to whom it may concern : this crap is getting way out of control. i'm sure i'm not the only one to think this but i'm the only one to write it. you can not call a person an azz , stupid , unreasonable , confused , not a clue , and roundabout ways of insults. not only does it kill a thread but it makes it personable. i would swear on a bible that some of the things said would never be said face to face. so why in a thread. in the end , this is fantasy football.....it is not more important than REAL LIFE. debate with respect. just my opinion.
[ February 20, 2012, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: THE_BLACKHAND ]
The Faab process.. do people enjoy it?
The Faab process.. do people enjoy it?
THIS IS THE BUSINESS WE HAVE CHOSEN
-
King of Queens
- Posts: 5262
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:00 pm
The Faab process.. do people enjoy it?
I feel like I've warned you guys already...
-
Cocktails and Dreams
- Posts: 514
- Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:00 pm
- Contact:
The Faab process.. do people enjoy it?
Originally posted by THE_BLACKHAND:
to whom it may concern : this crap is getting way out of control. i'm sure i'm not the only one to think this but i'm the only one to write it. you can not call a person an azz , stupid , unreasonable , confused , not a clue , and roundabout ways of insults. not only does it kill a thread but it makes it personable. i would swear on a bible that some of the things said would never be said face to face. so why in a thread. in the end , this is fantasy football.....it is not more important than REAL LIFE. debate with respect. just my opinion. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I can promise you that anything I say on a message board, I would tell anyone in person. That is especially the case when told I am unreasonable for doing something I consider to be very reasonable.
to whom it may concern : this crap is getting way out of control. i'm sure i'm not the only one to think this but i'm the only one to write it. you can not call a person an azz , stupid , unreasonable , confused , not a clue , and roundabout ways of insults. not only does it kill a thread but it makes it personable. i would swear on a bible that some of the things said would never be said face to face. so why in a thread. in the end , this is fantasy football.....it is not more important than REAL LIFE. debate with respect. just my opinion. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I can promise you that anything I say on a message board, I would tell anyone in person. That is especially the case when told I am unreasonable for doing something I consider to be very reasonable.
-
The Franchise
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:00 pm
The Faab process.. do people enjoy it?
Originally posted by renman:
quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
Nelson makes a very good rebuttable and I have to admit, I agree with it. This FAAB decision has nothing to do with how many teams you have in the NFFC, it's a decision on what is right for including the Thursday Night players and what is right for still giving enough time for everyone to fairly do FAAB. I mean, that's a decision that affects you whether you have 1, 2, 5 or 20 teams. And again, it's a decision we need to make ONCE and live with it, so it's a very, very important decision.
James, let's admit that you have a history of asking a fair, open-ended question and then inflicting your opinion into it in the next paragraph and being surprised that people didn't just answer your first question. That again is happening here and you seem surprised by Nelson's response. Bottom line is that most people feel that FAAB is a necessary evil of fantasy football. We all love to find the Victor Cruz's of the world on the free agent wire, but heck, let's all admit that uncovering diamonds in the rough takes a lot of time, work and energy when all we really want to do is enjoy NFL games and see our fantasy teams win? Isn't that the answer you want to hear? And yes it's fun and still work at the same time no matter how many NFFC teams you have, right?
The NFFC doesn't want 600 owners with 1 team and we'll never have that. We want 1,600 owners with 10 teams each if you'd really like to know!!
And honestly, our average owner has 3 or more NFFC teams and you know that first hand because you usually have multiple teams. Even at 3, that's a lot of FAAB to work.
We'll try to give everyone the earliest possible chance to look at the waiver wire in all NFFC leagues (after Friday's FAAB runs) and open FAAB earlier each week (Saturdays now instead of Tuesdays) and survey all past NFFC owners this week to see which option works best. And then we'll make the call and live with the NFL's decision to have one bad Thursday Night Game every week of the season from 2012 to eternity. The NFL made the decision and now fantasy owners all across the country have to cater their games around it. Not much else we can do.
NFFC owners will have their voices heard on all six options this week. We aren't mandating any of the options; all six are on the ballot and we look forward to your responses. And after that, then people will vote with their pocketbooks on whether the NFFC made the right decision or not. And either way, we'll do our best to offer the best possible HSFF game out there. I hate Thursday Night Games, but what the hell, it's the new NFL landscape and I love the NFL, so let's all go for the ride. Greg,
Yes, I have a history of asking a fair question and giving MY OPINION to start the discussion. I fail to see why that is a problem or why that would result in a hostile response. Am I surprised that I am called "asinine" or my point is called "asinine" when I can so easily and so clearly outline why my point has some validity? Yes, I am surprised by that Greg.
