View Full Version : Any Scoring Issues...
For anyone with an issue real or imagined... If you don't post your detail analysis of the problem, I AM NOT GOING TO LOOK AT IT.
Per week one scoring, I have had about 100 gripes in the last 2 years and the blocked punt issue found this year is the only one that was wrong.
SO IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO PROVE YOURSELF RIGHT, DON'T EXPECT ME TO PROVE YOU WRONG!
sid
Home field is backwards, I will fix it and rerun points today or tomorrow for BOTH weeks. As it turns out this may not be true, I will have an answer soon. sorry.
sid
sid, I agree 100% with the fixing of the Home Feild advantage!
Even though it will cost me a win in week 2 of L666 :X
sid,
I agree with you but what about those of us who HAVE taken the time to show our math and to explain our reasoning? Why have we not heard anything yet? I am following your rules about posting scoring questions, aren't I? Why are there a lack of responses? Is it me? Did I ruffle some feathers?
Bill
You posted 2 related to OL scoring,one about Shockey, one about a Texas OL, Stan responded already that he is looking into to them.
You posted one today for week 1, you missed that deadline, but I still looked at it and responded to the 1/2 sack that you are missing from an NFL Gamebook update.
You are being taken care of.
Tom - EFS
Tom, I am sorry to step on your dick, but the Shockey problem is not solved. I have not left it alone. I will publish the final answer.
Sorry,
sid
I am aware, even if I am slow.
BTW, I think easy is wrong, but I can't prove it yet!
I am a dick but I am NOT stupid!
Issues still pending, I hope to have an answer by Sunday.
voyagervx
2005-09-21, 13:57
Easybpw,
I do not think it is you. Sid is very good at responding to issues. However, if he passes the issue on to someone higher up the chain, it is a total black hole. No acknowledgment or response to repeated requests. Very frustrating.
Jack,
I have not seenissues with a player dropped fromthe starting lineup due to a trade. EFS has always allowed trades during the season. If you want an answer right now,the answer is you locked the Palmer record, and thus you don't get his points.But, I want to speak with Jason Smen about his past experience about this. I have been playing phone tag with him.
So for right now, you don't get Palmer's points, If I find that it was trade related I may reverse this stance.
Tom Lorenz - EFS
Jack,
MIke Rosenthal Vikings OL1010
Carson PalmerBengals QB 57-651
Willis McGaheeBills RB55
Stan has been busy with doing a system software upgrade, I did not want to keep bugging him about fixing this until he had that complete. I just worked with him now to complete your issue. You are set.
Tom Lorenz - EFS
PLEAES NOTE THIS INFO FROM THE RULES MANUAL
Challenging Scores EFS strives to be as accurate as humanly possible but from time to time a statistical error is found in scoring. If you feel that you have found an error in weekly scoring, you may challenge the scoring category for review by EFS. You have until Saturday at 00:00:00 GMT of the week following the game to challenge the stat. You can formally challenge the stat by emailing EFSports and posting your challenge to the General Forums of EFS. Please include the scoring record from the game book from NFL.com as backup of your challenge or a report from a credible news source website. EFS will review challenges, and re-score if the challenge is found to be accurate.
NOTE: When tabulating scores, all categories are truncated to the nearest whole number. A player who scores 10.5 points rushing and 10.5 points receiving will score 20 points not 21 points.
Yes Tom in otherwords EFS rounds down. In your example you round the 10.5's to 10 and get your total of 20. That is what I did in my examples of OL and TE problems. I posted them prior in week 1 scoring. We are still waiting for an official ruling.
Thanks for the information!
Bill
We used the term "round down", that is not correct and our fault, we truncate. To the boss and one of our best owners, let me look this over please, Yall are just getting pissy and everyone knows that is my job.
sid
Tom,
As far as being taken care of, well maybe I am but...there are other issues other than Shockey and the OL I asked about. In reference to Shockey I mentioned in that particular post that it was affecting other TE's than just Shockey. I only posted about Shockey. It would of been redundant to post every single TE. This issue is affecting others than just me. All I am asking for is an update. After all we are entering week 3 of the season and can't get week 1 straight yet. If I'm wrong then so be it but according to what I know of the rules those scores seem inaccurate. If necessary I can certainly post EVERY OL and EVERY TE that has this problem. Then you will be able to see that it affects everyone and not just me. Also please keep in mind I mean no disrespect towards you, Stan, or anyone. I just want to have fun this year and am trying to point out what appears to be inaccurate scores. I'm sorry if it comes across another way.
