Hey guys, I'm Calvin, not that I expect any of you to really know me. The important thing is, I've served as an awards committee rep since S21 in the DSFL (first with Tijuana for a season, and now with Arizona), with a break of a few seasons in the middle where a certain former HO intern held the position. With that being said, I thought it'd be a fun idea to do a presser on the awards committee, especially with me reaching the last few seasons of my career (and by extension, my last few on the committee). I'm open to answering questions about past or current awards, how I voted on nominations/cutdowns, opinions on the winners of awards (quick PSA: the committee has no direct control over determining who actually wins), how the awards committee actually works, how I personally tend to compare players/stats, or really anything else on the subject. Also keep in note that this doesn't reflect the views of the other awards committee members or the heads, I'm doing this independently. So fire away, and I'll make sure your questions get answered eventually!
I figure that I'll give my own GMs questions priority here, since they sort of explain how things work for the purposes of future questions. After that it's just in the order of when they were asked.
At the end of the regular season, the committee heads give us a google form to fill out for initial nominations for every award. We're told to pick 2 or 3 per award (I always shoot for 3), and although it's not an official rule I've always seen it as "here's where you can be most biased." With reps for every ISFL team there's no need to worry about the best guy at a position not getting nominated, but maybe if a Zona player is closer to 4th or 5th for the award in my opinion I'll make him of my my three, just to ensure he's in the conversation. As far as I'm aware the other reps do the same, to varying extents. Then the committee heads take all the nominations and compile the shortlists for every award, with the accompanying stats. These are slowly posted throughout the next day, with debates generally flowing with the most recent ones to be posted. We debate these awards, and suggestions are made to cut players until we reach 5 players.
Consensus is formed on who to cut, and once we've got multiple people looking to cut someone said player's team rep is asked if they're willing to concede it. If there's no opposition, the player is considered cut. When things get split where he clearly have two opposing sides (as is often the case) a committee head posts a poll with the options that are being considered, and the whole committee votes to determine who stays and who gets cut. This only happens when we're down to 6 or 7 nominees for the most part, since we can normally come to a consensus on cutting the rest. If a rep looks at the players being considered and feels that a player who wasn't initially nominated deserves to be in the conversation, they can always bring said player up along with their statline. If the other reps agree that they deserve to be in consideration, the cut-downs continue with said player now included (I believe that actually occurred this past season in the cases of Mark Walker for WRotY and Mo Magic for OPotY, where they weren't initially nominated but the committee ended up agreeing that they were not only worth consideration, but actually had them make the final cut).
Positional awards are generally accomplished before PotY awards, while PotY awards are generally done before MVP. This is because in most scenarios if a player isn't top-5 at their position they won't be top-5 for their side of the ball, and the same applying to MVP (one notable exception being Nick Kaepercolin as an MVP nominee this season). Breakout and performance of the year are generally done later as well, since the stats take longer to compile (and people aren't always so enthusiastic about narrowing them down). Eventually, between polls and general consensus we end up with 5 players for each award, at which point the committee heads send the list in.
There definitely are, both on a team and player side to varying extents. I always assume each rep walks in with some bias (including myself), but as long as it's relatively kept in check there's not really a problem with it. Occasionally you'll have team reps even acknowledge that they might prefer the other player or be split on things, except that they can't not vote for a guy on their team, which is a fair enough sentiment in my book. Reps are also allowed to nominate themselves, and we see it happen from season to season. I've been in a few situations like that myself (unfortunately emphasis is on the "few") where I took varied approaches. The first time it was for the final OLotY spot, and since I didn't trust myself to be objective I recused myself from the discussion (which didn't end up mattering since the other player's rep conceded him). Another time I would've been the 5th OL, but only because Payton was forum IA. This was back when activity rules were pretty lax, so I messaged him and told him to do an AC so he'd be eligible and I could put him in for the final spot, which is what ended up happening. Then for OBoY the season I won it I actually showed some biased where I did push back when I almost got cut. A solid part of that was because I wanted an OL in a non-OLotY award though, so different kind of bias. Obviously I made the cut, and I like to think I was justified in doing so. The final time was this past season, where I was initially going to be the 5th OL, but I suggested that Krause (I think?), who hadn't made the cut, be added to the conversation, before conceding myself to him since he had the better season. All-in-all conflict of interest happens, but I think the vast majority of the time the reps are justified in the pushing the player they prefer, where said player would be a reasonable nomination.
