I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

[Hache Man]

One thing I failed to address in the official rules to this contest was the problem later on in which some teams/players may be out of the running to reach the playoffs & therefore stop making their selections.

If this looked to be the case, and an opponent who looked to be bailing out on the season had not submitted any picks by tipoff on Friday, which is the final day of each week's matchup, I would simply make random picks for them.

If for some reason the opponent did come in afterward & make their selections after I had, before all of his games had started of course, then we would obviously go with his picks.

In my opinion this is the only way to keep things competitive & fair to everyone later on.

Opinions by all welcome.........

 

[njdave]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

sounds ok

 

[PO69]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

That wouldnt be fair for the guys who got byes early on in the season against those opponents.


You just get lucky in those weeks. ALL of my opponents have made selections thus far

 

[Hache Man]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

That wouldnt be fair for the guys who got byes early on in the season against those opponents.

Hasn't happened yet though.

That's why I'm bringing it up now while it's still early enough.....

 

[MikeOswald]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

There already have been a few matchups where there were no picks made by a poster, and the other poster won by default.

I agree though, there has to be some type of system in place to prevent people from getting uncontested wins

 

[ballwonder]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

Thats fine.

 

[Hache Man]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

There already have been a few matchups where there were no picks made by a poster, and the other poster won by default.

I think that is just because they simply forget though Mike, wouldn't you agree? Not because they are already out of the contest.....

 

[MikeOswald]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

I think that is just because they simply forget though Mike, wouldn't you agree? Not because they are already out of the contest.....

Well rcrowe has not made plays in 3 straight weeks and stump hasn't in 2 straight weeks.

 

[PO69]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

It is part of the game if you ask me. I dont think that you should pick for anyone

 

[Hache Man]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

So far, 3 for it, 2 against.


Let's see how it plays out.....

 

[Finance]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

I have to think about it a bit - I think we have to do something but I've had a competitive tie in a week where I just got 2 right - lucky that the opponent only got 2 also...I'm not sure if I would be more pissed if someone won against nobody or if I lost to your random plays..

 

[wiskers]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

i don't think you can randomly make picks cause somebody will whine you made good picks against him and you made bad picks the against a different guy on purpose. i think you would have to make it so each week the person gets the 1st 7 dogs or favorites on the board and keep it that way the rest of the year. if you would do this it would also be fair to go back and use that system with any weeks that a person did not have an their guy put in picks and determine a winner then. i had an opponant that did not make picks this week

 

[PO69]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

Well BY ALL MEANS dont give them the 7 dogs. They would have to be 7 favorites

 

[socceres1]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

probably don't do random picks. Since before some got a bye, not fair now to start picking. Maybe put offending contestants on some kind of probation. Like before season started, it says during the season some extra contest during contest to win free play, maybe people that keep missing weeks do not qualify for that.

I have another question that not sure if on another thread. I looked at standings and noted the leader in my conference has record 4-1-3 and it says 80%. 4/8 games I don't think is 80%. I think a better way to grade is like either soccer or hockey in the old days. If like in soccer, can award 3 points for win, 1 for tie and 0 for loss. Or if like hockey in old days, 2 points for win, 1 for tie and 0 for loss. Can we maybe vote on this too? I mean someone can go 7-4-7 and that is not 64%.

 

[trytrytry]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

i don't have a horse in the race so disregard my thoughts... reading this and thinking about it I don't see how "you or a contest manager" can make selections for a poster in a contest...that is the way the ball bounces...this contest or any other where a poster makes an error, stops playing, wins the lottery, posts a favorite instead of a dog, misses a time line or just plain stops playing because he has a crush on this specific opponent..that is just the way it goes...

 

[ballwonder]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

Well BY ALL MEANS dont give them the 7 dogs. They would have to be 7 favorites

Do you ever make things easy?

 

[PO69]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

Well I am finding my way out of this shit real quick. Some people have already had walks this season. No reason to change the rules now. But if you do pick, then at least pick all of the favorites. Make it a little tougher for the blind picks to do better. Also, then you really are not picking anything each week. We already know what to expect.


But I still am against giving picks at all

 

[Pickandwin2]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

How about if the random Picks were cut Short ?

Meaning that "If" you had to make these Random picks, only Post 5 plays in Total with NO Free-throw

I think that would be Fair game...Cuts down the chances of Hache's plays to beat the opponent.

Just a thought 12io4j2w90

 

[Hache Man]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

I appreciate everyone's opinions.

We will just leave as is.

All I ask is that if if falls against any of us later on, that we don't complain.

We will probably do as someone else suggested, and I have thought about in the past, and penalize posters/players who enter a contest and don't finish or stick with it, by expelling them from some future contests.

Thanks Guys

 

[HotStreak]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

My first thought is to make a default record for the non picker. Say 2-4-1.
The active person goes 3-4(or better) and gets a win. It would also give a person who had a busy week outside the forums, an outside chance to win, if circumstances prevented them from picking one week.

No one is making the playoffs going 2-4-1 each week, so people who have stopped picking will fall to the bottom as we move forward.

I'm sure this idea can be tweaked and improved upon by the group.

