By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
MTZehvor on 13 September 2018
Edit Thread
RolStoppable said:
MTZehvor said:

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.

I ran the prediction league that way for at least the last three straight years. When I first read your rules in the early posts of the thread, I too thought that you'd maintain the same system I had used for so long, so I can perfectly understand why Farsala thought the same.

What you call counterintuitive was something that I had filed as lucky circumstance, just like earning points with a negative record. Other lucky circumstances would be a week where everyone is within two games, so everyone would get at least 1 PP; such a thing happened for real.

Welp, I can't say I paid that close of attention, then. If people prefer the other way that much, then I guess I'm not particularly opposed to reverting things back to how they were. It feels odd to me, but hey, if that's what people want.