I believe it's $2 mil base pay, while the committee heads also give out bonuses based on activity. In my case it was a $2 mil bonus for a total of $4 mil, which is totally worth it in my opinion. I know bonuses change from season to season, but that's basically what HO and RM interns get for their jobs and half what the updaters get, minus PT passes. It's a bit of a time crunch to get everything done, since we start right when the season ends (or even before the final stream) and have to get it done in time for the awards presentations to be prepared, but the flipside of that is that we only actually work for about an irl week and have the rest of the season completely free. It's also a super flexible job, so you can rotate in and out of discussions at will. For example, maybe I didn't play a big role in KotY discussions, but at the same time was really active in OBoY. Other than maybe having to give an initial nomination list and voting on award cutdowns there really aren't any strict guidelines you have to follow save for general conduct, so the flexibility of discussions is a huge plus. The most important thing is that I actually enjoy awards committee, and while I'll occasionally complain about things I honestly love the job 90% of the time. I'd probably do it for free actually, which I think was actually the case my first season in the DSFL (though I might've gotten a bonus on top of the 0 base pay that season, it's been a while.
Because we don't know what we're doing ofc. We honestly didn't know you existed, and it's not like there's anyone directly affiliated with your team that's been designated to represent you in order to ensure that we don't miss you. In your case it probably didn't help to be invisible.
(Promise this isn't a shot at the cutest person in the league, just making a general point here because I've been given a soapbox).
Easiest: Sometimes we only end up with 5 initial nominees, which is fun since it means we already have a consensus unless someone prefers a player that wasn't initially nominated over the top-5. Year to year it changes, but OLotY is probably the easiest most seasons just because we have 3 metrics to use, and most of the time we end up with a ballot of: top-three in pancakes without a sack, best player in pancakes that allowed a sack, and then an argument on more pancakes vs less sacks allowed for the final spot. All-in-all pretty simple, especially since the winner of the award is almost guaranteed the moment the final index update comes out. KotY and PotY are relatively easy since we generally have a pretty clear top group, while the same goes for DTotY.
Hardest: For specific situations where an award was hard to settle, a few come to mind. We had RBotY one season where I remember it being Toriki vs another RB for that final spot. It got pretty heated, and eventually we settled on sending 6 nominations since we couldn't decide on who to cut for the final 5 (we also had the same happen for RETotY that season, except I think we sent 4 since the top 4 were head and shoulders above). This was before we really used straw polls on the committee as well, which has certainly makes those cut downs a bit easier now. The best part was I don't think either RB received any votes, and the awards committee heads swore off of sending 6 after that. Even with straw polls we've had a few awards come to a split vote where committee heads broke the tie. I was going to say we had it just last season, but apparently time flies because it was all the way back in S26 when QBotY came down to Fujiwara and Cole. The two were dead even in votes, so the heads had to break the tie and we ended up sending Fujiwara (despite a few calls to send 6 I believe). Then the season after that the same thing happened to SotY, where Roberts and Smoothie were tied for the final spot. In more general terms, DPotY and LBotY are two of the hardest each season, just because of the sheer amount of great players and stats to compare. Tackles, sacks, TFLs, Ints, FFs, FRs, PDs, TDs, and catch percentage all have to be weighted against each other which makes things really tough. Plus for LBotY in particular we tend to have the biggest list of initial nominees to cut down from. Occasionally DPERFotY can be difficult because you end up with multiple players that had a statline of "2 turnovers, 1 TD," with occasional ones being identical down to the number of tackles. In this case it's not a problem of comparing vastly different statlines, but instead deciding between practically identical ones. Both breakout awards are also tough, because nobody actually knows what counts as a breakout so we all have to vote based on our interpretation, whether it be most improvement shown, players going from bad to not bad, players going from not