MIAA pick 'em

[ChicagoHopeNut]

Saturday January 5th:

Calvin at Albion - 4
Olivet at Kalamazoo - 3
Hope at Adrian - 1
Trine at Alma - 2

[KnightSlappy]

Saturday January 4
Calvin-4
Olivet-3
Adrian-2
Trine-1

He's so sure, he posted it twice!

Actually he just thinks both today and tomorrow are Saturday.  I guess he figured he had to try to outdo oldknight (who put 4 points on all four games on Wed)

Thursday, Jan. 2

Calvin over Adrian - 4
Hope over Alma - 4
Trine over Kalamazoo - 4
Albion over Olivet - 4

That's what I get for copying the slate (and editing for my picks) from HCG.

Saturday January 4
Calvin-4
Alma-3
Kalamazoo-2
Adrian-1

[KnightSlappy]

Thursday, Jan. 2

Calvin over Adrian - 4
Hope over Alma - 4
Trine over Kalamazoo - 4
Albion over Olivet - 4

FDF, How is this being scored?

[Happy Calvin Guy]

Thursday, Jan. 2

Calvin over Adrian - 4
Hope over Alma - 4
Trine over Kalamazoo - 4
Albion over Olivet - 4

FDF, How is this being scored?

Gotta be 3-1, for 6 points

[calalum]

For Sat Jan 5

4. Calvin
3. Olivet
2. Trine
1. Adrian

[Flying Dutch Fan]

Thursday, Jan. 2

Calvin over Adrian - 4
Hope over Alma - 4
Trine over Kalamazoo - 4
Albion over Olivet - 4

FDF, How is this being scored?

I'm inclined to give him a 3-1 record with 8 or 9 points (giving him an old guy break). Average points pickers put on an Albion pick was 1.77, so 2 for him is probably fair.  Think I'll give him 8 points, but it is currently pending litigation. 

[KnightSlappy]

Thursday, Jan. 2

Calvin over Adrian - 4
Hope over Alma - 4
Trine over Kalamazoo - 4
Albion over Olivet - 4

FDF, How is this being scored?

I'm inclined to give him a 3-1 record with 8 or 9 points (giving him an old guy break). Average points pickers put on an Albion pick was 1.77, so 2 for him is probably fair.  Think I'll give him 8 points, but it is currently pending litigation.

I'd typically advise trying 1-800-CALL-OLDK but you may not find unbiased advice in this instance.

I'm inclined to agree with HCG. If your points are in error, you lose the highest value first.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

Thursday, Jan. 2

Calvin over Adrian - 4
Hope over Alma - 4
Trine over Kalamazoo - 4
Albion over Olivet - 4

FDF, How is this being scored?

I'm inclined to give him a 3-1 record with 8 or 9 points (giving him an old guy break). Average points pickers put on an Albion pick was 1.77, so 2 for him is probably fair.  Think I'll give him 8 points, but it is currently pending litigation.

I'd typically advise trying 1-800-CALL-OLDK but you may not find unbiased advice in this instance.

I'm inclined to agree with HCG. If your points are in error, you lose the highest value first.

You make a valid point - of course with his picks you get the saem result if you use his lowest value    Awaiting closing remarks from the defendant prior to my final judgement. 

[Happy Calvin Guy]

I'm inclined to agree with HCG. If your points are in error, you lose the highest value first.

There's no other way to logically handle it.  And face it, MIAA Pick 'em is high stakes stuff, so we gotta get it right.  Humor me with the following scenario:  you are in the lead going into the final weekend of the year.  There are four tough-to-pick matchups, and you need 7 points to guarantee yourself victory.  Why not just put 4 confidence points on all your picks, knowing that the judge won't ding you more than 2 or 3 for any one wrong answer?  Then all you need is to be right on 3 of them, doesn't matter which 3, and you win all the prize money and associated spoils.  You will have eliminated the risk of putting your 4 confidence points on the wrong matchup.  Inevitably, this would become known as the "Oldknight Rule" and I'm sure he doesn't want his name, even his screen name, to be associated with this precedent, even for the consideration of an additional 1 or 2 points in week 1.

[realist]

My, my another kerfuffle.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

I'm inclined to agree with HCG. If your points are in error, you lose the highest value first.

There's no other way to logically handle it.  And face it, MIAA Pick 'em is high stakes stuff, so we gotta get it right.  Humor me with the following scenario:  you are in the lead going into the final weekend of the year.  There are four tough-to-pick matchups, and you need 7 points to guarantee yourself victory.  Why not just put 4 confidence points on all your picks, knowing that the judge won't ding you more than 2 or 3 for any one wrong answer?  Then all you need is to be right on 3 of them, doesn't matter which 3, and you win all the prize money and associated spoils.  You will have eliminated the risk of putting your 4 confidence points on the wrong matchup.  Inevitably, this would become known as the "Oldknight Rule" and I'm sure he doesn't want his name, even his screen name, to be associated with this precedent, even for the consideration of an additional 1 or 2 points in week 1.

I'm sorry counselor but you are out of order.  The prosecution's closing arguments have already been completed and are well understood by this court (and I really do agree with you).  Given this late hour, we will recess until such time as the defendant choose to grace us with his presence or we just get tired of wiating for the old fart, grant him 0 points for the week and we all move on... 

[oldknight]

Thursday, Jan. 2

Calvin over Adrian - 4
Hope over Alma - 4
Trine over Kalamazoo - 4
Albion over Olivet - 4

FDF, How is this being scored?

I'm inclined to give him a 3-1 record with 8 or 9 points (giving him an old guy break). Average points pickers put on an Albion pick was 1.77, so 2 for him is probably fair.  Think I'll give him 8 points, but it is currently pending litigation.

I'd typically advise trying 1-800-CALL-OLDK but you may not find unbiased advice in this instance.

I'm inclined to agree with HCG. If your points are in error, you lose the highest value first.

You make a valid point - of course with his picks you get the saem result if you use his lowest value    Awaiting closing remarks from the defendant prior to my final judgement.

Alright. alright; everybody's gotten their laughs at my expense. A lawyer publicly embarrassing himself by failing to read and understand the rules should be enough to suspend further sentencing. Let me do what that noted British barrister, Rumpole of the Bailey, disdainfully called "A plea in mitigation." Here's my brief brief.

1) I know ignorance of the law is no defense but this is my first year at the pick 'em contest. Do you really want to chase away in shame some rube who can be counted on finishing in the bottom half of the league?

2) Sentencing should always focus on corrective, not punitive action. This is also known as grace, a quality the pick 'em contest's esteemed commissioner is known to have in great abundance. That's why he's the esteemed commissioner.

3) The old fart is losing it. Give him a break, especially when you consider that public disgrace is punishment enough. Kind of like giving him credit for time served.

[oldknight]

Assuming I'm not kicked out of the pick 'em, here are my winners for Saturday, January 5.

Adrian - 1
Alma - 2
Olivet - 3
Calvin - 4

Is this rules compliant?

[Flying Dutch Fan]

Assuming I'm not kicked out of the pick 'em, here are my winners for Saturday, January 5.

Adrian - 1
Alma - 2
Olivet - 3
Calvin - 4

Is this rules compliant?

Rules compliant for sure.  I've decided to award you with 6 points for your Thursday picks, plus 0.5 points as retribution for the overly zealous attack on your person - aka time served. 

[Civic Minded]

I told FDF that a clarification reminder should be given...   

Saturday January 5th:

Calvin at Albion - 4
Olivet at Kalamazoo - 3
Hope at Adrian - 1
Trine at Alma - 2