Posts by stormybadger8

Edward Howard2 said:Look, here’s the deal: having three or four unpenalized calls spread out over twenty races isn't some massive, earth-shattering crime. It's just not. I really don't think it's fair to hit a driver with a brutal two-season ban—like, stripping them from this year and next—for something like that. Honestly? Disqualifying them from the current season is more than enough punishment for those kinds of mistakes.
Man, they're basically sabotaging the Super League before the next season even kicks off. Losing the top eight guys from the list like that? It’s a massive blow to the lineup.
Just because someone didn't have the bandwidth to drop any sweet posts during this current season doesn't mean they're going to stay quiet next year. Honestly, we can't really know what's coming.
If someone actually earned their spot in the Super League, you've gotta let them race. It’s only fair.
With a rule like this, we could end up losing a heavy hitter. Take Pat, for example. He hasn't really been active in the circuit this season, even though he was a total regular in previous years and might even make a comeback next season.
It’s honestly pretty realistic to expect that if a driver gets disqualified four times in one season for failing to meet requirements, they’re going to end up dead last or second to last. That’s just how it works. They’ll get that handicap for next year, not just because of the DQ itself or missing the rest of the races, but because of all those prior failures too. But hey, if there happens to be an exception—if some driver is just so insanely good that they manage to stay in the blue zone despite all those disqualifications and missed races—then I am 100% down to see them back in the Super League next season. Honestly, someone like that would be a massive upgrade for the league compared to whatever reserve driver just slides in because someone else got kicked out.

As for everything else, I’m generally not really a fan of those wildcards in any kind of competition, but hey, I guess you can play along with them if you have to. Just keep in mind that it’ll probably end up thinning out the field and leaving us with fewer racers in the mix.
The order they’re filling these slots isn't exactly perfect, but honestly? It’s a massive step up from where we are right now. At least this way, it doesn't feel like they're tearing the whole foundation of the Super League apart.

So, my general take? I think this idea definitely belongs in the rulebook. But honestly, I really don't think you need to go as far as disqualifying racers from next season over it. To me, that feels like a pretty massive flaw in your proposal.

Edward Howard2 said:So, are these rules active yet...? 🤔

Disqualification in this and next season if someone fails to send three times 🤣... wait, what's the point of punishing them for next season if the racer is already disqualified in the current one? 🤣

Jason James said:If two players end up tied, the tiebreaker goes to whoever had the lower maximum point score in their predictions..

Basically, if my highest prediction for any single driver hits 15 points, but stormybadger8 only went up to 12, then his picks are actually better than mine. It means his predictions were more consistent and closer to the actual results.

5. Race ranking tiebreakers are as follows:
a) The player with fewer secondary points takes it.
b) If there's still a tie after a), the player with fewer secondary points from their worst predicted driver wins.
c) If there's still a tie after b), the player with fewer secondary points for the top 15 predicted drivers wins.
d) If there's still a tie after c), the player with fewer secondary points for the top 10 predicted drivers wins.
e) If there's still a tie after d), the player with fewer secondary points for the top 5 predicted drivers wins.
f) If there's still a tie after e), whoever submitted their updated prediction first wins. If nobody updated, it goes to whoever submitted the original prediction first. If one person fails to submit an update, their opponent wins by default.

Matthew Young35 said:Alright, here is a preliminary draft of the proposed rules.

1. To be considered valid, a prediction cannot list the same driver in multiple positions. Additionally, your entry must include exactly the number of drivers specified by the FIA as participating in the race.
2. In terms of ranking, players with fewer total points will be placed higher than those with more points.
3. Scoring is calculated based on the absolute difference between a driver's predicted position and their actual finishing position. This applies to all selected drivers.
4. If a driver you predicted fails to make the grid entirely, you will be awarded 24 points (representing the maximum possible number of participants).
5. The final standings from 1st to 24th will be determined by the official FIA results, which include DNFs, DNQs, and any other technical disqualifications.
6. PLEASE NOTE: These figures—whether we are looking at 22, 24, or 26 drivers—are subject to change depending on how the FIA settles the regulations regarding the total number of cars on the grid.
7. In the event of a tie in total points, we will break it by looking at the accuracy of the top 15 predicted positions, then the top 10, and finally the top five. If we are still stuck in a deadlock after that? Well, then all bets are off.

William Bennett53 said:Alright, let’s try running the numbers for the Spanish Grand Prix using all three methods just to see what actually happens... fine, great, at least we'll have some semblance of uncertainty before that absolute disaster of a race begins. 😁

William Bennett53 said:I didn't see much point in drafting an entire set of rules, seeing as they would likely remain identical with the exception of how points are tallied. However, I can offer this one single clarification, if only to ensure everyone understands the scoring logic.