good to good, or any combination of it, and it was even worse when position switched players were eligible. I think that of our 10 or so OBoY nominees this season I made arguments for cutting maybe 7 or 8 of them, which is also unique since normally the issue with awards is deciding who to cut, not who to keep. MVP can be tough for a similar reason, because some treat it as our best player award (which is what I tend to do, by comparing them to their peers from past seasons) while others use a more literal interpretation and take regular season record into account or favor QBs and RBs over WRs and defensive players. The final award I want to shout out here is TEotY, because it actually fits into both categories. As of late, it's definitely one of the easier ones, since there's not a ton of people to choose between in the first place and the top guys tend to be pretty clear. In the early seasons though? Before positional eligibility was a thing we had to compare the TEs that played at WR a ton (thinking specifically of Phillips here, back when he was a TE) to the in-line TEs and ask how we compare their receiving stats knowing that. And once positional eligibility became a thing I remember that still being an issue, especially when we'd have nominees that had to be replaced upon finding they were ineligible.
It varies by committee member, but my policy tends to be comparing them to their peers, and sending a diverse ballot. I'm of the opinion that if we sent the best statlines each season, DPotY would look exactly like LBotY most of the time. As such, I try to spread things out. The first step is comparison to peers. For example, I wanted the DE Leonard Taylor to get an MVP nomination this season. His statline was a bit worse than a good number of LBs, but when I put it into historical context I realized that in my opinion it was the best season we've seen from a DE since at least moving to the new sim. I preferred him over the best recent old sim DEs as well, but the statlines majorly shifted when we swapped sims so I can't really compare that. So comparing players with others at their position is one of the big things I look at (and for those curious, I conceded my stand for him when I found that it would mean sending a ballot with three Yellowknife MVP candidates, despite the team not even making the playoffs). I'd rather have the best at their position in the past few seasons than a player that wasn't even top of the position this season. Of course this isn't always applicable, I do give some preference to positions like QB and RB for MVP and OPotY, but that's one of my main go-tos. Similarly, Mo Magic had the best OL season in league history while William Lim broke the season receiving yards record, so both ended up with OPoY noms when considering how good their seasons were in historical context.
The next distinction I mentioned was a diverse ballot. For example, if we already have two LBs nominated for DPotY, I'll probably push for a DE or a CB over adding a third LB. If the top two LBs are clearly better than the third one, I don't really see the point in adding a player that won't get any votes, where there might be GMs that prefer the DE or CB statline to said linebackers. Of course, that's not a set in stone rule for me when one position truly had many great options, but it's another important thing I look for on both sides of the ball.
Maybe OLotY, because even though it's relatively simple I still love the position I play ofc. The best part is when it's so close you have to resort to sifting through penalty totals (especially in the old sim where you had to look at weekly game splits in the index to compile them without Wolfie Bot or seeing penalty totals in the sim itself) to find an edge. I will admit it is a bit painful cutting myself from the nominees season after season, however. I think I really do enjoy CBotY, since it's like LBotY in that there are really diverse statlines to choose from and yet it's not as hard to sift through in my opinion. I also still love being able to use/view catch percentages in the new sim, which is a big plus. MVP, OPoY, and DPoY feel like copouts but those are pretty fun too. Some seasons they're the most heated, but comparing across positions is one of my favorite things to do. And because I'm allowed to have more than the 5 favorites I've already mentioned, I'm gonna give a more general answer: the positions where I either have a stake in the outcome (those involving Zona players) or the positions where the winner is unknown (so not QBotY, RBotY, and OLotY this past season). It really does vary each season, but it's basically any award where we get a lot of varied discussion (without going overboard), which tends to be the above things mentioned (minus OLotY, sadly).
