Standings through Week 14…

1. Eric – Hutcinson, MN – 157 points
2. James – Lake Elmo, MN – 143 points
3. ME! – Minneapolis, MN – 141 points
4. David – Corona, CA – 140 points
5. Clayton – Utica, NY – 139 points
6. Jamin – Gresham, OR – 138 points
7. Ron – Chino Hills, CA – 137 points
7. Josh – Westerville, OH – 137 points
7. Michael – Amherst, NY – 137 points
10. Eddie – Nashville, TN – 136 points
10. Susan – Lake Elmo, MN – 136 points
10. Felix – New York, NY – 136 points
13. Curtis – Stewart, MN – 135 points
13. James – Houston, TX – 135 points
13. Jeff – Laguna Hills, CA – 135 points
13. Justin – Jersey City, NJ – 135 points
13. Chris – Evanston, IL – 135 points
13. Norman – San Francisco, CA – 135 points
19. Daniel – Lansing, KA – 134 points
19. Nick – Yakima, WA – 134 points
19. John – Tulsa, OK – 134 points
22. Sedrick – Katy, TX – 133 points
22. Darin – New Hope, MN – 133 points
22. Ethan – Indianapolis, IN – 133 points
22. Jason – Powell, OH – 133 points
22. John – Winooski, VT – 133 points
22. Karen – Tonawanda, NY - 133 points
22. John – Oregon, WI – 133 points
22. Joel – Miami Gardens, FL – 133 points
22. Lisa – Rocky Hill, CT – 133 points
22. John – Hartland, MI – 133 points
32. Everett – Port Charlotte, FL – 132 points
32. Dan – Pompano Beach, FL – 132 points
32. Derek – Bakersfield, CA – 132 points
32. Mike – Mequon, WI – 132 points
32. Rick – Olney, MD – 132 points
32. Clifford – Voorhees, NJ – 132 points
38. Nick – Phoenix, AZ – 131 points
38. David – Roswell, GA – 131 points
38. Eileen – Arlington Heights, IL – 131 points
38. Michael – Clifton Park, NY – 131 points
38. James – Georgetown, KT – 131 points
38. Keri – Minneapolis, MN – 131 points
38. Jim – Loudonville, NY – 131 points
38. Konrad – Craig, CO – 131 points
38. Ray – Fort Worth, TX – 131 points
38. Ryan – Pasadena, CA – 131 points
38. Russ – Phoenix, AZ – 131 points
38. Timothy – Fox Lake, IL – 131 points
38. Gerald – Twin Lakes, WI – 131 points
51. Bob – Milford, MA – 130 points
51. Colin – New York, NY – 130 points
51. Daryl – Chalmette, AB – 130 points
51. Lee – North Las Vegas, NV – 130 points
51. Gary – Los Angeles, CA – 130 points
51. Jeff – Independence, KT – 130 points
51. Jeff – Zephyr Cove, NV – 130 points
51. Tony – Savage, MN – 130 points
51. Budde – Jenks, OK – 130 points
51. Nate – Jordan, MN – 130 points
51. Matt – Cortland, OH – 130 points
51. Cesar – Roxbury, MA – 130 points
51. Sean – Los Angeles, CA – 130 points
51. Michael – Dublin, OH – 130 points
65. Devin – St. Paul, MN – 129 points
65. Jerry – Westminster, CO – 129 points
65. Jason – Phoenix, AZ – 129 points
65. John – Woodbridge, VA – 129 points
65. Jim – North Mankato, MN – 129 points
65. Ken – Green Bay, WI – 129 points
65. Kevin – Pawtucket, RI – 129 points
65. Matthew – Knoxville, TN – 129 points
65. Mike – Aspen, CO – 129 points
65. Paul – Brooklyn, NY – 129 points
65. Terry – Oakdale, MN – 129 points
76. Fred – Pleasanton, CA – 128 points
76. Benson – Detroit, MI – 128 points
76. Bryan – Randolph, MA – 128 points
76. Nathan – Prescott, AZ – 128 points
76. Craig – Fitchburg, MA – 128 points
76. David – Northfield, MN – 128 points
76. Harry – Monticello, FL – 128 points
76. Jared – Alexandria, VA – 128 points
76. Mark – South Boston, MA – 128 points
76. Michael – New York, NY – 128 points
76. Richard – Margate, FL – 128 points
76. Shelby – Neptune Beach, FL – 128 points
88. Bill – Santa Rosa, CA – 127 points
88. George – Haltom City, TX – 127 points
88. Isaac – Columbia Heights, MN – 127 points
88. Jon – Oklahoma City, OK – 127 points
88. Kate – Miami, FL – 127 points
88. Kevin – Tiffin, OH – 127 points
88. Mark – Palmyra, NJ – 127 points
88. Bill – Crofton, MD – 127 points
88. Paul – Virginia Beach, VA – 127 points
88. Joanne – Everett, MA – 127 points
88. Rob – Comstock Park, MI – 127 points
88. Brian – Columbus, OH – 127 points
88. Sue – Cincinnati, OH – 127 points
88. Julio – Lynn, MA – 127 points
88. Robert – Brooklyn, NY – 127 points
88. Blake – Blountville, TN – 127 points
88. Susan – Vienna, VA – 127 points
88. Tou – Eagan, MN – 127 points
88. Jerry – Pine Brook, NJ – 127 points


