Shirt.Woot

kenney9226 wrote:Yes. I can not morally "pick" that wretched team from the third-rate Texas city that begins with a "d," nor can I in good conscience ever pick the teams from Boston or Pittsburgh.

Indeed, I do not purchase gilette razors nor do I purchase heinz ketchup because of my intense feelings of dislike for those three teams extending to a personal boycott of their stadium's corporate sponsors.

Third rate is better than last.

Raining wrote:Third rate is better than last.

Yep! "Bulk rate" is last!!

kenney9226 wrote:My problem is that I can never make myself pick certain teams to win because of my intense dislike for them.

Just as it's hard to pick against your hometown team. Even though they don't deserve to be picked after last weeks wellll... ?X!!*#@ game!

cruzer - getting this error msg again

Warning: mysql_connect() [function.mysql-connect]: Lost connection to MySQL server during query in /hermes/web02/b2262/moo.cruzer/football/conn.php on line 7
Could not connect to the database; Lost connection to MySQL server during query

AZGman wrote:cruzer - getting this error msg again

Warning: mysql_connect() [function.mysql-connect]: Lost connection to MySQL server during query in /hermes/web02/b2262/moo.cruzer/football/conn.php on line 7
Could not connect to the database; Lost connection to MySQL server during query

Let's play football.
Are you ready GMan.
Cruzer fix whatever needs to be fixed. This is gonna be a great football day. Texas has already set the tempo.
No one can get in the pick'em page. Come on Cowboy fix this. Please.

Raining wrote:Let's play football.
Are you ready GMan.
Cruzer fix whatever needs to be fixed. This is gonna be a great football day. Texas has already set the tempo.

You betcha!!

Cruzer are you around. You have a PM.

somehow all the picks I ought to have made got scrambled, with half my winners reversed!

-I wish, wish, wish that were true. yu-uck, what a bad week.

I need a new hobby. I just can't seem to do well on the pick'em.
Maybe needlepoint.

cruzer wrote:hmmm...drop a week...maybe...That would require a little manual keeping right now but sounds like a good idea.

if something like this is implemented i would suggest dropping both best and worst weeks. otherwise if only worst weeks were dropped, this change would favor people with very wide spreads between high and low.

no1 wrote:if something like this is implemented i would suggest dropping both best and worst weeks. otherwise if only worst weeks were dropped, this change would favor people with very wide spreads between high and low.

and?
-it is going to favor somebody. why not that group?

Josephus wrote:and?
-it is going to favor somebody. why not that group?

why does it have to favor anyone besides the people who missed a week?

say we played 3 weeks, 16 games each week. player a has 8 wins and 8 losses all three weeks. player b has 1 win and 15 losses in week 1, 8 wins and 8 losses in week 2, and 15 wins and 1 loss in week 3. before the rule change, both have 24 wins and 24 losses, so are tied. if only the worst week is dropped, player a is left with 16 wins, but player b is left with 23. if both best and worst weeks are dropped, both are left with 8 and are tied, same as before the change.

i think the fairer option is the one that changes the standings the least for those who didn't miss a week.

lplady wrote:Just as it's hard to pick against your hometown team. Even though they don't deserve to be picked after last weeks wellll... ?X!!*#@ game!

Kicks self in ass for not thinking the Eagles would soar this week. Especially deserve that kick for changing my pick Sat., on the pick em page, thinking they would lose.

Good thing I didn't bet someone since he's never wrong.

The World Series rages on.

Raining wrote:The World Series rages on.

Indeed it does.
Sadly, this is one of those years when I wish no one would win and we could just all go home until next spring.
I just have no love for either of the teams in the Series this year.

no1 wrote:why does it have to favor anyone besides the people who missed a week?

say we played 3 weeks, 16 games each week. player a has 8 wins and 8 losses all three weeks. player b has 1 win and 15 losses in week 1, 8 wins and 8 losses in week 2, and 15 wins and 1 loss in week 3. before the rule change, both have 24 wins and 24 losses, so are tied. if only the worst week is dropped, player a is left with 16 wins, but player b is left with 23. if both best and worst weeks are dropped, both are left with 8 and are tied, same as before the change.

i think the fairer option is the one that changes the standings the least for those who didn't miss a week.

Frankly, I haven't argued the case that any week ought to be dropped. Sux for me that I missed a week, but I haven't been trying to get the rules changed now. My point is, really, that if you change it, someone will gain some sort of advantage that they currently don't have, and that will potentially change the standings. If you're changing it because you think the change makes it a better assessment of who makes better picks, then do so, whether that is to my advantage or to anyone else's advantage. But don't just change it so that it helps the people who didn't miss a week- they already have a huge advantage from our errors.

Josephus wrote:Frankly, I haven't argued the case that any week ought to be dropped. Sux for me that I missed a week, but I haven't been trying to get the rules changed now. My point is, really, that if you change it, someone will gain some sort of advantage that they currently don't have, and that will potentially change the standings. If you're changing it because you think the change makes it a better assessment of who makes better picks, then do so, whether that is to my advantage or to anyone else's advantage. But don't just change it so that it helps the people who didn't miss a week- they already have a huge advantage from our errors.

The real issue that I see is that if I were to drop the worst week for everyone it's possible that everyone can have a different number of picks possible. Some weeks have 16 games, some 13, some 14 and everyone could have bad weeks or missed weeks in there. That's what makes it really difficult for me to drop a week for everyone.


