The format of this one is going to be slightly different than our previous over/under contests, since I figured that in the end nobody really cares how many games a team wins in the regular season, or even in their conference.
What does matter is what seed you end up getting in the tournament, which will be the focus of the contest. The rules are very simple -- each entry will have to guess which four teams will earn #1 seeds, which teams will receive #2 seeds, on and on down to the fourth line. So your entry should look something like this, although possibly with different teams:
Entry Name: JWS
1. Emory
1. Rutgers
1. VCU
1. Richmond
2. Harvard
2. Iowa St.
2. Cleveland St.
2. NJIT
3. Ohio St.
3. Indiana
3. Texas Tech
3. Georgia Tech
4. Florida A&M
4. Georgia St.
4. Kansas
4. North Carolina
There is no tiebreaker. If two people tie, they'll both have to submit tournament brackets to determine the winner. This is a great idea, and will save me a ton of time.
The scoring will be six points for each #1 seed you get right, five for each #2, four for #3, and three for #4, for a grand total of 72 possible points. Please e-mail your entries to vegaswatch@gmail.com by midnight on Friday, December 4; this gives everyone a full week after Thanksgiving to get their picks together.
We'll start the prize pool at $200, although this sort of things tends to increase over time because I just love giving away money. Ask any questions you may have in the comments.
8 comments:
Very cool idea for a contest. Once it's over I'd be curious if you could breakdown how you made your picks. I like this idea a lot because people have to think on their own and don't have any PECOTA/CHONE/FO projections to rely on.
I was planning on posting my picks with explanations the week after the deadline.
these arent your picks? i think the eagles are looking good for a number 1
I think you mean three for #1. But why not just go with a 4-3-2-1 scoring system? Wouldn't that be more simple? I should have an easier time going 0-16 on this contest.
"But why not just go with a 4-3-2-1 scoring system? Wouldn't that be more simple?"
It'd be equally simple but would give way too much weight to picking #1s correctly and not enough to #4s.
"I think you mean three for #1."
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Tocchet was right about there being a typo, but they didn't in any way correct it.
I believe the typo should be corrected to read "and three for #4"
Also 6-5-4-3 makes much more sense than 4-3-2-1
Got it now, thanks Trey.
Post a Comment