[george]

Not a lot of things went well for this year's football team, but in terms of predicting the outcomes, you did the best!  Honorable mention for AcesUp for coming in second.  I feel like we should have some kind of flair / badge for predictions game winners, but I leave that to our esteemed leaders to determine.

Having one year under our belt with the predictions widget, here are my thoughts:

1) I really am concerned with the fact that deploying the widget coincided with a terrible year for Stanford football.  I'm talking black outlines on our numbers level of badness.  Although I spent some time deciphering mybb's insane php schema, I'd happily retire the widget for good if it could bring our team back to its former glory and mend some of the rifts that seem to have formed on the board.

2) We got rid of the 10 point penalty for picking against Stanford and I think it was the right move.  I can say this because even though I never picked against Stanford I was the overall points leader going into this final game.  Side note here, I'm glad I didn't win because that would've made the whole thing seem rather suspect.

3) It pays to make a prediction in every game.  Needle and Leftcoast, you only made 7 and 6 predictions respectively, but you still did better than people who had made 12.  Just think what could've been if you'd played every game.

4) It seems like after some hiccups with the javascript and some time zone inconsistencies, people got the hang of using the widget and there weren't any complaints with the last couple of weeks.  Sorry, I mean there weren't any complaints about the predictions widget :).  Next year, I'm thinking I'll add moderator tools to allow admins to modify scores. 

I've turned off the widget on the cardboard landing page, but you can still see the results here:

https://thecardboard.org/board/predictions.php

Until next year!

G.

[george]

Not a lot of things went well for this year's football team, but in terms of predicting the outcomes, you did the best!  Honorable mention for AcesUp for coming in second.  I feel like we should have some kind of flair / badge for predictions game winners, but I leave that to our esteemed leaders to determine.

Having one year under our belt with the predictions widget, here are my thoughts:

1) I really am concerned with the fact that deploying the widget coincided with a terrible year for Stanford football.  I'm talking black outlines on our numbers level of badness.  Although I spent some time deciphering mybb's insane php schema, I'd happily retire the widget for good if it could bring our team back to its former glory and mend some of the rifts that seem to have formed on the board.

2) We got rid of the 10 point penalty for picking against Stanford and I think it was the right move.  I can say this because even though I never picked against Stanford I was the overall points leader going into this final game.  Side note here, I'm glad I didn't win because that would've made the whole thing seem rather suspect.

3) It pays to make a prediction in every game.  Needle and Leftcoast, you only made 7 and 6 predictions respectively, but you still did better than people who had made 12.  Just think what could've been if you'd played every game.

4) It seems like after some hiccups with the javascript and some time zone inconsistencies, people got the hang of using the widget and there weren't any complaints with the last couple of weeks.  Sorry, I mean there weren't any complaints about the predictions widget :).  Next year, I'm thinking I'll add moderator tools to allow admins to modify scores. 

I've turned off the widget on the cardboard landing page, but you can still see the results here:

https://thecardboard.org/board/predictions.php

Until next year!

G.

[Austroturf]

Thanks for managing this, george.  I ended up tied for 4th and picked the following games wrong: USC, Washington, UCLA, Arizona, Colorado and Cal.  Guess that shows how tough the season was.    

One small quibble from my side on the scoring system.  There appears to be no reward in the system for getting the spread right.  Example: If you pick Stanford to win 24-23 and the final score is 34-33, you are worse off than somebody who picks Stanford to win 38-28.  There is certainly also some skill in predicting how close a game will be; but the scoring system focuses much more on the individual numbers and how far away they are from the final result.  Not sure if integrating spread can be done elegantly, but it's certainly an important element to the sport (ultimately, it's what you win the money for if you are betting, which I am not).

[Austroturf]

Thanks for managing this, george.  I ended up tied for 4th and picked the following games wrong: USC, Washington, UCLA, Arizona, Colorado and Cal.  Guess that shows how tough the season was.    

