Help Improve the Pick'Em Contest

#51
#51
TheSyxxSynse said:
I'm starting to get confused, but I'm hoping rbroyles is keeping it straight.



One reason I didn't participate in the Chase contest year before last was because I wasn't sure how it was working. The regular season contest was still up and then there was a whole other contest too. Maybe when we decide what we are going to do this year, we can have a Chase contest that starts along with the actual Chase. And like someone else said, have a regular season winner, and a Chase winner.
Click to expand...

Huh....oh yeah, sure......what again now ?


That's is exactly what we did, a Chase contest that ran separately from the regular Top 5 Pick 'Em.
 
#52
#52
What I proposed was actually have a chase format just like in real life, the top twelve in points by the time the actual Chase starts get's to compete for the championship.
 
#53
#53
OK here is a revised listing. I am thinking look at it after 5 races to see if anyone is seriously out of wack. Then make a mid-season adjustment based on the driver point standings at Daytona. A final adjustment made before the first Chase race. There would only be changes made if they are necessary. A good example of why I think there needs to be an adjustment option, is Jamie McMurray. He would have been a B driver at the start, but was more competitive than most of the Chasers. Clint Boyer would probably have started in B as well.

Group A (2010 Chase)

Jimmie Johnson
Denny Hamlin
Kevin Harvick
Carl Edwards
Matt Kenseth
Tony Stewart
Kyle Busch
Kurt Busch
Jeff Gordon
Greg Biffle
Clint Bowyer
Jeff Burton

Group B (Top 25)
Mark Martin
Jamie McMurray
Kasey Kahne
Joey Logano
Ryan Newman
Juan Pablo Montoya
David Reutimann
A.J. Allmendinger
Dale Earnhardt Jr.
Martin Truex Jr.
Brad Keselowski
Paul Menard
David Ragan

Group C (The rest)

Marcos Ambrose
Elliott Sadler
Regan Smith
Sam Hornish Jr.
Scott Speed
Bobby Labonte
David Gilliland
Robby Gordon
Travis Kvapil
Casey Mears
Kevin Conway
Michael McDowell
Joe Nemechek
Mike Bliss
Dave Blaney
Trevor Bayne
Bill Elliott
Plus any other driver qualifying

I am still considering expanding the contest to Top 6 with two picks from each group. Otherwise I believe it should be One from A and two each from B & C.
 
Last edited:
#54
#54
So would "part time" or "road course ringers" be in group C, or are we going to handle each of those particular drivers on an individual basis?
 
#55
#55
I like the idea of....

1. Groups (however you choose to do them & however many times you choose to chage the groupings around per year)

2. Picking 2 from each group each week - 6 drivers per week

3. Giving a bonus to the people that correctly pick the pole sitter

4. Giving a bonus to the people who correctly pick the leader at halfway of the race

5. Having a random position picked each week to guess who finishes there. Like I mentioned one week it could be 23rd, the next 36th, the next 8th, etc. And you ONLY get bonus points if you nail who finishes there AND the winner of the previous weeks contest gets to pick that random position. Oh, and one more thing about this that I just thought of. I used to really dig in Cup how the money would roll over for winning the race from the pole. Sometimes it would get LARGE. So, in the spirit of that lets say you award a 50 point bonus for correctly nailing that random position. If no one wins it then that 50 bonus points rolls over to the next week, and the next, and the next, and the next until someone hits it. That could provide an enormous swing in points for someone if there is several weeks to go by and no one hits the randomly numbered spot. If more than one person hits this particular bonus the bonus is split. So, if its a 50 point bonus and 2 people nail it they both get 25 points. This shouldn't be that hard to keep up with and each week you can throw a reminder out there how much the bonus has added up to.
 
#56
#56
rbroyles said:
I know speaking for myself, once it became clear I couldn't win, it was trying to at least make the top 5, then top10 that kept my interest going. I believe it is similar for most others, and this would remove the reason for all but the top 15 to continue.

I can have a Chase contest like before. I didn't this past year because so few entered it the previous year, I assumed no one else was interested.
Click to expand...

I was just thinking that by the end there was only about 15 of us entering picks anyway. Just thought it would make it a little more interesting.
Maybe you could do the seperate chase contest and seed everyone based on the standings in the reg season contest with bonus points for reg season wins...
I'm on board no matter what you do RB. Any changes/non changes are fine with me. Either way I'm gonna win.:whistling:
 
#57
#57
rbroyles said:
I like this idea better than restrict the number of times you pick a driver, much easier to keep up with. It should keep the competition closer with more people in contention late in the season. I think I will put up a poll to get feedback to the more likely changes. Please vote everyone. I don't want to make a change, and then have most say they don't like it.

If this one is implemented, I could use a couple of volunteers to form a selection committee, so it wouldn't be just my opinion as to what level to seed drivers.
Click to expand...

Broyles, I was kicking the driver grouping around in my head, it seems like it would work well. As to Mulligans, I would be in favor of having 3, while also reconfiguring the groups every 12 races, with one mulligan per segment.
 
#58
#58
DownNDirty said:
I like the idea of....

