Facebook Down?, What Questions Do You Have for Aaron Paul & Timothy Olyphant?, Veep or Louie for the 6th slot? , Outstanding Supporting Actor Emmy Winner (1980-2013), Outstanding Supporting Actress Emmy Winner (1980-2013), Official DAYS OF OUR LIVES Re-Launch Thread!, Rate The Song #3, The Official KANYE WEST Thread ('Yeezus' out on June 18th), Rate the Movie #2, Biggest Emmy Mistakes
Welcome - Make Your Predictions! Give Us Feedback!, Oscars, Golden Globes and Film Awards, Primetime Emmys, Daytime Emmys, Tony Awards, Grammys and Music Awards, General Discussion: All Non-Award Topics, Games! Games! Let's Play Games!, Report SPAM Here, Polls! Polls! Who Should Give Back Their Oscar? , Daytime Emmys Judging 2012, Daytime Emmys Judging - 2011
Advertisement
| Jul 1st 2012, 16:09 |
|
|
|
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?
2013 Emmys FYC
Amy Poehler, Jane Krakowski, Matthew Perry, Martha Plimpton, Louis CK, Nick Offerman, Adam Scott, Garret Dillahunt |
| Jul 1st 2012, 17:36 |
|
|
|
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...
Pot Pot Pot Ledom |
| Jul 2nd 2012, 02:09 |
|
|
|
I thought the same thing!
No, non riuscirai mai a capire cosa c'è scritto. Ma non importa.
|
| Jul 2nd 2012, 09:25 |
|
|
|
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.
And if you wanna make sense
Whatcha looking at me for? |
| Jul 2nd 2012, 12:43 |
|
|
|
Agree completely, especially with blueprint on Krakowski's chances.
|
| Jul 2nd 2012, 18:11 |
|
|
|
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. |
| Jul 4th 2012, 08:11 |
|
|
|
Exactly my point.
2013 Emmys FYC
Amy Poehler, Jane Krakowski, Matthew Perry, Martha Plimpton, Louis CK, Nick Offerman, Adam Scott, Garret Dillahunt |
Facebook Timeline