Thanks for the hard work and responding to my posts. Sometimes all it takes is a simple response to let us know things are still being looked at.
Bill
Stan posted in your original post that he is looking into it, some thing are easy and quick fixes, some are not, we will fix it if it needs fixing, but it might not be immediiatly.
Chisler31
2005-09-27, 08:11
Any idea how long of a timeframe we are looking at to get the week 3 OL(Bengals and Bears) scoring done?
[ROCKEY EDIT: including OL scoring for FB & TE]
The Bengals OL scoring has not been updated, and it shows that I tied my opponent for week 3. When will this be resolved? Thanks!
It has been reported to our stats service. It will be updated this weeek.
Tom Lorenz - EFS
Did TJ Houshmanzadeh lose a fumble against the Bears?
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/live/NFL_20050925_CIN@CHI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/gamebook/NFL_20050925_CIN@CHI
Nope,EFS did not score it that he did, and the NFL Gamebook does not list that he did. But.... I see that the NFL game Stats eroneously stated that he did, it was Ratliff on a return that did, not T.J. The Gamebook iswhere the official stats come from........
Tom Lorenz- EFS
Hi Sid,
Please check my score for Bobbie Williams OL Cincinnati. I know he played this weekend and he is their starting guard. But I got zero for a score. Pleae let me know. thanks.
This is something I am looking into, and, please lookabove, ALL Bengal & Bear OL's will get their points!
Tom Lorenz - EFS
Sebastian Janikowski K Raiders Week 3
I noticed EFS has his score at 2 while I show it at 3. I double checked the gamebook and don't think I missed anything but...who knows. Here is my math:
Extra Points 2 = 2
Field goals 2 = 6
Made Field Goals
28yrds @ 10% = 2.8 or 2
26yrds @ 10% = 2.6 or 2
Total positive score = 12
Minus
Missed Field Goals
49yrds @ 10% = 4.9 or 4
37yrds @ 15% = 5.55 or 5
Total minus = 9
12-9 = grand total of 3
What did I miss?
Thanks!
Bill
***Note*** My gut is telling me this is a rounding issue but I can't prove it. Whatever it is it's not like it was last year. I appreciate the help Stan and Tom.
EFS does not round, we truncate, also, we truncate only once after adding up all the numbers for a catagory.
2 for pats + [6 + (28 x 0.1) + (26 x 0.1) - (49 x 0.10)- (37 x 0.15)] = 2 + [6 +2.8 +2.6- 4.9 - 5.55] = 2 + [0.95 truncated to 0] = 2 + 0 = 2
Tom,
Thanks for the reply. The rules say round down so that will need to be changed. I thought this was the case but...I don't remember that happening last year but will accept it as of this year. As I said though, the rules state otherwise. In fact under the kickers scoring table in the rules it says "NOTE: All calculations are rounded down to the nearest whole number (i.e. 16.9 is rounded down to 16.0)." I'm not bitching at all, just we ought to look at the rules and remove the words rounded down and replace it with truncated.
Also, again I'm not bitching, but each year I reuse the same workbook with the same formulas that calculate the scores for me. Last year it worked, this year we are off. Seems odd to me how that can be but you guys are the boss. I appreciate the answer.
Bill
****NOTE - Tom, I could be wrong with this, I just don't remember it from last year. Anyhow...problem looks to be solved for me in regards to kickers. Thanks for taking the time to help. This is how I hoped questions would be answered.
To Stan and Tom,
First I want to say that enhanced scoring is new to most of us. I'm not sure what year it was introduced but it seems to be used widely this year. It is my first year playing with this scoring method. The scoring is also quite different than basic as you both are aware. Now to my point, in regards to Shockey, you both are correct. Although Stan you didn't find where I went wrong I still am wrong and will be the first to admit it. I'm sorry for the confusion and for the added grey hairs. What I and I guess you and whoever read my post failed to remember is that in enhanced scoring the FB and TE both get points from total rushing yards. In the case of Shockey in week 1 the Giants rushed for 121 yards which for a TE it's 121 * .1 = 1.21 or 1 extra point I failed to capture. Again, I'm sorry. I am sure if I go back and apply that calculation to my other players I will agree with your scores. Once again, I'm sorry. I never tried to be a prick about it but if it came out that way, again I'm sorry.
