08-26-2014, 05:07 AM
The last 3 years I've been traveling for the first few weeks of football season and couldn't participate. Not this year!
Stanford 34, other guys 13
Stanford 34, other guys 13
Predict the score:
08-26-2014, 07:31 AM
Glad I explained my score prediction before this came out.Â
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...s-stanford
On the other hand, ESPN can be strange . . .
https://mobile.twitter.com/ESPN_Pac12blo...96/photo/1
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...s-stanford
On the other hand, ESPN can be strange . . .
https://mobile.twitter.com/ESPN_Pac12blo...96/photo/1
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
Glad I explained my score prediction before this came out.Â
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...s-stanford
On the other hand, ESPN can be strange . . .
https://mobile.twitter.com/ESPN_Pac12blo...96/photo/1
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...s-stanford
On the other hand, ESPN can be strange . . .
https://mobile.twitter.com/ESPN_Pac12blo...96/photo/1
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
08-26-2014, 07:55 AM
Speaking of features for the game, I'd love to include two:
1) Last time we included the ESPN Pac-12 bloggers. Let's do it again!
2) I don't think we included Vegas's lines, but I think they'd be a fun addition as well. (Can use the consensus lines and over/unders from Vegas Insiders.)
1) Last time we included the ESPN Pac-12 bloggers. Let's do it again!
2) I don't think we included Vegas's lines, but I think they'd be a fun addition as well. (Can use the consensus lines and over/unders from Vegas Insiders.)
Speaking of features for the game, I'd love to include two:
1) Last time we included the ESPN Pac-12 bloggers. Let's do it again!
2) I don't think we included Vegas's lines, but I think they'd be a fun addition as well. (Can use the consensus lines and over/unders from Vegas Insiders.)
1) Last time we included the ESPN Pac-12 bloggers. Let's do it again!
2) I don't think we included Vegas's lines, but I think they'd be a fun addition as well. (Can use the consensus lines and over/unders from Vegas Insiders.)
08-26-2014, 08:56 AM
(08-26-2014, 07:55 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Speaking of features for the game, I'd love to include two:
1) Last time we included the ESPN Pac-12 bloggers. Let's do it again!
2) I don't think we included Vegas's lines, but I think they'd be a fun addition as well. (Can use the consensus lines and over/unders from Vegas Insiders.)
I second the motion. As for ESPN: I don't think they know anymore than we (collectively) do. Read today their picks for NC game and winner, listed each vote. All over the map. One (Mack Brown) picked us losing to FSU, one picked Georgia, one OklahomA, one Baylor. Consensus teams seemed to be FSU, Alabama, UCLA. Desmond Howard, who ranked us # 3 nationally last week, picked UCLA in the final. Go figure. How can we be # 3 one week, UCLA (ranked lower by him) winning it all?
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
(08-26-2014, 07:55 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Speaking of features for the game, I'd love to include two:
1) Last time we included the ESPN Pac-12 bloggers. Let's do it again!
2) I don't think we included Vegas's lines, but I think they'd be a fun addition as well. (Can use the consensus lines and over/unders from Vegas Insiders.)
I second the motion. As for ESPN: I don't think they know anymore than we (collectively) do. Read today their picks for NC game and winner, listed each vote. All over the map. One (Mack Brown) picked us losing to FSU, one picked Georgia, one OklahomA, one Baylor. Consensus teams seemed to be FSU, Alabama, UCLA. Desmond Howard, who ranked us # 3 nationally last week, picked UCLA in the final. Go figure. How can we be # 3 one week, UCLA (ranked lower by him) winning it all?
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
08-26-2014, 09:02 AM
(08-26-2014, 08:56 AM)ferrari link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=10428.msg95240#msg95240 date=1409064905]
Speaking of features for the game, I'd love to include two:
1) Last time we included the ESPN Pac-12 bloggers. Let's do it again!
2) I don't think we included Vegas's lines, but I think they'd be a fun addition as well. (Can use the consensus lines and over/unders from Vegas Insiders.)
I second the motion. As for ESPN: I don't think they know anymore than we (collectively) do. Read today their picks for NC game and winner, listed each vote. All over the map. One (Mack Brown) picked us losing to FSU, one picked Georgia, one OklahomA, one Baylor. Consensus teams seemed to be FSU, Alabama, UCLA. Desmond Howard, who ranked us # 3 nationally last week, picked UCLA in the final. Go figure. How can we be # 3 one week, UCLA (ranked lower by him) winning it all?
