|
|
Post by PoolBully on Mar 13, 2020 21:11:59 GMT -5
So sports is gone until probably May if all goes well, so we need to occupy our time with something. Based on an extensive Facebook conversation, there's word of launching a 'drinking tournament.'
I'm not sure that competitive drinking will be the way this is settled. I think it might wind up more as a virtual competition. (If Bre has her way, it'll be like that scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where Karen Allen drinks that dude into a coma, except repeated 63 times ... but I digress)
Nevertheless, we need some competitors.
I'm not sure if we know 64 drunks we can all vouch for and feel ok seeding then pitting in some sort of contest. But I'll start a list of challengers using old Korynet results to see who we can rely on to fill the bracket.
Dave Sandrick
Mark Kory
Federman
Tom Stewart
Shawn Aylsworth
Lee Paulsen
Jamie Hayes
Steve Hayes
Tim Ruse
Kim Ruse
Ryan Roberts
Barry Jones
Mike Brown
Mike Hayes
Sean Rodondello
Marcha Rodondello
Bre Williams
Parrish Williams
Michael Lasley
Kevin Kastner
Tricia Hayes
Jon Hayes
Jim Sizemore
Julie Sizemore
Dan Amonett
Brad Wilson
That's 26 names just pulled from recent contest rosters we can probably vouch for pretty easily without going too far outside of tight circles, and I'm sure I'm missing names.
Now where to go from here?
|
|
|
|
Post by tstew on Mar 13, 2020 22:24:44 GMT -5
Interesting...so what are the criteria, bc I’ll add some names, one is basically a non drinker but I have seen him enjoy a White Russian in sin city:
Diego bellon
Clint Blanck
Ed Kominowski
Jeff bennett
jason miller
|
|
|
|
Post by PoolBully on Mar 13, 2020 22:53:39 GMT -5
I think the only criteria are:
- Alive
- We know 'em
- We can vouch for past and/or current drinking ability
- We can somehow turn this all into a seeding / comparison to an NCAA program
|
|
|
|
Post by Commish on Mar 14, 2020 8:46:52 GMT -5
Okay, stream of consciousness style post - Apologies in advance. Regarding some contest, I had several disparate thoughts. First) I'm assuming whatever contest is created, it's not really a drinking contest of contestant vs contestant. I'm game for that, but only a handful would be. So assumption 1. We want something that can be settled without everyone being present or even at a specific time or place. Maybe like when a radio show has bracket of bands. Simply a voting affair? Another thought on the social side was that each pairing had to have A drink together and take a photo.. then some rock paper scissors thing for the victor. Now, if we really want to do some seeding.. and that a 1 seed has a higher probability of victory over an 8 seed.. then some sort of Ping pong ball type of lottery needs to happen. I actually have a Bingo Ball cage thing.. I'm thinking if we get 32 names.. we'd have 1-8 in each division. So something like #1 gets 8 balls, #8 gets one. (or 16-1 - math discussion to follow) The social part is simply a party where we have the drawing - contestant doesn't have to be present to advance. We can easily come up with 32 names. How is this sounding so far?
|
|
|
|
Post by Commish on Mar 14, 2020 8:51:17 GMT -5
SO.. The Seeding thing would really need to be a committee type event (Tuesday? saint pats day?) where we submit, stack rank, re-order, make a case for, etc. The "committee" need some guidelines. (Longevity? consistency? Maximum Drunkeness? Tolerance? best stories? )
|
|
|
|
Post by Commish on Mar 14, 2020 11:11:55 GMT -5
BINGO MATH:
Regardless of what path we take, for shits and giggles I wanted to figure if a bingo ball selection process could work. Assumptions, We probably don't want to reload the damn thing for each event (changing the count for each matchup [looking at 75 balls is a pain, right feds?] so... The approach. All 75 balls are in the cage for each match. For simplicity sake the difference in seed # reflects the odds. There are only 8 possible differences. 8 v 1 diff = 7 so 7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0. Doing the math there and rounding a ball up to favor the higher seed it works out to the following. Final 4 could be a different method all together.
Difference 7 (1 v 8) = Tops seed gets 66 balls / underdog 9
6 (1 v 7, 2 v 8) 65/10
5 (you get the idea) 63/12
4 60/15
3 57/18
2 50/25
1 39 /36
Additionally. Instead of just one selection. Round 1 could be best 2 out of three (aka select from cage 3 times, -adds to the drama for the spectators)
Thoughts?
Round 2 could be best of 5.
|
|
|
|
Post by T-stew guest on Mar 14, 2020 11:27:51 GMT -5
I think the only criteria are: - Alive - We know 'em - We can vouch for past and/or current drinking ability - We can somehow turn this all into a seeding / comparison to an NCAA program Like and agree. This is Stew too lazy to sign in. |
|
|
|
Post by Commish on Mar 14, 2020 11:32:36 GMT -5
64 teams if we seed historic drunks. Charles Bukowski, Errol Flynn, Andre the Giant. Etc :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by tstew on Mar 14, 2020 12:06:24 GMT -5
64 teams if we seed historic drunks. Charles Bukowski, Errol Flynn, Andre the Giant. Etc :-) No no, that’s veering of the path. I agree with Steve’s criteria. |
|
|
|
Post by Commish on Mar 16, 2020 9:31:37 GMT -5
Nothing? Come on, Poolbully... if you want this to work I need the selection committee to discuss.
|
|
|
|
Post by PoolBully on Mar 16, 2020 23:38:32 GMT -5
Sorry -- been distracted what with the whole collapse of society stuff.
I have another idea. See separate thread...
|
|
