Suggestions for 2017/18?

[lookersstandandy]

Having had a quick flick through the thread proposing amendments for the season just complete: 

 

....I'd say much of what was tinkered with was a success. I had one nagging doubt at the beginning, which I suspect will need to be reviewed for the forthcoming season.

 

The decision to split the 42 participants into 2 x 21 team leagues was based on equality of prize money, however this could end up being problematic dependent on the number of participants over the coming season - as you can't relegate someone who has stayed up and/or not promote someone who has gone up. It is also noticeable that it is harder to win the Prem - I'm still intrigued as to why HarryBosch decided to give up with 3 games to go when all was not lost? - therefore we could have gone with 1 x 20 and 1 x 22 team leagues and it still have been deemed fair? Maybe in 2017/18, we promote 3 and relegate 4 to get to 20 teams in the Prem?

 

The idea behind the Play Offs was to keep it interesting for all participants for longer, which I think on balance it did.... however it was noticebale that MAC0AFC, BJBlue, Andy-latic, Opinions4u, LaticsChris & Glossop Latic in the Champ still binned it off reasonably early.... and warwickshire latics fell away when it was curtains in the Prem. I'd be keen to hear what each of these folks think of the changes? Did it help or not? Are you planning on having another crack next season?

 

HarryBosch made a suggestion this time last year that we could consider some extra points for closest attendance..... i.e you get 20 for bang on, 5 for being within 10 and and 3 within 100 already.... but in the event no-one gets it bang on, there's an extra 5 up for grabs for the nearest? I quite like it.... other than I've been awful at attendance predicting and so wouldn't necessarily have helped me a great deal.

 

What does everyone else think? Any other suggestions for improvement?

 

Regardless, I'd just like to say a big thanks once again to Stevie_J, the little J's and Bristolatic for making it so enjoyable.

 

Cheers,

Andy

[disjointed]

The attendance thing is putting it as a priority, the number one for me should be getting the result correct, overall more participants were predicting to the seasons end than previous, this must be down to the play off's which I'm sure most will agree were a great success, possibly we could have a rugby style finale off at the end using the play off's.

  As Andy says above many thanks to the J's and Bristol it certainly kept the interest going during the torrid 1st half of the season.

   Begrudging thanks to 24 hrs for his observations although mostly flawed.

[lookersstandandy]

15 minutes ago, disjointed said:

The attendance thing is putting it as a priority, the number one for me should be getting the result correct....

 

.....it's a fair point, maybe there should be more points up for grabs for the final score and/or less for half time..... as 0-0 at HT this last season was a bit easy to pick up points with IMO......

[GlossopLatic]

Personally I'm ok with the format it was just remembering to do it every week it's kind of like fantasy football where I was in with a chance of winning that right up until the end. I may take it more seriously next year.

 

Perhaps putting a reminder out before each game might help. I tend to forget stuff.

Edited May 24, 2017 by GlossopLatic

[lookersstandandy]

I propose 4 points for correct FT score, keep the rest - bar possibly the introduction of closest attendance points - as they are......!

Edited May 24, 2017 by lookersstandandy

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

tl;dr but...

 

I reckon the there's game enhancement mileage in giving the 10 closest attendances points on a sliding scale - 10 for nearest and so on. 

 

Otherwise the rules are fine. Interesting how actual winners like Dave Collinge and Me aren't that bothered either way. We'll win whatever the conditions. The also-rans make a song and dance because about it because...in the fetid pond of their excuses culture...they believe a rule tweak here or there will make it easier for them. Absolute losers from top to bottom. 

[lookersstandandy]

9 minutes ago, 24hoursfromtulsehill said:

 Interesting how actual winners like Dave Collinge and Me aren't that bothered either way. We'll win whatever the conditions......

 

....you gotta be in it to win it g0bsh1te... and if you're that good, nothing less than immediate Promotion from the Champ would be a laughable disaster for you..... which of course you know..... and so I fully expect you to chicken out and not participate.

[LaticsChris]

My reasons for binning it were simply forgetting enough times that it wasn't worth continuing. My own fault. 

