Bodogblog

July 11th, 2017 at 11:42 AM ^

1. This particular post is questioning a statement by one of the authors that it's a vocal minority who don't like it. OP doesn't think that's true, so he's testing it. That can be valuable information for the site.

2. Critique is a part of life when you provide content to the public. The question is easily turned around to say "why is everyone so touchy about the complaints about Draftgeddon?" There seem to be good suggestions offered that could improve the series. There's nothing wrong with that.

Cali's Goin' Blue

July 11th, 2017 at 12:17 PM ^

First, any comment you start with "Why is everyone so touchy" is usually not something you want to be asking. But the answer to that question is because people complain about draftageddon so much and with so much consistency on a site where the content is free and the authors have explained multiple times why they write draftageddon.

They have explained it is not a fantasy team because they have lineman and linebackers, yet people still call it a fantasy team. They have explained that the reason they do it in this format is because it makes it more fun to scout the worst teams in the B1G(Rutgers, Purdue, Illinois), yet people say they should just provide basic scouting reports of the teams. Other commenters have explained that this content is nice during the offseason and that it allows you to be more knowledgeable when the season rolls around, helping with the game previews and such. Yet people still complain. 

Finally, the only suggestions from people that I have seen(obviously not all of them, but many) have not taken into account what the authors have already said about draftageddon and why they do it. They ignore the fact that scouting the bottom dwellers is not fun other than in this format. That is just one example, and I am willing to admit that there are good ideas for improving draftageddon if the suggestions take into account what the authors have already said. 

blue in dc

July 11th, 2017 at 6:31 PM ^

Is a result of Seth's reponse that it was only a vocal minority that didn't like it. Without that comment (which I continue to question) today's who;e thread would not exist. As far as I can tell from comments, there are four groups:

1. A group that truly likes draftaggeden - it may be my bias, but this in fact seems to be a pretty small group

2. A group that reads draftaggeden because they love Michigan football and in July are starved for any content they can find. There defenses of draftaggeden are alng the lines of, it's free, don't read it if you don't like it, if Brian/Seth et all like it, I'm not going to complain. These don't seem to be ringing endorsements.

3. A group that doesn't like draftaggeden and is pretty vocal about it - this has been characterized by Seth as a vocal minority but based on the poll, user commens and upvotes downvotes this group seems to be surprisingly large given the dearth of July contentt.

4. A group of commenters who doesn't read it and doesn't care.

For a time when there is so little content out there, group 1 seems to be awfully small and groups 3 and 4 seem to be surprisingly large.

In most businesses this would generally be seen as an opportunity to reallocate resources to something more productive not as an opportunity to criticize loyal readers who support the site and are generally just trying to provide constructive critisism.

MGoblog has a well deserved large and loyal following so they can afford to do some of this but in general its not a great business strategy.

Bodogblog

July 11th, 2017 at 12:42 PM ^

If it wasn't obvious, I'm trying to mimic the tone of multiple responses below entreating some form of "I just don't get why everyone bitches about Draftgeddon!", though much more rude than that. Touchy is tame by comparison, though I look forward to you dad'ing all of those comments below as you believed you were mine.

People we it as being the same as a fantasy draft in that teams are picked and results bragged about or mocked. They're not arguing that it's literally a fantasy team and don't care about distinguishing the two.

I see a lot of good suggestions in these threads.

Cali's Goin' Blue

July 11th, 2017 at 12:58 PM ^

Why do you have to start namecalling with the "dad'ing" comment? I wasn't aggressive to you or anybody on this board. And I wasn't saying that "touchy" is a bad word, rather that when people start a question with "Why are people so sensitive about..." they are usually not good questions to be asking, or there could be a better way to phrase it, I should have been more clear. But, I was trying to explain the reasoning for the defenders of Draftageddon. Also, what are these suggestions that you've seen? I'm not questioning the validity of your statement, just wondering where and what they are? I don't read all the comments on the Draftageddon posts, but the suggestions I see don't take into account what the authors have already said. 

blue in dc

July 11th, 2017 at 6:01 PM ^

That the problem is not using the draft as a way to generate the information but rather as a way to present the information. You could still do the draft (taking into account what the authors have said) but present it in a much more readable format). For instance have a discussion of the best qbs based on the draft results and insights rather than having info on qbs scattered across multiple posts.

As I said earlier, ysing a draft as a way to develop the info is a very out of the box idea and the authors have argued eloquently why it is their prefered method. But just because it is a good way to collect the data, that does not make it a good way to present the data.

I realize that likely presents logistical challenges because they probably don't focus on the draft until after HTTV is done and the draft takes multiple days to allow for looking at lower tier teams which might make it more challenging to use this as an early July feature.

Toasted Yosties

July 11th, 2017 at 3:37 PM ^

I'm for an unwritten rule of "if you don't like an article or a message board topic (unless it's already been posted, has formatting issues, etc.), don't go and thrash it, mostly because it keeps the board clean and only with pertinent posts. It's good board etiquette. Don't like the topic, don't post about it. But, what I wrote won't stop anyone from making such comments or posts, just a suggestion that'd make the board better for those who are actually interested. The Talking Cars Tuesday thread is probably a better place than if I went on it and complained because I'm not a car guy. Such behavior is a thread hijack to some degree. It's also pretty easy and painless, you know, not going out of your way to complain about something you're not interested in, especially a free post like Draftageddon, a post I'm also not a huge fan of. Generally, not being a dick is a good thing in my book.

othernel

July 11th, 2017 at 10:22 AM ^

Yeah, I think it's more content in the slowest part of the year.

