- 04:55 AM
- 11/23/24
Well, I don't consider your comment to have any value, dfleming. Plus it rather antagonistically calls me infantile and lacking perspective. So... maybe we can have it removed, too?
rcade: I used to share your "Freedom, man!" thinking. Then I ran online web communities for 17 years.Look, this is about principle: this site should not delete user comments. You're creating a false dichotomy: I'm not suggesting that by not deleting/editing comments, you should have no tools at all for moderation. I'm saying that the 'gentle nudges' can be tried, but that if a user is such a bad egg they aren't contributing anything, you can temp ban them, and then permaban them. No one will dispute that you'll get spammers, or weird one-trick pony commenters, and have to manage that as a thankless background task on sites like these. But we're not talking about that: we're talking about editing another user's comments because you can. The very fact that you said "They would work on you and most long-timers"- and yet still my comment was edited- says you don't actually believe that.I think you greatly underestimate the amount of problems that bad-behaved users create for a community. Gentle nudges only work on reasonable, even-tempered people. They would work on you and most long-timers because you have respect for the place and the people here.
I'm not going to defend my "HAHAHAHA", because sure, it was a dick thing to say- although there's a separate question of whether it's the tone or the content that's problematic; it would seem odd to have sports-themed discussion where people couldn't acknowledge they rooted against some teams. However, that's actually not the point. I don't think I'm making some irrational request, here. If you need to moderate by temporarily disabling an account after warnings fail to work, then do so. If even as a long-time member, I kept posting like that on Yankee threads after you'd asked me not to, even I couldn't complain if you said "Okay, 24 hour timeout dude".
But the deletion of content seems very problematic, on principle. Not because Sportsfilter moderation is the vanguard of some fascist uprising, as dfleming would like to paint me as suggesting, but because it should just be a thing that's not done.
Besides, as people have noted above, if you left it as-is, and then posted a mod quote of [Hey, let's not be antagonistic], then it would do more to create a sense of a community that discourages trash-talk commenting.
posted by hincandenza at 02:44 PM on September 07, 2012
rcade: Do people really like that approach? I think anything that calls attention to moderation tends to bother people. They'd rather see comments disappear than be told how to conduct themselves.Really? Because having my comments edited/disappeared is what drives me absolutely ballistic. When I came back yesterday a few minutes later and saw my comment was edited- and then saw you took my reply and made this thread- I was seriously thinking "To hell with sportsfilter, if it's just going to be Metafilter but with game results". Which- I've been here for 10 years, and literally since day 1 if I'm not mistaken, and like to think on the whole I've been a positive contributor. But I was really, really, really upset about it.
I have long felt that comments- here or at Metafilter- should almost never be deleted, except in unbelievably extreme cases where it is legally problematic (i.e., if someone types a very explicit threat against someone's life, hiding but not deleting the comment and discussing among the site owners what to do, etc). Using gentle nudges will be more effective at moderation than comment deletion, without the side effect of angering the people who make up the site.
If the mod is polite, it's a way of appealing to my good nature and reinforcing a site ethos- and it doesn't even have to be public the first time. Your email to me yesterday for example reminded me "Okay, as a Sox fan, I certainly can sympathize with Yankee fans who are potentially watching their team do what mine did last year". And you know what? That would have been enough. I'd have not posted a 'HAHAHA' again in that thread.
If multiple people piled on the Yankees, then maybe a public mod-quote of [Okay, let's tone down the anti-Yankee rhetoric and keep it civil] to help tame things. If I or others persisted in being a dick over and over, despite you trying to moderate, then a time-out (one-day) ban seems reasonable, as a "Okay, you keep going over the top, we asked nicely, so take a breather and come back tomorrow".
I certainly understand the desire to not want this be every other sports site comment section, with lots of "_____ SUXX!" shouting; but we're more of a community here, with far fewer (and in a way, less anonymous) voices than an ESPN. So, please appeal to that understanding, and ask me and others to tone it down if things seem to get heated or divisive.
But when the comment is just up and edited/deleted, at least for me it makes me far more defensive, and angry: suddenly, the eggshells we're apparently all walking on are too visible. Will my next comment get edited/deleted? Why? Will I know? Is the deletion just, and is it balanced- or will I feel persecuted if seemingly parallel comments are left up? Now, instead of just typing and being part of the conversation, I'm thinking "What's the point? Why invest even 5 minutes of my time to comment, when it could just be deleted because someone didn't have their morning coffee?" And I don't think I'm alone in being really uneasy about comment deletion.
This might be my American sensibilities, but comment deletion seems so extreme, and seems like something that is inherently an abuse of power. Again, might be the "Freedom, man!" upbringing, but something about being able to edit history as if a comment didn't happen (or even, that a user never existed), seems like a really difficult thing to have on the table for anything that isn't utterly exceptional. And I don't mean to be hyperbolic, but it just has a touch of Orwellian overtones to rewrite the past- even if well intentioned and obviously small potatoes, since we're just talking a message board on the internet. That it's "just a message board" doesn't mean it isn't unsettling when it happens.