 

Points generally are spot on, however, I do think the attendance prediction is an irrelevance. I'd scrap that completely, surely the competition is about the match prediction, not how traffic on the A62 or who's playing in the Champions League that night will affect Jeff from Saddleworth's motivation to turn up?

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

1 hour ago, lookersstandandy said:

 

....you gotta be in it to win it g0bsh1te... and if you're that good, nothing less than immediate Promotion from the Champ would be a laughable disaster for you..... which of course you know..... and so I fully expect you to chicken out and not participate.

 

Lolling about down here with Dave Collinge on the Caribbean beach reserved for Champions What Span The Amateur And Professional Eras, I've still got considerably more reason than you...you perennial mid-table shithouse...to consider myself a custodian of the game. I say what I like and I like what I say.

[lookersstandandy]

24 minutes ago, 24hoursfromtulsehill said:

 

Lolling about down here with Dave Collinge on the Caribbean beach reserved for Champions What Span The Amateur And Professional Eras, I've still got considerably more reason than you...you perennial mid-table shithouse...to consider myself a custodian of the game. I say what I like and I like what I say.

 

 

Edited May 24, 2017 by lookersstandandy

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

5 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said:

 

 

That picture is from the hooky holiday in Spain I went on with your mum.

[lookersstandandy]

Just now, 24hoursfromtulsehill said:

 

That picture is from the hooky holiday in Spain I went on with your mum.

 

Worst holiday she's been on she told me......

[jorvik_latic]

I think people know my feelings on the 'invalid prediction' thing if you fail to post a full prediction as long as it's not to gain anything. Other than that, I thought this season was pretty good. 

 

Thanks Bristol and Stevie for all your efforts! 

[nzlatic]

My thoughts have pretty much been covered already.

 

4 points for final score prediction works well against 2 for half time. Don't think they should be the same. 

Attendance - for me there's a certain amount of skill in being approximately right. But getting it bang on or within a few is pure luck. So I think less points should be awarded. 

 

I'd also throw in 1 point for having no scorer if predicting a blank. It's a bit harsh to get latics score correct and only being able to score max 1 point if you said nil, but 4 if you said 1 or more goals. 

 

But mere tweaks to what is already a great comp, well run. 

[disjointed]

TBF Jorvik reading between the lines there may be an amendment to this rule, what we all need to remember is that dr kershaws and player share benefit from our disagreements.

[disjointed]

5 hours ago, 24hoursfromtulsehill said:

tl;dr but...

 

I reckon the there's game enhancement mileage in giving the 10 closest attendances points on a sliding scale - 10 for nearest and so on. 

 

Otherwise the rules are fine. Interesting how actual winners like Dave Collinge and Me aren't that bothered either way. We'll win whatever the conditions. The also-rans make a song and dance because about it because...in the fetid pond of their excuses culture...they believe a rule tweak here or there will make it easier for them. Absolute losers from top to bottom. 

I'm sure Dave Collinge, who has proved himself to be a marvellous advertisment for the game will be horrified to find himself bracketed in the unsavoury character bracket.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

15 hours ago, disjointed said:

I'm sure Dave Collinge, who has proved himself to be a marvellous advertisment for the game will be horrified to find himself bracketed in the unsavoury character bracket.

 

Everyone wants to win...but not everyone is prepared to make the necessary sacrifices.

[Bristolatic]

I've had a look through the suggestions posted above, so I thought I'd offer some input. I've not spoken to Stevie_J since the end of the season, so any changes for next season haven't been considered. I appreciate the comments and hope I've been constructive in my responses, but they are only my thoughts, no one else's.

 

Many thanks also for your kind comments regarding how the competition has been run.

 

On 2017-5-24 at 0:18 PM, lookersstandandy said:

 

....I'd say much of what was tinkered with was a success. I had one nagging doubt at the beginning, which I suspect will need to be reviewed for the forthcoming season.