This doesn't mean I will quit asking questions. I will just TRY and do better research. For instance I THINK Punter Brad Maynard Bears is wrong, I have 14 you have 16 but...I want to research as much as I can before I post. I just can't see the error.
Anyhow...for the last time, I'm sorry for your wasted time. It was unintentional.
Bill
JungleHamsters
2005-09-28, 11:05
How bout we get some scores for the bengals Ol?
Bengal & Bears OL points including TE's & FB's are now correct for week 3.
Ton Lorenz - EFS
Reggie Hayward
Looks likehe has been credited with 2 sacks this year. 1 in week1with a ff and 1 in week 3.
http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/235077/gamelogs/2005
The Florida Times-Union reports for the second time in three weeks, the Jaguars successfully petitioned the NFL to have a sack awarded to DE Reggie Hayward. The league gave Hayward credit for a sack and a forced fumble originally credited to the team.
Hayward's points still have not been updated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hayward has been updated for Week 3, this posting was not quick enough for Week 1, so I only fixed weeke 3. I wish you had caught week 1 sooner, I have Reggie hayward in allot of leagues :shock:
Tom Lorenz - EFS
shageman
2005-10-07, 13:56
A quick observation... I did not research it at all, but... How is it that OC Rex Hadnot (PID 4971) & fellow Miami OC Seth McKinney (PID 4637) both have identical scoring stats at 18 pt avg each. Their 'detailed' weekly scoring are identical too.
The same goes for Tampa Bay OC John Wade (PID 4397) & Sean Mahan (PID 4714). They are identical at 16 pt avg each.
Both examples are for enhanced scoring (while in Lg58 search options).
Seeing as how NFL teams start just one center, we should see one w/ "starters" points & one w/ "back-up" points. Yes? If you follow me here, please provide an explanation as to the scoring for these fellers. I will then be able to get a sound night's sleep.
Thx-
shageman
paladisiac
2005-10-07, 16:46
Each example pair's points are identical because their nfl pos in efsports is identical. it doesn't matter where they are starting in the nfl NOW.
shageman wrote:
A quick observation... I did not research it at all, but... How is it that OC Rex Hadnot (PID 4971) & fellow Miami OC Seth McKinney (PID 4637) both have identical scoring stats at 18 pt avg each. Their 'detailed' weekly scoring are identical too.
The same goes for Tampa Bay OC John Wade (PID 4397) & Sean Mahan (PID 4714). They are identical at 16 pt avg each.
Both examples are for enhanced scoring (while in Lg58 search options).
Seeing as how NFL teams start just one center, we should see one w/ "starters" points & one w/ "back-up" points. Yes? If you follow me here, please provide an explanation as to the scoring for these fellers. I will then be able to get a sound night's sleep.
Thx-
shageman
Isn't Shageman trying to say that only 1 center from each team can get the points? In other words a starter has his score with a multiplier of .3 and the reserve has a multiplier of .1. Therefore you can't have 2 centers on the same team with the same EFS score. One would start while the other is the backup. Is this what you are trying to say Shageman?
Bill
There are typically only five starters on a OL, (I have seen 6 when one starts as an extra TE/OL).
In this case, there can be two listed by EFS as OC's and only one listed as OG, since EFS did not catch the player switch, or the player switched after EFS's position move deadline.
Tom Lorenz - EFS
Stan and Tom and anyone who can correct me,
I know week 1 scores are done and won't be changed. That's cool. I just hope that one of you will take the time to show me where I am wrong. I know I can be a pain in the butt about scores but I'm confused and hope you will take the time to show me how I am wrong. My 2 questions are with Courtney Anderson TE Raiders Week 1 enhanced scoring. I think his bonus points for OL are not being calculated but what do I know. I've been wrong many times. Here is the math:
2 TD = 12 points
18rec yrds = 2.97
= 14.97 or 14
20pts scored
351yrds offense * 15% for a TE = 52.65
1 sack allowed * -5 = -5
92 rushing yards * .1 = 9.2
bonus for 350+yrds = 4
20 + 52.65 = 72.65 + (-5) = 67.65 + 9.2 = 76.85 + 4 = 80.85 * .1 multiplier = 8.085 or 8
14 + 8 = 22
EFS scored him at 21. If you take away the 4 bonus points you are at 76.85 * .1 multiplier = 7.685 or 7. 7 + 14 = your 21 points. What did I do wrong?