I feel strongly that the comments and users should be left untouched, warts and all, and if you think a user or thread is becoming unfriendly to certain fans or an overall trainwreck, then try to guide it using social tools (including the 24-hour or escalating timeout as an option). I hope I can convince you to feel the same way, and to avoid comment editing in the future- even if it's already rare- altogether.
posted by hincandenza at 01:27 PM on September 06, 2012
I guess I feel that rather than edit it, if you'd just followed up with a comment (in big bold mod font) saying "Hey, let's not do the pile-on and keep it civil", it'd be just as effective at moderating without actually censoring. I think that's something MeFi could definitely do better. A simple polite mod callout early on can keep a thread civil, without going so quickly to the delete option.
posted by hincandenza at 12:06 AM on September 06, 2012
The Boston Celtics of 1957-1969 I'd think are the creme de la creme of greatest basketball teams- even more so than the Dream Team- and possibly of any sport.
First, it wasn't an Olympic or All-Star equivalent assembled for a short run, but an actual team that played day in and day out. While the exercise allows for shorter-lived Dream Team like creations- and I think you could argue that at the time they were formed, the Dream Team was the greatest basketball team on the planet- I'd argue that "greatness" should also consider longevity. The Dream Team won a single gold medal during a two week run against entirely foreign-born, non-NBA squads, whereas the Celtics of this period played a full season and playoffs against other full fledged every day NBA teams for 13 years.
To that end, over that span of 13 seaons, the Boston Celtics won 11 NBA World Championships, including an unequaled 8 in a row. The two seasons they didn't win it all, they made the Finals in 1958 but lost, and were beaten out in reaching the Finals by Wilt Chamberlain's 76ers squad in 1967.
During that period the Celtics did field numerous Hall of Fame players. Over that 1957-1969 run, they had Bob Cousy, John Havlicek, Tom Heinsohn, Bailey Howell, K.C. Jones, Sam Jones, Frank Ramsey, Bill Russell, and Bill Sharman as future Hall-of-Famers principally known as Celtics players, as well as Clyde Lovelette, Arnie Risen, and Andy Phillip as future HoF members who had short stints on championship clubs during this period. So for the period of this run, the Celtics counted twelve HoF players among their ranks, with as many as eight on the roster at one time in the 1958 season.
Further, of those twelve Hall of Fame players, five were also on the 1996 "50 Greatest Players" list: Bob Cousy, John Havlicek, Sam Jones, Bill Russell, and Bill Sharman. While the Dream Team may have had 10 of the "50 Greatest Players", for an every day team made up through the normal drafting process to boast 4 of those 5 on the floor at the same time, game in and game out (Sharman left in 61, Havlicek joined in 62) over multiple seasons is simply extraordinary.
And not that it necessarily matters, but they were led by arguably the greatest coach in history, Red Auerbach, who retired with the career record in wins (938) and titles (9, since the last two of those 11 went to player-coach Bill Russell). Purely from a social standpoint, he was also pioneering executive who broke the color barrier in the NBA in drafting the first black player, and also went on to assemble the first all-black starting 5 in NBA history.
posted by hincandenza at 11:16 PM on January 08, 2010
DrJohnEvans: We should also delete some of the old and unused accounts to free up memory.But not this one! Le Sigh By the way, I noticed all the old posts for that user are gone. Is that what wc2k2 was talking about here, that we lost a bunch of data at some point? And if that's the case, can I get that user number. :)
posted by hincandenza at 03:03 PM on June 13, 2008
Almost five years for me, coming in when somebody shouted "SportsFilter!" once too often in the Blue.My story of missed opportunity: as a frequent poster in sports thread back on Metafilter in the pre-SpoFi days, I was offered a chance to be one of about six founding members if I could kick in about $100 to get the ball rolling. Sadly, that was shortly after I had lost my dot-com gig (Rivals.com) and I was cash-strapped. I still got user #15... until I lost the password. Repeated pleas to DB-maestro rcade to do a union of my user 599 posts into user 15 and reset the password have fallen on deaf ears. Alas, by now my #599 posting history dwarfs my #15 posting history, which at some point was cleansed, despite the cool low number. If only I could have both the low number and the gaudy posting history of brilliantly insightful and witty comments.
posted by hincandenza at 07:33 PM on January 24, 2008
heh. Okay, now that's funny.
posted by hincandenza at 12:52 PM on October 15, 2007
rcade: Hal: Are you the guy who wants his lost low user number back?Um, yeah, but what does one have to do with the other?
posted by hincandenza at 10:19 PM on October 14, 2007
So with that kind of readership, why are there not more posts and comments? Seems like mostly the same small set of people...
