FastTuohy wrote:
Let's Do This! wrote:
Thanks, good info, explains why the early scoring was better
Anyway with that said still five out of the last six years the winner has been under a hundred. I've got no crystal ball and don't know for sure but it certainly seems like a good year for it to happen again
And it wasn't arbitrary, he looked at the previous winners and started counting from when he saw a couple teams going over a hundred. The first years successive winning teams going over 100 started in 96. Maximum trolling effect.
You realize he just blew your use of the pre 1996 data out of the park?
Damn man I thought you were reasonable guy!
I explained why he did it. He look at the winners and picked the first years where successive teams went over a hundred
Starting in 1996 1997-1998 you had the winners winning with scores barely breaking a hundred. 100, 101, 108. He just looked at the results and pick the years where he started seeing that
It had nothing to do with him knowing the field expanded in 98 or him saying that. He should have started from 98 and explain that then
He did it for maximum trolling effects. Did he mention that five of the last six years the winner has been under a hundred?