Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

The Re-Rank is Coming!

124

Comments

  • MrsPetersenMrsPetersen Member Posts: 724
    Again, probably the test submission... stupid Google. :(
  • CokeGreaterThanPepsiCokeGreaterThanPepsi Member Posts: 7,646
    Yes, we had to a do a test submission early on to see if it worked, sadly, I went through and just assigned numbers, so some of this is messed up. We have all the correct numbers, we just have to put them in our own excel spreadsheet which we will do this weekend.
  • claychaclaycha Member Posts: 662

    Oops, the 1 for Sean Parker was a test submission.... but @claycha‌ gave him a 2.

    Who is Sean Parker? If that was my only bad rank I'll be shocked. At least I had heard of him!
  • LoneStarDawgLoneStarDawg Member Posts: 13,342
    edited January 2015
    @Dennis_DeYoung‌ is going to tear that test submission a new a-hole
  • MrsPetersenMrsPetersen Member Posts: 724
    brchco12 said:

    @Dennis_DeYoung‌ is going to tear that test submission a new a-hole

    I blame @CokeGreaterThanPepsi‌
  • TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 19,882
    The amount of people that had Kohler as a 1 is ridiculous. At minimum he started for a year and at worst played significant minutes for 2 years. That's far more of a contribution as many other players voted a 2 got. I'm not suggesting that he should be ranked significantly higher, but 0 to 1's should be reserved for people that washed out of the program before making significant contributions on the field or never showed up in the process.

    I also take issue with the number of people that put Jamaal Kearse as a 1 ... he was a reasonably decent special teams player that saw a lot of the field. Was he great? No. Did he contribute more than being a 1? Yes.
  • ScroteDawgScroteDawg Member Posts: 238
    It's a subjective voting system based on the opinions of basement-dwelling, sweatpants-wearing, sock fuckers. What did you all expect?
  • MrsPetersenMrsPetersen Member Posts: 724
    It's subjective, but our thought is to pull the highest rating and the lowest rating (not counting idiot test submission) and then average it out. I think for the most part it will be pretty on the spot.
  • RoadDawg55RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,123
    Tequilla said:

    The amount of people that had Kohler as a 1 is ridiculous. At minimum he started for a year and at worst played significant minutes for 2 years. That's far more of a contribution as many other players voted a 2 got. I'm not suggesting that he should be ranked significantly higher, but 0 to 1's should be reserved for people that washed out of the program before making significant contributions on the field or never showed up in the process.

    I also take issue with the number of people that put Jamaal Kearse as a 1 ... he was a reasonably decent special teams player that saw a lot of the field. Was he great? No. Did he contribute more than being a 1? Yes.

    Agree on Kohler. I disagree about Kearse. He did nothing save for a couple plays his freshman year.
  • CokeGreaterThanPepsiCokeGreaterThanPepsi Member Posts: 7,646

    Tequilla said:

    The amount of people that had Kohler as a 1 is ridiculous. At minimum he started for a year and at worst played significant minutes for 2 years. That's far more of a contribution as many other players voted a 2 got. I'm not suggesting that he should be ranked significantly higher, but 0 to 1's should be reserved for people that washed out of the program before making significant contributions on the field or never showed up in the process.

    I also take issue with the number of people that put Jamaal Kearse as a 1 ... he was a reasonably decent special teams player that saw a lot of the field. Was he great? No. Did he contribute more than being a 1? Yes.

    Agree on Kohler. I disagree about Kearse. He did nothing save for a couple plays his freshman year.
    Kearse was funny for me, I was going to give him a 1, but then I remembered he scored a TD on a fumble return in the Utah game on the road and I gave him a 2.
  • kh83kh83 Member Posts: 596
    I don't remember what I ended up with Kearse...think I went 1 because his only contribution was on special teams.
  • biak1biak1 Member Posts: 4,178
    93% 5 star on Bishop, highest % agreement unless I missed one.
  • TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 19,882
    I guess I value special team contributions more than most ... but I don't necessarily have a problem with a guy that is a depth LB/DB that is able to make solid plays on special teams ... particularly if you noticed that player on special teams.
  • AlexisAlexis Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 3,147 Swaye's Wigwam
    I'm glad I wasn't the only one who had no idea who most of these guys were. I think I started giving ones just because I felt bad giving so many zeros.
  • CheersWestDawgCheersWestDawg Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 2,478 Swaye's Wigwam
    Easiest way to get rid of outlier votes is to get rid of each player's highest and lowest vote.
  • CokeGreaterThanPepsiCokeGreaterThanPepsi Member Posts: 7,646

    Easiest way to get rid of outlier votes is to get rid of each player's highest and lowest vote.

    That is what we will be doing.
  • chuckchuck Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 11,057 Swaye's Wigwam
    Pretty cool. I voted with the majority on all but a handful if I remember correctly. A couple of notable exceptions are on Andrew Hudson, who I gave 4*, and ASJ, who I gave 5*. I went back and forth a bit on both of them and wouldn't really argue too vehemently in favor of my vote.
  • kh83kh83 Member Posts: 596
    Couldn't do ASJ at 5...and Hudson might have been a 4 for me. Will wait to see the publishing.
Sign In or Register to comment.