“Rank by likelihood of winning”

Home // Forums // Television // “Rank by likelihood of winning”

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
Created
5 years ago
Last Reply
5 years ago
6
replies
211
views
6
users
1
1
1
  • Trent
    Member
    Joined:
    May 14th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #247424

    So sorry to be opening so many threads but I have to bring this up. In the predictions center, it says to rank by likelihood of winning but personally I feel that this should be changed to “likelihood of being nominated.” Multiple reasons:

    1. That’s prettymuch what everyone already does. Of course Julie Bowen is extremely likely to come back but I don’t think that many people really expect her to win again.

    2. We are predicting the nominees (not the winners). Why rank our predictions for the nominees by likelihood of winning?

    In my predictions center, I have them ranked by (what I feel is) the likelihood of winning. That’s why many people have questioned me having Louie, Louis CK, Max Greenfield and Jane Krakowski at #1 instead of Modern Family, Jim Parsons, Ty Burrell and Betty White, all of whom are the safest bets for nominations. I feel that, while we are still predicting the nominees, we should be ranking them by their chances of even getting nominated rather than winning.

    What do you think? 

    Reply
    GoMe91
    Participant
    Joined:
    Sep 25th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #247426

    I definitely agree with your first point…even though I can’t fully explain why. Jim Parsons, Julie Bowen and Ty Burrell have the best chances of returning, but I don’t really think those three will repeat a win. I don’t think anyone can predict who will win until we actually get the nominees and see the dynamics of each category…

    ReplyCopy URL
    FEDEclown
    Member
    Joined:
    Jun 12th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #247427

    I thought the same thing! 

    ReplyCopy URL
    blueprint
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 13th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #247428

    Exactly. It doesn’t make sense to rank them according to likelyhood of winning at this point. And I don’t do so.

    Another example: Jane Krakowski is absolutely no lock and could easily be snubbed. If nominated however, she would definitely have the best shot at winning. So she would be number 6 on the list by likelyhood of being nominated and 1 by the likelyhood of winning.

    But the prediction center might only say that, so there doesn’t have to be individual texts for nomination and award shows.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Halo_Insider
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 3rd, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #247429

    Agree completely, especially with blueprint on Krakowski’s chances.

    ReplyCopy URL
    bondzzz
    Participant
    Joined:
    May 27th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #247430

    I also agree. Currently, my predictions are more on who will be nominated than the shot of winning. Like last year, Margo Martindale was definitely not a lock for predictions but once she was nominated, I think people were predicting her to win.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Trent
    Member
    Joined:
    May 14th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #247431

    Exactly my point.

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
Reply To: “Rank by likelihood of winning”

You can use BBCodes to format your content.
Your account can't use Advanced BBCodes, they will be stripped before saving.

Similar Topics
EGOT2038 - Aug 16, 2017
Television
jf123 - Aug 15, 2017
Television