THE PLANK MARCH 31, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
When we last left the TNR March Madness pool, readers Justin Rowinsky, David Crockett, and Andrew Daglas were sitting pretty. How long ago that now seems. TNR web intern Jamie Martin spent some time in both first and second place (he apologized profusely for what he says was a registration error). And then, over the weekend ... Things. Got. Crazy. Unlikely Final Four berths by Villanova and Michigan State put Crockett and Rowinsky in 59th and 30th place, respectively. Deputy web editor Greg Veis dropped to 47th from spot 25, so he might as well hang himself. Commenter Rozenson, formerly 13th, is now 41st.
Who made good? In a word, Blackton, who jumped from 41st to 14th--and in two words, yours truly, who is now in second place behind Aaron Shannon. (Though Shannon has no chance of winning the tournament, since he picked Pitt.) Jason Fleming and Matthew Tokson are tied for third--with Daglas and Jamie Martin just behind.
Click here for a full list of the current standings, and check back with us as we approach the end of tournament time.
--Barron YoungSmith
9 comments
I don't know who set up the scoring system for this pool, but it's the dumbest system of any pool I've ever been in. (Not that this is sour grapes. I'd be losing anyway. Just a little opining from a loser.)
- achester99
March 31, 2009 at 6:12pm
link: "you are not authorized to view this page"
- teplukhin2you
March 31, 2009 at 6:14pm
I'm with achester. I mean, blackton's doing well? Something smells fishy, and not just blackie's mom.
- ratnerstar
March 31, 2009 at 6:32pm
Yes, I am not sure, but I think I do have an outside shot if North Carolina beats Connecticut for the championship with my combined score, otherwise I will be in second. Hey Ratty, at least I played, I laid it all out on the line, and if not for some lousy early picks could be cleaning up now. And how is it scored badly? It is weighted by round with each round
weight
Round 1 1
Round 2 2
Round 3 4
Round 4 6
Round 5 8
Round 6 10
This seems about as fair as I can imagine. If it is just weighted by total picks chosen correctly, then someone getting lucky early on would win making the later games meaningless. And if it were weighted by doubling as the games are halved, then all people need is to run from the elite on. I really can't imagine a fairer scoring system.
Achester, how the hell is this dumb? Or is it dumb because you are losing?
- blackton
March 31, 2009 at 6:54pm
Great Job Blackie & Barron. I really thoguht I had you guys back in round 2.
So many two point games deciding who wins and loses. You have to really know your basketball this year.
My two Number ones faded, Louisville & Pitt. My two number 2's, Memphis and Oklahoma didn't live up to hype. So I'm on the outside looking in.
Lots of fun and glad I did this.
- CRS9TNR
March 31, 2009 at 7:22pm
True, blackie. But what gets me is that adam vaught is listed. That bastard has time to enter a NCAA pool but he can't drop by and make a comment once in a while?
He's going on my list.
- ratnerstar
March 31, 2009 at 7:24pm
Personally I prefer weighing the later games a bit heavier, but no biggie -- I ain't gonna win but I'm 17th out of 80something with NC and UConn still in and am happy to escape without embarassment!
- Lymon1
March 31, 2009 at 8:39pm
Classy, Barron. Way to rub it in.
- rozenson
March 31, 2009 at 10:45pm
Pretty good, Blackie. Not like, top ten good, but y'know, respectable for someone who watches the games on a rabbit-eared 13-inch Zenith on the back of a chicken truck.
Ratnerstar - at this point wouldn't it be easier to make a list of people who AREN'T on your list?
- adaglas
March 31, 2009 at 11:35pm