[/quote]
Lot's of them I agree, but Miller and Gemmel have actually been pretty good. I think they were near the top of the scoring last year in this game, and at least one predicted the Pac-12 standings perfectly (maybe both?). I believe it would only be including the Pac-12 bloggers, although there are 4 of them now. Kind of neat that two of them covered Stanford specifically in the past, actually.
(08-26-2014, 08:56 AM)ferrari link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=10428.msg95240#msg95240 date=1409064905]
Speaking of features for the game, I'd love to include two:
1) Last time we included the ESPN Pac-12 bloggers. Let's do it again!
2) I don't think we included Vegas's lines, but I think they'd be a fun addition as well. (Can use the consensus lines and over/unders from Vegas Insiders.)
I second the motion. As for ESPN: I don't think they know anymore than we (collectively) do. Read today their picks for NC game and winner, listed each vote. All over the map. One (Mack Brown) picked us losing to FSU, one picked Georgia, one OklahomA, one Baylor. Consensus teams seemed to be FSU, Alabama, UCLA. Desmond Howard, who ranked us # 3 nationally last week, picked UCLA in the final. Go figure. How can we be # 3 one week, UCLA (ranked lower by him) winning it all?
[/quote]
Lot's of them I agree, but Miller and Gemmel have actually been pretty good. I think they were near the top of the scoring last year in this game, and at least one predicted the Pac-12 standings perfectly (maybe both?). I believe it would only be including the Pac-12 bloggers, although there are 4 of them now. Kind of neat that two of them covered Stanford specifically in the past, actually.
08-26-2014, 09:04 AM
The PAC 12 bloggers were pretty darn good. Kevin Gemmell placed third and Ted Miller placed eighth.Â
For a while it looked like Gemmell might be the overall winner.Â
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...l#msg80993
For a while it looked like Gemmell might be the overall winner.Â
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...l#msg80993
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
The PAC 12 bloggers were pretty darn good. Kevin Gemmell placed third and Ted Miller placed eighth.Â
For a while it looked like Gemmell might be the overall winner.Â
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...l#msg80993
For a while it looked like Gemmell might be the overall winner.Â
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...l#msg80993
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
08-26-2014, 09:14 AM
(08-26-2014, 09:04 AM)leftcoast link Wrote:The PAC 12 bloggers were pretty darn good. Kevin Gemmell placed third and Ted Miller placed eighth.Â
For a while it looked like Gemmell might be the overall winner.Â
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...l#msg80993
I agree completely about them. Could we invite Lombardi? (Or does that conjure up an old Cardboard grudge?)
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
(08-26-2014, 09:04 AM)leftcoast link Wrote:The PAC 12 bloggers were pretty darn good. Kevin Gemmell placed third and Ted Miller placed eighth.Â
For a while it looked like Gemmell might be the overall winner.Â
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...l#msg80993
I agree completely about them. Could we invite Lombardi? (Or does that conjure up an old Cardboard grudge?)
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
08-26-2014, 09:35 AM
Cardinal 41 - Aggies 10
Maybe I missed this earlier, but are Gauss and Publius running the prediction game this year as well?
Maybe I missed this earlier, but are Gauss and Publius running the prediction game this year as well?
Cardinal 41 - Aggies 10
Maybe I missed this earlier, but are Gauss and Publius running the prediction game this year as well?
Maybe I missed this earlier, but are Gauss and Publius running the prediction game this year as well?
08-26-2014, 10:35 AM
Stanford 51 (seven touchdowns and a safety)
UCD 6
UCD 6
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
08-26-2014, 10:41 AM
Stanford 31 - 13 over the Winemakers. I like palindromes.
All models are wrong; some models are useful......
George Box
08-26-2014, 10:43 AM
(08-26-2014, 09:35 AM)shinsengumi link Wrote:Cardinal 41 - Aggies 10
Maybe I missed this earlier, but are Gauss and Publius running the prediction game this year as well?
Gauss gets the credit for last year. All I did was take a stab at a scoring system for the first game using an Excel spreadsheet. Gauss developed a far more sophisticated and automated script to calculate and generate results. I just started a new job so don't have the time to do it this year. I'd offer up the spreadsheet except I lost it during the move.
Haven't heard from Gauss in a while. Hopefully Gauss will surface soon.
(08-26-2014, 09:35 AM)shinsengumi link Wrote:Cardinal 41 - Aggies 10
Maybe I missed this earlier, but are Gauss and Publius running the prediction game this year as well?