Also Chris Lewinski OG for Vikings Week 1 enhanced scoring
7 off points
248yrds of offense * .13 for enhanced OG scoring = 32.24
2 sacks allowed * (-4) for enhanced OG scoring = -8
7 + 32.24 = 39.24 - 8 = 31.24 * .3 multiplier = 9.37 or 9
EFS scored him at 8. It looks like the sacks were calculated at a -5 instead of the -4. If you use -10 in the calculation it looks like this:
7 + 32.24 = 39.24 - 10 = 29.24 * .3 multiplier = 8.77 or 8
Yes I started Lewinski (bad spelling) in position at OG. I know I've been wrong many many times but I am having a hard time seeing my error. Would you or anyone please point it out to me?
Thanks for everything!
Bill
I'm sorry EZ, I have not and will not recheck scoring for every player, you are becoming chicken little. If someone else reports the same problem with the same detail I will look, but you are on a losing streak.
sid
shageman
2005-10-10, 16:52
MIA's Hadnot & TB's Mahan are both listed in EFS as centers, but have actually been starting for their respective teams at guard or tackle all year; hence the similar scoring in EFS... My bad for not looking further into this. EFS does not change positions after week 1; that's prob why we have the duplicate center scoring.
I'm all good, topic over...
shageman
Yep - U are correct, a few players in EFS end up playingfor different position then they actually play in the NFL due to late moves that we don't compensate for.
Tom
I was just wondering why there are no points for Mike Furrey of the Rams?
WMD
paladisiac
2005-10-13, 16:28
NFL Correction to Week 6 scoring which gives half a sack to Kyle Vanden Bosch and takes away half a sack from Rien Long:
Vanden Bosch Leads Sack Rankings --
Thu Oct 13, 2005 --from FFMastermind.com
The Nashville Tennessean reports the NFL has credited Titans DE Kyle Vanden Bosch with an additional half sack. Game statisticians credited Long with the Titans' seventh and final sack of Texans QB David Carr last Sunday. But the league reviewed the play and judged the sack to be half Long and half Vanden Bosch. The change moves Vanden Bosch to No. 1 in NFL sack rankings. With 6.5 he is now ahead of Indianapolis DE Robert Mathis and San Francisco DT Bryant Young, both of whom have six.
You can see the correction reflected at http://www.nfl.com/stats . He now has 6.5 sacks on the NFL's official website.
Vanden Bosch & Long updated! - Tom Lorenz - EFS
I need to work with Stan on how to handle this as our stats service has changed the way that they do player scoring updates.
Tom Lorenz - EFS
Scoring issues week 6: NOS-ATL blocked FG apparently has been credited to LB Boley and the return for TD to LB D Williams...therefore can you double check the credited scoring on that play for both players....
according NFL-
"John Carney (NO) had a 47 yard Field Goal attempt Blocked by Michael Boley (ATL) and Demorrio Williams (ATL) Returned it 59 yards for a Blocked FG Return TD."
I suppose if he gets a +6 for the Blocked FG recovery the score is correct.....
thanks
tom c
Kerry Rhodes, S for NYJ, had a sack in Monday's game but it has not yet been credited to him. It appears there is not a gamebook for this game yet. From the play by play -
1-10-ATL14
(4:12) Michael Vick passed to Alge Crumpler for 19 yards.
1-10-ATL33
(3:33) Justin Griffith rushed for 2 yards.
2-8-ATL35
(2:55) Michael Vick passed to Fred McCrary for 11 yards.
1-10-ATL46
(2:26) Justin Griffith rushed for 7 yards.
2-3-NYJ47
(1:44) Kerry Rhodes sacked Michael Vick for a loss of 2 yards.
3-5-NYJ49
(1:15) Michael Vick passed incomplete to Jerome Pathon.
4-5-NYJ49
(1:12) Michael Koenen punted for 49 yards. Touchback
Thanks
rperricone
2005-10-27, 08:52
That is actually inaccurate. Vick was credited with a 1 yard rushing loss and Rhodes was credited with a tackle and a FF.
ESPN.com has the correct play by play for this game.
1st and 10 at ATL 14
(4:12) M.Vick pass to A.Crumpler to ATL 33 for 19 yards (M.Brown).
1st and 10 at ATL 33
(3:33) J.Griffith right tackle to ATL 35 for 2 yards (D.Robertson).
2nd and 8 at ATL 35
(2:55) M.Vick pass to F.McCrary pushed ob at ATL 46 for 11 yards (M.Brown).
1st and 10 at ATL 46
(2:26) J.Griffith left tackle to NYJ 47 for 7 yards (V.Hobson).