posted by hincandenza at 03:32 PM on October 13, 2007
Well, might as well once again note that I'd still like to reclaim this account, what with its low number, and merge it with my current account's posting history. I've offered my decent tech services to help, since it should mostly be a matter of change all instances of posts/comments from user ID 599 to userid 15. Also, because I like to dwell on the past, I was invited to be part of the original founding Pantheon of SpoFi when it was just an idea on Metafilter. Ah, but for want of a spare $100 I let limitless fame, fortune, and the bevy of bountifully endowed buxom SpoFi groupies pass me by. Ack- now I need another drink....
posted by hincandenza at 06:49 PM on January 30, 2007
3 seconds, 9 seconds, and 57 seconds. I may be mistaken on the intermediate score (might have been 11), but the others I remember clearly- I've done 3 on more than a few occasions. I used to be a minesweeper junkie way back in the day. Feel free to bask in my awesomeness!!!
posted by hincandenza at 01:53 AM on July 15, 2006
Where does JG get off slamming me like that?! Hmph... methinks she's still just bitter about that Randy Johnson paternity thread... Thanks for the props YYM, at least someone here likes me! :)
posted by hincandenza at 09:31 PM on May 30, 2006
I can't seem to post comments to threads on the main page right now. :(
posted by hincandenza at 03:29 AM on February 27, 2006
Hi, grum, I'm Curtom Bradyschilling. Nice to meet you... Man, the green-eyed monster rears its ugly head. It's rough, having every sports fan on the planet wish they were so fortunate as to root for the hometown teams of the loyal New England fan base... By the way, let me be the first (in this thread at least) to roundly congratulate NoMich on his running of this playoff run. He kept it friendly, loose, and interesting through all 4 weekends of the playoffs. His updates were timely, and his scoring was accurate. You can't ask for better than that!!! By the way, BillSaysThis: I believe the below banner belongs to you. Feel free to save the image and host it on your user page (or make a better one that I can; it'll disappear from that link soon enough- and hey, SpoFi gods, when you gonna start hosting these banners on the SpoFi server where they belong?!?). 
posted by hincandenza at 03:49 AM on February 07, 2005
Ack! I woulda won (or at least tied for 1st at 23) if I'd just played all weeks. :( I coulda hoisted a second banner on my user page... I woulda been a dynasty!!! I guess I'll just have to live with my football team joining the most elite of NFL franchises by winning 3 of 4 super bowls, mere months after my baseball team mounted a historic, unprecedented, mindblowing, apocalypse heralding World Series Championship. It's a tough cross to bear, being a New England sports fan these days...
posted by hincandenza at 12:01 AM on February 07, 2005
Winning Team: Patriots MVP: Corey Dillon Margin: 14 Total: 54
posted by hincandenza at 01:13 AM on February 04, 2005
lbb, I think we have to wait until another thread is spawned by NoMich sometime this week, with the official rules/spread/picks, before the SB conversation picks back up. Hey, curious, though: am I the only one who thinks that the biggest value of the "T.O.: Will he play?" drama is in the impact to the Patriots coaching staff? Even though it's really just a tiny possibility Owens makes an improbable appearance despite such a recent, serious injury, the legendary Patriots coaching staff, will effectively have to draw up two different sets of defensive setups, and run their players through two different sets of practice routines. Granted, they'll probably set up their practices mostly around an Owens-less Philadelphia, with only a small portion of time on how to neutralize Owens, just based on the odds that he's healthy enough to play effectively. Still, it may be the one way of minimizing that brilliant staff: make the Eagles roster uncertain enough that the Patriots aren't truly sure even what "team" they'll be playing on the 6th!
posted by hincandenza at 05:23 AM on January 31, 2005
Here's my attempt to make this sensible. We can choose to play this way for the Superbowl, or using the method used this time. How spread betting works: Technically, the Vegas line is such that you don't bet on the team to win/lose outright, as this would lead to imbalanced betting. This is probably the source of "cover the spread" confusion among many people here. The "spread" is not a separate bet- it is the definition of your bet! For example, a significant majority of betters will probably go with NE for the Superbowl, which means Vegas would lose a bundle if they had to pay out for NE. If NE wins by even 1 point, and 90% of people picked NE, then Vegas is paying 9 winners to every 1 loser. This is a situation where Vegas itself is in effect being a bettor, favoring one team over the other, and thus in a position to lose money depending on the outcome of the game. This is not something Vegas likes to do. :) The Spread line is used to encourage betting on both teams equally So instead of a straight A/B choice, Vegas sets a spread line, which is very much like a golf handicap. This allows Vegas to create consistent betting situations where the two teams can be wildly mismatched, but still allow the bets placed to be even in the end by making the bet itself seem "even" in the bettor's minds. The Vegas line is such that when they set it at "NE -7.0", what they're saying is that they expect betting to favor NE fairly heavily right out of the gate, so as such are giving NE a handicap of 7 points. Vegas is making a prediction not of the game, but of the bettors! You, the bettor, then either bet on the Patriots or the Eagles, but not quite as a straight A/B choice: whichever team you pick you are by definition picking to "cover the spread". So, if you bet on the Patriots, they have to win by at least 7 for your bet to pay off. If you bet on the Eagles, then you're not actually betting the Eagles win at all, per se; you're only betting that the Eagles don't