I NEED YOUR INPUT ON CONSOLATION PRIZES!

I’m trying to figure out the best/most fair way to distribute the consolation prizes (3 iPod Nanos). Initially I thought we’d draw from a lottery of participants that picked 13+ weeks of the season – it wouldn’t be performance based at all and would also include a number of people that could just stop picking last week or this week and not finish the season…

Now I’m thinking we should only draw from those that participated in 15 or more weeks (since some people got a late start or missed a week here or there for whatever reason). It would limit the pool to roughly the top 200 and I think that would be fair to those of you that didn’t give up. Anyone have thoughts or recommendations???? The beauty of running a contest like this is that I can actually get your feedback and make adjustments mid-season!

Please reply to this blog and let me know what you think would be fair. We’ll discuss the suggestions internally and come up with a final solution that I’ll write about in next week’s blog. Basically we have 3 iPod Nanos set aside as consolation prizes and want to give everyone that stuck around for a while a chance to win. Thanks everyone.

Three Weeks LEFT!
Don’t forget about Thursday’s game, and good luck in Week 15!
Go Vikes!

I think you should reserve one prize to be drawn from the top ten runners-up, and the other two prizes for the entire field, minus the winners of the TV and the first Nano. It's a tough call... because it would really suck to finish in second place and have nothing to show for it, like the Chicago Bears last year, and at the same time, you want to make the contest inclusive to everyone, so even if they didn't do great with their picks throughout the season, they've still got a chance to come away with something positive. You have to decide if you are going to reward performance or participation, or how best to combine the two.

This week, I think I'm just going with the favorites, not putting a lot of effort into researching the matchups, injuries, etc.
ARI @ NO: NO
ATL @ TB: TB
BAL @ MIA: BAL
BUF @ CLE: CLE
CHI @ MIN: MIN
CIN @ SF: CIN
DEN @ HOU: DEN
DET @ SD: SD
GB @ STL: GB
IND @ OAK: IND
JAC @ PIT: PIT
NYJ @ NE: NE
PHI @ DAL: DAL
SEA @ CAR: SEA
TEN @ KC: TEN
WAS @ NYG: NYG

There are some potential upsets, so you might pick Houston, Arizona, Jacksonville, or even Washington if you want to gain ground on me this week.

I think you definitely need to draw from those who gave 100% participation.

good luck

Craig

15 weeks of picks sounds fair, better than the 13 weeks for exactly the reason you listed.

Thanks for running the promotion, its been a lot of fun!

