Hillis Ahead of Vick For Madden NFL 12 Cover

[mjhyankees]

Quote: Originally Posted by Exonerated

Theft by finding!!!!

Luck via voting

[The GIGGAS]

Quote: Originally Posted by mjhyankees

By definition any "cover athlete" is usually an elite player in his sport. That goes for covers of games, magazines etc. He doesn't fit the bill. The fact that he "got votes" is irrelevant to his deserving it. If I find a 100 bill on the floor...do I "deserve it"? No...I did nothing to earn it but it's mine nonetheless. Same with Hillis.

OK, he doesn't deserve it, whatever.

Doesn't change the fact that it looks like he's going to win it.

Deserve or not is irrelevant now. The fans voted for their person, and Hillis is apparently the winner.

[mjhyankees]

Quote: Originally Posted by The GIGGAS

OK, he doesn't deserve it, whatever. Doesn't change the fact that it looks like he's going to win it. Deserve or not is irrelevant now. The fans voted for their person, and Hillis is apparently the winner.

Well yeah, if you put it that way. I'm standing on line at midnight either way. But apparently many have the opinion that this is a bad choice. For the record the "voting" was somewhat bogus anyway. It was a playoff type vote with guys getting eliminated along the way. I'd bet if it was a straight up poll....hey wait I have an idea.

[The GIGGAS]

Quote: Originally Posted by mjhyankees

Well yeah, if you put it that way. I'm standing on line at midnight either way. But apparently many have the opinion that this is a bad choice. For the record the "voting" was somewhat bogus anyway. It was a playoff type vote with guys getting eliminated along the way. I'd bet if it was a straight up poll....hey wait I have an idea.

I don't see why you think it's bogus. It was decided in the same way that almost every sport decides a champion. They play games in a tournament (where in this case, games were polls).

If so many people have the opinion that Hillis is a bad choice, why is he winning? Perhaps we're extrapolating the belief of a vocal minority to the majority?

[mjhyankees]

Quote: Originally Posted by The GIGGAS

I don't see why you think it's bogus. It was decided in the same way that almost every sport decides a champion. They play games in a tournament (where in this case, games were polls). If so many people have the opinion that Hillis is a bad choice, why is he winning? Perhaps we're extrapolating the belief of a vocal minority to the majority?

You are obviously an intelligent guy (extrapolate?...havent' heard anyone use that word in years). And I'm not trying to be a Dick here now...just engaging in a philosophical argument. Let's take your above point.
1. A tournament that's played has winners and losers (same as the voting) however the team (or player) controlls their own outcome. Thus making it more valid a measure of rating teams. Hillis did nothing to win this honor....it was given to him...unlike the Packers who WON ON THEIR OWN in a tournament setting to become the ultimate winner. Your analogy falls apart there.
2. While the tournament style vote is novel, fun and feels like "playoffs", it is not a true measure of people's opinions. Why you ask? Because with each round your choices were limited. With each round Hillis picked up votes from voters who may have voted differently if they had more choices. Take Rodgers for example. He got beat in a round by someone (forgot who) whose to say he woundn't have won if he was against someone different? Or who's to say that a voter like myself wouldn't have voted for Rodgers over Hillis if that choice came up. I'd vote Hillis over Vick but not Hillis over Rodgers. The only reliable and valid measure of people's opinions of who the cover athlete should be would be to let them vote for ANY player once. The player with the most votes wins....period. This tournament vote was not valid or reliable (I'm talking statistic here folks, not morals) because your sample pool was constantly changing, forcing votes that may not have been placed in different circumstances.
I started a thread on this other vote btw and wonder what people have to say.
Now that said, I like Hillis, I prefer him to Vick and I'll buy the game no matter who is on the cover.

[wheelman990]

Quote: Originally Posted by mjhyankees

By definition any "cover athlete" is usually an elite player in his sport. That goes for covers of games, magazines etc. He doesn't fit the bill. The fact that he "got votes" is irrelevant to his deserving it. If I find a 100 bill on the floor...do I "deserve it"? No...I did nothing to earn it but it's mine nonetheless. Same with Hillis.

Tell all the people Hillis hit with smashmouth football he doesn't deserve it. I think he earned it with every single blow.