Right now, the best option is to just leave it like it is with the possibility of having a small prize for the person with the top %.

It doesn't really matter. I'm not going to spend much on the prize(s) because I'm cheap and it's just a fun league. Maybe next year we start a pay league and a just for fun league.

And no, I'm not making any money off of this so it is all out of pocket.

Josephus wrote:But don't just change it so that it helps the people who didn't miss a week- they already have a huge advantage from our errors.

er... the primary motivation for the proposed change was supposedly to help the people who did miss a week. opposite from the motivation to which you seem to object.

I play mostly against myself anyway; it's just fun to see how folks do week to week.

Like anything with a "Prize or award" attached to it; folks get all spun up on competing and forget that the whole point is to just have fun.

AZGman wrote:I play mostly against myself anyway; it's just fun to see how folks do week to week.

Like anything with a "Prize or award" attached to it; folks get all spun up on competing and forget that the whole point is to just have fun.

competing for the season-long honor is part of the fun.

no1 wrote:why does it have to favor anyone besides the people who missed a week?

...puzzling possible outcome...

i think the fairer option is the one that changes the standings the least for those who didn't miss a week.

I read the last statement of yours, confused by the first and the intervening possible outcome, and thought you were advocating some sort of change in the way it went. My memory is that at the very start cruzer said he wasn't going to change anything. I'd rather just leave it at that. It could well be that in the future weeks others might miss a week here or there, and not just we few fools. I personally couldn't care less about any prize, I just want to win each week so's I can brag about it.

Josephus wrote:I read the last statement of yours, confused by the first and the intervening possible outcome, and thought you were advocating some sort of change in the way it went. My memory is that at the very start cruzer said he wasn't going to change anything. I'd rather just leave it at that. It could well be that in the future weeks others might miss a week here or there, and not just we few fools. I personally couldn't care less about any prize, I just want to win each week so's I can brag about it.

the bragging period can be much longer for the champeen at the end of the year. bragging until the start of the next season.

wow. if I knew it would cause this much contention, I would have never suggested the drop-a-week idea. Personally, I don't care how the game is scored since I'm so far back in the pack that nothing's going to help.

The only reason I was thinking that it might be good to have a "grace" week is that it would keep people interested in playing through the whole season instead of quitting after missing a week or two since they would then have no chance of keeping up with everyone else.

Turken wrote:wow. if I knew it would cause this much contention, I would have never suggested the drop-a-week idea.

contention? i don't think discussion is a bad thing. if everybody agreed with each other all the time, all we would have left to talk about is the weather. THAT would be a bad thing.

cruzer wrote:The real issue that I see is that if I were to drop the worst week for everyone it's possible that everyone can have a different number of picks possible.

of course, different number of picks possible only matters if you're looking at percentages. On an absolute wins basis, it doesn't matter since 5/13 counts the same as 5/16. what the drop-a-week scheme effectively does is it handicaps those who are are consistently good by subtracting their worst week from the total.

so in that sense, I think Josephus is right that the drop-a-week really does hurt those who play every week more than it helps those who moss one.

maybe a better alternative would be to decouple the scoring points from the performance points -- award X points for best picks each week, y points for second each week, z for third each week, and zilch for the rest of the pack. Then missing a week is no different than still playing but having a crap week, and the winners are those who play often and play better than everyone each and every week. Eliminates the ability for a person to take a commanding lead just by having one exceptionally lucky week.

no1 wrote:contention? i don't think discussion is a bad thing. if everybody agreed with each other all the time, all we would have left to talk about is the weather. THAT would be a bad thing.

I tend to agree. though, that sure was lucky for our kids that it didn't rain during the few hours of Halloween trick or treat prime time, eh?

Josephus wrote:I tend to agree. though, that sure was lucky for our kids that it didn't rain during the few hours of Halloween trick or treat prime time, eh?

it rained fire and brimstone here.

no1 wrote:it rained fire and brimstone here.

Same here.

Congrats to the Yankee fans.

lplady wrote:Same here.

Congrats to the Yankee fans.

Woohoo! Sorry to the phillies phans...er fans.

Congratulations Yankees
Congratulations A-Rod,

no1 wrote:it rained fire and brimstone here.

Doesn't it always?

Just wandering in ... wanted to give a hale-yes shoutout to my Troy Trojans for being first in the SBC right now!

... Yes, I know the SBC is the red-headed stepchild conference of college football. Hush. :P

I have been looking at the picks and absolutely no one has picked the Cowboys. Does the rest of the world know something I don't.
Even Cruzer didn't pick our beloved Boys.
What to do.

I did it.

Raining wrote:I did it.

no 'boys?!?

no1 wrote:no 'boys?!?

I have been thinking on this decision. I can still change it. 3 point advantage for the home team.

Raining wrote:I have been thinking on this decision. I can still change it. 3 point advantage for the home team.

it's just so weird when two teams have similar records and EVERYBODY picks one side. especially when the people who i thought would be fans pick the other team.

What's the matter with the Colts. I will be lucky to get 3 picks.

Cruzer, you just might have a perfect pick this week.

Raining wrote:Cruzer, you just might have a perfect pick this week.

nope. e'body picked Green Bay.