Unless you identified a mistake in the 'unofficial results' I posted above, I had 6 points on WR: Andre/Fitz/Marshall/VJax/Wallace/Austin and thus 30 total.
ETA: Just my opinion, but I think 5 points for correctly identifying the #1 player at each position is too much weight. The quantity of correctly-identified high performers is much more useful to me as a resource here than whether that one name was put in exactly the right, top spot. When scores are in the range of 30, an extra 3 points just for naming Tom Brady #1 instead of #2 doesn't really make sense.
YOu're right! Sorry about that. Again, I was exhausted from a long day and had the Sheen roast on in the background (plus the GF throwing out random questions about the origins of certain jokes) so I wasn't 100% focused.Re: #1 Overall bonus....I'm willing to bump it down to 2 points but no lower. I realize it's arbitrary compared to correctly ID'ing the #2 overall... or the #3 overall.... but I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible while still rewarding not just getting them generally right, but also having some degree of precision.
PLEASE VOTE ON THIS BY NOON TODAY:
Since we had exactly 28 entries, I'd like to find a way to have this week's scores bear SOME relevance. I have two options:
1) Prune half of the 10 from next week's cut. Bring us to 23 this week then 18 the following week for the start of the weekly eliminations.
2) Have this and next week's scores combine/accumulate and then prune 10 next week.
Again, tiebreakers are date/time of finalizing your roster. IF there are 10 people with the same score and half have to go... the last 5 to finalize their roster (based on post or edit date) get the cut. It's the simplest, fairest way I can think to do it.

In scoring weeks where it's cumulative, the submission order will be cumulative as well (eg: someone who submitted 3rd and 7th (10) will beat out someone who submitted 1st and 12th (13)).
Iggy, Not that worried about it. The list will be getting dramatically shorter over the next 2 weeks so I'll suck it up rather than go overboard with excel. Thanks for the suggestion though, GB. PROXY IGGY
Few requests:
1) I love shtick as much as the next guy.... but these are more difficult to grade when you don't enter names properly. Please either type the players full name, or at LEAST type First initial, and full last name. TIA
2) If you can keep the coloring of the ranks (#1...Top 5...etc) It would be very much appreciated. IT helps while I'm skimming over the entries and counting.
3) there was at least one entry who had too many players by way of having Two #4's or something of the sort. In this case I just renumbered the entry manually and scored it while dropping the extra names. Going forward that is an immediate DQ. I'm confident everyone in here can count to 15. If not, wear flip flops while forming your lists
Overall I really enjoyed week 1. I think we'll start to see the cream rise to the top over time. I am curious to see if the top people at certain positions will remain there (ie reflecting a better overall grasp of that position) or if it was just a fluke.
Signed:
- The Reigning Sharkpool QB Expert