MWR: 4-8 UNLV ends up 5 in College Football Empires map

jpswensen · Post by **jpswensen** » January 9th, 2019, 10:07 am

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footba ... to-clemson

ineptimusprime · Post by **ineptimusprime** » January 9th, 2019, 11:50 am

I've always thought these things were stupid, and this just confirms that.

ChicAggie · Post by **ChicAggie** » January 9th, 2019, 12:08 pm

This is literally one of the stupidest things I have seen. What is the point?

JSHarvey · Post by **JSHarvey** » January 9th, 2019, 12:13 pm

"Every FBS team started with land, which began changing hands in Week 1. It then kept changing all the way through the title game."

What is the decision rule for territory to change? If it has anything to do with winning games then USU's 10 in a row should have had us showing up until we lost to Boise. So this must be "measuring" something else entirely since the time lapse doesn't seem to include us at all.

EDIT: Never mind, I found it.

thegreendalegelf · Post by **thegreendalegelf** » January 9th, 2019, 12:15 pm

JSHarvey wrote: ↑
January 9th, 2019, 12:13 pm
"Every FBS team started with land, which began changing hands in Week 1. It then kept changing all the way through the title game."

What is the decision rule for territory to change? If it has anything to do with winning games then USU's 10 in a row should have had us showing up until we lost to Boise. So this must be "measuring" something else entirely since the time lapse doesn't seem to include us at all.

The winner of each game takes all the land for both teams. So we lost our land to MSU week 1. Then no one we played had any land. We very nearly got the land UNLV has now. Had CSU beat Nevada the week before we played them, we would have gotten it, but CSU lost.

I don't get why some people are hating on this. Its just a fun, different way to follow the season.

jpswensen · Post by **jpswensen** » January 9th, 2019, 1:01 pm

thegreendalegelf wrote: ↑
January 9th, 2019, 12:15 pm

JSHarvey wrote: ↑
January 9th, 2019, 12:13 pm
"Every FBS team started with land, which began changing hands in Week 1. It then kept changing all the way through the title game."

What is the decision rule for territory to change? If it has anything to do with winning games then USU's 10 in a row should have had us showing up until we lost to Boise. So this must be "measuring" something else entirely since the time lapse doesn't seem to include us at all.
The winner of each game takes all the land for both teams. So we lost our land to MSU week 1. Then no one we played had any land. We very nearly got the land UNLV has now. Had CSU beat Nevada the week before we played them, we would have gotten it, but CSU lost.

I don't get why some people are hating on this. Its just a fun, different way to follow the season.

I think it is fun too. In my nerd speak, I call it the "Spatio-temporal transitive property of college football". By adding in the progressive time component of the season as it goes on, it gets rid of any potential circular reasoning (like the "Circle of Suck") that happen in normal transitive property arguments.

NavyBlueAggie · Post by **NavyBlueAggie** » January 9th, 2019, 1:05 pm

DRIVEL... mindless speculation by a mindless speculator. UNLV with any area of influence,,,why,,,how,,,??????

BigVBAg · Post by **BigVBAg** » January 9th, 2019, 2:04 pm

This is just a form of "last bucket wins." The only people with the possibility of having land at the end of the year are those who won their final game, and only if that game involved at least one team who had land at that point in the season.

I actually find it interesting that our land, which was claimed in week 1 by Michigan State, ended up being owned by anyone from the MWC. Preseason prognosticators would have more likely predicted that it end up being owned by someone from the Big 10.

JSHarvey · Post by **JSHarvey** » January 9th, 2019, 3:24 pm

BigVBAg wrote: ↑
January 9th, 2019, 2:04 pm
This is just a form of "last bucket wins." The only people with the possibility of having land at the end of the year are those who won their final game, and only if that game involved at least one team who had land at that point in the season.

I actually find it interesting that our land, which was claimed in week 1 by Michigan State, ended up being owned by anyone from the MWC. Preseason prognosticators would have more likely predicted that it end up being owned by someone from the Big 10.

I'd make the decision rule something like:
1. For any game decided in overtime each team keeps whatever they had going in.
2. For any regular (non-OT) game decided by 7 points or less the winning team gets only half of the loser's land (rounding up for odd numbered counties).
3. Any win of 8 or more winner takes all.

thegreendalegelf · Post by **thegreendalegelf** » January 9th, 2019, 3:33 pm

JSHarvey wrote: ↑
January 9th, 2019, 3:24 pm

BigVBAg wrote: ↑
January 9th, 2019, 2:04 pm
This is just a form of "last bucket wins." The only people with the possibility of having land at the end of the year are those who won their final game, and only if that game involved at least one team who had land at that point in the season.

I actually find it interesting that our land, which was claimed in week 1 by Michigan State, ended up being owned by anyone from the MWC. Preseason prognosticators would have more likely predicted that it end up being owned by someone from the Big 10.
I'd make the decision rule something like:
1. For any game decided in overtime each team keeps whatever they had going in.
2. For any regular (non-OT) game decided by 7 points or less the winning team gets only half of the loser's land (rounding up for odd numbered counties).
3. Any win of 8 or more winner takes all.

They did one variation where you can only win land by winning on the road. Even then you only get a percentage of their land based on what percentage of the points your team scored (win 14-7 get 67% of their land.) That was pretty cool.

JSHarvey · Post by **JSHarvey** » January 13th, 2019, 10:21 pm

thegreendalegelf wrote: ↑
January 9th, 2019, 3:33 pm

JSHarvey wrote: ↑
January 9th, 2019, 3:24 pm

BigVBAg wrote: ↑
January 9th, 2019, 2:04 pm
This is just a form of "last bucket wins." The only people with the possibility of having land at the end of the year are those who won their final game, and only if that game involved at least one team who had land at that point in the season.

I actually find it interesting that our land, which was claimed in week 1 by Michigan State, ended up being owned by anyone from the MWC. Preseason prognosticators would have more likely predicted that it end up being owned by someone from the Big 10.
I'd make the decision rule something like:
1. For any game decided in overtime each team keeps whatever they had going in.
2. For any regular (non-OT) game decided by 7 points or less the winning team gets only half of the loser's land (rounding up for odd numbered counties).
3. Any win of 8 or more winner takes all.
They did one variation where you can only win land by winning on the road. Even then you only get a percentage of their land based on what percentage of the points your team scored (win 14-7 get 67% of their land.) That was pretty cool.

That would make for a much more interesting map.

trombone_ninja · Post by **trombone_ninja** » January 16th, 2019, 8:59 pm

ChicAggie wrote: ↑
January 9th, 2019, 12:08 pm
This is literally one of the stupidest things I have seen. What is the point?

I think the stupidity of it kind of IS the point... I think it’s just people with too much time on their hands having a little fun. Granted, there are more productive things they could be doing

ChicAggie · Post by **ChicAggie** » January 17th, 2019, 8:31 am

Fair enough. I must have been in a pissy mood when I first looked at it because I was looking for the quantitative value of the map and saw none. In terms of meaningless silliness, it makes some sense.

Post by **treesap32** » January 17th, 2019, 3:05 pm

It's just for fun. I like it.

Upcoming Events

Event Results