lose by more than 7 (i.e., lose by less than 7, or win outright). The opening line is a best-guess prediction by the betting firms on what will entice bettors to place their bets equally between the two teams; then, as bettors place their bets, they adjust that line frequently, so that their total risk is balanced- in other words, so that regardless of what happens in the game, the total bets on either side will cancel each other out, and Vegas takes home their fee. Why the spread line can move over the next two weeks The key thing to understand is that Vegas doesn't actually care about football, or care about predicting the outcome in any meaningful fashion. They care only about money. So, as people place bets, the line will be adjusted for new bettors after that, to compensate for how the bets are falling so far. If people still rush disproportionately to NE at 7.0, Vegas will push the line further toward NE. This is not because they think that NE will win big, but rather it's an attempt to encourage people to start betting the other way, and thus even out the bets. If the line were announced at NE -40, suddenly everybody would bet heavily on Philadelphia, because even people like myself who think NE will win, well- no way NE wins by 40 points, right?! Vegas just moves the line (obviously a little more gracefully than -7 to -40) as bets are made so that the bettors themselves effectively define the point spread. Even if Vegas didn't think the Patriots would win by 40, if moving the line to -40 is what it takes to even out the bets, Vegas would move that line in a heartbeat. What Vegas wants in the end is that the total bet on one side is equal to the total bet on the other side. In this way, regardless of the final score or victor, Vegas pays out one half the bets winnings with the other half's losings- while taking their 10% cut from the winners, also known as the "vig". This is their guaranteed profit! How we played here at Sportsfilter All that said above on how "real" betting works, what I think the rules were for this last round were a more fun-based "pick the winner, but separately pick the spread" method. This is entirely different from how they do it in Vegas; what I thought I understood from NoMich is that the rules for Sportsfilter were "Pick the team to win, as a straight A/B choice". Then, independent of that, "pick whether Team A or B covers the spread", meaning that either the favored Team A wins by at least the spread, or whether underdog team B wins, or loses by less than the spread. So unlike Vegas, our rules seem to allow saying "New England will win, but I don't think they'll win by the spread, so I'll pick Pittsburgh to cover the spread". In Vegas, these two bets would be mutually exclusive. Given that there's no money in this, and thus that there's no reason to move the spread line to keep bets balanced, I think it's perfectly fine to use this method for the Superbowl. It just means we all have to be clear on how it works in Sportsfilter vs. how it works in real Vegas, and make sure our picks declare exactly what we're predicting so there's no confusion in terminology. Anyway, I hope that this helped, in all its longwindedness, some people understand the spread line in Vegas, as well as our own unique homegrown version here at SpoFi.
posted by hincandenza at 04:19 AM on January 24, 2005
I'm with lbb. There's no money involved, only pride, and we don't have the kind of sleazy types who'd lie for a silly little banner (so if you want to spot me 7 points for my virtual picks in the first two rounds, please do so. :) ) Where the person picked the underdog, and then used the phrase "covers the spread" they clearly meant the underdog covered the spread (their pick would be nonsensical otherwise). But for those people where it's unclear- such as "NE, covers, over"- whether they meant the underdog covers the spread but still loses, or the favorite covers the spread by winning by a larger margin than predicted, we might as well use people's honesty here. But as a lesson, you really should have typed out what you mean when you said "cover", so there couldn't be confusion. :)
posted by hincandenza at 09:45 PM on January 23, 2005
Pats win/ Pats cover the spread/ Over. Sah-weet! Mah boys going to the Superbowl for the 3rd time in 4 years! I smell a DYNASTY cookin'!!!
posted by hincandenza at 08:53 PM on January 23, 2005
It's all but ovah! The pats made this a long drive, and the score stands at an ironic 34-20 right now (though that will probably change soon enough)
posted by hincandenza at 08:51 PM on January 23, 2005
Critical call here- if the Pats get another catch overturned, it's still a game; otherwise, if the interception call stands, the game's all but over.
posted by hincandenza at 08:40 PM on January 23, 2005
Nope, I'm with you weedster. If Philly "covers the spread" it means they win by at least the predicted margin. If Atlanta "covers the spread" it means they win, or lose by less than the predicted margin. In any event, that's why I made clear to plain-text my predictions in parentheticals, so there wouldn't be confusion for NoMich. And the Pats just put a FG up on the board in this time-consuming drive; any future NE scoring all but seals it barring a miraculous comeback by PIT. But the NE defense has been missing this whole second half, which scares me deeply. PIT is scoring, and scoring quickly, in this 2nd half. :(
posted by hincandenza at 08:32 PM on January 23, 2005
Yeah, i was rootin' for Vick to get the meaningless touchdown there- it'd have made it 27-17, for a PHI-cover-over scenario. Drats! Surprised the Eagles held the Falcons to just 10.... but good for them! 'Bout time the Eagles made the Superbowl, although I suspect they'll still lose to whomever comes out of the AFC. This is why I don't gamble in real life; I can't imagine watching that game and eating my fingernails when the game is over but I've got money on Vick making a last minute score.... On preview: what's with the time stamps? I'm seeing posts at 5:07p PST on january 23rd; when it's 3:06pm PST right now!
