Austin's Rule Proposals

[Eco]

I think if we do go with an awards committee they should essentially nominate 3-4 people for each award and list relevant stats. it would help get rid of unanimous awards being completely boring in the presentation and might allow GMs to see players that they overlook. And of course if the committee overlooks someone the GMs can always add extra nominations. the committee wont vote but simply make the GMs lives a little easier and help shine light on players that mightve been overlooked

100% this.

Edit: I would also suggest letting that committee do the same thing for HoF and Pro Bowl.

[SwagSloth]

I agree with the Awards committee as well. Just had a conversation in the Portland LR yesterday. In the DSFL the guy that led the league in TD's at WR had 9...the next best had 6...and had the same Y/R as the WRotY. There was another guy with near identical stats as the WRotY - 1 less catch, about 10 less yards, same Y/R and same TDs. Neither one was even nominated. I'm not saying either of them would have won - SJJ was a deserving candidate as well - but for the others to not even get a nomination sucks.

The problem with this is the way "nominations" occur. We don't nominate 3-4 people and vote on them. The only way anyone is "nominated" is by receiving a vote. So, if you have a player with equal TDs to the WRotY and only 10 less yards, while they certainly deserve to be in the conversation, they're not more deserving on an actual vote over the winner. This is how we get situations where one player receives all the votes if they're the clear frontrunner.

It was suggested at one point that we nominate 1-2 people that weren't voted on whenever only 1-2 players get votes in order to highlight top tier players and make the nomination slides look complete, but people couldn't agree on who would decide the names of the extra players.

[AdamS]

100% this.

Edit: I would also suggest letting that committee do the same thing for HoF and Pro Bowl.

baby steps but yes

[AdamS]

I was on a SHL awards committee and we had a discord to talk about each award and someone made charts and everything. It really enhances the award picks imo and would love something like that here.

Also the name change makes sense since the acronym is not great

this is where id want it to go personally

a dedicated space for the committee to work together on creates interaction and teamwork throughout the seaosn rather than a panicked rush in a compacted time period

and would also allow greater organization in setup, execution, and the side tasks that come wiht awards, like keeping the graphics team invovled and updating records and scuh

[SwagSloth]

Initially, I was against a committee because the whole complaint against GMs was human error and team bias, which is something that would still be an issue with a committee. All it seemed to do was take the decision out of our hands and put it into the hands of another group that would seem to have the same problems.

However, you do raise a good point about the offseason being super busy and having a dedicated group of people who can work on this throughout the season is interesting. I think I could get behind a committee on that basis.

[AdamS]

Initially, I was against a committee because the whole complaint against GMs was human error and team bias, which is something that would still be an issue with a committee. All it seemed to do was take the decision out of our hands and put it into the hands of another group that would seem to have the same problems.

However, you do raise a good point about the offseason being super busy and having a dedicated group of people who can work on this throughout the season is interesting. I think I could get behind a committee on that basis.

the kind of systems and ratings and charts ive seen people produce is insane and i really think we can take the award seaosn up to a whole different level rather than kind of an afterthought