Talk Fantasy Football

That's exactly why building up those contacts over the years is so important, they are the people who do go on the site and therefore do vote.

Nice basic analysis. Just one honest question: you mentioned that the turning point was when Nate asked Ben and Shaun on how they would staff VP and MD. I‘m just curious on how you believe that was a turning point and what answer caused that change of mind for the voters? (If I‘m not mistaken only Shaun wrote an extensive answer - unless I missed Ben‘s response)

I don't think it was a turning point in that it changed any votes but more indicates how with Nate's long term involvement he could probably rattle of a number of people distributed across the world he has worked with previously and knows their capability, but that a newcomer through lack of opportunity, does not have those links in the same way. A more recent person to the NAF would have a much shallower pool to pick from and likely be closer geographically. And although addressed by Shaun, I don't he gave any specifics, although I have not gone back to check the details.

I am not claiming any special insight just my opinion and a fun thought experiment.

Was there a NAF newsletter sent out publicising there vote?

Disclaimer: it’s more likely that I missed it, than this not happening, but I can’t remember!

I don’t agree with the ‘people won’t be bothered ‘cos they just want to play games’, seems pretty obvious that whoever wins would have a potentially unlimited impact on the games that are played (due to directing rulesets, tournament design, star player access etc.).

Jip wrote:Was there a NAF newsletter sent out publicising there vote?

There was a newsletter sent out containing the election. It was sent around Jan 5 (i don‘t exactly remember if it was 4, 5 or 6

Jip wrote: I don’t agree with the ‘people won’t be bothered ‘cos they just want to play games’, seems pretty obvious that whoever wins would have a potentially unlimited impact on the games that are played (due to directing rulesets, tournament design, star player access etc.).

I don't agree either, but that's reality.
Most people just don't care, and the ones we care just can see any difference among the candidates.
I know someone will tell that if I don't agree any of them I just can stand up and present myself, but I won't. We had the chance with Pako and everybody knows how it ended up.

And for the newer coaches, who or what is Pako?

Pako was a protest candidate back in the day, he was upset that he missed out on a place at the Amsterdam World Cup and ground his axe against the NAF for many years as a result. Nice guy in real life.

I believed that at the time, but having spoken to Pako in real life and over on the Spanish forum a few times, I think he's a very passionate bloke who's points got garbled via the language barrier and the characterisation you make there, Joe (which I shared at the time) is a mite unfair.

I've long thought that perhaps our ravenous for BB friends in France, Italy and Spain have less interest in the overall workings of the NAF than we'd like them to have, and I think these new numbers illustrate that. Engaging these communities more effectively should be high on our list of priorities. I would very much like it if, at the next presidential (or TD, or anything else!) election, we have at least one candidate for whom English isn't a first language (or the candidate didn't have such good English it might as well be). As with the Pako example, it will probably be tricky to get over every nuance of a manifesto via Google Translate, but the first step is having someone care enough to stand!

It's certainly a subject that I'm bringing up come the next committee meeting, and I'm already chatting with coaches here and there.