posted by hincandenza at 05:24 PM on January 23, 2005
NE @ PIT
posted by hincandenza at 09:48 PM on January 19, 2005
Yes, awesome job NoMich; the graphs are sharp, the results up-to-date... huzzah!
posted by hincandenza at 11:21 PM on January 16, 2005
Yep, tied with trox at 7 points, with jasonspaceman, MeatSaber, and rocketman right behind. Incidentally, is there a reason you get 2 points for nailing the spread exactly, as opposed to getting 1 point for picking an over/under on an official spread or total, or picking a spread/over/under yourself (i.e., "Steelers win by at least 14")?
posted by hincandenza at 09:16 PM on January 16, 2005
Sweet jesus, this is a LOPDSIDED game in New England. [strongbad]Holy Freakin' Crap!![/strongbad]
posted by hincandenza at 06:37 PM on January 16, 2005
Well, THAT was certainly a nail biter! (rolls eyes) Now if we can just get past Indy, I'm certainly less scared of big, bad, ol' Pittsburgh! Btw: nice graphsm NoMich. Reeeeal original. =)
posted by hincandenza at 10:38 PM on January 15, 2005
The query appears to be a set of select statements that simply grabs the comment count for the threads, as well as the new comments (so it can have that parentheses number like 7 comments (4 new) to take you right to the direct link of the oldest comment in that thread since you last visited the site) It means more generally that the SQL server that hosts all the site data itself was either unreachable (server rebooting/SQL recycling, etc) or that the query was too "expensive" or the db to slow, and as a result the web page timed out on waiting to get the data back so it could format it for you, the user. Instead just presented an error page- one that gives the actual SQL query used, which is bad form on the coder's part as yerfatma noted. It means most directly that, as rcade said, the host for sportsfilter is probably running out of capacity or is otherwise throttling the site (or far simpler, is just is having server issues behind the scenes, since there's probably a handful of servers clustered that handle dozens of databases for dozens of sites).
posted by hincandenza at 04:31 AM on December 17, 2004
And masturbating. At least, how I do it, it does. I am definitely an athlete, and it is definitely a sport!
posted by hincandenza at 10:28 PM on February 10, 2004
Dude, that's *sweet*. Updated my profile. Jerseygirl, et al- those of you who were in the various fantasy leagues, you should co-opt this as well. I think dusted's made a really kick-ass banner/template, here!!!
posted by hincandenza at 08:45 PM on February 06, 2004
So a car nut friend of mine told a story after that commercial, which I'll assume to be mostly accurate: Apparently, way back in the day, Ford was in talks to buy Ferrari. The deal was almost signed, sealed, and delivered, when at the last minute Enzo Ferrari backed out. Ford head honchos were apparently mighty pissed, and went to their backup plan. The word came down from on high at Ford: do whatever it takes, but fuck Ferrari. No expense was spared, and the GT was created for the explicit purpose of competing with, and beating, the Ferrari in the European race circuits. Despite the unusual scene of an American manufactured car appearing in European race circuits, without any real import market commercially, the GT began steadily beating up the Ferrari cars over the next 4 years, as a sort of "Fuck You" to Ferrari, care of Ford. And that, apparently, is the story of the Ford GT, and this latest model is just a concept car throwback to those heady days.
posted by hincandenza at 07:46 PM on February 02, 2004
Nah- best ad, the Staples office supplies one. A classic!!!
posted by hincandenza at 11:17 PM on February 01, 2004
Final results:
Hal Incandenza (me!) along with NoMich tied for first place overall, garnering 11 of 13 total points. Jeffmshaw and bryant finished right behind with 10.
Hey, here's a thought: some of you graphics whizzes out there should whip up some faux-championship banners, so that people who've won competitions like this one, or the fantasy leagues we've done, could "hang" on their user page. It'd be just like when I was a kid, and would go to Boston Garden and see the rafters filled with Championship banners... *sigh*....