Listen, if you think most people characterize Faab as a "necessary evil" (ie, something they do not enjoy but have no choice but to deal with) I will say I stand corrected. The majority of people I have ever met in fantasy football enjoy the "mini auction" each week and consider that a skill based part of fantasy football. I have introduced the NFFC faab approach to home leagues and every single player has loved it and now much prefers it. Preparing for a draft is lots of "work." Scouting every NFL player is work. But as fantasy football players isn't that what we are passionate about?
I do not think I should have to apologize for thinking the faab experience is fun and that with Thursday games we need 2 faab runs to allow fantasy owners the most control over free agent picks ups in our high stakes events. I am going to be putting in my entries next year no matter which faab option becomes the norm. I will do this because I believe this event is the best event in the market. [/QUOTE]Renman - You are skating around the whole issue that started this in the first place. I answered your question about whether FAAB is enjoyable...............If that was the only question or comment you made. You also made this one.................
"I would think the NFFC would want to create league rules that provide the most fun for the most people. They would want rules that are as fair as possible. I think building this event on the backs of the people who play less then 5 leagues (and maybe only 1) to the point they have a high number of NFFC members is smarter than trying to build it on the backs of the small group who can afford a massive number of entries. For the record, I am not saying the NFFC is trying to build the event on the backs of the handful of people who can buy tons of teams, I am just making a broader point."
You got off topic, not me. Your going to throw this comment in and not expect people to respond to it? I responded to it not because I have less than 5 teams or more than 20. But because it didn't make sense to me. I'm not here on the boards to start arguments. Just wanted to understand the thinking behind the comment above. For the record I didn't call anyone names. Maybe foolish or silly would have been a better word to use than asinine?
Frank - I can assure you that I don't look to disrespect people on these boards or in person. To be honest I rather speak to someone in person rather than typing because things can get taken out of context real quick.
Renman - I apologize if I offended you.
quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
Nelson makes a very good rebuttable and I have to admit, I agree with it. This FAAB decision has nothing to do with how many teams you have in the NFFC, it's a decision on what is right for including the Thursday Night players and what is right for still giving enough time for everyone to fairly do FAAB. I mean, that's a decision that affects you whether you have 1, 2, 5 or 20 teams. And again, it's a decision we need to make ONCE and live with it, so it's a very, very important decision.
James, let's admit that you have a history of asking a fair, open-ended question and then inflicting your opinion into it in the next paragraph and being surprised that people didn't just answer your first question. That again is happening here and you seem surprised by Nelson's response. Bottom line is that most people feel that FAAB is a necessary evil of fantasy football. We all love to find the Victor Cruz's of the world on the free agent wire, but heck, let's all admit that uncovering diamonds in the rough takes a lot of time, work and energy when all we really want to do is enjoy NFL games and see our fantasy teams win? Isn't that the answer you want to hear? And yes it's fun and still work at the same time no matter how many NFFC teams you have, right?
The NFFC doesn't want 600 owners with 1 team and we'll never have that. We want 1,600 owners with 10 teams each if you'd really like to know!!
And honestly, our average owner has 3 or more NFFC teams and you know that first hand because you usually have multiple teams. Even at 3, that's a lot of FAAB to work.We'll try to give everyone the earliest possible chance to look at the waiver wire in all NFFC leagues (after Friday's FAAB runs) and open FAAB earlier each week (Saturdays now instead of Tuesdays) and survey all past NFFC owners this week to see which option works best. And then we'll make the call and live with the NFL's decision to have one bad Thursday Night Game every week of the season from 2012 to eternity. The NFL made the decision and now fantasy owners all across the country have to cater their games around it. Not much else we can do.
NFFC owners will have their voices heard on all six options this week. We aren't mandating any of the options; all six are on the ballot and we look forward to your responses. And after that, then people will vote with their pocketbooks on whether the NFFC made the right decision or not. And either way, we'll do our best to offer the best possible HSFF game out there. I hate Thursday Night Games, but what the hell, it's the new NFL landscape and I love the NFL, so let's all go for the ride. Greg,
Yes, I have a history of asking a fair question and giving MY OPINION to start the discussion. I fail to see why that is a problem or why that would result in a hostile response. Am I surprised that I am called "asinine" or my point is called "asinine" when I can so easily and so clearly outline why my point has some validity? Yes, I am surprised by that Greg.
Listen, if you think most people characterize Faab as a "necessary evil" (ie, something they do not enjoy but have no choice but to deal with) I will say I stand corrected. The majority of people I have ever met in fantasy football enjoy the "mini auction" each week and consider that a skill based part of fantasy football. I have introduced the NFFC faab approach to home leagues and every single player has loved it and now much prefers it. Preparing for a draft is lots of "work." Scouting every NFL player is work. But as fantasy football players isn't that what we are passionate about?
