| 0 |
Subject: Rumble Pickem
Posted by: blue hen
- Leader [331038201] Sun, Jan 19, 2003, 15:56
Actual Rumble
Steiner/Triple H
Angle/Benoit
Lance-Regal/Dudleys
Dawn/Torrie
Lesnar/Big Show |
| 1 | blue hen
Leader
ID: 331038201
Sun, Jan 19, 2003, 15:57
|
Jericho
Steiner
Angle
Lance-Regal
Torrie
Lesnar
|
| 2 | sosa
ID: 586431312
Sun, Jan 19, 2003, 16:02
|
Brock
Triple H
Angle
Dudleys
Torrie
Brock
|
| 3 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 18027195
Sun, Jan 19, 2003, 16:11
|
Lesnar
Steiner
Angle
Dudleys
Torrie
Lesnar
|
| 4 | MITH's Girlfriend
ID: 18027195
Sun, Jan 19, 2003, 16:16
|
HBK
Triple H
Angle
Lance-Regal
Torrie
Lesnar
|
| 5 | MNG@college
ID: 117422015
Sun, Jan 19, 2003, 16:30
|
Jericho
Steiner
Angle
Lance/Regal
Dawn
Lesnar
|
| 6 | Farn
Donor
ID: 7822711
Sun, Jan 19, 2003, 16:34
|
Jericho
Steiner
Angle
Lance-Regal
Torrie
Lesnar
|
| 7 | mIST
ID: 3701817
Sun, Jan 19, 2003, 16:51
|
Brock Lesnar
Triple H
Kurt Angle
Storm-Regal
Torrie Wilson
Brock Lesnar
|
| 8 | Tree
ID: 22052618
Sun, Jan 19, 2003, 17:08
|
winning the Rumble, Stone Cold
Triple H
Angle
Dudleys
Dawn
Lesner
|
| 9 | wiggs
Donor
ID: 10261612
Sun, Jan 19, 2003, 17:18
|
Brock
Stiener
Benoit
Dudleys
Torrie
Brock
|
| 10 | kev
ID: 11438306
Sun, Jan 19, 2003, 18:20
|
HBK...just a hunch
Steiner
Benoit...rematch on Smackdown, Angle wins it back
Dudley's
Dawn Marie
Lesnar
|
| 11 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 60151121
Sun, Jan 19, 2003, 19:05
|
Brock
Steiner
Angle
Dudleys
Dawn
Brock
|
| 12 | Kim @ MITH's Apt
ID: 18027195
Sun, Jan 19, 2003, 19:31
|
Undertaker
Steiner
Angle
Lance-Regal
Torrie
Lesnar
|
| 13 | Mike D
Donor
ID: 31022116
Sun, Jan 19, 2003, 21:38
|
Well, I missed the pick 'em.
So far though, Lesnar has beaten Big Show. Dudleys beat Regal/Storm. Torrie beat Dawn Marie. HHH/Steiner was ruled no contest, though I thought HHH was going to be DQ'd. Not clear. Crowd was dead for that match. HHH did a big blade job.
Angle just beat Benoit in the match of the night, though that's not saying much so far. But, it will be hard to top. Great match, as expected, and the crowd was hot.
|
| 14 | Mike D
Donor
ID: 31022116
Sun, Jan 19, 2003, 21:40
|
Forgot to add that after the match, Benoit got a long standing ovation. Well worth it.
|
| 15 | Tree
ID: 22052618
Sun, Jan 19, 2003, 21:41
|
Mike D - considering it's the last match before the Rumble, it will be hard to top...hehe...
so far, i'm 3-1-1...sosa, at 4-0-1, is the only one who hasn't totally missed a pick....
someone let me know who the mystery entrant is, although it might be the last guy in, and i may be in bed...
peace,
Tree
|
| 16 | Mike D
Donor
ID: 31022116
Sun, Jan 19, 2003, 21:43
|
Hmmm. Technically I think you're right Tree. ;)
|
| 17 | Mike D
Donor
ID: 31022116
Sun, Jan 19, 2003, 22:10
|
Line of the night:
Test walking down the ramp to enter he rumble, JR says "the Testicles are on their feet." The King counters with "Testicles have feet?"
|
| 18 | Mike D
Donor
ID: 31022116
Sun, Jan 19, 2003, 22:31
|
Lesnar in at 29. UT 30.
|
| 19 | kev
ID: 11438306
Sun, Jan 19, 2003, 22:35
|
Do me and THK get bonus points for Standing Ovations?
