Put another FPGP season in the books... and what a season it was. Record setting performances, our biggest group of FPGPers yet, and the first ever Due Diligence Trade.
Here is our FINAL update... congratulations to all of the winners (New Tex, Bandit, Excal and Tev) as well as to the rest of you for well... being you.
669 ..... Steve T. / Tex ($959)
476 ..... Da Bandit ($274)
420 ..... Excal ($137)
375 ..... Vic/Talon
333 ..... Johnny V.
327 ..... Timmy D. / Bimma
249 ..... Stan the Man
247 ..... Stevie V.
127 ..... Jeff / Shades
71 ..... Murph/MG
50 ..... Krust
-21 ..... Robbo/Buzz
-116 ..... Tev ($100)
Bandit, Excal and Tev... I am going to assume that you are going to apply $100 of your prize money to next year's FPGP... I'll send you checks for the rest ($174 for Bandit, $37 for Excal, and a coupon for a free-roll next year for Tev)... make sure you email me your home addresses so I can send that off.
The bar has definitely been raised... last year, 407 points won this thing, and that was a big year. No one has ever cracked 500 until this year, and I am pretty sure we've never had more than 1 player over 400.
Jeff is allegedly going to make a final update of the sidebar and whatnot... if anyone wants to see the actual spreadsheet, let me know and I will email it to you.
Coming tomorrow... the 2007 FPGP Awards!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
If I don't get the FPGP Award for best late-quarter comeback then I want an audit of New Tex's numbers!
Sidebar is updated as is the final data sheet.
I was just glad to see that Perks wasn't the worst pick of the year. Had he not bogeyed his 17th hole this past Friday, he would have made the cut down at Disney. That might have given him a positive point total. Go get it done in Q-School Perksy!
I have a suggestion for the money payout next year. It's to give a bit more cash to the 2nd and 3rd place finishers -- with a bit less given to the winner. No offense to New Tex intended here but the difference between winning and the other spots is rather large.
Additionally, this kind of change may increase the interest of those who have no chance of winning but could finish in the money. What do the rest of you think about this idea?
No offense taken...
This is the same payout structure (70/20/10) that we've used every year in the FPGP since we've paid 3 places... the dollar figures are different this year in part because the pool was bigger.
I think you have to reward the person who finishes in first place, period, and they should get more than 1/2 of the pot. If people want to mess with this, I'm willing to hear suggestions... I don't think you can go below something like 60/30/10 though... I mean, 3rd place should be happy to get some money at all.
Well, since I didn't win any money, I agree with Steve!!! Take from the rich (winners) and give more to the poor (losers)!!
But, seriously, I agree with Tex that the division can not be any more (or less) than 60/30/10.
How is it 70/20/10 if we pay $100 to last place? So isn't it already 60/20/10...10. The only payout change I would make would be for it to become 50/30/15...5. Last place gets half off next year.
Last place gets $100 off the top... then it is 70/20/10 for the remaining payouts. It has always been 70/20/10 in the past, we are just shaving a hundo off the top, which by the way, affected ME more than anyone... the duffer award costs the winner $70, in theory.
We are not going to give the winner of the pool only 50% of the pool... that makes no sense. It might be different if there were a lot of people in this thing, but we are already paying out 1/3 of the group... you have to enrich the winner in a situation like that. Just ask Bandit, our career leading money winner (I think this one put me into 2nd place though...)
We can also do away with the Duffer Award if we wanted... but I think that adds more fun to the group as a whole... otherwise people in the bottom 1/3 are pretty much done by May.
Left up to your own devices you left-wing, liberal, pinko intelligentsia would create a society of entitlement-minded, under-achieving hedonists. FIRST, rewarding last place is a gross afront to this 'merican's (sic) conservative values of hard work and personal responsibility. In lieu of free money and a handout, give last place a free (extra) swap pick next year for their hapless arsenal (if they purchase a regularly price $20 swap option). This is a hand up instead and would motivate said individual to rejoin and thus fatten the pot for those of us who can actaully compete. SECOND, third place gets their entry back with a love note that says, "thanks for playing, work harder and you too can be a winner." THIRD, the remaining monies hould be divide between 1st and second on a 70-30 split. FOURTH, let us end this thing at the FEDEX finale (Tour Championship) before interest wanes and the quasi-silly season begins. For heaven's sake, let's put some nutsack back into this culture of ours and quit trying to put Hillarycare into practice with the FPGP, heck it is bad enough we have a Canadian founder.
Yeah, the Fall Finish is meaningless... unless of course you were in 3rd place after the Fed Ex finished and 4th place after the Fall Finish.
This is a SEASON LONG pool, so I think we need to have this baby go all year... not just through the Nextel, er Fed Ex Cup.
As for the money distribution, I am all for giving more to 1st and 2nd... There is no point in a competitive pool if everone is going to get money back, and the winner doesn't get the lion's share.
Signed,
This year's lion.
And I got busy today, so the FPGP Awards will have to wait until Friday.
A teacher of mine once said, "It's just as hard to get an A as it is an F. So you might as well put the hard work to use". That said, I like the last place person getting something. It does make it interesting and a trade can still be made to help one finish last. Just ask MG. The lack of a negative trade may have cost her last place.
Just so everyone knows, I suggested to New Tex today that we do the payout system similar to how poker tournaments are paid out. For example, we continue to payout as-is until we get 15 players. Then we adjust the payout as 60/25/10/5, paying out the top 4 instead of top 3. Then if we get 20 or more, we pay out the top 5. This give more players a taste of the money and keeps players interested longer into the PGA year.
I'd also suggest we cap this at no more than 20 or 25 to keep it interesting but not over doing it.
I would vigorously object to EVER in any situation paying out 5 players... that's just ridiculous. The goal should be to WIN the pool, and the motivation should be "holy shit, I could win $1500!!" not "oh cool, if i finish in 5th place I get $100." Now, I understand that Shades has never cashed in this pool, and by reaching the prize money downward, he may have a more of a chance of a break-through break-even year... but at some point this is ridiculous. The last time I checked, there are only 3 medals given in the Olympics...
And because Shades knows just enough about poker to be dangerous, I should explain that in most larger poker tournaments, 10% of the field is paid off. As it stands, we paid out 4 places in THIS pool, and we had 13 players... that is probably too high, but I thought the Duffer Award would be a cute idea (and it ended up costing ME $70, so I don't want to hear anyone else bitch about it!).
The more I think about the idea of "incenting" people to play, the less I like stretching the money... if someone can't pony up $100 for a year-long pool that is full of funny guys who give shit to each other, and the occasional appearance of a PGA Tour player, than fuck'em... we don't need them in the pool.
Oh, and I'd add this to all of you wanting to stretch out the dough a little more... if you want to finish in the money, make better picks!
You played racketball this week and now you are comparing winning the FPGP to Olympic gold? LOL.
"Cute idea"? Not having kids, when do you have the need to use the word "cute"?
My goal in expanding the payout wasn't as much to make an incentive for people to play but to keep 50% of the players more active in the banter of the blog. But having thought about it, Excal finished in the money and didn't comment much on the blog. So I guess I'm now with just keeping it as is.
The idea of "banter" is not the issue... "interest" is a better thing to consider.
And again, if you want to be "interested" in the pool, then don't pick a team centered around the likes of Hank Kuehne and Craig Perks... just sayin.
Who said I wasn't interested? I thought it would be "cute" to have Perks and Kuehne on a team destined for nowhere.
Hell, I say winner takes all and we all travel and shave the head of the last place finisher...now that's sport!
Okay, after reading all of the opinions, my view is to go for a 63-30-10 split and leave the duffer award in place. I thought the duffer award just gave a free pass to the last place person; so it's 100 bucks not entered into the pool the following year. Is this acceptable to folks, eveb the Machiavelli's of the pool?
From Steve V.:
"Additionally, this kind of change may increase the interest of those who have no chance of winning but could finish in the money. What do the rest of you think about this idea?"
I think that once Vodo's team was out of the running, the poor lad lost interest in watching golf and switched to the NASCAR channel to get his Sunday entertainment. If someone loses interest in the pool, go play with your f-----g kids or take up a hobby like playing golf or write a paper for a journal. Maybe get into the subprime mortgage business for excitement.
Leave it at 70-20-10. Or even go to 70-30 and 3rd place gets a set of steak knives.
Should every player in the pool get a trophy like they do - so I understand - in some youth leagues these days? What a message -"thanks for stopping by, you little creep w/o an ounce of athletic blood or skills in you!"
As New Tex points out, it's a COMPETITIVE pool and it is SEASON LONG (as it should be).
Post a Comment