Football Pool V

[Monty]

To be fair, we get an average of about $2.00 to $2.50 per post. Therefore, a sum of $50 represents about 20-25 posts one has made. That amount of work typically would take about three to four hours, at least in my case, making it comparable to an actual economy of money. So I can see how that could be considered a good sum of money to sum, and not as much to others.

[bookworm]

Also keep in mind that we want as many people as possible to do this, and raising a fee is not generally a good way to bring about that kind of end. We have some relatively new members joining this year, which is awesome, but they likely see what you or I view as ‘easy money’ to be of a greater value to them, who have had less time to accumulate it. They would be less inclined to go for a ‘big money’ gamble.

Now that I see what an apparently big deal this is, I’m curious why there wasn’t a single objection raised last year when the same pool was run by the same rules, yet now there is suddenly a violent firestorm of disapproval.

Anyway, I’ve decided to keep the official Cumulative Pool procedure all as is. It worked before, it’s good enough to do again. I’ll explain the reason once more and hopefully people are understanding this. The point here is not to make you rich. If it was, obviously it would have started out with a larger pot to begin with. This isn’t even entirely its own competition; notice how I always describe it as supplemental to the Weekly Pool. The purpose is not to pay out big money, it’s to have a second chance to win any money if you have a so-close-but-not-good-enough run in the Weekly Pool, because I know from experience how frustrating that is if there is no outlet to make up for it resulting in all your effort through the season being for nothing.

Upping the fee to increase the payout would actually defeat the whole purpose of this, because if it was a large fee then yes the winner would win big, but all the losers would lose big, providing yet more frustration if you also had a close run in this. I think everyone that’s complaining is missing the point. This isn’t high stakes because it’s not supposed to be. It’s just an optional second chance for some other money so a rough patch in the Weekly Pool doesn’t doom you to nothing if you don’t deserve it.

So, the Cumulative Pool will remain a reasonable fee of $10. Low enough to rationalize going in on it in addition to the Weekly Pool, yet large enough to give a substantial payout to the winner. Also consider that if the fee is low, more people are inclined to participate, making the pot grow larger.

Now, if you are so addicted to the thrill of risk that you need a bigger gamble, you are free to coordinate an offshoot pool amongst yourselves for as high stakes as your adrenaline thresholds require. As I said, this pool is not about the money, it’s about the game. If you want one specifically about the money, intentionally set up for big loss vs. huge gain, great. I only request (and I don’t think I should have to, it seems common sense) that no one would elect to participate only in that pool, should one be started, but choose to enter both. There would be no reason not to.

[Knight Fisher]

... Okay.

KF's Adrenaline Rush Pool will have a $50 fee. Enter before the season starts and do bookworm's too.

[Monty]

Just a question of procedure here, but why is your Cumulative Pool the official one, bookworm? Is this new Adrenaline Rush pool not just as valid as the one you are starting, albeit with increased stakes?

[bookworm]

Because, again it goes hand in hand with the Weekly Pool. And it's the one we established last year. The High Stakes Pool is no less valid, but it's even more optional than my optional one, in comparison. It is an entirely separate entity designed specifically by and for those whose only goal is to risk big money. It is not the second chance opportunity mine is, because having a high fee negates that aspect.

[American Eagle]

... Okay.

Haha, this was my reaction, as well. bookworm, sometimes you should turn off your intellect and listen to your friends... even if it doesn't make sense to you.

That being said, bookworm, I'm glad you're a big part of this series of pools. You're a fantastic scorekeeper and officiator. I look forward to being part of the cumulative pool. However, I will be donating $50 to KF's Adrenaline Rush Pool too, because I like to win the jackpot, not just a stuffed animal.

Since we're doing a weekly contest and two seasonal ones, I think we might want to forget about the nflpickspage.com. It's starting to get too complicated. >_>

[bookworm]

Haha, this was my reaction, as well.

And this is why we have problems.
People don’t make an attempt to understand the reasons behind my stands, they just go ‘Dude, you’re being too serious.’ I assure you that if I’m ever this adamant about something there is a reason. People just don’t try to find it.
My pool was created and set up with a specific purpose which a $10 fee accomplishes. No amount of badgering changes the purpose, which is why it has no affect on the conversation.

bookworm, sometimes you should turn off your intellect and listen to your friends... even if it doesn't make sense to you.

