buck

I've got a room booked at the Downtown Marriott tonight. I'll be in around 6-7 tonight, god-willing. Bringing my System+TSB. Matt - is there a decent beer store in the Downtown Marriott area? I will be looking for IPA. I began pregame last night: drank a strong beer and watched scent of a woman. lofl.

barry-bait. nice. DET CIN DET TB DET MINN DET RAMS - hmm....ah, DET DET KC - don't really care here. DET SD/WASH/DEN

WHY do they not want to call a matchup? that is the question. I bet it has to do with: getting P1, running out of matchups to call, or they are a panic-stricken pussy. like gats says, you have now made the coin toss a clear advantage, P1 + matchup call >>> getting to pick a team from matchup. you have created a new problem (too unfair for coin flip loser) with your "solution". I would like to know what is wrong with the solution I last proposed. I cannot find a flaw in this idea. It covers all reasonable bases and is very simple.

shit got real.

It's pretty chill and civil here at the tournament on the plains, much like life itself here. Not much screaming and nobody gets too drunk. Some might not like it.

get a hex editor and do the following at the four locations: To change player 1 to the 30: at 0x247B9 type in A060 at 0x247BB type in A207 To change player 2 to the 30: at 0x24031 type in A0A0 at 0x24033 type in A208

nice TV. looks like a hell of a game.

still been thinking about this, trying to digest what qb_browns has wrote (regarding the current madison coin flip rule), and I understand how you came to this conclusion, your assumptions and analysis aren't too bad....I just think that the coin-flip winner being assured P1 AND being able to call the matchup provides too much unearned advantage to the coin-flip winner and is unfair to the coin-flip loser. I personally believe that calling the matchup is real important strategically...and the only reason that I would not want to call a matchup is because I am running out of them! (I understand that maybe some tournament participants may have anxiety disorders or whatever that causes them to have a panic attack because they have to pick a matchup. I am not one of these, but my solution below takes these people (and people who are "running low" on matchup ideas) into consideration.) I believe that the best (fairest) solution is to give the coin flip "winner" the following 2 options: 1. call matchup, just like "old times", and the loser can pick team from matchup or P1. the winner can pick 2 teams that he is comfortable playing with. then he might also get P1, if the loser picks a team. why is this option fair? advantage: the winner gets to pick teams that he wants to play with, or another way to look at it, the winner keeps the loser from being able to play with certain teams. tradeoff: the loser can take his pick of team (in case they are not really even, or maybe he just loves a certain team) or the loser can take P1 if the matchup call is deemed equal/fair to him. 2. defer matchup to "loser", and then it's just like "old times" again, but the "loser" now calls the matchup and the "winner" can pick team or P1. why is this option fair? advantage: the winner can essentially get P1 if that's what he really wants, and also avoid calling a matchup (solving the "common complaint" mentioned by qb_browns). tradeoff: the loser gets to pick two teams that he is comfortable with, but he can get P1 depending on what the winner wants. how about that? this way, everyone will want to win the coin toss, but there won't be any real advantages automatically assigned by the coin-flip. the strategy component is still very real.

get the huts back:

gotta get the backside shot, for those on the visitor side.

MIGHTY GA-JACK

MIGHTY GA-JACK

I kept waiting and waiting for some kinda Illuminati Sexualized-Trance Symbol GaGa Bait action to bust out...but it was just the same old Bombjack.

cool, but 1/4 of the video is the halftime show?

& BO

best RB in TSB vs the colts?

the trophy luke and his dad made back in 2015 is sweet. I've showed that to a few people/family and everybody says it's cool. somehow they weighted it (sand?), so part of the effect is to pick it up and behold it.

am I reading this right? I am not sure about the flow chart of what happens at "c" as I listed below: guy who "wins" coin-flip - a. says "I will call matchup", then "loser" either picks a team from winners matchup or loser takes P1 (same as old system) b. says "I want you to call the matchup", then "loser" picks a matchup, and winner can pick a team and take P2, or just say he wants P1. (same as old system, sort of, except the winner "defers", but the P1 tradeoff still (rightly) exists, unlike qb_browns new system) c. says "I want P1", then what?

hello, inspector columbo here. I recommend both full rom and ips, to cover yours and ours asses. by the way, I cannot wait to see what you've done!

cool. bounce it around with the tecmo elite and think about it for the future. I will keep thinking about it, too. I am very thankful that Lincoln 2k17 is keeping the coin flip the way it has always been. Because I won't feel like the coin flip means very much and I need to win it every time.

insert "dave sweeping logic and reason under rug" emoticon. pfssh. weak, dude.

