no1 wrote:possible bug report: on our computers, scores are showing for games that haven't even started yet. this could be a problem with wherever you're getting the scores; i think espn.com was showing the same thing.

otherwise, in general mrs. 1 and i are greatly enjoying the site and the contest.

edit: mite not have been espn.com. i'm not sure with what web site mrs. 1 was cross-checking.

Yup, that's bug #1. There's a second bug as well. Not sure if anyone else noticed it though. I'll fix it as time permits. The good news is that at the end of the week, everything is correct.

lplady wrote:

Go Yankees!

cruzer wrote:Go Yankees!

PFFT

Go Yankees, make us proud.

Freaking Giants...

Go anybody but the Yankees!!

Turken wrote:Go anybody but the Yankees!!

I'd gladly trade in a Yankee's championship this year for a Longhorn Football MNC. Make it happen Turken.

cruzer wrote:Yup, that's bug #1. There's a second bug as well. Not sure if anyone else noticed it though. I'll fix it as time permits. The good news is that at the end of the week, everything is correct.

Not sure if this is the second bug that you are referring to...but just noticed that my number of win/loss games and percentages haven't changed since last week.

CRUZER, I like seeing that I'm in 1st place overall.

After all, I probably won't be there much longer. Actually, I'm positive this won't last much longer.

Gman. you and I tied I think for second place. That is the best I have done.
Congratulations. Rain

Raining wrote:Gman. you and I tied I think for second place. That is the best I have done.
Congratulations. Rain

Congrats Rain! I have a feeling you'll be knocking me out of first place next week since we're only one game away from each other.

Edit: Wish Acemom was still playing and hadn't gotten locked out because she couldn't sign in, that leaps into the vacuum.

lplady wrote:Not sure if this is the second bug that you are referring to...but just noticed that my number of win/loss games and percentages haven't changed since last week.

CRUZER, I like seeing that I'm in 1st place overall.

After all, I probably won't be there much longer. Actually, I'm positive this won't last much longer.

Yeah, I keep forgetting to reset the scores. Hopefully I'll remember tonight.

lplady wrote:Congrats Rain! I have a feeling you'll be knocking me out of first place next week since we're only one game away from each other.

Edit: Wish Acemom was still playing and hadn't gotten locked out because she couldn't sign in, that leaps into the vacuum.

doh!

I didn't even see that Ace was locked out! I'll have to get her going again!

cruzer wrote:doh!

I didn't even see that Ace was locked out! I'll have to get her going again!

Have you settled on the final scoring method? Last I remember, you were talking about using total number of wins on the assumption that using win % would allow for somebody to play for only a week or two and then quit while they were ahead.

Just asking, because it doesn't seem fair for Ace (or AZG or anyone else that got locked out for a week) to take a penalty in the overall standings due to circumstances out of their control. And realistically, missing even one week under the total wins scheme is enough to kill a person's chances entirely since they would then have to consistently out-pick everyone else by several games each week for the rest of the season just to catch up. Not easy when there's normally only a 2-4 game spread between best/worst record on any given week.

Maybe a good compromise that would still allow for brisk competition without severely penalizing those who miss a week or two is to keep ranking by total number of wins, but then at the end of the season drop the one (or two or three) worst weeks for each person. That way, those people who missed a week or two due to starting late or technical problems (or just forgetting to play one week) will only be at a slight disadvantage, but not entirely out of the running.

Turken wrote:Have you settled on the final scoring method? Last I remember, you were talking about using total number of wins on the assumption that using win % would allow for somebody to play for only a week or two and then quit while they were ahead.

Just asking, because it doesn't seem fair for Ace (or AZG or anyone else that got locked out for a week) to take a penalty in the overall standings due to circumstances out of their control. And realistically, missing even one week under the total wins scheme is enough to kill a person's chances entirely since they would then have to consistently out-pick everyone else by several games each week for the rest of the season just to catch up. Not easy when there's normally only a 2-4 game spread between best/worst record on any given week.

Maybe a good compromise that would still allow for brisk competition without severely penalizing those who miss a week or two is to keep ranking by total number of wins, but then at the end of the season drop the one (or two or three) worst weeks for each person. That way, those people who missed a week or two due to starting late or technical problems (or just forgetting to play one week) will only be at a slight disadvantage, but not entirely out of the running.

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


Speaking of forgetting to play a week. What about a reminder email on like Friday morning or Wednesday or Thursday when there is an early game?

cruzer wrote:Go Yankees!

go Phillies

GO PHILLIES

GO PHILLIES

.

cruzer wrote:doh!