 

The decision to split the 42 participants into 2 x 21 team leagues was based on equality of prize money, however this could end up being problematic dependent on the number of participants over the coming season - as you can't relegate someone who has stayed up and/or not promote someone who has gone up. I agree that promotion/relegation could be difficult under those circumstances, but a fair way would be found

It is also noticeable that it is harder to win the Prem It shouldn't be; the points allocation are the same, so it all hinges on how good/bad predictors are  

we could have gone with 1 x 20 and 1 x 22 team leagues and it still have been deemed fair? As promotion and relegation had been introduced for the first time, as well as play-offs, two equally sized divisions seemed the best way to go. It's certainly something we can look at again, but it has to be determined by how many players we have. We were lucky that we had an even number last season; that may not always be the case

Maybe in 2017/18, we promote 3 and relegate 4 to get to 20 teams in the Prem? Again, the number of players would be a part of any such changes, but we will always look at improvements

 

The idea behind the Play Offs was to keep it interesting for all participants for longer, which I think on balance it did.... however it was noticebale that MAC0AFC, BJBlue, Andy-latic, Opinions4u, LaticsChris & Glossop Latic in the Champ still binned it off reasonably early.... and warwickshire latics fell away when it was curtains in the Prem. I'd be keen to hear what each of these folks think of the changes? Did it help or not? Are you planning on having another crack next season? It was a shame that some decided to call it a day before it all ended, but I hope they'll all come back and give it another shot

 

HarryBosch made a suggestion this time last year that we could consider some extra points for closest attendance..... i.e you get 20 for bang on, 5 for being within 10 and and 3 within 100 already.... but in the event no-one gets it bang on, there's an extra 5 up for grabs for the nearest? It would need a tweak of the self-calculating spreadsheets I use (thanks again to Zorrro). Once I've entered everyone's individual predictions and actual match results etc., it automatically calculates all the current game's points, converts that into cumulative points for all games up to that point and also recalculates the table ready for re-sorting. I then copy and paste certain sections of it all, convert it to jpeg and post. Somewhat surprisingly, it takes about an hour and a half or more in total to do that lot, so I'm a little loathe to add further calculations, but I'll give it some thought.

 

 

 

On 2017-5-24 at 0:40 PM, disjointed said:

The attendance thing is putting it as a priority, the number one for me should be getting the result correct my thoughts on this are that attendance is the hardest part to accurately predict, so a higher points total seems, to me, to be about right, but everyone's observations are welcome, overall more participants were predicting to the seasons end than previous, this must be down to the play off's which I'm sure most will agree were a great success, possibly we could have a rugby style finale off at the end using the play off's as a confirmed hater of the egg-chasing game, I have absolutely no idea what this is . Maybe someone could enlighten me .

 Begrudging thanks to 24 hrs for his observations although mostly completely flawed .

 

On 2017-5-24 at 0:57 PM, lookersstandandy said:

 

.....it's a fair point, maybe there should be more points up for grabs for the final score and/or less for half time..... as 0-0 at HT this last season was a bit easy to pick up points with IMO...... Again, I wouldn't dismiss this idea out of hand and it wouldn't cause much of a problem amending the spreadsheets (at least, I don't think it would!)

 

On 2017-5-24 at 1:37 PM, GlossopLatic said:

Perhaps putting a reminder out before each game might help. I tend to forget stuff. Like most folk, I forget stuff too, but I could try to remember a quick post in, say, The Terraces, as a reminder. It does mean you're relying on my memory, so I wouldn't offer any guarantees, but wouldn't prevent others from doing so

 

On 2017-5-24 at 1:45 PM, lookersstandandy said:

I propose 4 points for correct FT score, keep the rest - bar possibly the introduction of closest attendance points - as they are......! As above, really

 

On 2017-5-24 at 2:13 PM, 24hoursfromtulsehill said:

I reckon the there's game enhancement mileage in giving the 10 closest attendances points on a sliding scale - 10 for nearest and so on. It would need quite a change to the formulas for it to work automatically. Changing the points manually would then screw up the rest of the spreadsheets as far as I can see. Again, not necessarily dismissed out of hand, but not something I'm personally keen on

 

Otherwise the rules are fine. Interesting how actual winners like Dave Collinge and Me I (grammar, boy, grammar ) aren't that bothered either way. We'll win whatever the conditions. We'll find out if you re-join. In the Championship, of course. 