Gauss gets the credit for last year. All I did was take a stab at a scoring system for the first game using an Excel spreadsheet. Gauss developed a far more sophisticated and automated script to calculate and generate results. I just started a new job so don't have the time to do it this year. I'd offer up the spreadsheet except I lost it during the move.
Haven't heard from Gauss in a while. Hopefully Gauss will surface soon.
08-26-2014, 11:22 AM
(08-26-2014, 10:35 AM)Hank 91 link Wrote:Stanford 51 (seven touchdowns and a safety)
UCD 6
Huzzah!
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
08-26-2014, 11:53 AM
Quote:I agree completely about them. Could we invite Lombardi? (Or does that conjure up an old Cardboard grudge?)
We didn't ACTUALLY invite Kevin and Ted. We just took their weekly score prediction from their ESPN blog and added that as basemark tracking numbers. I think Ted was amused when he heard through the comments section on his blog that he was behind Kevin. Am I remembering that correctly?
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
Quote:I agree completely about them. Could we invite Lombardi? (Or does that conjure up an old Cardboard grudge?)
We didn't ACTUALLY invite Kevin and Ted. We just took their weekly score prediction from their ESPN blog and added that as basemark tracking numbers. I think Ted was amused when he heard through the comments section on his blog that he was behind Kevin. Am I remembering that correctly?
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
08-26-2014, 12:26 PM
(08-26-2014, 11:53 AM)leftcoast link Wrote:Quote:I agree completely about them. Could we invite Lombardi? (Or does that conjure up an old Cardboard grudge?)
We didn't ACTUALLY invite Kevin and Ted. We just took their weekly score prediction from their ESPN blog and added that as basemark tracking numbers. I think Ted was amused when he heard through the comments section on his blog that he was behind Kevin. Am I remembering that correctly?
Well we OUGHT to send personal invites (and a hat.).
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
(08-26-2014, 11:53 AM)leftcoast link Wrote:Quote:I agree completely about them. Could we invite Lombardi? (Or does that conjure up an old Cardboard grudge?)
We didn't ACTUALLY invite Kevin and Ted. We just took their weekly score prediction from their ESPN blog and added that as basemark tracking numbers. I think Ted was amused when he heard through the comments section on his blog that he was behind Kevin. Am I remembering that correctly?
Well we OUGHT to send personal invites (and a hat.).
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
08-26-2014, 12:35 PM
(08-26-2014, 10:48 AM)garvin link Wrote:Not to be pessimistic, but Gauss hasn't posted here since March. I say we make Publius do it and to hell with his "family" and "life" and "job." We have needs.
Worst case, if Gauss doesn't show up, I'll do it - as long as everybody promises not to complain if when I'm not punctual about posting results or that it does not look as slick as Gauss's python generated tables. Mine will look like I used Karel The Robot to generate them.
Where have you gone Gauss? Our message board turns its lonely eyes to you.
Can somebody confirm that PLF's recollection of the scoring system is correct? The system worked pretty well so let's stick to it. Whatever it was.
(08-24-2014, 09:11 PM)PrinceLightfoot link Wrote:If I remember correctly, we ended up following this formula: [Stanford predicted score - Stanford actual score] + [Opponent predicted score - Opponent actual score] = margin of error. The total number of points awarded is based on the number of players entering in a prediction for that week...i.e. 20 predictions, the person with the smallest margin of error gets 20 points, 2nd place gets 19 points, etc. There was a 10(?) point bonus if your score prediction was perfect and a 5(?) point penalty for picking against Stanford with the result being a Stanford win. Your weekly score would be added to the season-to-date totals.
(08-26-2014, 10:48 AM)garvin link Wrote:Not to be pessimistic, but Gauss hasn't posted here since March. I say we make Publius do it and to hell with his "family" and "life" and "job." We have needs.
Worst case, if Gauss doesn't show up, I'll do it - as long as everybody promises not to complain if when I'm not punctual about posting results or that it does not look as slick as Gauss's python generated tables. Mine will look like I used Karel The Robot to generate them.
Where have you gone Gauss? Our message board turns its lonely eyes to you.
Can somebody confirm that PLF's recollection of the scoring system is correct? The system worked pretty well so let's stick to it. Whatever it was.
(08-24-2014, 09:11 PM)PrinceLightfoot link Wrote:If I remember correctly, we ended up following this formula: [Stanford predicted score - Stanford actual score] + [Opponent predicted score - Opponent actual score] = margin of error. The total number of points awarded is based on the number of players entering in a prediction for that week...i.e. 20 predictions, the person with the smallest margin of error gets 20 points, 2nd place gets 19 points, etc. There was a 10(?) point bonus if your score prediction was perfect and a 5(?) point penalty for picking against Stanford with the result being a Stanford win. Your weekly score would be added to the season-to-date totals.