Since he made it all the way to the final voting, and may even win. Pretty obvious most don't agree with you. Your welcome to your opinion though.

[mjhyankees]

Quote: Originally Posted by wheelman990

Tell all the people Hillis hit with smashmouth football he didn't deserve. I think he earned it with every single blow. Since he made it all the way to the final voting, and may even win. Pretty obvious most don't agree with you. Your welcome to your opinion though.

Like I said this wasn't a true measure of people's opinions. Do you think he would have won if it was a true vote (everyone picks one player they'd like to have on the cover)? I think not. Again the sample pool kept changing making it a statistically unreliable and invalid measurement of people's opinions. That's just a fact.
As to your point. The fact that he played "smashmouth" football and ran some people over (he WAS fun to watch) is irrelevent. By that criteria I could name dozens just as deserving. MJD comes to mind, so does AP and how about other positions. You think someone that got hit by Ray Lewis would think Hillis was more smashmouth?
If you are happy he won so be it. If I'm not, you're right it's an opinion. But it's a FACT that the voting method was flawed and didn't give a fair measurement of peoples opinions as to who the cover athlete should be. It actually was more akin to flipping a coin in the sense that you never knew who would be matched up from round to round, therefore the number of different outcomes is exponential depending on how matchups could have changed. A single vote is far more reliable and valid.
It's also a FACT that just looking at the numbers, there were at least 10 more deserving running backs not to mention other position players.
Hillis won by chance outcomes based on chance matchups based on popularity I'd guess.

[The GIGGAS]

Quote: Originally Posted by mjhyankees

You are obviously an intelligent guy (extrapolate?...havent' heard anyone use that word in years). And I'm not trying to be a Dick here now...just engaging in a philosophical argument. Let's take your above point. 1. A tournament that's played has winners and losers (same as the voting) however the team (or player) controlls their own outcome. Thus making it more valid a measure of rating teams. Hillis did nothing to win this honor....it was given to him...unlike the Packers who WON ON THEIR OWN in a tournament setting to become the ultimate winner. Your analogy falls apart there.

I slightly disagree in this case. I see your point, but I think the popularity they gain while playing the games gain them victories. While we do rely on the fickleness of the users to put in forth their victories, the athletes already influenced the "game". I don't necessarily feel he was "given" it.

Quote:

2. While the tournament style vote is novel, fun and feels like "playoffs", it is not a true measure of people's opinions. Why you ask? Because with each round your choices were limited. With each round Hillis picked up votes from voters who may have voted differently if they had more choices. Take Rodgers for example. He got beat in a round by someone (forgot who) whose to say he woundn't have won if he was against someone different? Or who's to say that a voter like myself wouldn't have voted for Rodgers over Hillis if that choice came up. I'd vote Hillis over Vick but not Hillis over Rodgers. The only reliable and valid measure of people's opinions of who the cover athlete should be would be to let them vote for ANY player once. The player with the most votes wins....period. This tournament vote was not valid or reliable (I'm talking statistic here folks, not morals) because your sample pool was constantly changing, forcing votes that may not have been placed in different circumstances.

In tournaments, you can only beat who you're placed against. Looking at Hillis' opponent history, he had to face:

Ray Rice, a popular running back on a playoff team
Matt Ryan, a popular quarterback on a playoff team
Jamaal Charles, a running back on a playoff team
Aaron Rodgers, the Super Bowl winning QB

and now,

Michael Vick, a popular quarterback on a playoff team

He's not slid through this competition facing guys like the 12th Man and Jordan Gross. Arguably, he's gone against three to four major favorites for the cover (Ryan/Rodgers/Vick, perhaps Rice).

He's won each one. I don't have a problem with it. The fans voted for whatever reason, and Hillis is in the championship.

As for poll vs tournament, a tournament is far more fun and longer lasting than a poll. Of course, if it was a flat poll, one of the favorites would have won. But what's the fun in that? Also, it would have been a story for a couple of days, and then everyone probably would have forgotten about it.

Having a new set of matchups every week helped keep the vote and Madden in consumers' minds. So regardless of the cover athlete, the job was completed successfully. This always was much more than a simple decision on a cover athlete. It was a calculated PR and sales strike, which was a staggering success.