Comments on: Week fourteen http://www.zebrapool.com/blog/2009/12/13/week-fourteen/ Sat, 04 Sep 2010 17:01:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: NFL Survivor Pool » Blog Archive » Final thoughts of 2009 and early look at 2010 http://www.zebrapool.com/blog/2009/12/13/week-fourteen/comment-page-1/#comment-391 NFL Survivor Pool » Blog Archive » Final thoughts of 2009 and early look at 2010 Tue, 05 Jan 2010 01:54:52 +0000 http://www.zebrapool.com/blog/2009/12/13/week-fourteen/#comment-391 [...] been a lot of talk over the course of this season about altering some aspects of the game to avoid too many multiple winners [...] [...] been a lot of talk over the course of this season about altering some aspects of the game to avoid too many multiple winners [...]

]]> By: Joe B http://www.zebrapool.com/blog/2009/12/13/week-fourteen/comment-page-1/#comment-310 Joe B Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:19:13 +0000 http://www.zebrapool.com/blog/2009/12/13/week-fourteen/#comment-310 Bill, Is your opinion still the same about buybacks or have you given any thought about my post from last week? If it has not changed, then would you consider increasing the max entries. ========================================= I agree that removing the buybacks is not smart. Why decrease the amount of money in the pot? I’m sure a more creative solution could be thought of. Here are some ideas: 1) Reward those people who have not bought back with more of the pot. For example: Give 70% of the pot to those who did not buyback and 30% to those who did. So if the pot was $5000 and there 10 winners (say 2 who never bought back and 8 who did) then 70% of 5000 = $3500 / 2 non-buy back winners = $1750 to them and %30 of 5000 = $1500 / 8 who bought back = $187.5 to them. Or do 60/40 whatever you think is right. At least this way you are rewarding those who never needed to buy back and truly survived and also rewarding those who did buy back and survived after that. 2) Create a pay-out structure for those who win by creating a tie-breaker for week 17. Such as make players pick 2 additional pick of the teams which they have remaining in wk 17. Then you can payout based on those who got 2 additional teams right and those who got one right. I really think #1 above is a great solution w/out having to decrease the pot. Or if you do remove buyback, then can we please increase the number of entries from 5 to say 7 or more. ========================================= Bill,

Is your opinion still the same about buybacks or have you given any thought about my post from last week? If it has not changed, then would you consider increasing the max entries.
=========================================
I agree that removing the buybacks is not smart. Why decrease the amount of money in the pot? I’m sure a more creative solution could be thought of.

Here are some ideas:
1) Reward those people who have not bought back with more of the pot. For example: Give 70% of the pot to those who did not buyback and 30% to those who did. So if the pot was $5000 and there 10 winners (say 2 who never bought back and 8 who did) then 70% of 5000 = $3500 / 2 non-buy back winners = $1750 to them and %30 of 5000 = $1500 / 8 who bought back = $187.5 to them. Or do 60/40 whatever you think is right. At least this way you are rewarding those who never needed to buy back and truly survived and also rewarding those who did buy back and survived after that.

2) Create a pay-out structure for those who win by creating a tie-breaker for week 17. Such as make players pick 2 additional pick of the teams which they have remaining in wk 17. Then you can payout based on those who got 2 additional teams right and those who got one right.

I really think #1 above is a great solution w/out having to decrease the pot.

Or if you do remove buyback, then can we please increase the number of entries from 5 to say 7 or more.
=========================================

]]> By: Clayton B http://www.zebrapool.com/blog/2009/12/13/week-fourteen/comment-page-1/#comment-309 Clayton B Sun, 13 Dec 2009 17:51:20 +0000 http://www.zebrapool.com/blog/2009/12/13/week-fourteen/#comment-309 is that a record? is that a record?

]]>