You dare presume to be my friends? Kidding of course; but I was listening, it was just that, again, what I was listening to was misdirected.

I think we might want to forget about the nflpickspage.com. It's starting to get too complicated. >_>

How so? All we need from it is a weekly tally.

[Knight Fisher]

For the record I understood what you said entirely. I comprehend your reasons for not supporting a $50 pool. However I find your reasons to be incomplete as you do not acknowledge why we want to do a higher stakes one. Nor do I see how any further debate is necessary or productive.

[bookworm]

at all of the above.

I comprehend your reasons for not supporting a $50 pool.

You clearly don't, as I do not have reasons for not supporting a larger pool. I do support a larger pool. What I don't support is making my pool, which needs to be small by design, that larger pool. I was/am completely behind having another pool with a larger pot.

you do not acknowledge why we want to do a higher stakes one.

Yes I did! I said it's great if you want a larger one, it would just have to be separate, not a revision of the original.

Nor do I see how any further debate is necessary or productive.

Because my stance is still being misunderstood/misrepresented, as you just showed.

[Knight Fisher]

Then clearly you did not understand as I said from the beginning that I would run it seperately. No else has said anything about changing your pool's limits since Saturday.

[bookworm]

I know you didn’t, but AE and EK both continued to press.

[EK]

Such accusations are unbecoming.

[American Eagle]

The proof will be in the pudding. If people show up and say, "Yes, I will join the pool! Thank you for keeping the entrance few so small!", then you will have proved your point.

So far, just about all your players are planning to play in the mega pool, too.

[EK]

You must always refer to it as the ADRENALINE RUSH pool from now on AE.

[bookworm]

If people show up and say, "Yes, I will join the pool! Thank you for keeping the entrance few so small!", then you will have proved your point.

No, because that is NOT the point!
This is driving me insane, someone please help me figure out why this is apparently so impossible to understand.
Posts like that, and

Seriously, bookworm, $10? A guy from 1946 called. He wants his pocket change back.

Because $50 is SO MUCH MONEY? o_O

show a persistent misunderstanding of the situation. The focus is stuck on the money, which is entirely inconsequential. The point is to keep a second chance within your reach through the season. The eventual payout amount is irrelevant, the point is that it pays you something, preventing the season from being a frustrating total loss.
The reason a lower fee is needed for that is because the reason a second chance opportunity is desirable for the Weekly Pool is that if you consistently lose really close weeks you not only lose a gradually larger sum of money, but as the season goes on the possibility of turning the big picture around becomes zero. The entire thing, all your effort, becomes an absolutely complete loss, all for nothing.
With a Cumulative Pool, as has been explained multiple times, it keeps you in the running despite close losses so your big picture remains intact and you have the chance to still get some reward for your deserving efforts, which the Weekly Pool harshly negates. Yes it can be seen as merely a consolation prize if that’s how you’re looking at it, but that’s also the point! It’s supposed to be a consolation prize, it’s consolation for your frustration! Having a large fee in order to have a larger payout is a completely different idea, because if you don’t win it you lose that larger amount, which is just a repeat of what happened in the Weekly Pool, which is exactly what the Cumulative Pool is set up to counter.

So far, just about all your players are planning to play in the mega pool, too.

Again, beside the point. I will most likely enter the Adrenaline Rush Pool! That’s why there are the two, so people can choose.
If they have limited funds and/or only desire a safe gamble, they go for the Weekly Pool/Cumulative Pool combo so they have the regular chance each week and that safety net overall so they don’t have to suffer the frustration of an extremely good, yet just not good enough season resulting in everything being for naught.
If they have more funds and/or enough confidence in their prediction abilities to not care about knowing they have that second tally keeping their back, either because they are so rich it won’t matter whether they lose it all, or because they’re just focused on the gamble and could shrug off close losses as ‘the way it goes’ then they go all in because all they need is big risk vs. big reward.
Either choice is great! But they’re the result of two different agendas. That’s why I couldn’t just change my pool, it had to be a new one. I was never against the idea of a high stakes pool, only the idea of changing my pool to be that. The reason being that is not the purpose of my pool, it would actually completely defeat the purpose, thus making the suggestion something that would never happen, thus my continual rejection. That’s all.

