Farsala said:
So the rules have changed then? I am misunderstanding. 11-5 is you at #1 10-6 is 4 people at #2, you give 2-5th place points, so 5th place gets points but 6th don't huh. 9-7 is 7 people at #3 We at #3 have the third most correct picks as outlined in the rule. |
The rules haven't changed; they state that the person with the first, second, and third most correct picks will receive points, not that everyone with the first, second, and third best result gets points. Since four people simultaneously finished 2nd, they each get the points that would normally be given to second place (as I'm not doing tiebreakers). Third place (at least, to me) implies that you were the third best predictor in the league for that week, not simply that you posted the third best record.
If two people ahead of you tie for second place in the Olympics, and you're the next behind them, you don't get 3rd place and the bronze metal that comes with. They both tie for second, and you get fourth. College football works the same way, if two teams in the rankings have an equal number of votes, they tie for the spot for that week and whoever's behind is two numbers later (so if they tie for 2nd, the team behind them is 4th). I can't think of a single system that does it like you're talking about.
Beyond that, giving points just for posting the third best results feels very arbitrary. If, say, a prediction week ends with 1 person at 11-5 and 2 people at 10-6, and you were the next best record at 8-8, you'd get a point. But if the three people ahead were instead 11-5, 10-6, and 9-7, you wouldn't get a point. You'd be awarded a point not for anything you did, but simply because the people in front of you did better. That feels totally counterintuitive.