One small quibble from my side on the scoring system.  There appears to be no reward in the system for getting the spread right.  Example: If you pick Stanford to win 24-23 and the final score is 34-33, you are worse off than somebody who picks Stanford to win 38-28.  There is certainly also some skill in predicting how close a game will be; but the scoring system focuses much more on the individual numbers and how far away they are from the final result.  Not sure if integrating spread can be done elegantly, but it's certainly an important element to the sport (ultimately, it's what you win the money for if you are betting, which I am not).

[cardcrimson]

Are the results gone from the top of the page already? Can't seem to find the link. Oops. found it in your post. Man, if I hadn't picked Northwestern at the start of the season and ended up with 2 points for that game. . . .

Thanks for running the contest!

[cardcrimson]

Are the results gone from the top of the page already? Can't seem to find the link. Oops. found it in your post. Man, if I hadn't picked Northwestern at the start of the season and ended up with 2 points for that game. . . .

Thanks for running the contest!

[george]

There is certainly also some skill in predicting how close a game will be; but the scoring system focuses much more on the individual numbers and how far away they are from the final result.  

This is a good point, we should definitely attempt to address this in the 2020 edition of the game.

[george]

There is certainly also some skill in predicting how close a game will be; but the scoring system focuses much more on the individual numbers and how far away they are from the final result.  

This is a good point, we should definitely attempt to address this in the 2020 edition of the game.

[qwerty49]

There is certainly also some skill in predicting how close a game will be; but the scoring system focuses much more on the individual numbers and how far away they are from the final result.  

This is a good point, we should definitely attempt to address this in the 2020 edition of the game.

Maybe there could be several "scoring components" of the game.  One could be closeness of prediction to actual scores and another could be closeness of predicted spread to actual score spread.  And weight them if you wish.  I will leave that to finer minds than mine to figure that out.  I feel like that moment where you look up and say, "wait, no one said there would be math!"

[qwerty49]

There is certainly also some skill in predicting how close a game will be; but the scoring system focuses much more on the individual numbers and how far away they are from the final result.  

This is a good point, we should definitely attempt to address this in the 2020 edition of the game.

Maybe there could be several "scoring components" of the game.  One could be closeness of prediction to actual scores and another could be closeness of predicted spread to actual score spread.  And weight them if you wish.  I will leave that to finer minds than mine to figure that out.  I feel like that moment where you look up and say, "wait, no one said there would be math!"

[BostonCard]

When I ran this contest, I used to do it by the difference in spread plus the difference in mean score.  However, some people didn’t like the scoring method. My view is that whoever runs it gets to decide, and a lot of it is probably dependent on how easy or difficult it is to program the plug-in.

Whatever he decides, thanks to George for running this game.

BC

[BostonCard]

When I ran this contest, I used to do it by the difference in spread plus the difference in mean score.  However, some people didn’t like the scoring method. My view is that whoever runs it gets to decide, and a lot of it is probably dependent on how easy or difficult it is to program the plug-in.

Whatever he decides, thanks to George for running this game.

BC

[Mick]

When I ran this contest, I used to do it by the difference in spread plus the difference in mean score.  However, some people didn’t like the scoring method. My view is that whoever runs it gets to decide, and a lot of it is probably dependent on how easy or difficult it is to program the plug-in.

Whatever he decides, thanks to George for running this game.

BC

What he said.  I like George's system.  It's more difficult -- you have to predict two scores.  It's fun, I really liked it, and George, I hope you do it again next season!  Thanks for putting in the time and effort, it was good fun.

[Mick]

When I ran this contest, I used to do it by the difference in spread plus the difference in mean score.  However, some people didn’t like the scoring method. My view is that whoever runs it gets to decide, and a lot of it is probably dependent on how easy or difficult it is to program the plug-in.

Whatever he decides, thanks to George for running this game.

BC

What he said.  I like George's system.  It's more difficult -- you have to predict two scores.  It's fun, I really liked it, and George, I hope you do it again next season!  Thanks for putting in the time and effort, it was good fun.