Traitor or fan? We had this conversation a lot last year when a flame war broke out on 10-for-10. We had impassioned opinions flying about whether it was appropriate for a real Cowboys fan to pick the Cowboys to lose on 10-for-10. This w...
Traitor or fan? We had this conversation a lot last year when a flame war broke out on 10-for-10. We had impassioned opinions flying about whether it was appropriate for a real Cowboys fan to pick the Cowboys to lose on 10-for-10. This week, I don't think any on here hoped for the Cowboys to lose, but three other perspectives were well-represented: picked Denver to win but hoped to be wrong; picked Dallas to win out of loyalty but expected to be wrong; and, those that picked Dallas to win because they believed that the Cowboys would win.
This week was historic. I can't say that it never happened before, as I do not have access to KD's records (and, I don't know that I want to know the answer). There may have been a week during the Cowboys abysmal 2010 season when more 10-for-10 participants picked the Cowboys to lose than to win. It had never happened on my watch.
This is my third year as KD's volunteer scorekeeper, and thirty-ninth regular season week to record and tabulate our entries. Some weeks, we are unanimous picking the Cowboys. In other weeks, a handful pick against them. Even this year, we have consistently and convincingly picked our team to win - 242-0 over the Giants, 193-10 over the Chiefs, 194-5 over the Rams, and 197-1 over the Chargers.
Again, since I didn't participate in BTB until late-season in 2010, and didn't participate in KD's FanPost inaugural season of 10-for-10, I had never seen a week where the majority picked against the Cowboys.
I have now seen it - 106-81 picked the Broncos - and, I hope I never see it again.
Well, rant over. On to my weekly report...
We added four new players this week, but we had a few more fall by the wayside. So, we dropped a little this week, but still have the seventh highest participation total in our four-year history.
Here is the participation table:
Played This Week
Missed This Week
Last week, I brought back a table of "worst unanimous 10-for-10 losses", as we came close in two games (all but one missed one game, and all but three missed another). I will not reprint that table this week, but we did it again (all but one missed one game, and all but three missed another).
As a consensus, we got more right this week than wrong. We had a bunch of games that almost everyone played - same games, same winner. We usually have one or two that we split more evenly - either it's an even match and we can't all pile onto our favorite. Or, it's a matchup of two bad teams and we neither know how to predict or care about the result.
This week, we had two bigger games that were tossups, with fairly heavy participation. We picked, by a narrow 60-58 margin, the Colts to give the Seahawks their first loss. We were even tighter in the match between our division friends. One person, not wanting to see either team win, instead of skipping that game, picked a tie. Ironically, that pick, if it had been for the Giants, would have made our consensus a tie, as the other ninety-seven were split 49-48.
After those two close games, the next closest to evenly split was... Denver-Dallas (sigh).
Here are our results this week:
Week #5 Results (Home in CAPS)
Winners (we're great)
Losers (we're bleep)
New York Jets
Pretty Even (we're indecisive)
NEW YORK GIANTS
There are still four teams - Denver (another sigh), Jacksonville, New Orleans, and St. Louis - that we have picked correctly week as a gro