Yet another example of why pure democracy doesn't work, and that some people should lead, and others should... well, sit down, shut up, and do what they're told -- RhitTaker Inc. Messageboard

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 15:03:59 08/25/03 Mon
Author: Chooch
Subject: Yet another example of why pure democracy doesn't work, and that some people should lead, and others should... well, sit down, shut up, and do what they're told
In reply to: BOBBY 's message, "Re: RhitTaker Playoffs" on 11:11:34 08/25/03 Mon

In the quasi-democracy that much of the world employs, 2 logical and feasible alternatives are generated by those in power, and the masses decide between the 2 options. This has proven to be an effective form of organization. However, when idea generation is left to the masses, you get stuff like this.

I am not quite certain as to what Bobby thinks adding another division, but keeping the same number of playoff teams, would accomplish. Before assigining teams to divisions, it would have absolutely no impact on each team's given chances to make the playoffs. After assigning teams to divisions, it would put 4 teams at a decided advantage for making the playoffs. For those of you who are not math buffs, 3 does not divide evenly into 14. So, there would have to be 2 divisions with 5 teams, and 1 division with 4 teams. It is noticeably easier to beat out 3 teams for a playoff spot than it is to beat out 4 teams. So, putting 10 teams at a disadvantage simply by assigning divisions hardly seems like the way to go. Remember that when we did the 3-division thing before, we had 12 real teams and 2 expansion teams that were not exactly playoff threats. So, basically, there were 4 teams in each division competing for the divisional crown. 14 does not have the most factors in the world (1, 2, 7, 14). So, we could either have 1 division of 14 teams, 2 divisions of 7 teams, 7 divisions of 2 teams, or 14 divisions of 1 team. Obviously only the first 2 options are realistic.

"ADDING A TEAM WILL MAKE THE FIELD MORE EVEN". And just what is the logic behind this statement? The levelness of the field is affected by the number of playoff teams about as much as the Dow Jones index is affected by the KOP's bio-rhythm chart.

"WE HAD SUCCESS WITH IT". If success is defined by producing the most pathetic champion in the league's history, while the best team in the league's history (by record) didn't even play for the crown, then... hell yeah! We did it! Woohoo!

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

KARL WILL YOU PLEASE GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE FOR ONE MIN. -- FUCKING CHRIST, 17:16:32 08/25/03 Mon
- My freakin' word -- Chooch, 21:41:26 08/25/03 Mon
  - Hey bitch -- lurh, 22:07:16 08/25/03 Mon
    - Whoa.. you and Bob weren't keeping any daisies in the backyard, were you? (NT) -- Digger + Hose = 20/40 = Gardening Friends, 22:19:47 08/25/03 Mon
      - oh, ok. -- lurh, 00:53:43 08/26/03 Tue
  - WELL I WAS JUST HAVING ONE OF THOSE DAYS (NT) -- I JUST GOT PISSED/BOBBY, 10:01:30 08/26/03 Tue