I'm sorry if I have been short, repetitive, and perhaps obtuse with my stance on this issue this whole time. I really do appreciate qb_browns sharing some insight into the alleged thought processes and decision making explanations. and I do appreciate you "reading" my "opinions". but heck, when you "solve" a problem but add a new, worse problem, what did you actually gain? Out of curiosity, did anyone ever mention the stupid easy and exact "solution" for the problems you've layed out, that I have proposed? My solution fixes all those same things you say you fix, but there is no uneven advantage given to anyone! And, beside the obvious fact that you'd already "decided", tell me what is wrong with my proposed solution? no offense, dave, but you are acting like somebody's lazy dad that just doesn't want to get logical when their kid has a valid point. How does this way of mine not solve exactly what your boy qb_browns has layed out? how is yours better, more fair? I don't see it. PS- and if you think it has something to do with "happy", you are mistaken. "unhappy" is a pussy TSB player whining because he has to pick a matchup and he doesn't want to. my problem has to do with instant, unadulterated advantage given to coin toss winner, under your new system. illogical.

TLDR - go to BOLD. leave your ego on the floor, use your brain and heart. I read all of it and don't buy it. Well written, sure. Understandable, yes. Correct, in my opinion and worth such a drastic change to give coin flip winner advantage - Fuck No. I am one of the people who qb_browns refers to as "way smarter" than him, but I never got a chance to use my smarts and share my ideas with you guys. Here is his/your chance. I always thought the original (way it was for about 10 years, I suppose) coin-flip style was "genius". But like some of the pussies you mention that whined, at times I thought that it was "bad" to win the toss...but that depended on who I was playing, usually....so I can see how you would want to tweak it. But, you clearly haven't read my arguments. Especially my last one, because it solves all your "problems" that you list, and creates no new ones, like you have by changing the rule. The only thing that was "wrong" with the old coin-flip system is that people didn't want to "win" the coin-flip because they were too big of pussies to call a matchup and they want P1. So, why not swap what the winner and loser does and still use the genius tradeoff of that coin-flip system? *Proposed Coin-Flip Solution (exact same as the old-style coin flip, except the role of winner and loser swaps): Loser of coin flip chooses matchup Winner of coin flip chooses P1 or picks a team and P2. Simple as fuck. Fair as hell. Solves all problems without creating new ones or giving unfair advantages to coin-flip. What is wrong with this proposed solution? Please respond with what is wrong with my idea or how yours is better. I am only trying to help! Please, do not think that I am just being a dick and trying to argue. I am not trying to kill time here, I am trying to convince you that this way is better and more fair. I am trying to keep true TSB alive. I think your new coin flip hurts. I am not trying to hurt. Just because I am not a high roller $ or want to spend time away from my family and/or sports teams I coach, travelling all over playing TSB, or because I don't live in Wisconsin, does not mean my heart does not bleed 8 bits! Nor do my circumstances invalidate my opinion or thoughts. So, FFS, hear me out.

here is something that will blow your mind, like a freaking boombox....what if you keep the old coin flip strategic genius but instead make one simple and important change, that will solve every problem that you, the bitches, and me have brought up: the coin flip LOSER must choose a matchup, and then let the WINNER select P1 or his choice of teams from the matchup called and P2? this is the exact same as the old coin flip system - it is still as fair as before, except the responsibilities (semantics) of the winner/loser have swapped, and those bitches who complained that they didn't want to win the coin toss will be satisfied to their exact specifications! ....and so would I.

I. look, since I have started playing in TSB tournaments back at the time I first met you in Lincoln, was that 2006, something like that, about 10 years....anyways, for the last 10 years the coin-flip rule (as I have always known it at Madison "He Went to Jerry" (elite 8 def by champ Mort), and including recent 2014 & 2015 in Lincoln tournaments) was: 1. winner of toss must pick a matchup (two teams) 2. loser must - take his pick of those teams and use P2 - or, take P1 and let the other guy take his pick of the two teams from the matchup he chose II. this "new" style coin flip: 1. winner of toss (a) automatically gets P1 AND he gets to pick a matchup (two teams) loser picks a team and gets P2 (b) or, winner "defers? (lol)" matchup, will take P2, but then chooses a team from the matchup that coin flip loser must now call. Loser will get P1, in this case, after he calls a matchup. or another way to say the new system might be: the coin flip winner has the choice to (a) call a matchup and take P1 (and loser gets choice of team), or (b) take P2 and pick what team he wants from the matchup that the loser calls. I do see how the winner of the toss in this new system gets two instant advantages, in scenario II. 1. (a): gets P1 and also calls matchup. All the loser gets is choice of a team. I can see a semi-fair tradeoff in the old coin flip way - you can take your choice between the teams or take P1. simple. I have never minded winning or losing the coin toss in the old coin flip way. But now, I can see that the new way would make winning the coin toss to be a great thing! and I would love to win the toss every single time, so that I can get P1 and also call two teams that I am comfortable rolling with. that would be seen as a huge advantage to me! But, I don't like the lack of fairness of it and the very small say that the coin flip "loser" has in the deal. Because, the coin flip should be fair and present a fair strategic foundation to a TSB game, not just give P1 advantage, which in effect is what has happened with the change.