Just tossing in my 2 cents again.
Of the concepts that have been tabled so far, I strongly prefer the pre-consolidation idea.
I agree with
@BenchBrawl that we would be far better equipped for a top-X project if we first create a repository of information about each season. This would have a similar impact to the early suggestions about a "best players of each season" or "best by birth year" type of project. My concern is that if we
don't do something like that, participation in the top-X list will dwindle to a literal handful by the end. Even submitting a preliminary list would be a high initial bar for most of us to clear, let alone laying out detailed arguments in the 10th round of the project.
On a related note, I agree with
@TheDevilMadeMe that we may be biting off more than we can chew if we go to 100 names. Personally I'd love to see a 100-name list and would be willing to commit to that, but I question how many people are actually going to lay out detailed arguments for Pud Glass vs Frank Rankin when we're in Week 20. I think 50 sounds like a more reasonable scale for the list. And I say that with the understanding that we could be talking about multiple months of preliminary research before we even start the list portion of the project.
).