I hope his push isnt over.
|
| 20 | Mike D
Donor
ID: 31022116
Sun, Jan 19, 2003, 22:38
|
Down to Batista, Lesnar, Kane and UT. Out goes Batista. UT sends Kane out. Lesnar knocks out UT. And your winner, by no surprise at all, is Brock Lesnar.
|
| 21 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 18027195
Sun, Jan 19, 2003, 22:44
|
Sosa and I both went 5-0-1, unless HHH was DQ'd, in which case I believe I won.
|
| 22 | wiggs
Donor
ID: 10261612
Sun, Jan 19, 2003, 23:31
|
HHH was DQed. Nice job mith
|
| 23 | sosa
ID: 586431312
Sun, Jan 19, 2003, 23:37
|
Yeah to be honest I definitely thought HHH got DQ'd, but I was watching it at a local establishment so the commentary wasn't real clear. Either way it looks like a rematch next month, or maybe tomorrow night.
Benoit/Angle was just awesome stuff. I'd say match of the year but it wouldn't mean much since it's only January. Just a great match.
Entertaining rumble too, they had the smaller guys in early and brought all the bigger guys in late. Lots of nice touches in the match with interesting interactions of Edge/Christian, Matt/Jeff, Maven/UT, Kane/UT, Kane/RVD.
|
| 24 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 18027195
Mon, Jan 20, 2003, 00:09
|
Did it seem to anyone else who saw it that Steiner lost control of his rage at the end of the match? If it was for intended HHH to bleed that much that was pretty impressive. The crowd didn't seem to know what to make of it.
|
| 25 | Tree
ID: 22052618
Mon, Jan 20, 2003, 02:18
|
more importantly, how many chicks were at your apartment watching rasslin'...what's what counts!
|
| 26 | Mike D
Donor
ID: 31022116
Mon, Jan 20, 2003, 07:03
|
Benoit-Angle: Another match of the year candidate
|
| 27 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 18027195
Mon, Jan 20, 2003, 09:30
|
Tree 25, LOL When our friend Kim asked me if she could be inlcluded in the Pickem, I asked her what she wanted her moniker to be. She said, ahh, lets jack up your rep over at Rotoguru and call me "MITH's other gfriend". I actually typed it out and was gonna post that way but changed it because I figured that would probably just make you guys think I was sitting here by myself.
|
| 28 | Tree
ID: 22052618
Mon, Jan 20, 2003, 09:40
|
well hell, i still figure you were sitting by yourself... ;o)
|
| 29 | RecycledSpinalFluid
ID: 42121814
Mon, Jan 20, 2003, 12:24
|
I guess that is better than being named "Lefty" and "Righty"...
|
| 30 | Tree
ID: 22052618
Mon, Jan 20, 2003, 13:09
|
true that - while i wasn't watching the ppv, i was sitting in our apartment with my girl and our dog. personally, not much beats that...
peace,
Tree
|
| 31 | Great One
Donor
ID: 41136511
Mon, Jan 20, 2003, 23:47
|
i honestly believe Angle/Beniot deserve bonus points for that match. When something like that occurs - and the crowd gives a standing ovation - we need to reward those guys for going above and beyond - like a triple double bonus - and their respective owners for drafting them.
I think we will be able to easily recognize these kinds of situations - as there will be only 3-4 over an entire year.
anyone else feel remotely the same?
|
| 32 | Farn
Donor
ID: 7822711
Mon, Jan 20, 2003, 23:53
|
Great One- I think that's too hard to do. That basically means we will have to vote on those situations. Its all a judgement call. And say those 2 get extra points because some people deem that a great match. What if my favorite match is a hardcore match and I thought it was the best I ever saw. Do my guys get extra points?
IMO that makes it all too subjective.
|
| 33 | Great One
Donor
ID: 41136511
Tue, Jan 21, 2003, 00:07
|
its just that I - and I'm sure most everyone else - feel that Beniot deserves many more points then what he got. so we need to figure something out. i know we tacked on the main-event bonus - thats a start. but as has been stated - how is it possible for demott to have twice as many points as beniot?!
|
| 34 | kev
ID: 11438306
Tue, Jan 21, 2003, 06:54
|
I think the fact Angle called Benoit the best WWE wrestler should give both guys 50 points.