I like the idea of picking 1 nano from the top 10 finishers not counting no 1 (this gives them a 10% chance to win for doing so well in their picks). Then, the other 190 of us still have a good chance to get one of the other nano's.

Thanks for the input everyone. I'm leaning towards this option...
1st place - TV
2nd place - iPod Nano.
Remaining participants missing 0-1 weeks of submissions will be put in a drawing for the remaining two iPod Nanos.

If anyone has other ideas or comments on this option, please let me know. Thanks again everyone.

@Eric: A little fun fact for the day. One participant joined in week 10, and over the last 5 weeks has only missed 4 games scoring 74 points over the span. The second most points scored over that time belonged to you with 59. I was in a three-way tie with 58. For your sake, it's a good thing this person didn't start in Week 1, otherwise you may have gotten a run for your money! Regardless, nice job thus far.

I like your "leaning" Matt. It gives us a really good reason to fight for the number 2 spot, which is still in reach for many.

BTW: Great promotion, it's been fun!

How about do a random lottery of those that are in the top 100. I think this would be pretty fair.

Thanks

However you choose to do it, just make sure you reward the folks who have been active. Nothing would be worse than a consolation prize winner only submitting 3 weeks of pics...

I think that #2 and possibly #3 should get an iPod. Then do a drawing on the rest of the field that has participated for at least 15 weeks. You could double the drawing entries for the names that had 100% participation to encourage participation up until the end.

Just my 2 cents.

Thanks again for a great contest.

How about...iPods for everyone! No? Well, it was worth a try. I think the 2nd place winner should get one, and the other 2 go to 2 randomly picked people out of the top 100...providing they have played at least 15 weeks. Or give iPods to the 2nd and 3rd place winners, and still give 2 away to randomly selected winners out of the top 100. But that would mean giving away 4 iPods. Just my 2 cents. Go Patriots!

This contest has been a lot of fun, and my suggestion for the drawing adds a little complexity, but I think makes it a little more fun, and it's based on performance.

How about giving each person an entry into the drawing for each win they had? (Roughly based on how the NBA does their lotto picks, only obviously the best pickers get the best chance...those that did well and those that picked every week get more entries) Using this method, you shouldn't throw out the worst week, giving more credit to those who played each week. If the thought of putting thousands of entries into a box sounds like too much work, you could do the drawing in this manner (a little more complicated but faster):
Print out a list of how many games each person won, giving entry numbers to those people according to how many they have won.
Example (I'm using the totals above that don't include the worst week, but in the real game count you would include the low week):
(Eric doesn't count, so James would own the first 143 "tickets" (numbering 00001-00143), David would own the next 140 "tickets" (numbering 00144-00283), etc. You should be able to make a spreadsheet that assigns these numbers for the list.
Then you pick the ticket numbers power-ball style in the following way: If there were, for example, 72,248 "tickets", you would have four containers. The first would have numbers from 00-72 in it for the thousands place, the second would have numbers 0-9 for the hundreds place, the third 0-9 for the tens place and the last 0-9 for the ones place. The first needs to be from 00-72 because if you had the thousands place separated into two containers it would give the people with tickets that started with a 7 a higher chance to win, since there are only 2,249 tickets that start with 7 as opposed to 10,000 tickets that start with any of the other numbers.

Or you could just figure out how the BCS computer works, and plug the names and numbers into that formula, since we're keeping it simple.

I don't know how you're going to do the actual "drawing" of names, whether you will print out all of the names and cut them out into small pieces of paper to be put into a bowl or something, or if there is some program that will randomly select from a list for you. Whatever you end up doing, if the company feels this promotion was a success and will continue it next year, as I think all participants hope they will, you should have the prizes and details ironed out and posted at the start of the contest. I don't know if it's necessarily right or fair to exclude anyone from eligibility because they started late or were unable to get their picks in for one reason or another. That's why I suggested one prize to be drawn from the #2-11 finishers, to reward performance, and the others to be drawn from the rest of the field, #2-everyone else.