I do not think I should have to apologize for thinking the faab experience is fun and that with Thursday games we need 2 faab runs to allow fantasy owners the most control over free agent picks ups in our high stakes events. I am going to be putting in my entries next year no matter which faab option becomes the norm. I will do this because I believe this event is the best event in the market. [/QUOTE]Renman - You are skating around the whole issue that started this in the first place. I answered your question about whether FAAB is enjoyable...............If that was the only question or comment you made. You also made this one.................
"I would think the NFFC would want to create league rules that provide the most fun for the most people. They would want rules that are as fair as possible. I think building this event on the backs of the people who play less then 5 leagues (and maybe only 1) to the point they have a high number of NFFC members is smarter than trying to build it on the backs of the small group who can afford a massive number of entries. For the record, I am not saying the NFFC is trying to build the event on the backs of the handful of people who can buy tons of teams, I am just making a broader point."
You got off topic, not me. Your going to throw this comment in and not expect people to respond to it? I responded to it not because I have less than 5 teams or more than 20. But because it didn't make sense to me. I'm not here on the boards to start arguments. Just wanted to understand the thinking behind the comment above. For the record I didn't call anyone names. Maybe foolish or silly would have been a better word to use than asinine?
Frank - I can assure you that I don't look to disrespect people on these boards or in person. To be honest I rather speak to someone in person rather than typing because things can get taken out of context real quick.
Renman - I apologize if I offended you.
Winning isn't everything, but the will to win is.
The Faab process.. do people enjoy it?
Originally posted by Cocktails and Dreams:
Cocktails,
I will address your message point by point too. Listen, I do not want to bicker with you over nonsense or posting tone. I respect your opinion (and nothing I have typed has shown otherwise). I believe you were unreasonable in your response to my post and opinions.
quote:Originally posted by Cocktails and Dreams:
I will try and address this point by point.
I didn't do any inventing so save that for someone that does. I used my perceptions of what you posted and how they came across to me.
Your 'perceptions' are the parts you created. they are your perceptions. How you "interpreted" what I said isn't what I said (which can be re read) which is my point.
To me your post implied you did think there were 2 kinds of owners. Those with a lot of teams and those without. And the fact that you incorrectly stated that the NFFC should cater to those with few teams, implies that you do not think that those with few teams all will have varying opinions of how FAAB should be done,just like the people with a lot of teams.
Again, the "to me your post IMPLIED" is what I mean by inventing. Of course there are not ONLY TWO types of owners those who have one team and those who have 20. Why would you think I implied that or think that? I average between 5 and 8 teams per year (not all with NFFC, but usually all my high stakes ones are). I also didn't say the NFFC should "cater" to the owners with limited teams. I said the NFFC should make a decision on faab that is in the best interested of competitive fairness and the overall game experience and not make rules based on how those who can afford 20 teams are inconvenienced."
I stand by you not having much of a clue on the FAAB front. If you had any you would not call people "unreasonable" for having to cut back teams. You either don't have a clue what it takes to do that much FAAB work or are out of line for saying people are unreasonable. It has to be one or the other and neither is particularly good.
Cocktails. I have NO memory of saying people would be "Unreasonable to cut back teams" with new faab rules. If you can show where I said that exact thing I will apologize to you and I will cease to post here ever again if you would like. What I believe I said is it is unreasonable to THREATEN a game operator with cutting back teams if they do not acquiesce and keep faab to one day even though there is logic to needing 2 with the thursday games..." I am not accusing you or anyone else personally of doing this but I think we all can admit there was that threatening tone in some posts in the industry on more than one message board. I would argue that you are 'out of line' accusing me of saying people are unreasonable for considering the cutting back of teams when I don't think I ever said it. Is that fair to say?
I am not "whipped into a frenzy," but make no mistake about it. Your dialogue was not reasonable at all, thus my need to respond to the nonsense in the first place.
Again, as I read through your post I am realizing you INTERPRETED something and are irritated by what you interpreted (that I never said).
It is my opinion that the use of afford is inappropriate and does not come off as being complimentary in any way, shape or form. If you really cannot understand why, I will not waste my keystrokes trying to explain it to you,
I fail to see how saying someone can afford numerous high stakes entries is innappropriate or insulting. I have friends who cannot afford ANY high stakes events and they say "wow, you are lucky you can afford to play that NFFC..." You know what? I am lucky. I fail to see how saying someone can afford something is offensive.
