04 April 2008

The Karma Bank is not FDIC Insured

After reading through your comments, I've come to the conclusion that the Karma Bank should close. Depositors will receive two bags of oyster crackers instead of their original deposits. However, for those of you that thought it was interesting, but flawed, I think you're right. So instead, we're going to try and figure out a way of more quantifiably tracking the fortune and misfortune of a season. My thought now is that we provide an adjusted final score, in which we deduct goals that should not have been allowed from both sides, and add on goals that should have been awarded (or likely awarded) to both sides. Yes, it's still subjective, but I think that's the route we'll take. So, every time United earns the benefit of the doubt on an off-side call they didn't earn, and the ball subsequently goes in the net, we'll adjust the score for United down one. Every time United earns a penalty that isn't called, we'll add a goal (yes, not all penalties are converted, but hey.) For the Kansas City Game, the final score was 2-1. Adjusting that score would be 1 goal for United on the Mediate Penalty, and 1 goal for Kansas City on the poor off-side call, leading to an adjusted score of KC 3 : 1 DC. How does that sound? Right now, this is just a proposal, and I am more than willing to tinker and adjust. Also, comments in the First Impressions posts will be stolen referenced to help fill out the debriefs, so feel free to offer your own analysis and comment on the action.

Labels:

10 Comments:

At 04 April, 2008 09:33, Anonymous DCUinCT said...

This makes more sense to me. We have a very subjective sport as it is. At least this is in terms we can all understand (and argue about). Cheers!

 
At 04 April, 2008 10:06, Blogger Jason said...

I would say the Offsides were even (possibly even +1 to United) for the KC game.

(1 for each at ~30 yds from far-side AR, 1 for DC for the McTavish? Offside inside the 6 box second half) That with the Missed PK call for us is +2 maybe?

If you feel that the McTavish foul was inside the box on the otherside back to +1.

 
At 04 April, 2008 15:00, Anonymous Jeremy said...

I like this idea. Of course, you will need to track updated league standings to account for the way things SHOULD have been.

Hmmm... How would you handle a situation like the absolutely bogus red card against NE, setting the stage for a 4-0 whupping? Seriously, they wouldn't have even called that in the World Cup.

 
At 04 April, 2008 18:12, Blogger tucksider said...

any red card against NE is inherently legitimate!

the only problem i see with the proposed system is the shades of grey involved. how about an offsides play where the striker puts the ball in the net shortly after the flag goes up and the play is called back, but replay shows he was onside? do we give them a goal? or do we assume the defenders and keeper stopped as soon as they heard the whistle? i'm sure we could come up with better examples than this one, even.

since you're already going out on a limb making an adjusted final score anyway, you may as well go all out and introduce fractional goals. the situation above might earn the attacking team .5 goals, whereas a shot that takes a random deflection into the net might only count as .7 in the adjusted final score. something like that.

 
At 05 April, 2008 23:16, Blogger kevin said...

I like this idea. And to be honest, I didn't really understand the karma box lol.

 
At 05 April, 2008 23:17, Blogger kevin said...

and i agree with tucksider, any red card against the Massholes is legit (regardless of circumstances I really do not care. It's a legit red card. Deal with it.)

 
At 06 April, 2008 08:19, Anonymous Bill Urban said...

D:

Will the new system contain provisions to account for Kevin Harmse egregiously shafting his own side by getting sent off for the stupidest and most petulant of tackles?

side note: my word verification before posting this comment was "tfcxy..."

Blogger wants the Karma Bank back...

 
At 06 April, 2008 13:30, Anonymous Jeremy said...

That Harmse ejection was pretty weak. Not as weak as the NE ejection, but still weak.

I am not sure how much that one affected the game though. Without the ejection, Jaime would probably have been subed in for an attacking player instead of Burch, we would have been more careful in defense, and probably wouldn't have given up the clean sheet. Also, Jamie's goal probably wouldn't have happenned. I think that Gallardo's still would have. In this case, the ejection pretty much evens out, although to be fair, I would just deduct one goal from DC.

 
At 07 April, 2008 10:30, Anonymous BigKris said...

Woah, I leave an off-the-cuff comment and log back in a couple days' later to find all this. If I had known you were actually going to consider my suggestion I would have been more diplomatic in my request ;)

Oh and yes, definitely get the Freezer back up and running. That one was fun last year.

 
At 07 April, 2008 20:18, Blogger Shatz... said...

I don't think the Harmse ejection should have any impact on the "adjusted score". The ejection did not affect the outcome of the game. When was the last time Kevin Harmse affected the outcome of any game that he played in?

 

Post a Comment

<< Return to The DCenters Main Page (HOME)