Re: Cast votes for whether you're for or against New Award: Rookie GM
by
Wolveraider
@
11/23/2017 12:49 pm
Voting for.
Warthog wrote:
In principle, I am willing to go along with this. But in reality, how many new GMs is there going to be each year vying for this award, 1? 2? At least I hope it is a small number. So is an award really needed when so few are actually eligible?
That said....sure would be a bummer if you were the only new GM and didn't win the award.
Re: Cast votes for whether you're for or against New Award: Rookie GM
by
raymattison21
@
11/23/2017 2:30 pm
For.
To enlarge the number of possible applications a set criteria that would allow for more chances to compete for the award thus allowing more chances for applicants .
For example, havin at least 16 regular season games under thier belt but not over 32 while only allowing one chance to win that award.
Still, with only one new user a season would make you a lock. I also like the idea of eight to 24 games for a qualification .
While taking three seasons to turn around a team.....especially a bad one definitely is not unheard of and could possibly deserve recognition .
Taking all this into mind would no doubt deepen the pot to choose from.
Last edited 11/23/2017 10:04 pm
Re: Cast votes for whether you're for or against New Award: Rookie GM