You have a short memory, as saying people were unreasonable for potentially having to cut back teams is EXACTLY what you said and one of the main reasons I responded in the first place.
You again here are accusing me of something (calling people "unreasonable" for cutting back teams), that I never said. I just re read every single word I typed in this thread and now know FOR A FACT I never said it. What I said is I believe it is "unreasonable" for people to threaten game organizers with a cut back of entries if rules are not to their personal liking. I do not like the sense some who have the ability to put in a high level of entries can try to control how the contest is played. I personally have a problem with that. You read that and MISinterpreted that as my saying people who may have to cut back on entries if we have 2 faabs or being unreasonable. Now if you go back and re read what I ACTUALLY said, you will see this is true.
I am not confused by anything you posted, so perhaps it is you who is confused? I have a very good understanding of what the owners should or shouldn't want through my dealings with all kinds of game operators and am not confused about my thoughts at all.. Thinking you are incorrect about something does not make me confused.
You are 100% confused (and wrong) about what I said. Go re read it.
And finally your last paragraph in response to me has nothing to do with anything I said so don't act like I don't think Greg and Tom should come up with a fair solution to the problem. That is exactly what I think they should do, and if anything, I don't feel you do with your belief that they should cater to the people with few teams. That would be a very unfair way to do it and that is what YOU said they should do, not me.
I never said or even implied that YOU think Greg/Tom are not going to make faab decisions based on what they believe is best for the overall contest. I think they should "cater" to the fairest format and faab approach that creates the best gaming experience.
Hope this helps you clear things up.
Yes, this post did clear up everything. You created something in your head that I NEVER SAID (go re read if you want proof) and then got a little irritated. I am fine with it. I respect your opinion. I respect your fantasy football game. I respect you. But I think if you were to be fair, you could re read what I said that started this exchange in the first place and you will see without any doubt I never ever ever said someone is "unreasonable for cutting back teams if 2 faab runs are put in..." I never said that and that statement is at the core of your problem with my post. I hope we have cleared all of this up. [/QB][/QB][/QUOTE]
Cocktails,
I will address your message point by point too. Listen, I do not want to bicker with you over nonsense or posting tone. I respect your opinion (and nothing I have typed has shown otherwise). I believe you were unreasonable in your response to my post and opinions.
quote:Originally posted by Cocktails and Dreams:
I will try and address this point by point.
I didn't do any inventing so save that for someone that does. I used my perceptions of what you posted and how they came across to me.
Your 'perceptions' are the parts you created. they are your perceptions. How you "interpreted" what I said isn't what I said (which can be re read) which is my point.
To me your post implied you did think there were 2 kinds of owners. Those with a lot of teams and those without. And the fact that you incorrectly stated that the NFFC should cater to those with few teams, implies that you do not think that those with few teams all will have varying opinions of how FAAB should be done,just like the people with a lot of teams.
Again, the "to me your post IMPLIED" is what I mean by inventing. Of course there are not ONLY TWO types of owners those who have one team and those who have 20. Why would you think I implied that or think that? I average between 5 and 8 teams per year (not all with NFFC, but usually all my high stakes ones are). I also didn't say the NFFC should "cater" to the owners with limited teams. I said the NFFC should make a decision on faab that is in the best interested of competitive fairness and the overall game experience and not make rules based on how those who can afford 20 teams are inconvenienced."
I stand by you not having much of a clue on the FAAB front. If you had any you would not call people "unreasonable" for having to cut back teams. You either don't have a clue what it takes to do that much FAAB work or are out of line for saying people are unreasonable. It has to be one or the other and neither is particularly good.
Cocktails. I have NO memory of saying people would be "Unreasonable to cut back teams" with new faab rules. If you can show where I said that exact thing I will apologize to you and I will cease to post here ever again if you would like. What I believe I said is it is unreasonable to THREATEN a game operator with cutting back teams if they do not acquiesce and keep faab to one day even though there is logic to needing 2 with the thursday games..." I am not accusing you or anyone else personally of doing this but I think we all can admit there was that threatening tone in some posts in the industry on more than one message board. I would argue that you are 'out of line' accusing me of saying people are unreasonable for considering the cutting back of teams when I don't think I ever said it. Is that fair to say?
I am not "whipped into a frenzy," but make no mistake about it. Your dialogue was not reasonable at all, thus my need to respond to the nonsense in the first place.
Again, as I read through your post I am realizing you INTERPRETED something and are irritated by what you interpreted (that I never said).