Furthermore, if you are suggesting that Matthew Young35's criteria and my own proposal for the rules are remarkably similar—and given that Matthew Young35 developed the software specifically to aggregate data according to his own criteria—then I find myself quite inclined to support his suggestion. It facilitates a more equitable and logical scoring system while allowing for rapid, seamless automation. 🙏 👍

Matthew Young35 said:Someone went and listed the same driver in two different spots.
Someone forgot to mention a driver.
Someone went and listed way too many drivers.
I’ve been giving this some thought, and I think it might be time to put together some formal rule suggestions.

Does anyone else notice that we have a tie in the points standings?
For a situation like this, we really need to come up with an entirely different set of rules and a completely new scoring system. As for that? I’ve already said my piece—I'll leave it to someone else to figure out.

I honestly can't see a single reason why everyone shouldn't be involved in proposing rule changes. Why leave it to a select few?

I couldn't agree more. It would be nothing short of absurd to overhaul the regulations in the middle of a season—unless, of course, every single player on the field was demanding the change.

Jason Campbell70 said:Well, I doubt anyone will come up with some stroke of pure genius regarding applying a new points system later this season. 🙂

Matthew Young35 said:It’s actually quite straightforward.
My system focuses on the gap between where you predicted a driver would finish and where they actually landed. Essentially, the higher the discrepancy, the fewer points you earn.
As for DNFs, we just go by the official FIA standings.

That said, the system could use a little fine-tuning. For instance, I’d cap the maximum score at 5 points per driver. We don't want one poorly placed pick—like someone predicting a driver who ends up retiring from the race—to completely tank a person's entire forecast.

If there's a tie in points? Honestly, I haven't a clue; I'll leave that bit to someone else to figure out.

I'm pushing for this specific scoring method because it feels the most equitable. In my view, it provides the most accurate reflection of who truly has the better intuition.
Consider this example: if you predict a driver will take 4th and they finish 3rd, under the current rules, you get nothing. Under my system, you'd walk away with 1 point. Meanwhile, if someone else predicts that same driver for 1st, they missed by two spots, yet under the current setup, they're awarded 5 points.
By my logic, the person who misses by a single position should be rewarded more than the one who misses by two.

Matthew Young35 said:It really shouldn't be.
Thirty minutes, tops.

Matthew Young35 said:I actually went through the trouble of coding a program based on Matthew Young35's specific criteria... but apparently, nobody cares.
🤷

William Bennett53 said:I’m certainly not against giving it a shot, though I haven't spent much time crunching the numbers for a full championship standings—at least not in the way you'd calculate a tournament bracket—so my timing might not be perfectly calibrated. That said, looking back at how long it took me to map out those tournament predictions, the timeframe seems about the same. Besides, ruggedfox28 and WayOut both mentioned they’re on board, so I don't see why we need to make a fuss over the math. To me, the more pressing issue is that we all seem to agree this new system is fairer and well worth a try. 👍

William Bennett53 said:Go ahead and set up the automation for this new proposal of mine now, so we can hit the ground running next year without any unnecessary headaches. 🙏
It’s clear the referendum passed by a landslide, so there is really no point in keeping this debate wide open.
I actually doubt even darkmarlin16 agrees with it; it just seems like, being the staunch conservative he is, he feels a bit sentimental about seeing the previous, flawed system finally go into the history books.

ruggedfox28 said:Just when I thought there was nothing left to tweak, I managed to automate my spreadsheets just a tiny bit more 😬

🙏 🙏

@TBF1D - honestly, I should probably just email you my Excel file so you can admire this little masterpiece 😬

It might involve a hair more work than whatever you're doing with those hot dogs, but hey, at least it’s way cleaner and easier to read 😉

neonfox65 said:Hey, does anyone know if they carry CBS Sports Network? Also, what size dish am I gonna need to pick up CBS? I'm worried my 1.15-meter one won't cut it...

edit: alright, found the SD version—but the signal is pretty weak. My dish is just too small. How big is yours?

neonfox65 said:You just don't get it... my signal is too weak on that channel. I’ve got CS instead.

And over here, it even says the channel is unencrypted FTA http://en.kingofsat.net/find.php?que...tv4&Submit=Zap

But the thing is—my signal is just so weak I can't pick it up at all.

neonfox65 said:But where am I even supposed to watch it? It isn't on any of the regular TV channels... and downloading torrents just isn't the same thing.