Sheesh!! If it's mindless and just "good fun" what's the point? Why have a winner every week if we are not to want to win? Why have a standings table?
This is very interesting actually. On one level it shows what an American education lasting many years and costing a fortune can achieve in some cases.
It also shows how a handful of people, 5 is it out of 20 odd, can make the running on a thread. As is the case on the evolution threads.
. Just don't let Spendius and his pub betting get to you. I prefer keeping the spread out of it. Then it becomes a gamblers game instead of a fun game.
That is not true. spendi's pub betting has nothing to do with the arguments I put forward to improve the game. It is a non sequitur
. The arguments stand alone. And rjb doesn't need any advice about what to do or not to do. Or support. He is no bleating furry animal with a thorn in his paw. He's nearly as bad as I am.
It is necessarily a gambling game I'm afraid. With pride instead of cash as the prize. And the goofers off are good for a laugh. OK. I'm up for that. But the scrap at the top of the table has to be serious to some extent.
Preferring to keep the spread out of it needs to be justified. I prefer to keep the spread out of it. That's why I didn't comment on what farmerman had said.
I know all this. I'll confess. George sussed me out. As had farmerman early on. I just took the favourite in every game from off the bookie's web sites for my back-to-back title victories. I had been playing a few weeks before I discovered what a 1st down was. I couldn't go wrong playing against 20 odd people who thought they were better judges than bookies. I know bookies. They put their money where their mouth is and there is a mass of hungry jackals sniffing at it.
And rjb had asked for suggestions possibly due to him understanding from some previous posts of mine why the game needed improving. And I accept whatever he decides.
We could all make our selections using a coin. But would we trust each other. Who is going to pick-um the Packers opponents if the coin says they should. It's fair though if we could trust each other. Could we put everybody on their word of honour that they had not consulted the bookies?
And the spread is very little extra effort. All rjb has to do is correct the final list of winning franchises, it's an odd word that in sport, it jarred my sensibilities the first time I heard it, to take account of it. Statistically, half the games (8) will have a different result for us than from the actual results. And those corrected results are the ones the bookies pay out on. He then proceeds as he does now. 5 minutes extra--tops.
I came to these conclusions as a result of becoming ashamed of having won my back-to-back titles using such a cheap, underhanded trick as I felt I had done on some good folks who are no all that conversant with bookies and betting because various degrees of prohibition of gambling exist in their culture and it is an activity generally looked down upon by well brought up citizens. Except of course when $2 million is bet upon an ad to win 2 points in the opinion polls. It's respectable in that case. But it is gambling. All ads represent a gamble.
And total points scored in the 16 games etc is an efficient tie-breaker and might reduce rjb's efforts by more than the 5 minutes readjusting the results.