I didn't even see that Ace was locked out! I'll have to get her going again!

Oh boy! I thought you saw her message and wasn't able to get her in in time. I offered, by PM, to put her picks in for her that night, but never received a reply. Maybe she had already signed off. Really leaps into the vacuum when she was doing so well.

Turken wrote:Have you settled on the final scoring method? Last I remember, you were talking about using total number of wins on the assumption that using win % would allow for somebody to play for only a week or two and then quit while they were ahead.

Just asking, because it doesn't seem fair for Ace (or AZG or anyone else that got locked out for a week) to take a penalty in the overall standings due to circumstances out of their control. And realistically, missing even one week under the total wins scheme is enough to kill a person's chances entirely since they would then have to consistently out-pick everyone else by several games each week for the rest of the season just to catch up. Not easy when there's normally only a 2-4 game spread between best/worst record on any given week.

Maybe a good compromise that would still allow for brisk competition without severely penalizing those who miss a week or two is to keep ranking by total number of wins, but then at the end of the season drop the one (or two or three) worst weeks for each person. That way, those people who missed a week or two due to starting late or technical problems (or just forgetting to play one week) will only be at a slight disadvantage, but not entirely out of the running.

I haven't missed any weeks! cruzer hooked me up

AZGman wrote:I haven't missed any weeks!

I thought there was one where you got locked out for some reason? Or was that Josephus that had the problem?

Turken wrote:I thought there was one where you got locked out for some reason? Or was that Josephus that had the problem?

J'phus forgot one week (I think week two)

I think you should play every week to qualify for anything. My opinion only.

Hey cruzer the pick'em is showing Denver and Indy at 6-1; neither has lost a game yet!!

AZGman wrote:Hey cruzer the pick'em is showing Denver and Indy at 6-1; neither has lost a game yet!!

woohoo! You found bug #2! Every team has an extra loss actually.

cruzer wrote:woohoo! You found bug #2! Every team has an extra loss actually.

Do I win a prize?!?!? //chuckle//

AZGman wrote:Do I win a prize?!?!? //chuckle//

uhmmmm no. I was the first one to notice it so I would win the prize.

cruzer wrote:uhmmmm no. I was the first one to notice it so I would win the prize.

//heavy sigh//

cruzer wrote:uhmmmm no. I was the first one to notice it so I would win the prize.

//heavy sigh//

AZGman wrote://heavy sigh//

It's ok. I get the prize of fixing it so it's really not a very good prize at all...

cruzer wrote:It's ok. I get the prize of fixing it so it's really not a very good prize at all...

Better you than me. I'd just make things worser!!

cruzer wrote:It's ok. I get the prize of fixing it so it's really not a very good prize at all...

Cruzer, I can't get on the sports linked page to start the picks. I'm getting this...

Parse error: syntax error, unexpected $end in /hermes/web02/b2262/moo.cruzer/football/index.php on line 30

Sorry. Was trying something at work and screwed things up. It's fixed now.

Ace! PM.

cruzer wrote:Sorry. Was trying something at work and screwed things up. It's fixed now.

No problem, just wasn't sure if you knew it wasn't working earlier. I like how you have the scores as the games are being played now, nice feature. Thanks for adding it.

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

Here's a friday bump for football pick 'em.

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

So THAT'S your problem?

Josephus wrote:So THAT'S your problem?

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.

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.

What about the Raiders? and the Redskins?
-'cause they both really, really suck right now. Oh, and do you agree with the statement: Dan Snyder belongs up there with Peter Angelos in the horrid owners pantheon.

Josephus wrote:What about the Raiders? and the Redskins?
-'cause they both really, really suck right now. Oh, and do you agree with the statement: Dan Snyder belongs up there with Peter Angelos in the horrid owners pantheon.

The raiders I don't know much about other than that's where thugs go. And I am embarrassed that the football team in The Capital Of The Free World is owned by such a man that does not understand anything other than the dollar signs.

It's awesome to hire superstars right after they have passed their career pinnacles, especially big fat guys who STOMP ON PEOPLES HEADS. Really, I love our history of fizzling meteors: Dana Stubblefield, Deion Sanders, Clinton Portis, Laverneus Coles, Santana Moss, Antwan Randle El...

ANd now my life coach Chris Cooley is gone for a while. It truly is sad. Chris Cooley is my favorite guy on the team.

It's like a train wreck and sad to watch. I hope Dan Snyder will learn how to support the team eventually, like P. Angelos kind of has.