Just my thoughts.12io4j2w90

 

[Chackiee]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

i don't have a horse in the race so disregard my thoughts... reading this and thinking about it I don't see how "you or a contest manager" can make selections for a poster in a contest...that is the way the ball bounces...this contest or any other where a poster makes an error, stops playing, wins the lottery, posts a favorite instead of a dog, misses a time line or just plain stops playing because he has a crush on this specific opponent..that is just the way it goes...

I Agree12io4j2w90

 

[roseman]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

Im good with your recommendation Hache.

 

[Hache Man]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

I have another question that not sure if on another thread. I looked at standings and noted the leader in my conference has record 4-1-3 and it says 80%. 4/8 games I don't think is 80%. I think a better way to grade is like either soccer or hockey in the old days. If like in soccer, can award 3 points for win, 1 for tie and 0 for loss. Or if like hockey in old days, 2 points for win, 1 for tie and 0 for loss. Can we maybe vote on this too? I mean someone can go 7-4-7 and that is not 64%.

Basically this is a little different & a tie is acting as non-factor except that is it much better than a loss. As you can see, there are just too many weeks in which we all hit 3, 4, 5 games for example, and it ends in a tie. It's a twist I know, but a good one in my opinion.....

 

[socceres1]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

Basically this is a little different & a tie is acting as non-factor except that is it much better than a loss. As you can see, there are just too many weeks in which we all hit 3, 4, 5 games for example, and it ends in a tie. It's a twist I know, but a good one in my opinion.....

a tie cannot be a non factor though to be fair I think. For example, lets say one players goes 10-2-4 for 83% if go by your interpretation. Is that better than a player that goes 11-3-3 which is 78%? If grade by hockey points, the first would have 24 and the 2nd 25. Well just my thought and if yours differs that is kool, but would like others opinions in this if possible.

 

[Augustus]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

I mentioned in the other thread that your logics on winning percentage are wrong, it seems that you don't understand what is winning percentage. It is the same as won/loss percentage = total wins divided by the total games played.

A tie can not be treated as a non-factor? It may be much better than a win. Let me give you an example,

Look at the Week 9 standing, Finance's record is 5-1-3, 83%, my record is 6-2-1, 75%. In soccer or hockey in the old days or the current NFL, our records are the same, i.e. 6.5 wins divided by 9 games = 72.2%. 2 ties are equal to 1 win 1 loss.

If a tie is treated as a non-factor, and Finance has 3 ties for the next 3 weeks, his record is 5-1-6, 83%. If I am lucky enough to have 3 wins for the next 3 weeks, my record is just 9-2-1, 81.81 %.

5 ties are better than 4 wins 1 loss, I strongly against this type of winning percentage.

I think it is better to change to point system to avoid future arguement. And, we have to decide whether we want

1. 3 points for win, 1 for tie and 0 for loss or
2. 2 points for win, 1 for tie and 0 for loss

 

[pats3peat]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

a tie cannot be a non factor though to be fair I think. For example, lets say one players goes 10-2-4 for 83% if go by your interpretation. Is that better than a player that goes 11-3-3 which is 78%? If grade by hockey points, the first would have 24 and the 2nd 25. Well just my thought and if yours differs that is kool, but would like others opinions in this if possible.

agreed, tie as non-factor is ridiculous

 

[Bucsfan67]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

I mentioned in the other thread that your logics on winning percentage are wrong, it seems that you don't understand what is winning percentage. It is the same as won/loss percentage = total wins divided by the total games played.

A tie can not be treated as a non-factor? It may be much better than a win. Let me give you an example,

Look at the Week 9 standing, Finance's record is 5-1-3, 83%, my record is 6-2-1, 75%. In soccer or hockey in the old days or the current NFL, our records are the same, i.e. 6.5 wins divided by 9 games = 72.2%. 2 ties are equal to 1 win 1 loss.

If a tie is treated as a non-factor, and Finance has 3 ties for the next 3 weeks, his record is 5-1-6, 83%. If I am lucky enough to have 3 wins for the next 3 weeks, my record is just 9-2-1, 81.81 %.

5 ties are better than 4 wins 1 loss, I strongly against this type of winning percentage.

I think it is better to change to point system to avoid future arguement. And, we have to decide whether we want

1. 3 points for win, 1 for tie and 0 for loss or
2. 2 points for win, 1 for tie and 0 for loss

Augustus does have a good point...according to the current way, 5 ties would help a guy better than 4 wins and 1 loss, and that isnt right....I have always done the same in my contests, as stated above, 2 ties equals 1 win, 1 loss....

or go by the standard we used for best damn capper, that everyone seemed to like, simply award 100 points for winning week, and -110 for losing week....that way a tie helps, but not as good as a win...

 

[Bucsfan67]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

as far as the question in this thread, i dont like the idea of making picks, but maybe as another poster stated, you could set the bar for non picks at 3-4....if a guy goes 3-4 against non picks, its a tie, if he goes better, he wins.....

 

[Hache Man]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

it seems that you don't understand what is winning percentage.

Cmon AW, you know better than that.

I already explained.

Actually you may surprised to know that I actually agree.

