New Scaratings

Boy, did I get my ass handed to me Monday night!! My worst score in quite awhile. Spelling round did me in this week and that is usually my stronger round.

ROund 1 - missed 2 this week.
Round 2 - 18-30. DId not know how many TDs Barry Sanders scored. Narrowed it down to two and guessed wrong.
Did not know where Jacoby Ellsbury went to school and guessed wrong

Round 3 - 34/50. Only one spelling error. The other ones I just had trouble mentally bringing in the right answer.
Usually a fairly straightforward current events round but I just couldnt recall the answers (such as
Jacques Martin)

Round 4 - 27/40 Not overly hard this week but I missed a few by 1 year

Round 5 - 44/60 Totally goofed up the old NFL team names only getting 2 points. The only one I knew for sure was
Canton Bulldogs. As the other ones were revealed they all made sense, but I wasnt "on" enough
that night to get them at the moment

Definitely struggled more than usual in the spelling round. But my bigger frustration with this game was the lazy question writing, particularly in the year round.

It has been my theory for a while that when they write questions for the year round, they pick the year before the clues. Once they decide they want to ask about 1971 for example, they arbitrarily look up events from that year to include. Whoever writing that question for Monday's game decided for whatever reason to include the Australian Open winner, Ken Rosewall, as the fourth clue. Of course, he won it back to back years in the 70s, so that clue was completely useless. Sometimes asking for a multiple-time winner of a certain event without listing which of their wins it was is not a problem when the wins are far apart, or in different decades. But far too often for a 1970s question do they have "Canadiens win Stanley Cup," without any further details, as the third or fourth clue. I don't think they are intentionally giving useless clues, so that's why I believe when they choose to do 1976, they just google "1976 stanley cup winner" without actually considering the surrounding years.

That is a good point. I also believe thats how they go about it, and you're right, it is a bit lazy in the question wriiting.