2nd and 3 at NYJ 47
(1:44) M.Vick left end to NYJ 48 for -1 yards (K.Rhodes). FUMBLES (K.Rhodes), ball out of bounds at NYJ 49.
3rd and 5 at NYJ 49
(1:15) M.Vick pass incomplete to J.Pathon.
4th and 5 at NYJ 49
(1:12) M.Koenen punts 49 yards to end zone, Center-D.Rackley, Touchback.
Natalie Portman
2005-10-27, 09:01
4D wrote:
Kerry Rhodes, S for NYJ, had a sack in Monday's game but it has not yet been credited to him. It appears there is not a gamebook for this game yet. From the play by play -
1-10-ATL46
(2:26) Justin Griffith rushed for 7 yards.
2-3-NYJ47
(1:44) Kerry Rhodes sacked Michael Vick for a loss of 2 yards.
3-5-NYJ49
(1:15) Michael Vick passed incomplete to Jerome Pathon.
4-5-NYJ49
(1:12) Michael Koenen punted for 49 yards. Touchback
4D--
Kerry Rhodes was not given credit for a sack on that play by the official scorer. It went into the books as a Rushing Play by Michael Vick for a loss (often a judgement call when it comes to Vick).
You can see this in the play-by-play on ESPN.com.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=251024001&quarter=3 (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=251024001&quarter=3)
Also note that the Sack column on the Game Stats pages for both NFL.com and ESPN.com show no sacks for Rhodes.
The flaw in the system is that they often don't bother to go back and make a correction in the play-by-play listings.
Thanks, as it doesn't affect the outcome of my games I don't really care, butit was not inaccurate as of Monday night.It was shown as a sackin gamecenter for Rhodes on CBS, the nfl's site.There is also no gamebook as of yet to check. And, the gamecenter team stats show 4 sacks for the Jets. Anyway,is espn now the site that needs to be checked for stats/play by play?
rperricone wrote:
That is actually inaccurate. Vick was credited with a 1 yard rushing loss and Rhodes was credited with a tackle and a FF.
ESPN.com has the correct play by play for this game.
1st and 10 at ATL 14
(4:12) M.Vick pass to A.Crumpler to ATL 33 for 19 yards (M.Brown).
1st and 10 at ATL 33
(3:33) J.Griffith right tackle to ATL 35 for 2 yards (D.Robertson).
2nd and 8 at ATL 35
(2:55) M.Vick pass to F.McCrary pushed ob at ATL 46 for 11 yards (M.Brown).
1st and 10 at ATL 46
(2:26) J.Griffith left tackle to NYJ 47 for 7 yards (V.Hobson).
2nd and 3 at NYJ 47
(1:44) M.Vick left end to NYJ 48 for -1 yards (K.Rhodes). FUMBLES (K.Rhodes), ball out of bounds at NYJ 49.
3rd and 5 at NYJ 49
(1:15) M.Vick pass incomplete to J.Pathon.
4th and 5 at NYJ 49
(1:12) M.Koenen punts 49 yards to end zone, Center-D.Rackley, Touchback.
paladisiac
2005-10-27, 10:00
nfl gamebook
The NFL gamebook is the official source for stats, our stats service is working to get everything straight for the Monday night game, but as of right now, there still may be some problems.
Tom
Natalie Portman
2005-10-27, 14:56
ZFactor wrote:
The NFL gamebook is the official source for stats, our stats service is working to get everything straight for the Monday night game, but as of right now, there still may be some problems.
Tom
I realize that the NFL Gamebook is the official source, but I thought I'd just offer an explanation to help 4D understand.
I used to have a gig working with the official scorer at Giants Stadium, and I've seen how some of the decisions are made and then changed. I've also seen how the live feeds that get sent out to the internet after each play are considered a very low priority when it comes to perfect accuracy. It would be no surprise to learn that the play was called a sack... then immediately changed like,"No, no, no you guys... he was looking to run... that's a rush for Vick... no sack." And after that, if the NFL.com live stats kid had already entered it as a Sack and was trying to keep up with the next play, he might very easily never get back to correct the play-by-play sheet (because that is completely unofficial and keeping up with the game is his primary goal).
Thanks NP, but I wasn't looking for help in understanding. I want to know if he did or didn't get a sack. And as the gamebook is the only officail source the espn play by play isn't worth anything moe than the nfl.com play by play. If they changed it to a run, fine, but at this point it's not determined. BTW, anyone that saw the play could tell it was a pass play. :)
Natalie Portman wrote:
ZFactor wrote:
The NFL gamebook is the official source for stats, our stats service is working to get everything straight for the Monday night game, but as of right now, there still may be some problems.
