I think they should count as if it was played in Mexico City.

Disclosure: I have already missed this question, so that ruling would hurt my score.

Edit: But in future years, it shouldn't count, and that is some of the risk of picking the Mexico game for that question!

I think Rams and Chiefs should count as if it were played in Mexico. That's circumstances outside pickers' control that the game got moved, and the picks were made in good faith.

Full disclosure, I took a Saint iirc

feels good to be correct for once and to also make a little ground on that_pope

Charger, Saints didn't play in London this year.

I picked a player who didn't play in an overseas game by mistake. While option 2 is best for me competitively, I'd go with option 1 for the sake of fairness.

I am inclined to agree that the question should count as if the game were still played in Mexico City, I am already correct for this question so having more corrects (esp. from popular teams like the Rams and Chiefs probably are) would hurt me in the standings, but it still seems like the right move.

Instead of caveat emptor going forward I would change the questions related to international games to say "scheduled to be played in" instead of just "in" a particular city, same goes for the Thanksgiving Day question.

why do i have to scroll so far to find my name in the standings?

I agree the game should as if it was still played in Mexico City, I'm pretty sure I already got the question wrong.

I, however, still chose a Saint somehow (whoops). Agree it should count as if it was being played in Mexico City.

I have no idea who I chose, but no way should the game count unless you're also going to give people mulligans for picking players who got injured or cut or whatever. Why should this bad luck be any different? Play it as it lies, Mr. Gilmore.

This.

Yep, this.

This makes the most sense. Not sure where people are seeing ambiguity in question 11.

Yeah I lean towards agreeing with Dudd and bosco.

Last year when 2 teams had their bye moved to the first week, I'm assuming people who picked those players/teams for questions later didn't get an extra week to qualify because they weren't meant to have had their bye by that point, and the change in schedule was beyond their control? I think the same principle applies. You play the questions as they are written.

I don't feel strongly and am happy to go with the majority. I'm already incorrect but 99.9% sure that isn't affecting my opinion

That situation is different because people were able to change that answer . Also I’m staying out of this and agree with whatever is decided

Good point on the bye

Chiefs and Rams are all incorrects, bad luck to those pickers. Question is worded plain as day. Well we thought it could be a correct isn't a valid argument because that's true of all of our wrong answers.

I also picked a Saint so I assume espn's NFL schedule at the time was totally ****ed up and I didn't notice. Well the club is gonna have a nice list this year.

Chiefs and Rams pickers are incorrect. Score the question as written.

I'm indifferent as to how it's scored.

However, and alternative option would be to score those who get a "correct" answer a score of the difference between their actual score and the incorrect score. So if they score a 10 and the incorrect score is 20 then they score a 15. Again, makes no difference to me just another suggestion.

Could also scratch the entire question, right? Claim that an act of God makes evaluating the answers unfair?

I guess this is one of those "the letter vs the spirit" debates where the former stick to exactly what the question says and the latter focus on the intent.

IMO, it's unfair to ask people with skin in the game to judge how to handle this question due to the obvious conflicts of interest involved. If I was a football team with no kicker and was asked to improve the NFL scoring system, I'd ban field goals. I'm sure I could give a bull**** reason to justify but the real reason is that I want to win.

I would say that KrazyKris should make the ruling but he is also in the game and suffers from the same problem we all do. Guess next year we need to have some kind of impartial mediator for situations like these.

I think by the spirit of the question, the Chiefs/Rams game should count for scoring purposes. It’s not like this was something that could have been planned around, or that any of us should have realistically seen coming.

You can't realistically plan around most injuries, either. You just have to accept the bad luck.

I got question wrong, I think it's random luck but thats how peehs goes. Score as written.

Comparing it to injuries is apples and oranges. Injuries happen. There are thousands of team a year. How often does a game site or date get changed? Comparing it to last years situation with the w1 game that got changed also isn’t fair because entrants were given the chance to change the affected answers.

I recall one of the end of year questions used to be ‘Name a team that will finish the year with an 8-0 or 7-1 home record.’ and one year there was a 7-0-1 home team. How was that scores?