5. Having a random position picked each week to guess who finishes there. Like I mentioned one week it could be 23rd, the next 36th, the next 8th, etc. And you ONLY get bonus points if you nail who finishes there AND the winner of the previous weeks contest gets to pick that random position. Oh, and one more thing about this that I just thought of. I used to really dig in Cup how the money would roll over for winning the race from the pole. Sometimes it would get LARGE. So, in the spirit of that lets say you award a 50 point bonus for correctly nailing that random position. If no one wins it then that 50 bonus points rolls over to the next week, and the next, and the next, and the next until someone hits it. That could provide an enormous swing in points for someone if there is several weeks to go by and no one hits the randomly numbered spot. If more than one person hits this particular bonus the bonus is split. So, if its a 50 point bonus and 2 people nail it they both get 25 points. This shouldn't be that hard to keep up with and each week you can throw a reminder out there how much the bonus has added up to.
Click to expand...

The pole roll-over at first hit me as an idea to consider, but then I could see your point that it could make a large impact. IMO that may not be all good. It would negate someones' good picks, and making picks is the gist of the contest. I'm open to others opinions on this.
 
#59
#59
Also, let me say I think we have to keep the "add ons" to a minimum because too many things to have to do to enter may turn people away. Again MHO.
 
#60
#60
TennesseeFan07 said:
So would "part time" or "road course ringers" be in group C, or are we going to handle each of those particular drivers on an individual basis?
Click to expand...

Either they go in C, or they could be "seeded" as to where they qualify- 1-12 in A, 12-25 in B, 25+ in C. Probably all in C, just as I posted in the other thread:

"I finally caught on to this myself. It really doesn't matter that much which group a driver is in. What matters is not being able to pick all favorites. I think we who are/were concerned about adjusting were looking at where a driver deserved to be, which is really irrelevant to the purpose of the grouping. As said above, if a Lagano starts winning, pick him. What does it matter which group he is in?"
__________________
 
#61
#61
After rethinking this I agree that it doesn't need to have a ton of changes but I still think it would be more interesting and fun if you did have the groups (and they could stay the same all year).

So.....

Yes, group the drivers and make people pick either one or two from group A, and 2 each from B and C. This makes it more fun INSTANTLY to me. I always tried to pick some sleepers each week when I play just to not toe the line.

I still like the idea of the random finishing position and getting bonus points for that each race - without the rollover in points as yes that could really cause a huge swing if someone hit it. Just a 25 or 50 point bonus per week if you hit it with no rolling it over.

Keep the bonus points for picking the pole winner as always

Add the halfway leader pick.

So, for Daytona in the race pick contest it could look something like this:

My picks:

Jeff Gordon (A)
Jamie McMurray (B)
Ryan Newman (B)
Bobby Labonte (C)
Regan Smith (C)

Halfway leader - Tony Stewart

Random finisher (#27) - David Ragan
 
#62
#62
DownNDirty said:
After rethinking this I agree that it doesn't need to have a ton of changes but I still think it would be more interesting and fun if you did have the groups (and they could stay the same all year).

So.....

Yes, group the drivers and make people pick either one or two from group A, and 2 each from B and C. This makes it more fun INSTANTLY to me. I always tried to pick some sleepers each week when I play just to not toe the line.

I still like the idea of the random finishing position and getting bonus points for that each race - without the rollover in points as yes that could really cause a huge swing if someone hit it. Just a 25 or 50 point bonus per week if you hit it with no rolling it over.

Keep the bonus points for picking the pole winner as always

Add the halfway leader pick.

So, for Daytona in the race pick contest it could look something like this:

My picks:

Jeff Gordon (A)
Jamie McMurray (B)
Ryan Newman (B)
Bobby Labonte (C)
Regan Smith (C)

Halfway leader - Tony Stewart

Random finisher (#27) - David Ragan
Click to expand...

I plan to increase the pole winner bonus.

I am almost certain I will do the groups, either with no changes, or with one adjustment at halfway.

I am still considering going to a Pick 6 with two from each group. If stay with 5 it will be one from A, two from B & C.

I like the halfway leader bonus, but have had no feedback.

I am still trying to sell myself on the random finisher. Could be a good tie-breaker.
 
#63
#63
half way leader bonus could be the tie breaker. if tied and nobody picked a driver who led at halfway, it would be the driver closest to the lead.

i support the 1-2-2 format, or 1-2-1. premium drivers should be just that.

not sure about random finisher either.
 
#66
#66
I don't really care for the halfway leader or the random finisher. I think the more things you have to do causes people lose interest late in the season.
 
#67
#67
rbroyles said:
I plan to increase the pole winner bonus.

I am almost certain I will do the groups, either with no changes, or with one adjustment at halfway.

I am still considering going to a Pick 6 with two from each group. If stay with 5 it will be one from A, two from B & C.

I like the halfway leader bonus, but have had no feedback.

I am still trying to sell myself on the random finisher. Could be a good tie-breaker.
Click to expand...

I think you should def go with 6. That gives me a better shot of beating my points total from last year.:)
I like the idea of a halfway leader bonus. Would the bonus roll over if nobody got it? I also like the random finisher as a tie breaker but not as a weekly pick for points.
 
#68
#68
" I think the more things you have to do causes people to lose interest."

Agree. Let's not make it complex.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top