Tom
I realize that the NFL Gamebook is the official source, but I thought I'd just offer an explanation to help 4D understand.
I used to have a gig working with the official scorer at Giants Stadium, and I've seen how some of the decisions are made and then changed. I've also seen how the live feeds that get sent out to the internet after each play are considered a very low priority when it comes to perfect accuracy. It would be no surprise to learn that the play was called a sack... then immediately changed like,"No, no, no you guys... he was looking to run... that's a rush for Vick... no sack." And after that, if the NFL.com live stats kid had already entered it as a Sack and was trying to keep up with the next play, he might very easily never get back to correct the play-by-play sheet (because that is completely unofficial and keeping up with the game is his primary goal).
After reviewing film from the Saints-Rams game, the Elias Sports Bureau determined that a 21 yard reception was incorrectly credited to Kevin Curtis instead of Dane Looker. The following stats have been updated as a result of this correction:
Dane Looker: from 3 receptions for 22 yards to 4 receptions for 43 yards.
Kevin Curtis: from 4 receptions for 90 yards to 3 receptions for 69 yards.
http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/395944/gamelogs/2005 (http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/395944/gamelogs/2005)
EFS,
Is it just me or are you guys getting the stats/scores a lot quicker? I was quite pleasantly surprised to see how quickly the numbers were rolling in yesterday. Good work fellas!
JPN
Stan,
I haven't checked the forums in weeks so I missed your reply to my prior comment. To be honest I'm alittle upset at being called chicken little. I've been a huge supporter of EFS for many years now and have tried to be respectful when asking questions as I know you tend to take comments personally. However I wasn't asking for a scoring change, I wasn't asking for you to check every player in the database, I had 2 questions I was hoping someone would tell me where I went wrong. That's all. Sure maybe I have asked a few questions in the past but wouldn't you prefer that than have a disgruntled customer? I know there is a very slim chance of me being right but...what if I am? Isn't it worth the minutes it would take to look at my calculations and see if you agree? I feel sort of cheated being as I am a decent owner, an owner who tries to not create trouble, and an overall honest guy.
Would it be too much to ask for ANYONE to look at my above post and try and help me out in answering some scoring issues? Since EFS won't do it I would greatly appreciate someone else pointing out my errors.
Stan, I am sorry about this. I'm sure you are pissed off. However I don't think I was asking too much.
Bill
Park Avenue
2005-11-01, 19:30
A week 7 score changed when the week 8 scores updated I think. Now I have a tie in week 7. Also, when I view weekly points scored for week 7 for all teams, this is the only game with no team highlighted for home field advantage. I can't figure out what happened here. Please help.
Team 5, L 1003
Bluecaterpillar
2005-11-03, 06:47
Park Avenue wrote:
A week 7 score changed when the week 8 scores updated I think. Now I have a tie in week 7. Also, when I view weekly points scored for week 7 for all teams, this is the only game with no team highlighted for home field advantage. I can't figure out what happened here. Please help.
Team 5, L 1003
Rob:
Your total added score is 444... So 449 would sound right for playoff advantage and hence the +5 bonus seems to be accounted for.
I think that the Blue highlight disappears when there is a tie, but it's only cosmetic... the +5 is still in there.
STL3Totaldoes sum 449... So it's a tie...
Not sure if there was a player's score change but the basic EFS math is all right...
-Blue
paladisiac
2005-11-03, 08:29
The @ sign designates who is home & who is away. The blue highlight is to mark who is the winner. (It starts off highlighting the home team, because they start out winning 5-0.)
Bluecaterpillar wrote:
Park Avenue wrote:
A week 7 score changed when the week 8 scores updated I think. Now I have a tie in week 7. Also, when I view weekly points scored for week 7 for all teams, this is the only game with no team highlighted for home field advantage. I can't figure out what happened here. Please help.
Team 5, L 1003
Rob:
Your total added score is 444... So 449 would sound right for playoff advantage and hence the +5 bonus seems to be accounted for.
I think that the Blue highlight disappears when there is a tie, but it's only cosmetic... the +5 is still in there.
STL3Totaldoes sum 449... So it's a tie...
Not sure if there was a player's score change but the basic EFS math is all right...
-Blue
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.