Giving a prize for 2nd place would be good, but there are still 3 weeks left, and there could be a 3-way tie for second at that time, in which case you'd be doing a drawing anyway.

Did you realize it would be this labor intensive when you started the contest? It does seem like a lot of extra work for you to update the standings and deal with the issues that come up from week to week, but your efforts are appreciated.

I'm going to catch Eric and win the TV :)

Everyone, thanks for your input, it's appreciated.

More to Eric's point - We definitely wanted to have all of the rules ironed out before the season started. But with participation exceeding our expectations and you pulling away from the competition, we wanted to encourage and reward continued participation. The level of involvement on my end was unexpected, but I don't mind (I'm sort of a stat guy and enjoy crunching the numbers each week).

Based on all your feedback (thank you) and how I feel is a fair way to distribute the consolation prizes, they will be rewarded to the following...

2nd place - In the event of a 2nd place tie, we will draw a name from those that are tied.

The remaining 2 iPods will be drawn from the top 100 scores. It's unlikely that anyone that missed more than 1 week of picks would crack the top 100, so the drawing will reward both performance and participation.

Obviously we've learned a lot about how to run the competition next year and we'll be able to make it a much better experience for everyone.

Sidenote: We'll be running a March Madness Bracket competition, so be on the lookout for that email sometime in early '08.

Thanks for the input & participation everyone.

Matt, first off, thanks for the contest. It's been fun! As far as rewarding of the iPods, it sounds like you've decided to reward #2 an iPod. However, I think I like Eric's suggestion better. Put the top 10 finishers into a separate drawing for an iPod then the remaining 2 iPods drawn from the top 100. That seems to more fairly reward the top performers. Just my two cents.

I'm 0-2 so far this week... I hope some of you got those games right and are gaining on me.

The Dogs were barking again this week. It should have given plenty of you and opportunity to gain on me, since I took the favorites, posted my picks and didn't change any of them Sunday morning.

I had my doubts about Baltimore, but didn't give Miami any credit after getting blown out by the Jets. Philadelphia over Dallas wasn't too surprising, after seeing what the Eagles were capable of against the Patriots, and the Cowboys are beatable. Unfortunately for my fantasy teams, I started Tony Romo over Drew Brees and lost both games in leagues where I had been in fist place, but am now out of the playoffs. Washington over the Giants didn't surprise me at all either. Do your homework on the potential upsets, that's how you stay competitive in these Pick-Em contests.

Eric, looks like this will be your "throw out" week. ..I did gain some ground, but not enough, still missing 4 of the upsets. Hey, how about you take only favorites for the rest of the season?

By the way, Baltimore beat themselves, I still wouldn't give Miami much credit.

If you go away from the vegas lines and get them right, IMO, it is nothing more than luck. People are paid good money to come up with those lines. I know that I'm not paid to pick who is going to win games every week, so therefore I would trust someone that is and does this for a living more than myself.

Josh- You have to understand that the people who determine those lines are not trying to determine what the actual score or outcome of the game will be, rather it is to keep the money on both sides as even as possible in order to maintain an edge for the sportsbook. A lot of people bet on "their" team to win, bet with their hearts and not with their brains, and often a popular team will get an overwhelming majority of the action. To counter this, the lines are adjusted so that the action balances out. The casinos and sportsbooks don't want to take 90% action on one team and have to pay out all those bets. Obviously New England is going to be a big favorite in every game, but any line of 4-1/2 or less is a game that could go either way, and that's just the number they need to keep the wagers balanced. The casinos get a cut of every bet placed, referred to as "juice" or "vig" or any number of other terms, so you bet $1.10 to win $1.00. If they have an equal amount of wagers on each side, they pay the winners and keep that 5 or 10%. It's complicated, but that's why the lines aren't reliable for picking winners.

Someone with more interest in stats and more time to research it could go back through the season and figure out how the favorites did through the course of the season, but I don't think that score would rank in the top 20 in this contest.