| Spofite | Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | SB | Total | Winner | Ov/Un (38) | MVP |
| hincandenza | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 11 | NE | OVER | Tom Brady |
| NoMich | 3 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 11 | NE | OVER | Tom Brady |
| Bryant | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 10 | NE | OVER | Tom Brady |
| jeffmshaw | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 10 | NE | UNDER | Tom Brady |
| Jerseygirl | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 9 | NE | OVER | Tedy Bruschi |
| msacheson | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 9 | NE | OVER | Troy Brown |
| Billsaysthis | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 8 | CAR | OVER | Jack of the Man |
| jasonspaceman | 4 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 8 | CAR | OVER | Jack of the Man |
| trox | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 8 | CAR | UNDER | Stephen Davis |
| pivo | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 7 | NE | UNDER | Antowain Smith |
| 86 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 7 | |||
| wfrazerjr | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 7 | |||
| Corpse | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 6 | CAR | UNDER | Deshaun Foster |
| danostuporstar | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 6 | CAR | UNDER | Stephen Davis |
| smithers | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 6 | CAR | UNDER | Ricky Manning Jr. |
| Ufez Jones | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 6 | CAR | UNDER | Cousin Sal |
| Goddam | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 5 | CAR | OVER | He Hate Me |
| forksclovetofu | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5 | CAR | UNDER | Stephen Davis |
| taupe | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 5 | CAR | UNDER | He Hate Me |
| grum@work | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 | CAR | UNDER | Steve Smith |
| rocketman | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | CAR | UNDER | Steve Smith |
| vito90 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | |||
| dfleming | (DNP) | (DNP) | (DNP) | 2 | 2 | NE | UNDER | Tom Brady |
| gspm | (DNP) | (DNP) | (DNP) | 2 | 2 | NE | OVER | Ty Law |
| jacknose | (DNP) | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | |||
| dusted | (DNP) | (DNP) | (DNP) | 1 | 1 | CAR | OVER | Jack of the Man |
| garfield | (DNP) | (DNP) | 0 | 1 | 1 | CAR | OVER | Ricky Manning Jr. |
| yerfatma | (DNP) | (DNP) | (DNP) | 1 | 1 | NE | UNDER | Rodney Harrison |
| salmacis | (DNP) | (DNP) | (DNP) | 0 | 0 | CAR | UNDER | Stephen Davis |
posted by hincandenza at 10:44 PM on February 01, 2004
BTW, wfrazerjr and 86 are still very much in the running, and haven't picked yet- it's not too late guys! :D
posted by hincandenza at 01:57 PM on February 01, 2004
Updated the picks page as of 11:40 PST... any last changes, make sure you at least post them here before kickoff, although I'm outta here at 2pm PST for a Super Bowl party!!! Also, changing my own picks- decided to go with the OVER. I'm thinking, this game is WAY going to be more than a 21-17 contest!!!! And because of that, I'll pick Tom Brady- in a blowout, high-scoring dealio, the QB will always get the MVP.
posted by hincandenza at 01:37 PM on February 01, 2004
Ufez Jones: I actually picked John Kasay, hal. Ha! I know, UJ. Watchers of the Jimmy Kimmel show, or at least, readers of Bill Simmons' column, know that Jimmy's "Cousin Sal" on the show was sent to Houston to dress as Panthers kicker John Kasay, figuring he'd be the easiest person to impersonate during Media Day. He almost got away with it too, fooling a few journalists and even some players.... Just being cute with some names (and picks updated on my user page). :)
posted by hincandenza at 09:14 PM on January 31, 2004
Also, my own picks (which weren't in the original thread) are Patriots, Under, Ty Law. Seems this crowd, which has been as a group pretty accurate, is picking a lower scoring game with the Panthers prevailing...
posted by hincandenza at 03:05 PM on January 31, 2004
These are the picks so far (also found in my user page, here- not sure why the table looks so inelegant in this post, because it's the same as the one in my user page). Remember, it's:
| Spofite | Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Total | Winner | Ov/Un (38) | MVP | TALLIES | |
| jeffmshaw | 3 | 4 | 1 | 8 | NE | UNDER | Tom Brady | ||
| NoMich | 3 | 4 | 1 | 8 | |||||
| trox | 4 | 3 | 1 | 8 | CAR | UNDER | Stephen Davis | ||
| hincandenza | 3 | 3 | 2 | 8 | NE | UNDER | Ty Law | ||
| jasonspaceman | 4 | 3 | 0 | 7 | CAR | OVER | Jack of the Man | ||
| msacheson | 3 | 3 | 1 | 7 | |||||
| wfrazerjr | 3 | 3 | 1 | 7 | |||||
| 86 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 7 | |||||
| Billsaysthis | 2 | 3 | 2 | 7 | CAR | OVER | Jack of the Man | NE | CAR |
| Bryant | 3 | 2 | 2 | 7 | NE | OVER | Tom Brady | 5 | 13 |
| Jerseygirl | 2 | 3 | 2 | 7 | NE | OVER | |||
| danostuporstar | 4 | 2 | 0 | 6 | CAR | UNDER | Stephen Davis | ||
| smithers | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 | CAR | UNDER | Ricky Manning Jr. | ||
| Ufez Jones | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 | CAR | UNDER | Cousin Sal | ||
| Corpse | 1 | 3 | 2 | 6 | CAR | UNDER | Deshaun Foster | OVER | UNDER |
| pivo | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 11 | |||
| forksclovetofu | 3 | 2 | 0 | 5 | CAR | UNDER | Stephen Davis | ||
| taupe | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | CAR | UNDER | He Hate Me | ||
| Goddam | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 | |||||
| rocketman | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 | CAR | UNDER | Steve Smith | ||
| grum@work | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | CAR | UNDER | Steve Smith | ||
| vito90 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | |||||
| jacknose | (DNP) | 2 | 0 | 2 | |||||
| garfield | (DNP) | (DNP) | 0 | 0 | CAR | OVER | Ricky Manning Jr. | ||
| dusted | (DNP) | (DNP) | (DNP) | (DNP) | CAR | OVER | Jack of the Man | ||
| gspm | (DNP) | (DNP) | (DNP) | (DNP) | NE | OVER | Ty Law | ||
posted by hincandenza at 03:04 PM on January 31, 2004
For those still reading this thread- have continued the SB Picks thread in a new post, here.
