2014 (British) Open Championship - U-Pick-'Em Game

[clackamascoug]

SURFAH WINS!!

clackamascoug = 273		Day 1	Day 2	Day 3	Day 4
	Rose	72	70	69	72
	Gallacher	70	72	70	68
	Bjorn	70	71	76	67
	Fowler	69	69	68	67
Surfah =	266	Day 1	Day 2	Day 3	Day 4
	Stenson	72	73	73	69
	Rose	72	70	69	72
	McIlroy	66	66	68	71
	Scott	68	73	69	66
DrumNFeather =273		Day 1	Day 2	Day 3	Day 4
	Fowler	69	69	68	67
	Mickelson	74	70	71	68
	Westwood	71	76	cut	cut
	Jiminez	75	73	cut	cut
Drunk Tank =273		Day 1	Day 2	Day 3	Day 4
	Garcia	68	70	69	66
	Westwood	71	76	cut	cut
	Scott	68	73	69	66
	Woods	69	77	73	75
wapiti =	271	Day 1	Day 2	Day 3	Day 4
	Kaymer	73	72	72	79
	Westwood	71	76	cut	cut
	Rose	72	70	69	72
	McIlroy	66	66	68	71
RC Vikings = 273		Day 1	Day 2	Day 3	Day 4
	Rose	72	70	69	72
	Kuchar	x	x	x	x
	Scott	68	73	69	66
	Stenson	72	73	73	69
chrisrenrut = 291		Day 1	Day 2	Day 3	Day 4
	Donald	73	73	71	75
	Kaymer	73	72	72	79
	Ishikawa	74	74	cut	cut
	Kuchar	x	x	x	x
Donuthole = 272		Day 1	Day 2	Day 3	Day 4
	Scott	68	73	69	66
	Garcia	68	70	69	66
	Leishman	69	72	70	65
	Rose	72	70	69	72

[TripletDaddy]

You guys should keep track of these and see which board member can win the most majors, who can be the first to win a grand slam, etc.

[Donuthole]

This specific format needs tweaking. And I'm not saying that just because I didn't win. The last two times we've used this format, and the last two times, whoever picked the winner won the pool. At least this time there were two who picked the winner, so the other players served as a tiebreak of sorts. Still, with this format, it's essentially four chances to pick the winner. Boring. You should have to care how each of your players performs.

I haven't tallied everyone's, but I think I picked the foursome with the lowest total relative to par. Also, I can get to 272 using one round from each player in my foursome. Can someone beat that?. In short you need to limit the number of rounds you can use from a given player. Every scramble makes you use a certain number of tee shots from each player, and this should be no different.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm annoyed I didn't win and I want some credit for choosing Marc f****** Lieshman (who nobody else would have picked if we had let everybody pick 8 players each).

Also, nice win, Surfah.

[TripletDaddy]

Looks like we already have a one-sided rivalry forming now that Surfah is the reigning British Open Champ!

[wapiti]

This specific format needs tweaking. And I'm not saying that just because I didn't win. The last two times we've used this format, and the last two times, whoever picked the winner won the pool. At least this time there were two who picked the winner, so the other players served as a tiebreak of sorts. Still, with this format, it's essentially four chances to pick the winner. Boring. You should have to care how each of your players performs.

I haven't tallied everyone's, but I think I picked the foursome with the lowest total relative to par. Also, I can get to 272 using one round from each player in my foursome. Can someone beat that?. In short you need to limit the number of rounds you can use from a given player. Every scramble makes you use a certain number of tee shots from each player, and this should be no different.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm annoyed I didn't win and I want some credit for choosing Marc f****** Lieshman (who nobody else would have picked if we had let everybody pick 8 players each).

Also, nice win, Surfah.

It seems like picking the winner should be important to winning a contest like this. Nice pick on Lieshman. Had you combined that with McIlroy you would have won.

I disagree that the format has an issue. The fact that there was a run away wire-to-wire winner in both tournaments meant that you had to pick the winner.

The biggest thing that would make this more competitive is more entrants. To do that, we probably need to put money on the line.

[Donuthole]

2014 (British) Open Championship - U-Pick-'Em Game

It seems like picking the winner should be important to winning a contest like this. Nice pick on Lieshman. Had you combined that with McIlroy you would have won.

I disagree that the format has an issue. The fact that there was a run away wire-to-wire winner in both tournaments meant that you had to pick the winner.

The biggest thing that would make this more competitive is more entrants. To do that, we probably need to put money on the line.

Important, yes, but you shouldn't be able to coattail a single player. Your 271 with a MC is the perfect example of why the system needs tweaking. Surfah picked a solid foursome and picked the winner, and thus deserved to win.

[The_Tick]

I got left off of the leaderboard.

Fix it.

[chrisrenrut]

I got left off of the leaderboard.

Fix it.

You may want to rethink that. He put most of your picks under my name, and it is the biggest number on the board.

[The_Tick]

You may want to rethink that. He put most of your picks under my name, and it is the biggest number on the board.

I knew it was bad...but I am okay with that.

[wapiti]

Important, yes, but you shouldn't be able to coattail a single player. Your 271 with a MC is the perfect example of why the system needs tweaking. Surfah picked a solid foursome and picked the winner, and thus deserved to win.

If you pick the guy who laps the rest of the field maybe it shouldn't matter who the rest of your picks are. I'd say a system that awarded a winner who didn't have Kaymer at the US Open is more flawed.

[Donuthole]

If you pick the guy who laps the rest of the field maybe it shouldn't matter who the rest of your picks are. I'd say a system that awarded a winner who didn't have Kaymer at the US Open is more flawed.

Straw man. Nobody is making that argument, and nobody is saying that was even possible for that particular tournament.

[wapiti]

Straw man. Nobody is making that argument, and nobody is saying that was even possible for that particular tournament.

OK. Rory shot the best round on Thursday, the second best round on Friday, and the third best round on Saturday. You want to create a system where you limit the advantage gained by picking the player who would dominate the tournament?

[Donuthole]

OK. Rory shot the best round on Thursday, the second best round on Friday, and the third best round on Saturday. You want to create a system where you limit the advantage gained by picking the player who would dominate the tournament?

Yes. Have you ever played in a scramble or 4-man best ball? There are almost always limitations on how much you can depend on a single player.

[clackamascoug]

This specific format needs tweaking. And I'm not saying that just because I didn't win. The last two times we've used this format, and the last two times, whoever picked the winner won the pool. At least this time there were two who picked the winner, so the other players served as a tiebreak of sorts. Still, with this format, it's essentially four chances to pick the winner. Boring. You should have to care how each of your players performs.

I haven't tallied everyone's, but I think I picked the foursome with the lowest total relative to par. Also, I can get to 272 using one round from each player in my foursome. Can someone beat that?. In short you need to limit the number of rounds you can use from a given player. Every scramble makes you use a certain number of tee shots from each player, and this should be no different.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm annoyed I didn't win and I want some credit for choosing Marc f****** Lieshman (who nobody else would have picked if we had let everybody pick 8 players each).

Also, nice win, Surfah.

I agree... The Leishman (and my Gallacher) picks should have been recognized. How about you and I trading some boardmail before the PGA and developing a format we can use forthgoing. Anybody else can chime in too.