Probably circular arguments, where it's a constant cycle of the same points being made for each side. Generally it happens with efficiency vs volume I think, but not always. There's been a few awful points made over the seasons that were either entirely subjective, didn't matter, or actually hurt the rep's case in my book, but those are rather infrequent and I tend to find them funny in hindsight. Other reps having blind bias can be annoying, but I also totally understand it. Every rep is, at least in my book, assumed and expected to be biased, but occasionally there are times when reps continuously come out swinging for their own guys without at least acknowledging they might be biased, considering the nuances of the argument, and/or understanding when it's a losing fight. You never want to be the guy that sat there idly and let their player get cut, so while I'm not a fan when it becomes blatant I still get where there coming from and I'm sure I've done it myself. That being said, most of this is rather infrequent so I can definitely handle it.
And now that I'm thinking about it more, I've realized what my former undisputed #1 would be: hard locking each award. I'm incredibly thankful we can hard lock our nomination lists with one poll, rather than doing it award by award in the past. It really isn't that time consuming, but I'm pretty sure I hated having to do it.
And I'm once again coming back to this after remembering something, having people that got a nomination not get listed on the stream is one more thing that bugs me, since we often have in-depth discussions on final cuts for an award where the winner is already a given, and the main reason we do it is because just getting a nomination is considered an award in and of itself. So having those people that ended up being good enough for a nomination not make it into the stream (which I'm honestly forgetting the reason it happens) makes me feel for them.
Managing to get Zona players on ballots, having series' great discussions on awards, getting to see the list of nominations get released, and the $2+ million fake dollars are probably the most rewarding in my book. Also having the guys I went to bat for in disputed awards make the cut on a vote can be pretty fun. Seeing guys that made the list as the 5th person get votes is fun in its own right, because it means we didn't have a really heated discussion on that final cut for no reason. On the flip side, I feel kinda bad for it but there's something humorous in seeing someone end up getting no votes when I distinctly remember that conversation on who to cut for said award getting intense.
My personal criteria is any player that goes from average/below average to good/great, and then among those players the ones who showed the most improvement. Even if a player has their best season yet, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a breakout in my book. Going from a very poor statline to a mediocre one isn't a breakout to me, since they haven't "broken out" - they're still not a good player yet. Alternatively, the best players in the league can't necessarily break out either. If Bruce Buckley gets 150 pancakes next season, it'll be his best season (and the best for an OL to date), but I would argue that he already broke out long ago, this is just progression from elite to more elite. And then most improvement is how I personally cut things down, since not all breakouts are created the same. I wouldn't include previous awards as precluding people from eligibility, but it is something to consider. For example, I believe some people weren't happy that I won OBoY despite having made the Pro Bowl in the past. However, I rationalized that with knowing that OL has the most Pro Bowl spots and is a relatively shallow position, so the odds of not picking up a Pro Bowl berth by them were very low. With situations like that, getting nominated for an award in the past shouldn't necessarily prevent someone from getting a nomination, but it certainly hurts their case in that there's a good chance it proves that they've already broken out.
All of that being said, I'd be more than happy for an actual criteria, considering how varied interpretations of what the award means are.
I think that's actually a great idea I hadn't considered. I know the point of the committee is to narrow things down for GMs, but MVP is one award (kind of like GMotY) where I wouldn't mind it. If so, I'd definitely restrict it to positional award nominations, and we'd have to see how GMs take to it. If votes are super spread out I think it'd be proof we need to narrow the list down for them, but otherwise it gives them more freedom to use their personal interpretation of MVP.
I figure here is a great spot to give you and Arkz a quick shoutout for being awesome committee heads each season, with keeping everything rolling smoothly behind the scenes. And also a thank you to everyone that gave questions, I'm always happy to answer any in the future!