Let me explain how it even came to the point of ties not factoring in.

When the forumal was figured into the scoring sheet program, the ties were not figured in, and I thought they had been. I hadn't even noticed until a few weeks went by. By then, I thought everyone was ok with it, so I didn't change it. But, after I saw your post inquiring about it, I went back in and tried to change it, but can't seem to get the formula correct.

So, therefore, here we are.

It will take some extra work now to get the standings upgraded correctly as I will have to do much of it manually on the program by copying & pasting, and moving things around. We can change the standings, any suggestions on how to easily grade now would be helpful as I said, the program won't figure the ties in for some reason....

 

[WVU]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

I like your idea Hache, but you have to define "random". I think you should just give them the first 8 home teams on Friday or the first 8 overs.

 

[socceres1]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

Cmon AW, you know better than that.

I already explained.

Actually you may surprised to know that I actually agree.

Let me explain how it even came to the point of ties not factoring in.

When the forumal was figured into the scoring sheet program, the ties were not figured in, and I thought they had been. I hadn't even noticed until a few weeks went by. By then, I thought everyone was ok with it, so I didn't change it. But, after I saw your post inquiring about it, I went back in and tried to change it, but can't seem to get the formula correct.

So, therefore, here we are.

It will take some extra work now to get the standings upgraded correctly as I will have to do much of it manually on the program by copying & pasting, and moving things around. We can change the standings, any suggestions on how to easily grade now would be helpful as I said, the program won't figure the ties in for some reason....

i think excel or any spredsheet would work. If say 2 points for win, 1 point for tie and 0 point for loss, i might have it done in 1/2 hour. Let me know if that scoring system works for all.

 

[Hache Man]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

i think excel or any spredsheet would work. If say 2 points for win, 1 point for tie and 0 point for loss, i might have it done in 1/2 hour. Let me know if that scoring system works for all.

Can you just configure Excel to figure the ties into the percentage?

I've tried to add it to the formula but doesn't work for me.

If we can get it to count the ties when figuring the %, we can leave as is.

 

[socceres1]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

Can you just configure Excel to figure the ties into the percentage?

I've tried to add it to the formula but doesn't work for me.

If we can get it to count the ties when figuring the %, we can leave as is.

i think we can forget about percentages and go with points like hockey or soccer. Since in basketball there are no ties, percentage does not come into account when figuring out points. Like in soccer and hockey standings you figure points and not percentage I think.

 

[Hache Man]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

i think we can forget about percentages and go with points like hockey or soccer. Since in basketball there are no ties, percentage does not come into account when figuring out points. Like in soccer and hockey standings you figure points and not percentage I think.

I'm not sure others are going to agree going with the 2 points for wins because unless I'm not thinking straight, won't that increase the leaders' leads even more by changing it from percentage?

 

[socceres1]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

I'm not sure others are going to agree going with the 2 points for wins because unless I'm not thinking straight, won't that increase the leaders' leads even more by changing it from percentage?

All i say is when you look at real nba standings and percentages there are no ties. I do not think there are ways to incorporate ties into percentages and make it fair. I think points would be fair as there are incentives for winning as opposed to tying, . I mean I am 3rd in my conference and I am not complaining. But then, lets get consensus, like the picking or no picking question, let's have another poll for this, points or percentages?

 

[Augustus]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

If you want 2 points for win, 1 point for tie and 0 point for loss, then the winning percentage = (No. of Wins + ? x No. of Ties) divided by total games played. That is what you see in the current NFL 2008 standings.

If you want 3 points for win, 1 point for tie and 0 point for loss, then the winning percentage = (No. of Wins + 0.333 x No. of Ties) divided by total games played.

 

[Augustus]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

All i say is when you look at real nba standings and percentages there are no ties. I do not think there are ways to incorporate ties into percentages and make it fair. I think points would be fair as there are incentives for winning as opposed to tying, . I mean I am 3rd in my conference and I am not complaining. But then, lets get consensus, like the picking or no picking question, let's have another poll for this, points or percentages?

Take a look at the real NFL 2008 standings, Cincinnati has 4W 11L 1T = 4.5 Wins divided by 16 = 28.1 %. Philadelphia has 9W 6L 1T = 9.5 Wins divided by 16 = 59.4 %. Do the NFL standings solve your problem?

 

[Hache Man]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

I'm not sure but we need to take a vote & soon.

Either point system, or figure the ties into winning percentage?

Let's begin now........


2points for win
1point for tie

or

Winning percentage with ties figured in

 

[Hache Man]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

Take a look at the real NFL 2008 standings, Cincinnati has 4W 11L 1T = 4.5 Wins divided by 16 = 28.1 %. Philadelphia has 9W 6L 1T = 9.5 Wins divided by 16 = 59.4 %. Do the NFL standings solve your problem?

Yes.......And this is what we'll use

Adjustments will be made in next standings

 

[Bucsfan67]

Re: I Would Like All Of Your Opinions On This "Rule"

well, points is better, or -110 way......if u count the ties into win %, then a tie is a loss, same effect, thats not quite fair either.....a tie IS BETTER than a loss....