StanFan88
Unregistered
Unregistered
08-26-2014, 12:43 PM
Stanford 55, My wife's alma mater 6
I have been hearing about 2005 on a regular basis for a long time now. Not sure it will stop after Saturday but a thorough shellacking might help. But don't forget that 2005 wasn't just football - it was also men's basketball and a 2-game sweep in baseball too.
I have been hearing about 2005 on a regular basis for a long time now. Not sure it will stop after Saturday but a thorough shellacking might help. But don't forget that 2005 wasn't just football - it was also men's basketball and a 2-game sweep in baseball too.
Stanford 55, My wife's alma mater 6
I have been hearing about 2005 on a regular basis for a long time now. Not sure it will stop after Saturday but a thorough shellacking might help. But don't forget that 2005 wasn't just football - it was also men's basketball and a 2-game sweep in baseball too.
I have been hearing about 2005 on a regular basis for a long time now. Not sure it will stop after Saturday but a thorough shellacking might help. But don't forget that 2005 wasn't just football - it was also men's basketball and a 2-game sweep in baseball too.
08-26-2014, 12:51 PM
(08-26-2014, 12:35 PM)Publius link Wrote:[quote author=garvin link=topic=10428.msg95268#msg95268 date=1409075303]
Not to be pessimistic, but Gauss hasn't posted here since March. I say we make Publius do it and to hell with his "family" and "life" and "job." We have needs.
Worst case, if Gauss doesn't show up, I'll do it - as long as everybody promises not to complain if when I'm not punctual about posting results or that it does not look as slick as Gauss's python generated tables. Mine will look like I used Karel The Robot to generate the tables.
Where have you gone Gauss? Our message board turns its lonely eyes to you.
Can somebody confirm that PLF's recollection of the scoring system is correct? The system worked pretty well so let's stick to it. Whatever it was.
(08-24-2014, 09:11 PM)PrinceLightfoot link Wrote:If I remember correctly, we ended up following this formula: [Stanford predicted score - Stanford actual score] + [Opponent predicted score - Opponent actual score] = margin of error. The total number of points awarded is based on the number of players entering in a prediction for that week...i.e. 20 predictions, the person with the smallest margin of error gets 20 points, 2nd place gets 19 points, etc. There was a 10(?) point bonus if your score prediction was perfect and a 5(?) point penalty for picking against Stanford with the result being a Stanford win. Your weekly score would be added to the season-to-date totals.[/quote]
Thank you!
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
(08-26-2014, 12:35 PM)Publius link Wrote:[quote author=garvin link=topic=10428.msg95268#msg95268 date=1409075303]
Not to be pessimistic, but Gauss hasn't posted here since March. I say we make Publius do it and to hell with his "family" and "life" and "job." We have needs.
Worst case, if Gauss doesn't show up, I'll do it - as long as everybody promises not to complain if when I'm not punctual about posting results or that it does not look as slick as Gauss's python generated tables. Mine will look like I used Karel The Robot to generate the tables.
Where have you gone Gauss? Our message board turns its lonely eyes to you.
Can somebody confirm that PLF's recollection of the scoring system is correct? The system worked pretty well so let's stick to it. Whatever it was.
(08-24-2014, 09:11 PM)PrinceLightfoot link Wrote:If I remember correctly, we ended up following this formula: [Stanford predicted score - Stanford actual score] + [Opponent predicted score - Opponent actual score] = margin of error. The total number of points awarded is based on the number of players entering in a prediction for that week...i.e. 20 predictions, the person with the smallest margin of error gets 20 points, 2nd place gets 19 points, etc. There was a 10(?) point bonus if your score prediction was perfect and a 5(?) point penalty for picking against Stanford with the result being a Stanford win. Your weekly score would be added to the season-to-date totals.[/quote]
Thank you!
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
One other note on scoring .... Ties were broken where relevant by the accuracy of your game description commentary with the scorers decision final and no snivelling allowed.Â
No one gets paid to do this so keep in mind that, as I tell my kids, "You get what you get and you don't throw a fit."
No one gets paid to do this so keep in mind that, as I tell my kids, "You get what you get and you don't throw a fit."
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
(This post was last modified: 08-26-2014, 02:39 PM by Leftcoast.)