I figure that I'll give my own GMs questions priority here, since they sort of explain how things work for the purposes of future questions. After that it's just in the order of when they were asked.
Quote:What does the overall selection process look like? Does each member nominate 1-2 users and from there the committee narrows it down?
At the end of the regular season, the committee heads give us a google form to fill out for initial nominations for every award. We're told to pick 2 or 3 per award (I always shoot for 3), and although it's not an official rule I've always seen it as "here's where you can be most biased." With reps for every ISFL team there's no need to worry about the best guy at a position not getting nominated, but maybe if a Zona player is closer to 4th or 5th for the award in my opinion I'll make him of my my three, just to ensure he's in the conversation. As far as I'm aware the other reps do the same, to varying extents. Then the committee heads take all the nominations and compile the shortlists for every award, with the accompanying stats. These are slowly posted throughout the next day, with debates generally flowing with the most recent ones to be posted. We debate these awards, and suggestions are made to cut players until we reach 5 players.
Consensus is formed on who to cut, and once we've got multiple people looking to cut someone said player's team rep is asked if they're willing to concede it. If there's no opposition, the player is considered cut. When things get split where he clearly have two opposing sides (as is often the case) a committee head posts a poll with the options that are being considered, and the whole committee votes to determine who stays and who gets cut. This only happens when we're down to 6 or 7 nominees for the most part, since we can normally come to a consensus on cutting the rest. If a rep looks at the players being considered and feels that a player who wasn't initially nominated deserves to be in the conversation, they can always bring said player up along with their statline. If the other reps agree that they deserve to be in consideration, the cut-downs continue with said player now included (I believe that actually occurred this past season in the cases of Mark Walker for WRotY and Mo Magic for OPotY, where they weren't initially nominated but the committee ended up agreeing that they were not only worth consideration, but actually had them make the final cut).
Positional awards are generally accomplished before PotY awards, while PotY awards are generally done before MVP. This is because in most scenarios if a player isn't top-5 at their position they won't be top-5 for their side of the ball, and the same applying to MVP (one notable exception being Nick Kaepercolin as an MVP nominee this season). Breakout and performance of the year are generally done later as well, since the stats take longer to compile (and people aren't always so enthusiastic about narrowing them down). Eventually, between polls and general consensus we end up with 5 players for each award, at which point the committee heads send the list in.
Quote:Are there any conflict of interests, like are people allowed to nominate themselves?
There definitely are, both on a team and player side to varying extents. I always assume each rep walks in with some bias (including myself), but as long as it's relatively kept in check there's not really a problem with it. Occasionally you'll have team reps even acknowledge that they might prefer the other player or be split on things, except that they can't not vote for a guy on their team, which is a fair enough sentiment in my book. Reps are also allowed to nominate themselves, and we see it happen from season to season. I've been in a few situations like that myself (unfortunately emphasis is on the "few") where I took varied approaches. The first time it was for the final OLotY spot, and since I didn't trust myself to be objective I recused myself from the discussion (which didn't end up mattering since the other player's rep conceded him). Another time I would've been the 5th OL, but only because Payton was forum IA. This was back when activity rules were pretty lax, so I messaged him and told him to do an AC so he'd be eligible and I could put him in for the final spot, which is what ended up happening. Then for OBoY the season I won it I actually showed some biased where I did push back when I almost got cut. A solid part of that was because I wanted an OL in a non-OLotY award though, so different kind of bias. Obviously I made the cut, and I like to think I was justified in doing so. The final time was this past season, where I was initially going to be the 5th OL, but I suggested that Krause (I think?), who hadn't made the cut, be added to the conversation, before conceding myself to him since he had the better season. All-in-all conflict of interest happens, but I think the vast majority of the time the reps are justified in the pushing the player they prefer, where said player would be a reasonable nomination.
Quote:Do you feel you get paid enough to arg-, er, discuss awards with others representatives on the ISFL side?
I believe it's $2 mil base pay, while the committee heads also give out bonuses based on activity. In my case it was a $2 mil bonus for a total of $4 mil, which is totally worth it in my opinion. I know bonuses change from season to season, but that's basically what HO and RM interns get for their jobs and half what the updaters get, minus PT passes. It's a bit of a time crunch to get everything done, since we start right when the season ends (or even before the final stream) and have to get it done in time for the awards presentations to be prepared, but the flipside of that is that we only actually work for about an irl week and have the rest of the season completely free. It's also a super flexible job, so you can rotate in and out of discussions at will. For example, maybe I didn't play a big role in KotY discussions, but at the same time was really active in OBoY. Other than maybe having to give an initial nomination list and voting on award cutdowns there really aren't any strict guidelines you have to follow save for general conduct, so the flexibility of discussions is a huge plus. The most important thing is that I actually enjoy awards committee, and while I'll occasionally complain about things I honestly love the job 90% of the time. I'd probably do it for free actually, which I think was actually the case my first season in the DSFL (though I might've gotten a bonus on top of the 0 base pay that season, it's been a while.
Quote:why snub?
Because we don't know what we're doing ofc. We honestly didn't know you existed, and it's not like there's anyone directly affiliated with your team that's been designated to represent you in order to ensure that we don't miss you. In your case it probably didn't help to be invisible.
(Promise this isn't a shot at the cutest person in the league, just making a general point here because I've been given a soapbox).
Quote:What award was the easiest for the committee to come to a consensus for during your time there? Which one was the hardest? (Also consolidating Z-Whiz's question into this one)
Easiest: Sometimes we only end up with 5 initial nominees, which is fun since it means we already have a consensus unless someone prefers a player that wasn't initially nominated over the top-5. Year to year it changes, but OLotY is probably the easiest most seasons just because we have 3 metrics to use, and most of the time we end up with a ballot of: top-three in pancakes without a sack, best player in pancakes that allowed a sack, and then an argument on more pancakes vs less sacks allowed for the final spot. All-in-all pretty simple, especially since the winner of the award is almost guaranteed the moment the final index update comes out. KotY and PotY are relatively easy since we generally have a pretty clear top group, while the same goes for DTotY.
Hardest: For specific situations where an award was hard to settle, a few come to mind. We had RBotY one season where I remember it being Toriki vs another RB for that final spot. It got pretty heated, and eventually we settled on sending 6 nominations since we couldn't decide on who to cut for the final 5 (we also had the same happen for RETotY that season, except I think we sent 4 since the top 4 were head and shoulders above). This was before we really used straw polls on the committee as well, which has certainly makes those cut downs a bit easier now. The best part was I don't think either RB received any votes, and the awards committee heads swore off of sending 6 after that. Even with straw polls we've had a few awards come to a split vote where committee heads broke the tie. I was going to say we had it just last season, but apparently time flies because it was all the way back in S26 when QBotY came down to Fujiwara and Cole. The two were dead even in votes, so the heads had to break the tie and we ended up sending Fujiwara (despite a few calls to send 6 I believe). Then the season after that the same thing happened to SotY, where Roberts and Smoothie were tied for the final spot. In more general terms, DPotY and LBotY are two of the hardest each season, just because of the sheer amount of great players and stats to compare. Tackles, sacks, TFLs, Ints, FFs, FRs, PDs, TDs, and catch percentage all have to be weighted against each other which makes things really tough. Plus for LBotY in particular we tend to have the biggest list of initial nominees to cut down from. Occasionally DPERFotY can be difficult because you end up with multiple players that had a statline of "2 turnovers, 1 TD," with occasional ones being identical down to the number of tackles. In this case it's not a problem of comparing vastly different statlines, but instead deciding between practically identical ones. Both breakout awards are also tough, because nobody actually knows what counts as a breakout so we all have to vote based on our interpretation, whether it be most improvement shown, players going from bad to not bad, players going from not good to good, or any combination of it, and it was even worse when position switched players were eligible. I think that of our 10 or so OBoY nominees this season I made arguments for cutting maybe 7 or 8 of them, which is also unique since normally the issue with awards is deciding who to cut, not who to keep. MVP can be tough for a similar reason, because some treat it as our best player award (which is what I tend to do, by comparing them to their peers from past seasons) while others use a more literal interpretation and take regular season record into account or favor QBs and RBs over WRs and defensive players. The final award I want to shout out here is TEotY, because it actually fits into both categories. As of late, it's definitely one of the easier ones, since there's not a ton of people to choose between in the first place and the top guys tend to be pretty clear. In the early seasons though? Before positional eligibility was a thing we had to compare the TEs that played at WR a ton (thinking specifically of Phillips here, back when he was a TE) to the in-line TEs and ask how we compare their receiving stats knowing that. And once positional eligibility became a thing I remember that still being an issue, especially when we'd have nominees that had to be replaced upon finding they were ineligible.
Quote:When looking at awards that cover multiple positions (MVP, OPOTY, ROTY, etc.), how do you compare across positions?
It varies by committee member, but my policy tends to be comparing them to their peers, and sending a diverse ballot. I'm of the opinion that if we sent the best statlines each season, DPotY would look exactly like LBotY most of the time. As such, I try to spread things out. The first step is comparison to peers. For example, I wanted the DE Leonard Taylor to get an MVP nomination this season. His statline was a bit worse than a good number of LBs, but when I put it into historical context I realized that in my opinion it was the best season we've seen from a DE since at least moving to the new sim. I preferred him over the best recent old sim DEs as well, but the statlines majorly shifted when we swapped sims so I can't really compare that. So comparing players with others at their position is one of the big things I look at (and for those curious, I conceded my stand for him when I found that it would mean sending a ballot with three Yellowknife MVP candidates, despite the team not even making the playoffs). I'd rather have the best at their position in the past few seasons than a player that wasn't even top of the position this season. Of course this isn't always applicable, I do give some preference to positions like QB and RB for MVP and OPotY, but that's one of my main go-tos. Similarly, Mo Magic had the best OL season in league history while William Lim broke the season receiving yards record, so both ended up with OPoY noms when considering how good their seasons were in historical context.
The next distinction I mentioned was a diverse ballot. For example, if we already have two LBs nominated for DPotY, I'll probably push for a DE or a CB over adding a third LB. If the top two LBs are clearly better than the third one, I don't really see the point in adding a player that won't get any votes, where there might be GMs that prefer the DE or CB statline to said linebackers. Of course, that's not a set in stone rule for me when one position truly had many great options, but it's another important thing I look for on both sides of the ball.
Quote:What is your personal favorite award to discuss?
Maybe OLotY, because even though it's relatively simple I still love the position I play ofc. The best part is when it's so close you have to resort to sifting through penalty totals (especially in the old sim where you had to look at weekly game splits in the index to compile them without Wolfie Bot or seeing penalty totals in the sim itself) to find an edge. I will admit it is a bit painful cutting myself from the nominees season after season, however. I think I really do enjoy CBotY, since it's like LBotY in that there are really diverse statlines to choose from and yet it's not as hard to sift through in my opinion. I also still love being able to use/view catch percentages in the new sim, which is a big plus. MVP, OPoY, and DPoY feel like copouts but those are pretty fun too. Some seasons they're the most heated, but comparing across positions is one of my favorite things to do. And because I'm allowed to have more than the 5 favorites I've already mentioned, I'm gonna give a more general answer: the positions where I either have a stake in the outcome (those involving Zona players) or the positions where the winner is unknown (so not QBotY, RBotY, and OLotY this past season). It really does vary each season, but it's basically any award where we get a lot of varied discussion (without going overboard), which tends to be the above things mentioned (minus OLotY, sadly).
Quote:What’s the most frustrating part of being a rep?