Im sure BH will agree.
|
| 35 | mIST
ID: 21113162
Tue, Jan 21, 2003, 08:17
|
Just another example: Bruce Bowen. He's one of the top 1 on 1 defenders EVER, but he's never been worth a buy. You see him play like a god for 40 minutes and he ends with 10 TSNP. I think the situation in similar.
|
| 36 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Tue, Jan 21, 2003, 11:56
|
I think everyone agrees that Bill DeMott, along with Chris Nowinski and Goldust and some other people in the rumble got too many points. Agreeing with Farn and mIST, we cannot have subjective points awarded for what we deem as higher quality matches. We do not award more points for a rebound or a home run or a touchdown because they are done in spectacular fashion, nor do we take away points if they were accomplished by chance or luck. If the Rumble were scored more fairly (using my suggestion as a model), Goldust would have scored 0 instead of 15, Booker T 5 instead of 16 and DeMott 7 instead of 23. Considering those adjusted scores, Benoit's 15 (check my post in the Rumble Points thread) looks a bit more reasonable. Remember, he did lose, after all.
|
| 37 | blue hen
Leader
ID: 40029714
Tue, Jan 21, 2003, 12:50
|
Agree with Mattingly on all counts. Benoit LOST. As long as we're giving losers negative points (which I do disagree with), he should lose points for the loss. He only winds up positive because of the main event status.
One league we awarded two points for a win and one point for a loss, period. It makes sense... a loss is better than not being on TV. A win is better than a loss.
I don't think our system accounts for that at all, and I think that's a major problem with this league.
|
| 38 | Mike D
Donor
ID: 38044119
Tue, Jan 21, 2003, 13:41
|
Agreed.
|
| 39 | Tree, also @ work
ID: 599393013
Tue, Jan 21, 2003, 14:14
|
i hate to restructure this late in the game. i really do.
but there is a validity in simplicity, although i'd go to a 5 for a win, 3 for a loss, 1 for a draw type of thing...but our current system does account for DQs, and things like that, which i also like....
|
| 40 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Tue, Jan 21, 2003, 15:04
|
I don't agree with totally revamping the scoring. I like it intricate, and I don't believe I've seen a problem regarding the number of points awarded for winning a match. 30 for a TV singles win and 25 for a TV tag win looks okay to me. How about 10 for a TV singles loss, 8 for a TV tag team loss? No contest could remain 5 points, or if some feel a no contest is worth more than a loss, 15 points.
I believe 75 points for winning the World or WWE title is too much. I propose 50 points for winning a World or WWE title and 15 for defending one. I believe all matches where the World and WWE titles are on the line should be considered main events, giving 10 points automaticly for anyone in a World or WWE title match.
Other titles (tag, women's and cruiser) could be 15 points for winning, 10 for defending and +5 points for being involved in a title match. I see no reason why the tag belts should be more valuable than the other 2.
These could be adjusted as everyone sees fit for PPVs. I also believe this system works well with my proposal for the Rumble (even tho it will be another year before the next one), giving it sort of a backseat to the other matches, except for the best Rumblers. You are likely to get some points if you are in it, as long as you don't completely fish out (like Goldust) and the big point getters that didn't win it all like RVD and Y2J still accumulate notable points.
Consider, losing a TV singles WWE title (as a contender) yields 18 points, not including backstge stuff and other whatnot. Assuming the PPV adjustments would bring that score to about 28, Benoit's performance would then be comparable to the points that Y2J and RVD got in the Rumble.
I see no reason to mess with the other established scoring rules (vigenttes, run-ins, heel/face turns, etc).
Thoughts?
|
| 41 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Tue, Jan 21, 2003, 15:51
|
I also thought about suggesting that we simply add 50% (or some other agreed upon amount) to these tallies for PPV scoring. Seemed okay at first when you just think that if a particular wrestler finished a PPV with 30 points, he/she would get a PPV bonus of +15points. This idea keeps it simple, but could get really out of hand for some of the bigger winners. For example if a wrestler wins the WWE belt that's 10 for the main event, 30 for the win, 50 for the belt = 90 points. Is accomplishing that in a PPV worth another 45 points to bring it to 135? I think not.
So my next suggestion is that we could just award the same flat 12 points for being in the PPV that wrestlers in the rumble got to everyone else in any PPV matches. This keeps it just as simple, maybe even simpler, and keeps everything more relative (in my opinion). 102 points for winning the WWE heavyweight belt during a PPV is plenty. Benoit would have got 30 points Monday night and Angle 67.
|
| 42 | mIST
ID: 21113162
Wed, Jan 22, 2003, 03:59
|
About the WWE Title points: I think that 75 on a TV Show is right. Afterall, it's something that happens every 2-3 years, it HAS to make a difference. About the rest, we're one year away from the next rumble, so we'll have time to change the rules. Agree that it would be fair not to give negative points to who loses.
|
| 43 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 25745220
Wed, Jan 22, 2003, 18:36
|
I won't say I told you so, but this was the whole point that I was trying to make ahead of time about the point structure for the Rumble.
Cliff
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|