Settled would be if the group arrived at a logical and supported conclusion and built a consensus around it.
Instead you've swept it under the rug without a meeting of the minds, and moved on to debates that are necessarily dependent on the size of the talent pool. You've skipped an essential step.
The relative size of the talent pool is not a matter of opinion, nor is it remotely beyond our means to estimate within reasonable margins of error. It isn't something where one guy is entitled to believe one thing, and another guy is entitled to believe something entirely different.
The ONLY way for cross generational comparisons to have validity is if you and others are able to have a supportable answer to the question I posed to you. As it stands, I'd be surprised if the participants of the project were within 100% of each other on the facts.
My logic is sound, and obvious. I think you can imagine the significant variations in player evaluations that would inevitably result from misunderstanding the size of the talent pool. If not, perhaps we should walk through some scenarios.
If I wasn't pointing out these flaws, someone else inevitably would. There is no act here and I'd appreciate it if you understood that my motive is to come to the correct conclusions - conclusions that are respectful to old time hockey and equally as respectful to the players of today.
So what exactly were you expecting from the participants, some sort of agreed upon formula that states something like "players from 1910 are to have their accomplishments reduced by 50%, players from 1960 are to have their accomplishments reduced 20%, etc."? That's pretty much what it sounds like. Because as has been pointed out repeatedly, discussions of varying degrees of formality concerning talent pool size/strength have been taking place on this message board since I joined it in 2006, and presumably before that.
The relative size of the talent pool may not be a matter of opinion, per se. I mean, obviously there is some sort of absolute number that could be attached to it, though there is certainly disagreement on what that number is.
What IS a matter of opinion is how somebody chooses to proceed with the data.
Some people are of the
opinion that greater diversity in country of origin has created conditions more likely to produce a higher number of great players.
Some people are of the
opinion that a more numerous raw population of theoretical participants will necessarily produce a higher number of great players.
Some people are of the
opinion that a larger talent pool automatically equates to a better talent pool.
Some people are of the
opinion that accomplishments achieved in an era with a smaller talent pool are worth less than similar ones from an era with a larger talent pool.
The root of this issue is that a small number of people have been rather insistent that the above points are matters of fact rather than matters of opinion, and they seemingly will not rest until everyone else has been converted to their viewpoint.