posted by hincandenza at 02:46 PM on January 31, 2004
Horse Racing: Not a Sport- for the humans Horse Racing: Sport- for the Horses Jockeys: Not Athletes Racing Horses: Athletes dng: I've heard the horses are very much aware of the competition, dng- that's how top horses compete, because they want to outrace the horse next to them. I compare horse racing to the 100m dash. The sprinters are athletes in a sport. Their shirts and shorts are not athletes. The Jockeys, like NASCAR drivers, are akin to the shorts or shoes that a sprinter wears.
posted by hincandenza at 06:31 PM on January 30, 2004
jerseygirl: hal what's the tally? Ugh, been a busy week at work- busy two weeks, really. I will sincerely get some kind of tally up either Friday night or on Saturday morning.
posted by hincandenza at 01:28 AM on January 30, 2004
Hm- let me rescind part of that. I'm not so sure that joggers/track and field are athletics, if it's a person who just does one of the competitions. I.e., decathletes are definitely athletes. But sprinters? Harder call. Not a sport, possibly not athletes.
posted by hincandenza at 01:53 PM on January 24, 2004
I can't believe Nascar is a sport and the drivers athletes, according to you yahoos! What fools these Spofites be! Fishing (any kind): a game, a hobby, a diversion, a waste of a perfectly good morning of sleeping, a way to feed oneself... all these things and more, but NOT a sport, and NOT athletes. Look, let's get one thing straight: no one has yet developed telekinesis, so by definition, all human behavior and interaction is physical. Is a spelling bee a "sport"? Are the competitors "athletes"? Why, look at how they have to move their lips, teeth, and tongue in coordinated effort with their brain, while withstanding the pressure of competition with only one final winner standing! Clearly, these are sport athletes performing at their peak!!! Puh-lease. It isn't athletic simply because in some, tangential way, it involves the body. I think athletics in the classical greek kind of way- it's all about the human body. Football, basketball, baseball, hockey, track and field, tennis, etc. Whether they manipulate props or not, their whole body is deeply involved; Barry Bonds may swing a bat, but the whole of his sport is finessed physical competition. These are sports with athletes competiting in them. Driving? Fishing? Geez, what about backgammon? How about poker- why, these guys endure long stretches of no sleep, and non-stop sitting! How about computer programming- look at the athletics of the typing, the endurance needed to program at 4am with nothing but Dr. Pepper and some nutter butters to sustain you!!! I see no difference between computer programming at 4am and "the high g-forces of race car driving!". In either event, the bulk of the work is done by the machine, not the man. And if NASCAR is the arena of athletes, then a trip to the 7-11 in your Geo Metro must therefore also be the work of a highly trained athlete! Race car drivers compete, yes, but they compete in a game, and they are not athletes. Athletes are people who principally involve the whole body in their activity. Dancers are athletes, as are those hardbodies in the workplace who go out jogging every lunch hour. A game is a competition. A sport is a competitive athletic endeavor, a game involving athletes with a clear definition of a winner and loser (I discard judge-only competitions, where the winner and loser is decided on aesthetic grounds; that's more akin to an "Art-Off" or something.). Not all athletes play in sports. Not all games are sports, but the structured games involving athletes are sports. Fishermen: not athletes, not sports, game players yes Bowlers: not athletes, not sports, game players yes Golfers: not athletes, not sports, game players yes Cards: not athletes, not sports, game players yes Figure skating: athletes, not sports, not game players (artists, yes) DDR: athletes, possibly sports, definitely game players (I assume DDR involves getting the most correct moves without a mistake) Quake/Unreal: not athletes, not sports, massively game players yes Etc, etc, etc. Just because our society is so jock-friendly and jock-rewarding does not mean every last thing we do has to be a "sport"
posted by hincandenza at 01:44 PM on January 24, 2004
FYI, for those who forgot, the three pick items for the Superbowl, as defined by the great and wise forksclovestofu, were:
Note on "Over/Under": for those not familiar with over/under betting, it's not betting on a spread or a particular winner, but rather that the combined point total of both teams will be either over, or under the point total specified. So regardless of who wins or loses (Patriots 24-13, say, or Carolina 23-14) if the over/under is "38", and you pick "UNDER", you win, because the combined score is less than "38". If you pick "OVER", you lose. If they combine to score 50 points however, then the "OVER" bet wins. If the score ends up being the actual over/under- in this case if the teams combine to score exactly 38- it's called a "push" and is a null bet.As always, I'm here to fulfill all your anal retentive needs. :D
posted by hincandenza at 10:28 PM on January 18, 2004
w00t indeed! My picks were great, but I still wanted the Eagles to make it (shame they couldn't even finish with McNabb). I've created new thread for the results (since this one is about to scroll off the locker room main page)
posted by hincandenza at 09:52 PM on January 18, 2004
Here are the final results from this weekend (see also my user page). Let me know if there are any errors, etc.