Probably circular arguments, where it's a constant cycle of the same points being made for each side. Generally it happens with efficiency vs volume I think, but not always. There's been a few awful points made over the seasons that were either entirely subjective, didn't matter, or actually hurt the rep's case in my book, but those are rather infrequent and I tend to find them funny in hindsight. Other reps having blind bias can be annoying, but I also totally understand it. Every rep is, at least in my book, assumed and expected to be biased, but occasionally there are times when reps continuously come out swinging for their own guys without at least acknowledging they might be biased, considering the nuances of the argument, and/or understanding when it's a losing fight. You never want to be the guy that sat there idly and let their player get cut, so while I'm not a fan when it becomes blatant I still get where there coming from and I'm sure I've done it myself. That being said, most of this is rather infrequent so I can definitely handle it.
And now that I'm thinking about it more, I've realized what my former undisputed #1 would be: hard locking each award. I'm incredibly thankful we can hard lock our nomination lists with one poll, rather than doing it award by award in the past. It really isn't that time consuming, but I'm pretty sure I hated having to do it.
And I'm once again coming back to this after remembering something, having people that got a nomination not get listed on the stream is one more thing that bugs me, since we often have in-depth discussions on final cuts for an award where the winner is already a given, and the main reason we do it is because just getting a nomination is considered an award in and of itself. So having those people that ended up being good enough for a nomination not make it into the stream (which I'm honestly forgetting the reason it happens) makes me feel for them.
Quote:What’s the most rewarding part?
Managing to get Zona players on ballots, having series' great discussions on awards, getting to see the list of nominations get released, and the $2+ million fake dollars are probably the most rewarding in my book. Also having the guys I went to bat for in disputed awards make the cut on a vote can be pretty fun. Seeing guys that made the list as the 5th person get votes is fun in its own right, because it means we didn't have a really heated discussion on that final cut for no reason. On the flip side, I feel kinda bad for it but there's something humorous in seeing someone end up getting no votes when I distinctly remember that conversation on who to cut for said award getting intense.
Quote:How would you define a criteria for the “break out awards”?
My personal criteria is any player that goes from average/below average to good/great, and then among those players the ones who showed the most improvement. Even if a player has their best season yet, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a breakout in my book. Going from a very poor statline to a mediocre one isn't a breakout to me, since they haven't "broken out" - they're still not a good player yet. Alternatively, the best players in the league can't necessarily break out either. If Bruce Buckley gets 150 pancakes next season, it'll be his best season (and the best for an OL to date), but I would argue that he already broke out long ago, this is just progression from elite to more elite. And then most improvement is how I personally cut things down, since not all breakouts are created the same. I wouldn't include previous awards as precluding people from eligibility, but it is something to consider. For example, I believe some people weren't happy that I won OBoY despite having made the Pro Bowl in the past. However, I rationalized that with knowing that OL has the most Pro Bowl spots and is a relatively shallow position, so the odds of not picking up a Pro Bowl berth by them were very low. With situations like that, getting nominated for an award in the past shouldn't necessarily prevent someone from getting a nomination, but it certainly hurts their case in that there's a good chance it proves that they've already broken out.
All of that being said, I'd be more than happy for an actual criteria, considering how varied interpretations of what the award means are.
Quote:Do you think the mvp ballot should be all eligible players or at least all players nominated for thier positional awards?
I think that's actually a great idea I hadn't considered. I know the point of the committee is to narrow things down for GMs, but MVP is one award (kind of like GMotY) where I wouldn't mind it. If so, I'd definitely restrict it to positional award nominations, and we'd have to see how GMs take to it. If votes are super spread out I think it'd be proof we need to narrow the list down for them, but otherwise it gives them more freedom to use their personal interpretation of MVP.
I figure here is a great spot to give you and Arkz a quick shoutout for being awesome committee heads each season, with keeping everything rolling smoothly behind the scenes. And also a thank you to everyone that gave questions, I'm always happy to answer any in the future!
