FantasySharks.com

Thanks enzonereview, kuhnmd1528, Crackhead Bob, kmstyf, getsmartt, Fantasy Tom, Hollidome1, bigredmachineffl, Spice Man, monkeywrench69, TO's Allergic Reaction, Zodiak, and 5thdown for the sand donations so far.

Seriously appreciate it guys!

OOAL Rules
The rules are simple, make OOAL predictions and become famous! Errrr.. or just win some fake money. The top predictions from each week will be pitted against each other where your vote determines who will be 1000+ sands richer! Votes will be up for approx 24 hours and a new thread started for next week, so gear up for some ideas!

Keep in mind we award creativity so off-the-wall predictions may be included.

Trunk Huggers Break a nail typing these up, sissies?



OOAL Contenders - Close, but not good enough...



OOAL Finalists - The most "out there" and correct.




As always, if you don't think any deserve the reward there is a "None of the above option" and the reward pool will carry over towards next week's prize.

Thanks for participating everyone! Good luck next week!

I went with bowiebfc and his prediction about the losses/tie. I don't like to *not* award an ambitious OOAL when somebody aimed high and is really close. Close is good enough in horseshoes, hand grenades, and an ambitious OOAL.

Calling a tie trumps everything.

I know it's easy to be a critic and I don't want to be crying about rules, but either we have them or we don't. It's a great effort, predicting a tie on its own would have been OOAL enough, but as it is, it's not correct.

I think the lesson here, if the first choice doesn't win, is to stick to the same old tired OOALs.

Surely that's an oxymoron but I know what you're getting at. I'd actually consider the Alexander one one of those this week. But it was correct and TD thought it was OOAL enough to put up for vote so it's up to anybody that doesn't think it's good enough to vote it down. It was just a down week, no problem with that. I know there were problems with people wanting every OOAL winner to be some grand, outlandish prediction and voting down anything that was even remotely possible, but surely there's a happy medium between incorrect but outlandish and correct but not that unusual.

Just stating my opinion and I won't say any more about it because I appreciate TD running this and I'm sure it takes a lot of work every week checking all those predictions, certainly more than I'd be prepared to do, so thanks TD. I just think a prediction should have to be correct to win and I'd rather see a correct but unexciting one win than an incorrect one.

There really are no rules, as the nominations are determined by the person running OOAL. It's up to the tank to decide whether an "almost" is good enough.

I always just assumed that these categories were set up and defined this way. But if it's up to TD's discretion then that's fair enough. He runs it; he makes the rules.

It is a rule posted in the originating post of every OOAL thread. This has come up at some point with every person who runs the OOAL. The idea is to come up with an unexpected prediction that comes true, and the rule above specifically warns against adding too many together that might minimize the chances of the prediction coming true.

It's up to the person running it to decide which ones are available for nominating, but it is stated in the posted rules that the prediction is supposed to come true and that mixing items will minimize your chances to get it right.

Rule #1 says no trunk hugging as well. While Alexander may not be the most reliable WR in the league, predicting 100/1 out of a WR in a game is not really OOAL. Again, look at the rule posted which states that it should make people say Wow! A receiver getting a 100/1 line just doesn't, and is practically the same as the example in the no trunk hugging rule.

None of the above vote this week.

_________________
49ers fan for the Superbowl, in memory of Sean "CleffedUp" Vostinar

The fact that he put it up for vote means it's his decision. Those rules have been copy/pasted for years.

If you guys don't like it, offer to run it next year.

I personally think it missed since it was a parlay and only one thing hit. That's just my opinion and I am not going to get bent out of shape about it. I love these every week and I'm glad people are willing to do this.

i'll graciously accept the win if the voting ends that way, but even I acknowledged that it wasn't a technically correct prediction in the OOAL thread.

FWIW, its specificity was a by-product of the theme (no week 9 bye winning in week 10) which was part of the charm of the OOAL prediction. It really tied the room together.

_________________
the bag's on you motherF'er!

QBs = ARODGE, Freeman
RBs = Martin, Murray, Brashaw, Bryce Brown, David Wilson
WRs = B. Marsh, T. Smith, J. Blackmon, James Jones,
TEs = A. Hernandez, B. Myers
Def = Browns, Titans
K = Gostkowski

actually only one thing missed (NE lost).

_________________
the bag's on you motherF'er!

QBs = ARODGE, Freeman
RBs = Martin, Murray, Brashaw, Bryce Brown, David Wilson
WRs = B. Marsh, T. Smith, J. Blackmon, James Jones,
TEs = A. Hernandez, B. Myers
Def = Browns, Titans
K = Gostkowski

I'm just here to be vain and want my other prediction involving the INTs to be included in the "close but not good enough".

And I'd like to point out that plenty of people have predicted generic "ties" in other OOALs, but to actually have it happen for the first time in 3 or 4 years *and* getting the exact game right is pretty incredible. But what's to stop someone from lumping together a dozen really extreme predictions into one in the hopes that one of them sticks? Is the reason this OOAL is being considered for the prize because there's only one other part to it that was wrong?

_________________

Martin Richard, Age 8 (7 in picture). Killed 4/15/2013. RIP.

Regardless my point remains. Not everything hit. If the tank votes for it then cool but I personally voted for none of the above.