Maybe the reason I’m the only one that gets it is because I’ve lived it. That could be it.
One season I did really great in my real life pool. I mean really great, my predictions were spot on. I had victory by all rights. But I didn’t get it. Four times I tied in predictions with various people, and each time I lost on the tie breaker, meaning I got nothing. Imagine how crushing that is. I never liked the tiebreaker, it’s completely different than the rest of the pool. The point is to pick winners, I did that fine, but when it comes down to victory you have to guess points now? There’s no way to do that accurately. I did what I was supposed to do perfectly, and four times got nothing for it because the criteria changed.
If I had entered the cumulative pool that year, I would have won. All those ties, they would have put me ahead because they were with different people. So really, I was winning. I was always at the top, my picks were superb, but I got nothing to show for it because the weekly tallies tied. The cumulative tallies would have added, I would have got something for my efforts. And I would have deserved it. But all I got was heartbreaking frustration because I did outstandingly, but it got me absolutely nothing.
That is what the Cumulative Pool is about.

[American Eagle]

I'm not trying to be difficult, but it still doesn't make sense to me.

However, bookworm, don't waste more of your time trying to bridge our apparent communication gap - it's not worth it.

[EK]

Woah. Words.

[bookworm]

However, bookworm, don't waste more of your time trying to bridge our apparent communication gap - it's not worth it.

No, it isn't. If you still don't get it then obviously it doesn't affect you.
Besides, something more important has come up.

The new season of bookworm’s Referee Rants is getting an early start this year. >_>

I happened to watch bits of the Broncos/Seahawks game last night and of course it just so happened that one of the bits I watched happened to contain an officiating incident.
The Broncos were on the goal line and their runner jumped over the pile to score. He dropped the ball in the end zone and a Seahawk scooped it up and took it all the way back for a Seattle score. There are so many things that went wrong here.
First, the ball had broken the goal line, so the play should have been over that instant, with a Bronco score. It doesn’t matter if he drops it after that, the play is dead the moment the ball crosses the line, everyone knows that. Second, they didn’t review it, which with the rule changes last season and the season before means they failed twice! It should have been flagged for automatic review 1) because it was an alleged turnover, 2) because it was a scoring play. It wasn’t reviewed for a Broncos score because the call on the field was he didn’t cross the line, but the Seattle recovery should have stopped it, and the subsequent Seattle score definitely should have.

After sorting out what had happened the umpire announced to the crowd that the ‘touchdown stands’ in an effort to clarify what was going on, but that was totally wrong! It didn’t stand, because it was never reviewed! They just called it on the field and left it at that.
What is supposed to happen, as we all know by now because when the rule was introduced it was gone over ad nauseam, is that every scoring play is given a quick look in the booth before the game moves on. If it’s clear, they signal the umpire to continue. If there’s a possibility it was the wrong call, the booth can’t change it, they call the umpire to the replay box and he looks at it. That is when the play is under review, and the umpire’s call decides. Same with turnovers now, they give a quick look and if it’s questionable they call the umpire to review it.

No one ever called for a review here. The officials said turnover and Seattle score on the field, and no one requested a second look at either. That is inexcusable, because the ‘turnover’ was clearly after the ball broke the line, so you have got to call a review on that! Even if they end up keeping the call on the field, they have to request a second look because it was close. I think what must have happened was they became confused with their own rules. What the booth did their quick check over was the Seattle score, which was clear, and then said everything was okay - forgetting that they had to also go one step previous and check the alleged fumble that led to the score as well.

So I actually don’t blame the officials for this, the field officials anyway, because it wasn’t their fault. But this was definitely a huge error by the booth officials, and it well could have cost the Broncos the game. They were already being outplayed, and from that point on things just fell apart. It was really the last straw that just gave Seattle uncontrollable momentum for the rest of the game.

[godisawesomeness99]

even without that bookworm seahawks still would have won 33-17

[bookworm]

Most likely, but as I said that was clearly what doomed the Broncos from ever regaining momentum, so you never know.

You’re new here, so you are unfamiliar with this series. I have a extreme peeve with officials, in any sport but football in particular since that’s what we post about, who get calls wrong. Not honest mistakes, but blatant and inexcusable wrong calls. Especially when they directly affect gameplay. So when I observe it happening, I am obligated to call them out and rant in here.