(12-28-2013, 10:12 PM)Peter Fn Gilmour Said:

(12-28-2013, 03:59 PM)Theo Pryce Said:

(12-28-2013, 03:58 PM)Peter Fn Gilmour Said: Bad idea

Care to elaborate on that well thought out statement?

im all for having a contenders list but what maddy put up i did not like that much.. just saying..

id rather have the list and have the champs fight the guys from say #5 up in succession. was thinking of what TNA used to do but forgot..

It's funny you mention that as there used to be an official TNA fed in like 04-05 and the rules there were similar. But what they did was give people marks, as I recall out of 5 with .25 increments, and then they'd have a weekly kind of 'league' showing who was weekly the best, and on average the best.

This way people are ranked not on win/loss, but on their writing. Im sure I expounded on this in more detail last year when people turned on Tax' s win/loss ranking system on the old board (for reasons similar to what Duke wrote). But, basically, this system would be impossible here. Even if a GM tasked themselves with ranking and collating rankings, there are so many instances of multiple judges, with their own criteria and preferences that it just wouldn't work getting consistent 'official' rankings the old tna way. And you can't really have 'independent' weekly ranking judges, imagine the hassle if the 'official judges' ruled differently to the results? Too much potential drama.