Since a little different breed of sports betting cat seems to hang out here I thought I'd propose a new type of contest.
Anybody who wanted to enter would submit a pick write-up. Then, before kick-off, the other posters would vote to see whose reasoning was most eye-opening. They could also offer counter-reasons to others explained picks.
The contest, then, wouldn't be judged by results but by how insightful your fellow posters found your take. Picks would be graded against results, however, and so a person's record would be part of their rep and those whose picks were winning would naturally start to acquire a little mroe creditibility.
This would be a bragging rights contest, with no prize attached. This is a good thing because probably not many would enter and there'd be a managable number of opinions floating around. Maybe both an NFL and CFB version.
I don't want to run this, but I suggest something like this to the principals as a way to stimulate lively high-quality debate.
Anybody who wanted to enter would submit a pick write-up. Then, before kick-off, the other posters would vote to see whose reasoning was most eye-opening. They could also offer counter-reasons to others explained picks.
The contest, then, wouldn't be judged by results but by how insightful your fellow posters found your take. Picks would be graded against results, however, and so a person's record would be part of their rep and those whose picks were winning would naturally start to acquire a little mroe creditibility.
This would be a bragging rights contest, with no prize attached. This is a good thing because probably not many would enter and there'd be a managable number of opinions floating around. Maybe both an NFL and CFB version.
I don't want to run this, but I suggest something like this to the principals as a way to stimulate lively high-quality debate.