try and put a roughly equal number of P5 teams in each group.

(05-18-2019 07:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-18-2019 07:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-18-2019 05:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-18-2019 03:11 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Open to suggestions on regions which have roughly equal resources.

EDIT: Here's 6 groups of states.

West: AK, HI, WA, OR, CA, NV, ID, MT, AZ, UT

Southwest/Plains: WY, CO, NM, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX

South Central: MO, AR, LA, MS, AL, TN, KY

Southeast: FL, GA, SC, NC

Midwest: MN, IA, IL, WI, IN, OH, MI

NE/Mid A: ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, PA, NJ, MD, WV, VA

Uh, you need a Southern Geography lesson.

Southeast is MS, AL, FL, GA, TN, SC

Southwest is more LA, TX, ARK, OK, maybe Southern MO.

Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, and Louisiana are not South Central. Kentucky is more Ohio Valley and Missouri isn't really anything but could fit in 3 different groupings.

I don't need a geography lesson.

Obviously if people were trying to draw a line around "their own" region, they'd draw it differently. The purpose of the exercise was to try and put a roughly equal number of P5 teams in each group.

Chill. I know what you were trying to do. I was merely chiding your titles for the groups. But this is why trying to equalize groupings for any purpose other than a fictional role play is virtually impossible.

Wedge ... I think the way to go about it is to keep in mind where the resources are but to be clever with choosing the starting point so that there is some delay in the draft before direct conflict begins. There's going to be blending in the VA/DC area. And TX/LA area. And so on. So you want to kinda skew people into starting points so that have to work a bit before getting to blending areas. I think you want to start somebody in TX, and then start whoever in the SE far enough east that there's some buffer. Because from NC to TX it's just jam packed with power programs. It's unavoidable. I named places for regions b/c in this scenario geography can become a dominant force like most of us would prefer it to be in a clean room where money didn't matter to the degree it become exclusionary of everything else. But what's more important than the region they represent for the purposes of how the game would play out (under my rules I spitballed above) would be where they started. To play off your regions suggested above:

West: Starts in CA
Southwest/Plains: Starts in CO
South Central: Starts in LA
Southeast: Starts in SC
Midwest: Starts in IL
NE/Mid A: Starts in NY

The key to balance is finding the right spacing which means finding the right starting points. Under my rules it would take at least 2/3 rounds before conferences could even be adjacent to one another and that is if they went head long at each other from Round 1 on.

So, I am the Shadow backup GM for the AAC and never told anything about the trade? I say cancel the trade and the 1st round pick to get things catched will be Missouri State for the lost of Wichita State.

I’m with a couple of the others who were fine with the original concept. Just agree on a time to do it and get it done.

clt says no trades and only protect 3 teams, let’s go

Under any new rules the Ivy League protects or selects the following:

Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Penn, Cornell, Dartmouth, and Brown

Passing on all future selections.

This seems to have bogged down in complexities.

Why allow any 3rd parties to veto a trade? If two commishes agree on a trade, that's their business.

Imagine if the Bucks and Celtics wanted to do a trade but the Lakers could veto it?

(05-20-2019 06:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This seems to have bogged down in complexities.

Why allow any 3rd parties to veto a trade? If two commishes agree on a trade, that's their business.

Imagine if the Bucks and Celtics wanted to do a trade but the Lakers could veto it?

Because the NBA has a commissioner that can squash a trade if he thinks it isn't up to snuff (think David Stern shutting down the Chris Paul to the Lakers deal a few years ago). Plus the owners are stakeholders and aren't going to pull off ridiculous and untenable trades for the lulz.

The point of an exercise like this is you still have to work within reasonable parameters. Clearing out a conference when you're just funning around kind of defeats the purpose.

(05-20-2019 07:35 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 06:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This seems to have bogged down in complexities.

Why allow any 3rd parties to veto a trade? If two commishes agree on a trade, that's their business.

Imagine if the Bucks and Celtics wanted to do a trade but the Lakers could veto it?

Because the NBA has a commissioner that can squash a trade if he thinks it isn't up to snuff (think David Stern shutting down the Chris Paul to the Lakers deal a few years ago). Plus the owners are stakeholders and aren't going to pull off ridiculous and untenable trades for the lulz.

The point of an exercise like this is you still have to work within reasonable parameters. Clearing out a conference when you're just funning around kind of defeats the purpose.

-- The NBA commissioner could only squash that trade because, at the time, the NBA was running the New Orleans franchise, so "owner" Stern KO'd the trade made by his "underling" the New Orleans GM.

-- This exercise is like a fantasy football or baseball league, where the rules usually provide that a commissioner or a vote of the other team owners can block a trade that is so ridiculously unbalanced that it's probably the result of collusion between the two trading teams. Something like an NBA fantasy owner trading Giannis for three guys who will never make it out of the G-League.

I don't care what the rules are as long as they are clear and consistent. That said, if it's obvious one player is intentionally throwing the game so to speak - that taints the game.

At 1 point didn't Cleve Cav have restrictions

(05-20-2019 07:35 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 06:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This seems to have bogged down in complexities.

Why allow any 3rd parties to veto a trade? If two commishes agree on a trade, that's their business.

Imagine if the Bucks and Celtics wanted to do a trade but the Lakers could veto it?

Because the NBA has a commissioner that can squash a trade if he thinks it isn't up to snuff (think David Stern shutting down the Chris Paul to the Lakers deal a few years ago). Plus the owners are stakeholders and aren't going to pull off ridiculous and untenable trades for the lulz.

The point of an exercise like this is you still have to work within reasonable parameters. Clearing out a conference when you're just funning around kind of defeats the purpose.

The commissioner can, but he is a neutral party. Letting GMs of other teams cancel a Chris Paul to Lakers deal would be ridiculous.

And this whole exercise is just funning around. Nothing is at stake here.

clt just renewed the lease at the cusa war room, but next month may be a challenge. The xfl needs the space in June.

Since HuskeyU is banned from the realignment board, I call a redo since he cannot participate in this exercise. I declare that all of this should be voided because I want to declare Houston as a protected team and let UConn. go on the trade board.

(05-21-2019 09:23 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Since HuskeyU is banned from the realignment board, I call a redo since he cannot participate in this exercise. I declare that all of this should be voided because I want to declare Houston as a protected team and let UConn. go on the trade board.

If we start from scratch all over again, I think I should represent the AAC.

clt will represent the SEC

If we're gonna dance, let's dance. All D-1 conferences should be repped, football playing or not.

(05-22-2019 12:29 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  If we're gonna dance, let's dance. All D-1 conferences should be repped, football playing or not.

I already did that.

I'm coming back to this, I promise, just let me finish getting caught up.