Week 10 Results

[Flickered Flame]

Wow, we almost had a major upset in the weeks final game. Lots of high scores again this week. Congrats to Familia for going a perfect 0-4 in his picks debute.

Weekly leaderboard:

CORRECT
PLAYER GAMES
AVERAGEJOE 3
CALF 3
CHEEVERS 3
CRAWFORD 3
FLICKERED FLAME 3
JIRI 3
KEN 3
POPE 3
TROUT 3
AVENGER 2
CAPTAIN 2
FIRE 2
MCGAVINS 2
PAGAL 2
SUPERRYE 2
8 BALL 1
CALRED 1
KEVANGUY 1
KIPPERFAN 1
FAMILIA 0

Overall Leaderboard:

#OFPICKS CORRECT POINTS
CALRED 36 23 46
FLICKERED FLAME 36 23 46
CALF 36 22 44
CRAWFORD 36 22 44
PAGAL 36 22 44
CHEEVERS 32 20 40
KEVANGUY 36 20 40
FIRE 32 18 36
JIRI 28 18 36
TROUT 24 15 30
8 BALL 32 14 28
CAPTAIN 36 14 28
KEN 24 14 28
POPE 20 10 20
BROWNA 20 9 18
JOHNNY 16 9 18
AVENGER 12 8 16
MOON 16 8 16
DIRTYMRCLEAN 8 5 10
SCRAMBLER 8 5 10
MCGAVINS 8 4 8
FLAMES87 8 3 6
FLAMINGHOMER 4 3 6
REJEAN 4 3 6
SNOWDUDE 4 3 6
BART 4 2 4
FLAMBERS 4 2 4
LOMBO 4 2 4
MONTANA 4 2 4
SNAPPYK 4 2 4
TABLE 4 2 4
GREEB 4 1 2
JAY P 4 1 2
SUPERRYE 8 3 6
AVERAGEJOE 4 3 6
KIPPERFAN 4 1 2
FAMILIA 4 0 0

The overall leaderboard also includes last weeks games.

[calgaryred]

after two straight 4-0 weeks I grumble with a 1-3 week. Taking away my two game lead grrrr! I Better do better next week!

[calf]

Originally posted by calgaryred@Aug 22 2004, 01:23 PM
after two straight 4-0 weeks I grumble with a 1-3 week. Taking away my two game lead grrrr! I Better do better next week!

Not if I have anything to say about it! You're going down calgaryred! WAAAAY down! :P

[8 Ball]

I seem to be missing a week??

How I see it:

# Picks Cor. Pts.

36 15 30

[ken0042]

I maybe should quit betting on my Bombers.

[Pagal4321]

Oh how we are comming for you calgaryred....

EDIT: For some reason I can't create whole sentences.

[troutman]

What about players that missed a few weeks? Can you do the standings by winning percentage?

Mine would be 0.625

[calf]

Originally posted by troutman@Aug 23 2004, 04:10 PM
What about players that missed a few weeks? Can you do the standings by winning percentage?

Should've started earlier!!!

Seriously, I go down in the standings if that happens. I won't let it happen! :P

[calgaryred]

Doing it by winning percentage isn't fair. The standings look stupid eveyone that has played 4 to 8 games are at the top and people that have played around 30 are lower.

[Flickered Flame]

8 BALL, I went back and looked at all the records, and yours were correct. You have made 36 picks, have had 15 correct picks for 30 points. I have made the changes on my overall leaderboard.

[8 Ball]

Originally posted by Flickered Flame@Aug 23 2004, 10:01 PM
8 BALL, I went back and looked at all the records, and yours were correct. You have made 36 picks, have had 15 correct picks for 30 points. I have made the changes on my overall leaderboard.

Thanks, appreciate it.

[troutman]

Originally posted by calgaryred@Aug 24 2004, 12:56 AM
Doing it by winning percentage isn't fair. The standings look stupid eveyone that has played 4 to 8 games are at the top and people that have played around 30 are lower.

Sure it's fair if you set a reasonable minimum. Why should someone be denied bragging rights because they were on holiday for a week or two?

[ken0042]

I'm with Troutman on this one. I missed the first few weeks because this is my first season on the board, and wasn't sure if there were rules about posting, or just anybody could join the "pool."

[calgaryred]

Originally posted by troutman+Aug 24 2004, 10:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (troutman @ Aug 24 2004, 10:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-calgaryred@Aug 24 2004, 12:56 AM
Doing it by winning percentage isn't fair. The standings look stupid eveyone that has played 4 to 8 games are at the top and people that have played around 30 are lower.

Sure it's fair if you set a reasonable minimum. Why should someone be denied bragging rights because they were on holiday for a week or two? [/b][/quote]
no it's not eveytime it was done that way people who just started with a 3-1 win ratio were at the top. People with a 1-3 or 0-4 ratio and just started were at the bottom. Eveyone else is in the middle. I say too bad. A winning pct only works fairly with equal games. In points it's not the fairest, but at least if someone has had a good run (or may I say the best run he's not on top). The rankings tell who has the most wins that determines who chose the best. If he plays every week why should he be penalized. Someone could play for 2 weeks go 4-0 and be a perfect 1.000 and be on top. That's not fair.

[calf]

Ok, there's no prizes or anything at stake, so is it really a big deal? Nah.

Besides, Flickered Flame is doing this on his own free will - you should be thanking him for doing this instead of criticizing what's being done. Honestly


Btw - thanks FF!

[Flickered Flame]

We are sticking with the point system, I had originally done the rankings based on winning % but I had some pm's asking me to change so I did. End of discussion. Calf is right there is NO PRIZE so its not that big of deal.

[calgaryred]

yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!