[Gauss]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=8474.msg69263#msg69263 date=1380298203]
I also like the idea of roping in Miller's and Gemmel's score picks for fun. It can be retroactive, too.

Making theirs retroactive will change some of our scores by a point or two, since the scoring is based on rank among all those who played. But if Gauss is up for recomputing, sounds OK to me.  8)
[/quote]

This is the only exception we'll make for non-posters, but since Kevin and Ted are followed quite widely by the posters here, I agree it would be fun to compare our prediction skills against theirs  ;D
I added them retroactively, and they zoomed to #5 and #11 out of 49. Pretty good!

[quote author=Gauss link=topic=8474.msg69136#msg69136 date=1380176611]
However, given that some people made their first predictions focusing on the spread, we'll keep the old scoring system for those 3 weeks, and use the new system from now on.

I don't follow the logic in this.  A "predict the score" submission is just that.  The spread is a subset of the final score.  Logically, would any of the predictions changed had the ranking been based on the predicted "score" rather than the spread?
[/quote]

The name of the game is indeed "Predict the score" but the rules stated clearly that the spread would determine the accuracy of the prediction. If it was up to me, I'd have changed the classification, as I think the new scoring system makes more sense.
But I think that to make significant retroactive changes like this we should have unanimity, and we had a few posters saying that no changes should be made to past results.

I post below the results for this week (the first week using the total error) and the overall standings.
Congratulations SUBuddha for his/her win this week, and Griffin78 who continues to lead!!

As a final note, after this unexpected and pleasant Stanford blowout, the average bias of the board is now -0.7 points per game. Aren't we fair?  :D

[Gauss]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=8474.msg69263#msg69263 date=1380298203]
I also like the idea of roping in Miller's and Gemmel's score picks for fun. It can be retroactive, too.

Making theirs retroactive will change some of our scores by a point or two, since the scoring is based on rank among all those who played. But if Gauss is up for recomputing, sounds OK to me.  8)
[/quote]

This is the only exception we'll make for non-posters, but since Kevin and Ted are followed quite widely by the posters here, I agree it would be fun to compare our prediction skills against theirs  ;D
I added them retroactively, and they zoomed to #5 and #11 out of 49. Pretty good!

[quote author=Gauss link=topic=8474.msg69136#msg69136 date=1380176611]
However, given that some people made their first predictions focusing on the spread, we'll keep the old scoring system for those 3 weeks, and use the new system from now on.

I don't follow the logic in this.  A "predict the score" submission is just that.  The spread is a subset of the final score.  Logically, would any of the predictions changed had the ranking been based on the predicted "score" rather than the spread?
[/quote]

The name of the game is indeed "Predict the score" but the rules stated clearly that the spread would determine the accuracy of the prediction. If it was up to me, I'd have changed the classification, as I think the new scoring system makes more sense.
But I think that to make significant retroactive changes like this we should have unanimity, and we had a few posters saying that no changes should be made to past results.

I post below the results for this week (the first week using the total error) and the overall standings.
Congratulations SUBuddha for his/her win this week, and Griffin78 who continues to lead!!

As a final note, after this unexpected and pleasant Stanford blowout, the average bias of the board is now -0.7 points per game. Aren't we fair?  :D