[Bill Dozer]

1st Rd - 1 point
2nd Rd - 3 points
3rd Rd - 5 points
4th Rd - 7 points
5th Rd 10 points
Champ 15 Points

Iv'e always liked the Bracket Tourneys that didn't put too much weight on the Final game. This way you have to think about more than the final match...Thoughts?

Enter Bracket Thread

[imgv94]

It is perfectly fine the way it is. No changes necessary. Thanks Bill.

[imgv94]

Don't start Winston. Like Always. End the wanting
to start something again Winston.

[Mudcat]

I kind of gravitate to granting weighted points based on seeding (at least in the first round or two). Picking the 4 #1-seeds to win their first game shouldn't be granted as many points as picking a 13 or a 12 correct.

I agree with this. I wouldn't pick any low seeds in the first couple rounds if the reward is the same either way. But if there is more incentive for picking those big dogs, that would open some things up.

I'll go along with whatever but if that concept could somehow be worked in there, I think that would be good.

[Razz]

I've always liked the bonus point system better myself as well, but whatever is cool.

[bigboydan]

that works for me bill.

[pags11]

I think it's an excellent system bill...

[Ganchrow]

I kind of gravitate to granting weighted points based on seeding (at least in the first round or two). Picking the 4 #1-seeds to win their first game shouldn't be granted as many points as picking a 13 or a 12 correct.

I agree with you here. Of course, it would obviously complicate matters, but I've always found NCAA pools most interesting when they follow a structure akin to this.

My guess is that this will likely fall on deaf ears, but one way I might suggest implementing this would be to award points for picking a given winner by multiplying the winner's seed number by the points awarded for that round (either as determined by Bill here or based on some other scheme).

For example:

• Correctly picking a 16th seed to win in the 1st round would award 16 points (16 for the 16th seed x 1 for the 1st round).
• Correctly picking a 5th seed to win in the 3rd round would award 25 points (5 for the 5th seed x 5 for the 3rd round).
• Correctly picking a 2nd seed to win in the finals would award 30 points (2 for the 2nd seed x 15 for the finals).

[isetcap]

I agree with you here. Of course, it would obviously complicate matters, but I've always found NCAA pools most interesting when they follow a structure akin to this.

My guess is that this will likely fall on deaf ears, but one way I might suggest implementing this would be to award points for picking a given winner by multiplying the winner's seed number by the points awarded for that round (either as determined by Bill here or based on some other scheme).

For example:

• Correctly picking a 16th seed to win in the 1st round would award 16 points (16 for the 16th seed x 1 for the 1st round).
• Correctly picking a 5th seed to win in the 3rd round would award 25 points (5 for the 5th seed x 5 for the 3rd round).
• Correctly picking a 2nd seed to win in the finals would award 30 points (2 for the 2nd seed x 15 for the finals).

This is the way I administered the pools I ran at college. It is by far the best methodology.

[pags11]

definitely encourages people to pick upsets...

[natrass]

Id go for the seeding thing because i dont know who the favs are anyway .. I just picked the names which sounded like they came from the biggest towns ... and obviously those teams picking from a whole state are going to have an advantage over those obscure small town ones.

So, if any underdogs win, I'll look brilliant.

[JoshW]

Some neat ideas here, but if you go with don't go with Bill's idea and go with something complicated I feel for whoever is grading it, will be a bitch.

[Mudcat]

Some neat ideas here, but if you go with don't go with Bill's idea and go with something complicated I feel for whoever is grading it, will be a bitch.

Very, very true. I like Ganchrow's idea a lot but then again I'm not volunteering for grading detail.

[Ganchrow]

... but then again I'm not volunteering for grading detail.

Do you really think such a task is beyond the abilities of SBR's shiny fleet of Agent Smith's? Isn't that why we have computers? I know I wouldn't have designed that pick entry interface without some mechanism in place for grading the entries.

If they can'twon't do it, I volunteer to write the program to grade it on my steam powered difference engine.

[Willie Bee]

I like the KISS approach. Just because picking Southern to beat Duke can give me more points isn't really going to affect my decisions ultimately.

[Mudcat]

Do you really think such a task is beyond the abilities of SBR's shiny fleet of Agent Smith's? Isn't that why we have computers? I know I wouldn't have designed that pick entry interface without some mechanism in place for grading the entries.

If they can'twon't do it, I volunteer to write the program to grade it on my steam powered difference engine.

Ah. Okay. Well I am a boob and my level of intellectual sophistication about these matters only goes as far as thinking it will have to be graded manually.

I bow to your expertise.

[Illusion]

I agree with you here. Of course, it would obviously complicate matters, but I've always found NCAA pools most interesting when they follow a structure akin to this.

My guess is that this will likely fall on deaf ears, but one way I might suggest implementing this would be to award points for picking a given winner by multiplying the winner's seed number by the points awarded for that round (either as determined by Bill here or based on some other scheme).

For example:

• Correctly picking a 16th seed to win in the 1st round would award 16 points (16 for the 16th seed x 1 for the 1st round).
• Correctly picking a 5th seed to win in the 3rd round would award 25 points (5 for the 5th seed x 5 for the 3rd round).
• Correctly picking a 2nd seed to win in the finals would award 30 points (2 for the 2nd seed x 15 for the finals).

That's a great idea ganch.

[Bill Dozer]

I like the weighted system too. It's almost like picking the teams on a ML vs. straight up. Unfortunately the software is currently set up to enter the point value for each round so... what I should have asked about was opinions on how much each round should be worth. I saw some tourneys go 1,2,3,5,10,20 pts or 2,4,7,10,20,30.

The good news is these ideas will make a good NBA contest.

[imgv94]

Bump

[pags11]

thanks a lot for blowing leads SDSU and NC Wilmington...