| Spofite | Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Total | IND@NE | CAR@PHI | ||
| jeffmshaw | 3 | 4 | 1 | 8 | NE | PHI | ||
| NoMich | 3 | 4 | 1 | 8 | IND | CAR | ||
| trox | 4 | 3 | 1 | 8 | IND | CAR | ||
| hincandenza | 3 | 3 | 2 | 8 | NE | CAR | ||
| jasonspaceman | 4 | 3 | 0 | 7 | IND | PHI | ||
| msacheson | 3 | 3 | 1 | 7 | NE | PHI | ||
| wfrazerjr | 3 | 3 | 1 | 7 | NE | PHI | ||
| 86 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 7 | NE | CAR | ||
| Billsaysthis | 2 | 3 | 2 | 7 | NE | CAR | ||
| Bryant | 3 | 2 | 2 | 7 | NE | CAR | ||
| Jerseygirl | 2 | 3 | 2 | 7 | NE | CAR | ||
| danostuporstar | 4 | 2 | 0 | 6 | IND | PHI | ||
| smithers | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 | NE | PHI | ||
| Ufez Jones | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 | IND | CAR | ||
| Corpse | 1 | 3 | 2 | 6 | NE | CAR | ||
| pivo | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | NE | CAR | ||
| forksclovetofu | 3 | 2 | 0 | 5 | IND | PHI | ||
| taupe | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | NE | CAR | ||
| Goddam | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 | IND | PHI | ||
| rocketman | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 | IND | PHI | ||
| grum@work | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | IND | CAR | ||
| vito90 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | (DNP) | |||
| jacknose | (DNP) | 2 | 0 | 2 | (DNP) | |||
| garfield | (DNP) | (DNP) | 0 | 0 | IND | PHI | ||
posted by hincandenza at 09:49 PM on January 18, 2004
pivo: BTW Hal, you have me down for Indy on the "Big Board" instead of Pats. Dammit- weird again. There must be some fluke in copying from excel to wordpad to frontpage to notepad... I have you correct in my own copy of excel, but the one posted live is off. I've fixed... Go Pats! And go Eagles! I'm actually rooting for the Eagles, even though I picked the Panthers to win this one.
posted by hincandenza at 06:40 PM on January 18, 2004
(like dano, my picks are not only what I hope and expect, but conveniently unique in that all the people ahead of me did not pick the same things!)
posted by hincandenza at 01:09 AM on January 17, 2004
Pats & Cats for me. User page updated. Only wfrazerjr, vito90 and jacknose are missing so far.
posted by hincandenza at 01:07 AM on January 17, 2004
But I so like the idea of "Horses and Feathers".... :)
posted by hincandenza at 05:38 PM on January 15, 2004
Sorry grum- I'm doing this by hand, you gotta expect I'll make a few mistakes or omissions. :)
posted by hincandenza at 10:19 AM on January 15, 2004
Not making my picks yet (waiting till Simmons posts- why not?), but have finally updated my user page to contain the current pick list.
posted by hincandenza at 12:24 AM on January 15, 2004
I almost made a joke about the 'verboten' topic-filter.com, but fortunately did not. Whoohoo, way to go tact and discretion!
posted by hincandenza at 06:51 PM on January 13, 2004
Yeah, after a night's sleep I agree. :) Making things complicated is a force of habit with me (but who are ya callin' stupid, dano!?). I believe what FCT had said was the unofficial setup at the start as well: still one point per game, with a chance to pull a late come-from-behind in the Superbowl with a 3-way pick. May as well start picking now, unless you want to wait [till Bill Simmons posts his next round of picks]. Feel free to throw in any explanations, or predictions about players/spreads, purely for bragging rights. :)
posted by hincandenza at 09:56 AM on January 12, 2004
I like the escalating point value idea; the only problem is that with so many people so close at the top, you can't hope to win other than to just pick the opposite two teams of whatever the front-runners pick- which isn't really that fun. This would get me laughed out of Vegas, but perhaps the games should still be 1 point a piece, but have a couple, or 3, or 4 agreed upon in advance "funky" side gambles that can add to your point total, even if you pick the same team to win as other SpoFites. I mean, with 2 games next weekend, there's not exactly a lot of room for diverse choices. For example:
posted by hincandenza at 01:24 AM on January 12, 2004
Password Change
Actually, I'm kind of curious about this as well- it's not on the customize page.