Are people legit getting annoyed by free content from the guys who provide the best analysis and insight on all things Michigan sports?

dragonchild

July 11th, 2017 at 11:13 AM ^

They have their fun, some people enjoy it and I get to bitch about it.  It's win-win all around.

Well, except for those who are seriously miffed by a free content site doing something they don't like in the nadir of football off-season, I suppose.  But if that annoys anyone, I suggest they take their own advice -- if you can expect them to ignore Draftageddon, well, it's even easier to ignore those bitching about Draftageddon.

All in all I'm. . . eh.  But I'm GenX; I was raised to feel apathy.  Imagine me raising my fist in rage, but like one of those DMV sloths in "Zootopia".

Down. . . with. . . Draft. . . ageddon.  Long. . . live. . . the new. . . flesh.

copacetic

July 11th, 2017 at 10:24 AM ^

I'm very much in the meh category. Enjoy is a bit too strong of a word, but at this point I'm so desparate for content I'll read just about anything somewhat related to Michigan football. The earlier rounds are definitely more interesting too. Plus it's a nice way to get an early idea of certain players you might not have otherwise heard much about. 

 

jericho

July 11th, 2017 at 10:25 AM ^

I would rather they just preview the other Big 10 teams with emphasis on our opponents for the year. Reading someone else's fantasy draft just doesn't do it for me.

MI Expat NY

July 11th, 2017 at 3:01 PM ^

Everyone does that though.  I bet you could find 20 different previews of every Big Ten team if you looked.  Draftageddon does two things, it essentially ranks the best best players at every position and provides the relative value of guys regardless of position.  Is this the only place to get that type of material? No.  But it's certainly less ubiquitous than full team previews.  

I think it's also helpful to have an understanding where there are positions of weakness accross the whole conference, and hence where having a question mark on your own team may not hurt that badly.  Could they do it in a different way? Of course.  That said, I think if you're reading it and calling it "someone else's fantasy draft," you're missing the point.  It's a different way of viewing the conference, that if everyone is being honest, is probably more enlightening than other conference preview formats.  

Lefthighkick

July 11th, 2017 at 10:26 AM ^

There's still some entertainment to be had reading it even if you don't care about Draftageddon itself (I don't.) I think it's fine for the occasional self-indulgent bit of content to show up on an amazing, free, site like this. Especially during the off-season. We'll be in the thick of it a month and change from now, just hang in there!

Bodogblog

July 11th, 2017 at 10:28 AM ^

There's going to be a recency bias in this poll bc a lot of people are going to look at yesterday's article and say it was great. And I thought it was. The problem with Draftgeddon is that soon enough the authors will fall in love with their snark, and before long there's more snark than football. But you have to get some picks built up before that happens.

If they can pay attention to this it can be a really good feature.

mgowild

July 11th, 2017 at 10:34 AM ^

I don't get it... if you don't like the article, don't read it. No one is forcing you to. Or quit mgoblog and start your own site, where you can provide content that consistently exceeds the expectations of every single reader.

In my best Arnold impression, "STOP WHINING"
 

NRK

July 11th, 2017 at 12:02 PM ^

Fair - and I don't go out of my way to whine about it. I'll post on these type of threads so Brian et al can get a judgement for feedback.

 

But, that being said, if the idea is that "this is they way we prep for internal Big 10 analysis" is the logic (as has been advanced before) then I think the issue is that you have something people might be interested in (Best Players in Big 10) being presented and analyzed in a way that many people don't like (Drafageddon). Those people might otherwise consume the product if not for the presentation method.

 

Given that we & the staff of MGoBlog often hammer other publications for this same content v. presentionat issue (hey here's a video analysis!) - and Brian is a giant leader of that - I think it's only responsible for those of us who have this issue with this very specific piece of MGoBlog content to speak up. It really is for the better of the site in my opinion.

Unsalted

July 11th, 2017 at 10:36 AM ^

So they can do what they want. At first I didn't read them, but I've warmed up to to the feature. I often skip to the end to see who they drafted. Easy way to keep up on where M's talent fits in with the rest of the B1G.

FauxMo

July 11th, 2017 at 10:38 AM ^

I don't really care for it. But I have found a 100% effective solution to this problem... I don't read it, think about it, or may it any mind whatsoever. VOILA! 

When did the concept of mutual indifference die in the world? I don't like most people. Therefore, I avoid them, and move on... 

FauxMo

July 11th, 2017 at 10:52 AM ^

I only do that to people that don't get the hint and continue to engage me, when I've made it clear I have no interest in their friendship, opinions, etc. 

To them, I make passively aggressive comments like, "yowza, your wife has really stacked on the pounds, hasn't she?" or "Really, your husband is STILL unemployed???" 

Mack Tandonio

July 11th, 2017 at 11:24 AM ^

Even when it comes to particularly grating personalities, I think it's better they remain happily ignorant of my true feelings towards them. Making them feel bad does nothing for me.

I think of it like the gender pronouns thing. I'll refer to you however you want if you think it'll make you happy. Hell, if it makes you happy, you can refer to me however you like, as long as you aren't offended by the bland countenance of a man thinking about something more interesting... like Michigan Football.