Edit: your grammar in this instance is correct. I hadn't paid full attention when reading it. Pretty much the norm where your posts are concerned. 

 

On 2017-5-24 at 4:10 PM, LaticsChris said:

Points generally are spot on, however, I do think the attendance prediction is an irrelevance. I'd scrap that completely, surely the competition is about the match prediction, not how traffic on the A62 or who's playing in the Champions League that night will affect Jeff from Saddleworth's motivation to turn up? Same as above, but it's another option. It would mean another re-vamp of the spreadsheets, though

 

On 2017-5-24 at 5:08 PM, jorvik_latic said:

I think people know my feelings on the 'invalid prediction' thing if you fail to post a full prediction as long as it's not to gain anything. It's been in the rules for as long as I've been involved but, personally, I have no problem accepting a prediction that has omitted something as long as the rest of it complies

 

On 2017-5-24 at 7:48 PM, nzlatic said:

4 points for final score prediction works well against 2 for half time. Don't think they should be the same. See above

Attendance - for me there's a certain amount of skill in being approximately right. But getting it bang on or within a few is pure luck. So I think less points should be awarded. Again, see above

 

I'd also throw in 1 point for having no scorer if predicting a blank. It's a bit harsh to get latics score correct and only being able to score max 1 point if you said nil, but 4 if you said 1 or more goals. It's a spreadsheet thing again, giving different points in the same category. The way round it would be to give the same points for "No Scorer" as for a named scorer. Easy Peasy

 

On 2017-5-24 at 7:56 PM, disjointed said:

TBF Jorvik reading between the lines there may be an amendment to this rule, what we all need to remember is that dr kershaws and player share benefit from our disagreements. Good point, well made 

 

Edited May 26, 2017 by Bristolatic

[disjointed]

I'm sure everyone appreciates the work you and Stevie put into this. The last thing we want is for it to be a logistical nightmare, if keeping it simple works for you Bristol then why change. 

[leeslover]

I'll help with any spreadsheet work needed, if Mr Tulsehill is playing and Zorrro is otherwise engaged 

[Bristolatic]

Much appreciated. We'll see if any changes are required. Simple change of points in a section I'm fine with, although I'm not keen on adding points, such as a sliding scale, within a section.

Edited May 27, 2017 by Bristolatic

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

My grammar was correct in that instance...as it is in all other instances. 

 

Dave Collinge and me looked down upon the miserable wankers far down the mountain of predicting...is also correct.

 

Dave Collinge and I...is a miserable and pedantic affectation, possibly originating in the public school system, where many grammatical errors were invented, and where the sexual abuse of underperforming students was rife.  

 

[Bristolatic]

3 hours ago, 24hoursfromtulsehill said:

My grammar was correct in that instance...as it is in all other instances. 

 

Dave Collinge and me looked down upon the miserable wankers far down the mountain of predicting...is also correct.

 

Dave Collinge and I...is a miserable and pedantic affectation, possibly originating in the public school system, where many grammatical errors were invented, and where the sexual abuse of underperforming students was rife.  

 

Indeed it was correct, hence my hasty edit acknowledging the fact. You see, I'm happy to admit my mistakes. It's the honourable thing to do. Lessons can be learnt from such things. Dave and I would be correct as in ”Dave and I went to the pub", ie Dave went to the pub, I went to the pub. You youngsters, honestly.

[disjointed]

6 hours ago, Bristolatic said:

Indeed it was correct, hence my hasty edit acknowledging the fact. You see, I'm happy to admit my mistakes. It's the honourable thing to do. Lessons can be learnt from such things. Dave and I would be correct as in ”Dave and I went to the pub", ie Dave went to the pub, I went to the pub. You youngsters, honestly.

Youngsters?

[Bristolatic]

13 hours ago, disjointed said:

Youngsters?

Compared to me, yes.