NTFC Nut
|
|
« on: August 07, 2014, 17:58:13 pm » |
|
Votes in here by Friday 15th please people.
It struck me last year when the top of the POTS table was very tight that we had no way of separating players who finish on the same number of points and could theoretically end up with two players of the season. So from this season I was thinking of counting the number of podium finishes a player gets as well and using that as our equivalent of goal difference in the POTS table. The logic behind this being that a player who gets 9 points from finishing first on three occasions has probably contributed less to our season overall than a player who has been voted the third best player on the pitch for 9 games (especially seeing as the difference between finishing 1st and 3rd can often be a couple of votes for a Tuesday night away game).
If anybody has any objections to this or any better suggestions then fire away...
|
|
|
|
|
Bingers
|
|
« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2014, 19:44:55 pm » |
|
Votes in here by Friday 15th please people.
It struck me last year when the top of the POTS table was very tight that we had no way of separating players who finish on the same number of points and could theoretically end up with two players of the season. So from this season I was thinking of counting the number of podium finishes a player gets as well and using that as our equivalent of goal difference in the POTS table. The logic behind this being that a player who gets 9 points from finishing first on three occasions has probably contributed less to our season overall than a player who has been voted the third best player on the pitch for 9 games (especially seeing as the difference between finishing 1st and 3rd can often be a couple of votes for a Tuesday night away game).
If anybody has any objections to this or any better suggestions then fire away...
Can I suggest that if two players share the same number of votes in for match, that there is not a second place and the player with the next most votes comes third. Or, if there are three or more players sharing the top number of votes, there is no second or third. And likewise if there is a joint second place, there is no third place points.
|
The Hotelend Grand National Sweepstake Champion 2015
|
|
|
NTFC Nut
|
|
« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2014, 01:05:11 am » |
|
Can I suggest that if two players share the same number of votes in for match, that there is not a second place and the player with the next most votes comes third. Or, if there are three or more players sharing the top number of votes, there is no second or third. And likewise if there is a joint second place, there is no third place points.
So that a maximum of three players get points basically? I was thinking of suggesting that last season but didn't want to change it around from the format Tyler used to have in case it was some age-old tradition. That's something else we can change for this season so long as no-one objects to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Cobbler78
|
|
« Reply #4 on: August 08, 2014, 11:28:36 am » |
|
Can I suggest that if two players share the same number of votes in for match, that there is not a second place and the player with the next most votes comes third. Or, if there are three or more players sharing the top number of votes, there is no second or third. And likewise if there is a joint second place, there is no third place points.
100% agree. Otherwise 3 players could get 3 points for best player and the 4th best player still gets 2 points, doesnt see fair. How it should work is 1st 3pts, 2nd 2pts, 3rd 1pt. If two players tie for 1st they get 2.5pts each (ie 1st and 2nd divided by 2) then the third place player gets 1point. Basically only 6 points should be given out in each match otherwise is skews the results.
|
|
|
|
Cobbler78
|
|
« Reply #5 on: August 08, 2014, 11:29:23 am » |
|
100% agree. Otherwise 3 players could get 3 points for best player and the 4th best player still gets 2 points, doesnt seem fair.
How it should work is 1st 3pts, 2nd 2pts, 3rd 1pt.
If two players tie for 1st they get 2.5pts each (ie 1st and 2nd divided by 2) then the third place player gets 1point. Basically only 6 points should be given out in each match otherwise is skews the results.
|
|
|
|
Bingers
|
|
« Reply #6 on: August 08, 2014, 19:46:17 pm » |
|
100% agree. Otherwise 3 players could get 3 points for best player and the 4th best player still gets 2 points, doesnt see fair.
How it should work is 1st 3pts, 2nd 2pts, 3rd 1pt.
If two players tie for 1st they get 2.5pts each (ie 1st and 2nd divided by 2) then the third place player gets 1point. Basically only 6 points should be given out in each match otherwise is skews the results.
That's another step further, which I don't disagree with, but wouldn't want to overcomplicate things. Is Nut any good at mathematics? I'm sure some kind soul will point out if he goes wrong.
|
The Hotelend Grand National Sweepstake Champion 2015
|
|
|
Bingers
|
|
« Reply #7 on: August 08, 2014, 19:48:34 pm » |
|
Sorry Saint, other than the first half of the first sentence, which did have the wrong word in (don't know what went wrong there, but will blame the biere d'Alsace), which bit were you unsure about?
|
The Hotelend Grand National Sweepstake Champion 2015
|
|
|
NTFC Nut
|
|
« Reply #8 on: August 08, 2014, 22:19:56 pm » |
|
100% agree. Otherwise 3 players could get 3 points for best player and the 4th best player still gets 2 points, doesnt see fair.
How it should work is 1st 3pts, 2nd 2pts, 3rd 1pt.
If two players tie for 1st they get 2.5pts each (ie 1st and 2nd divided by 2) then the third place player gets 1point. Basically only 6 points should be given out in each match otherwise is skews the results.
There could be more than one 2nd place player though? If you're willing to do the maths then fair enough.
|
|
|
|
Deepcut Cobbler
|
|
« Reply #9 on: August 09, 2014, 05:51:57 am » |
|
Could get very decimal if one winner, one second place and up to 12 third placed players?
|
“They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.” Laurence Binyon
The Hotelend Grand National Sweepstake Champion 2009
|
|
|
cricketside
|
|
« Reply #10 on: August 09, 2014, 16:13:40 pm » |
|
This is a more controversial thread than the development one. I hope it can be sorted before the end of the first match or it could harm the team.
|
"Andrew Ellis was very much against what was going on. The Cardozas were strictly about business and development so that was him out the door. Andrew Ellis was only ever a football man."
*****And he appointed Terry Fenwick*****
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam-NTFC
|
|
« Reply #15 on: August 09, 2014, 17:16:53 pm » |
|
K mo
|
The Hotelend Grand National Sweepstake Champion 2016
|
|
|
|
New Dawn Fades
|
|
« Reply #17 on: August 09, 2014, 17:29:43 pm » |
|
Mohamed. decent addition judging by first viewing.
|
Can of Strongbow, Im a mess
|
|
|
A view from the east
|
|
« Reply #18 on: August 09, 2014, 17:50:24 pm » |
|
Any of the defence , all very solid but going for Robertson. Unsung but excellent.
|
|
|
|
|
|