DaveH
Team HuskerBoard
Cool. Thanks for the help.I'm not sure we can use absolutes either. If I predicted NU 10 and Pitt 7 my difference would be 3 .... if the actual score was NU 7 and Pitt 10 the difference should be a negative 3 and thus only people who predicted Pitt to win would have a chance at winning . ...... or are we not doing it this way???Nah, what I am doing for the scoring is taking the absolute value of the difference in their husker score and opponent score and adding them up. Then I use the MIN function to determine the minimum number from those numbers. The person with the minimum difference is the winner. It is the same for rushing and passing.
I wanted to the look up that number in the difference column and find the corresponding person's name (Differences are in column C, names in column A). LOOKUP says it will do this, but all I get is #N/A in the cell. I was using a formula like =LOOKUP(F3,A3:A200,D3200) where A is the column with the names and D is the column with the differences in score, F3 contained the minimum number in column D.
This doesn't account for ties, though. Ideally I would have a macro (as I don't think it's possible to find multiple matches with built in functions) that would find all the potential winners and concatenate their names in one or multiple fields. That wouldn't be difficult.
Also, if a lookup function isn't working then I'd check the formatting of the cells to make sure their the same (one cell isn't text vs. a cell that's a number format). I've also had problems when the cells look identical but one of the cells had a bunch of spaces on the end of it - in this instance just TRIM (I like that word) the cell with the spaces.
Let me know if I can help or offer another set of eyes :thumbs
If you said it would be NU 10 and Pitt 7 and it was NU 7 and Pitt 10, you would have been off by 6. 3 on the Husker side and on the Pitt side. AFAIK we are looking for differences on each side, not necessarily related to each other.
Does everyone agree with this method? I looked over what we had done in the past and I thought I gathered that method?
I'll look at the lookup function again also. It's probably some dumb thing like you mentioned