One other note on scoring .... Ties were broken where relevant by the accuracy of your game description commentary with the scorers decision final and no snivelling allowed.Â
No one gets paid to do this so keep in mind that, as I tell my kids, "You get what you get and you don't throw a fit."
No one gets paid to do this so keep in mind that, as I tell my kids, "You get what you get and you don't throw a fit."
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
08-26-2014, 01:13 PM
(08-26-2014, 12:35 PM)Publius link Wrote:Worst case, if Gauss doesn't show up, I'll do it - as long as everybody promises not to complain if when I'm not punctual about posting results or that it does not look as slick as Gauss's python generated tables. Mine will look like I used Karel The Robot to generate the tables.[/quote]
Where have you gone Gauss? Our message board turns its lonely eyes to you.
Can somebody confirm that PLF's recollection of the scoring system is correct? The system worked pretty well so let's stick to it. Whatever it was.
[quote author=PrinceLightfoot link=topic=10428.msg95138#msg95138 date=1408939903]
If I remember correctly, we ended up following this formula: [Stanford predicted score - Stanford actual score] + [Opponent predicted score - Opponent actual score] = margin of error. The total number of points awarded is based on the number of players entering in a prediction for that week...i.e. 20 predictions, the person with the smallest margin of error gets 20 points, 2nd place gets 19 points, etc. There was a 10(?) point bonus if your score prediction was perfect and a 5(?) point penalty for picking against Stanford with the result being a Stanford win. Your weekly score would be added to the season-to-date totals.
Publius, I am happy to help you out in this year's effort. I can take a first stab at setting up the scoring model. Let me know if that works.
I think PLF's recollection of the scoring is pretty much spot on. My one recommendation would be to get rid of the "Stanford Homer" rule to level the playing field for our outside guests (Miller, Gemmel, Vegas Line, etc.). Instead, we can award 5 additional points for predicting the correct winner. As it stands, someone might pick the wrong winner in a close game, but end up getting more points compared to someone else who picked the right winner.
(08-26-2014, 12:35 PM)Publius link Wrote:Worst case, if Gauss doesn't show up, I'll do it - as long as everybody promises not to complain if when I'm not punctual about posting results or that it does not look as slick as Gauss's python generated tables. Mine will look like I used Karel The Robot to generate the tables.[/quote]
Where have you gone Gauss? Our message board turns its lonely eyes to you.
Can somebody confirm that PLF's recollection of the scoring system is correct? The system worked pretty well so let's stick to it. Whatever it was.
[quote author=PrinceLightfoot link=topic=10428.msg95138#msg95138 date=1408939903]
If I remember correctly, we ended up following this formula: [Stanford predicted score - Stanford actual score] + [Opponent predicted score - Opponent actual score] = margin of error. The total number of points awarded is based on the number of players entering in a prediction for that week...i.e. 20 predictions, the person with the smallest margin of error gets 20 points, 2nd place gets 19 points, etc. There was a 10(?) point bonus if your score prediction was perfect and a 5(?) point penalty for picking against Stanford with the result being a Stanford win. Your weekly score would be added to the season-to-date totals.
Publius, I am happy to help you out in this year's effort. I can take a first stab at setting up the scoring model. Let me know if that works.
I think PLF's recollection of the scoring is pretty much spot on. My one recommendation would be to get rid of the "Stanford Homer" rule to level the playing field for our outside guests (Miller, Gemmel, Vegas Line, etc.). Instead, we can award 5 additional points for predicting the correct winner. As it stands, someone might pick the wrong winner in a close game, but end up getting more points compared to someone else who picked the right winner.
08-26-2014, 01:20 PM
(08-26-2014, 01:13 PM)shinsengumi link Wrote:Publius, I am happy to help you out in this year's effort. I can take a first stab at setting up the scoring model. Let me know if that works.
Already working on the spreadsheet. Creating something from scratch a second time is relatively easy when you've done it before - like when you forget to save something and then your computer crashes.
Since I know for a fact that you know your way around Excel, would appreciate the backup during the weeks that I'm not able to do it.
(08-26-2014, 01:13 PM)shinsengumi link Wrote:Publius, I am happy to help you out in this year's effort. I can take a first stab at setting up the scoring model. Let me know if that works.
Already working on the spreadsheet. Creating something from scratch a second time is relatively easy when you've done it before - like when you forget to save something and then your computer crashes.
Since I know for a fact that you know your way around Excel, would appreciate the backup during the weeks that I'm not able to do it.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »