| 0 |
Subject: NFL. Pick The Loser. Wildcard Wkend.
Posted by: C.SuperFreak
- [41822111] Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 15:30
Congrats for making it this far. Let's keep it going.
Game Resets.
Louky, Weykool, Dave R, Bonka, Bond, James Bond and the New England Patriots all go into the playoffs with a perfect record.
Game Time (ET)
Washington (9-7) at Seattle (10-6) 4:30 p.m.
Jacksonville (11-5) at Pittsburgh (10-6) 8 p.m.
Wild Card Weekend - Sunday, Jan. 6
New York Giants (10-6) at Tampa Bay (9-7) 1 p.m.
Tennessee (10-6) at San Diego (11-5)
|
| 1 | C.SuperFreak
ID: 41822111
Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 15:32
|
Games resets for the gurupies listed. :0
|
| 2 | Dave R
SuperDude
ID: 3010361110
Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 15:43
|
Tennessee
|
| 3 | JeffG
Leader
ID: 01584348
Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 16:49
|
Congrats to the people who went perfect thru 17 weeks. Two years in a row I lost in wk1, but still enjoyed seeing how this competition turnes out.
My 2 cents..For a post season 'pick the loser', the game seems flawed. Every week, the people advancing will be able to pick from the whole slate of games because if they were correct previously, the team the selected did not advance.
|
| 4 | BoNkA
Donor
ID: 019742310
Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 23:48
|
Tennessee
And yes, it is pretty flawed, but switching to pick the winner just doesn't seem right :D
|
| 5 | C.SuperFreak
ID: 4410333022
Sat, Jan 05, 2008, 00:10
|
#$%@#^ New England!!!
I'll make adjustments for next year.
|
| 6 | Dave R
SuperDude
ID: 3010361110
Sat, Jan 05, 2008, 00:17
|
You could make it a little more difficult and not allow any picks made during the regular season... and if someone rus out, well they may just have to pick the Patriots at some point .
I'd still pick Tennessee
|
| 7 | Bond, James Bond
Sustainer
ID: 04352469
Sat, Jan 05, 2008, 00:23
|
Congrats to my fellow undefeated Gurupies on their unblemished record thus far. As far as the Patriots are concerned, since we're 17-0 and they are "only" 16-0, does our record count more? ;)
As far as this weekend is concerned:
Tennessee
|
| 8 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Sat, Jan 05, 2008, 00:29
|
From the cheap seats, I agree with Dave R - for additional difficulty, keep it to where you can't pick a loser you've already used.
Of course, you don't exactly exhaust playoff teams since they don't lose as much :)
|
| 9 | BoNkA
Donor
ID: 019742310
Sat, Jan 05, 2008, 01:06
|
I'm fine with not resetting, unless the Bucs play the Jags in the Super Bowl and I'm still picking!
|
| 10 | weykool
Leader
ID: 41750315
Sat, Jan 05, 2008, 01:54
|
Redskins.
|
| 11 | C.SuperFreak
ID: 4410333022
Sat, Jan 05, 2008, 12:37
|
I'll make note of these suggestions for next year, I'm all for letting it run its course this year.
|
| 12 | weykool
Leader
ID: 41750315
Sat, Jan 05, 2008, 13:09
|
I dont know that resetting would have that much affect on things.
Most of us have 4 losers that made the playoffs and they all play this week.
My guess is half will be gone and none of the picks this week were repeats.
I woulda taken Tenn but it woulda been odd if we all ended up 17-1.
|
| 13 | Bond, James Bond
Sustainer
ID: 04352469
Sat, Jan 05, 2008, 13:29
|
Frankly put, this season has been an aberration that likely will not be repeated. You have to remember that the Patriots are the first undefeated team in the NFL in 35 years! It may not happen again for another 35 years. Who knows? Whatever the reasoning, we shouldn't be blamed for riding on the Patriots' bandwagon. It was just smart strategy IMHO.
C. SuperFreak, there is nothing wrong with this game as is. All us survivors have all been lucky probably more than once and could have easily been bounced out of this competition early on. In fact, I'm sure there are many that have lost here because of a last-second play. Them da breaks! Since none of us is named Nostradamus, we'll take what we can get. ;)
To be sure, none of us imagined that there'd still be five of us around by this time in the year but it's not as easy as some may have alluded to. Let's give credit where credit is due.
Finally, I, for one, don't like to see changes mid-stream in a game like this. TSN has been wont to do that on occasion with their games and many haven't been too kind with them when they did that. I propose that we play it out as it was originally intended and if there's co-winners, so be it. I'm okay with that.
|
| 14 | weykool
Leader
ID: 41750315
Sat, Jan 05, 2008, 13:53
|
I dont know how much of this can be blamed on New England.
I had the Pats for 6 games and 3 of them were the closest I came to losing...er winning all season.
Phi/Bal/NYG could have easily gone the other way.
|
| 15 | C.SuperFreak
ID: 4410333022
Sun, Jan 06, 2008, 00:07
|
Weykool - Redskins
Bonka, Dave R, James - Titans
Louky still has to select.
|
| 16 | weykool
Leader
ID: 41750315
Sun, Jan 06, 2008, 00:27
|
Go Titans
|
| 17 | louky
ID: 1326296
Sun, Jan 06, 2008, 01:43
|
Titans
|
| 18 | J
Leader
ID: 049346417
Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 13:22
|
In response to Bond's post - I don't think anyone is blaming you guys for picking New England. I agree that this is probably a rare occurance and probably won't happen again for a while. But I also don't think anyone is changing rules mid-stream. This game was never intended to go into the playoffs, so rules had to be created, not changed. If it were up to me, I would've made you guys pick a loser and rank em for week 17. If everyone got that first pick right, then you go on to 2nd pick and so on. I don't think this game SHOULD be going into the playoffs. But, just remember, this is all for fun, well, except for the Hall of Fame jacket that I get to pass on to the next NFL PTL king :)
|
| 19 | Bond, James Bond
Sustainer
ID: 04352469
Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 23:11
|
Hey, we get a Hall of Fame jacket???? ;) Kewl! It's not gonna be like that disgusting mustard-colored H.O.F. jacket that OchoCinco wore earlier this year is it? ;)
Certainly, you have made a lot of valid points J and I don't necessarily disagree with any of them. However, I will state that while the game was "never intended to go into the playoffs", the possibility that there would be multiple competitors still alive at the end of the regular season was well known weeks in advance.
Hindsight being what it is, perhaps a rule change or changes may have been necessary to implement---but certainly not after the game had already began.
My point is that once the contest begins, supplementary rules shouldn't be added just because someone failed to see before the season began what may happen down the road. Now, logically, we knew that most people would be eliminated by say, week 10 or so but mathematically it was certain that all competitors could still be alive and in fact all could still playing today. Therefore, tie-breaking rules should have been included from the outset. But you can't blame anybody for not thinking about it. Nobody thought we'd go this far with so many people still in it. Although it's probable that this may never happen like this again the possibility still exists that it could----with even a greater number----unless initiatives are taken to address that for next year and beyond.
Having said that, I do appreciate a good spirited and thoughtful discussion and I'm hopeful that perhaps our comments and otherwise inane suggestions will better this game in the future.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|