It is my opinion that the use of afford is inappropriate and does not come off as being complimentary in any way, shape or form. If you really cannot understand why, I will not waste my keystrokes trying to explain it to you,
I fail to see how saying someone can afford numerous high stakes entries is innappropriate or insulting. I have friends who cannot afford ANY high stakes events and they say "wow, you are lucky you can afford to play that NFFC..." You know what? I am lucky. I fail to see how saying someone can afford something is offensive.
You have a short memory, as saying people were unreasonable for potentially having to cut back teams is EXACTLY what you said and one of the main reasons I responded in the first place.
You again here are accusing me of something (calling people "unreasonable" for cutting back teams), that I never said. I just re read every single word I typed in this thread and now know FOR A FACT I never said it. What I said is I believe it is "unreasonable" for people to threaten game organizers with a cut back of entries if rules are not to their personal liking. I do not like the sense some who have the ability to put in a high level of entries can try to control how the contest is played. I personally have a problem with that. You read that and MISinterpreted that as my saying people who may have to cut back on entries if we have 2 faabs or being unreasonable. Now if you go back and re read what I ACTUALLY said, you will see this is true.
I am not confused by anything you posted, so perhaps it is you who is confused? I have a very good understanding of what the owners should or shouldn't want through my dealings with all kinds of game operators and am not confused about my thoughts at all.. Thinking you are incorrect about something does not make me confused.
You are 100% confused (and wrong) about what I said. Go re read it.
And finally your last paragraph in response to me has nothing to do with anything I said so don't act like I don't think Greg and Tom should come up with a fair solution to the problem. That is exactly what I think they should do, and if anything, I don't feel you do with your belief that they should cater to the people with few teams. That would be a very unfair way to do it and that is what YOU said they should do, not me.
I never said or even implied that YOU think Greg/Tom are not going to make faab decisions based on what they believe is best for the overall contest. I think they should "cater" to the fairest format and faab approach that creates the best gaming experience.
Hope this helps you clear things up.
Yes, this post did clear up everything. You created something in your head that I NEVER SAID (go re read if you want proof) and then got a little irritated. I am fine with it. I respect your opinion. I respect your fantasy football game. I respect you. But I think if you were to be fair, you could re read what I said that started this exchange in the first place and you will see without any doubt I never ever ever said someone is "unreasonable for cutting back teams if 2 faab runs are put in..." I never said that and that statement is at the core of your problem with my post. I hope we have cleared all of this up. [/QB][/QB][/QUOTE]
The Faab process.. do people enjoy it?
Originally posted by The Franchise:
"I would think the NFFC would want to create league rules that provide the most fun for the most people. They would want rules that are as fair as possible. I think building this event on the backs of the people who play less then 5 leagues (and maybe only 1) to the point they have a high number of NFFC members is smarter than trying to build it on the backs of the small group who can afford a massive number of entries. For the record, I am not saying the NFFC is trying to build the event on the backs of the handful of people who can buy tons of teams, I am just making a broader point."
You got off topic, not me. Your going to throw this comment in and not expect people to respond to it? I responded to it not because I have less than 5 teams or more than 20. But because it didn't make sense to me. I'm not here on the boards to start arguments. Just wanted to understand the thinking behind the comment above. For the record I didn't call anyone names. Maybe foolish or silly would have been a better word to use than asinine?
Frank - I can assure you that I don't look to disrespect people on these boards or in person. To be honest I rather speak to someone in person rather than typing because things can get taken out of context real quick.
Renman - I apologize if I offended you. [/QB]Franchise,
You do not owe me an apology. As long as we are all respectful we should be able to have good exchanges here even with some differing opinions and do it as mature adult and even friends.
My point (that you quoted) was a response to something someone else said. I tried to explain my point. I think the NFFC is a stronger entity if it has 500 people who enter one high stakes team than 100 people who enter 3. Which is why I do not believe rules should be made to "appease" the handful of people who can provide multiple entries even if we are in a market where those multiple entries are really important. Now I KNOW Greg & Tom are not going to make rules to appease this group (at least I believe they wouldn't). So I do not feel either of them need to come out and clarify this. This discussion shouldn't even be happening...lol
My point is that it is my opinion that the event is stronger when we have MORE players who can put in one entry. I think the NFFC classic would be a better event if you were only allowed one entry. I know currently the event needs re-entries or multiple entries to keep it viable.
Franchise... No worries and no hard feelings... I have been called worse than asinine! lol
I am coming off the worst NFFC and fantasy season of my life and look forward to a new season... whatever decisions Greg/Tom come up with I will be supporting whether they are to my liking or not.
"I would think the NFFC would want to create league rules that provide the most fun for the most people. They would want rules that are as fair as possible. I think building this event on the backs of the people who play less then 5 leagues (and maybe only 1) to the point they have a high number of NFFC members is smarter than trying to build it on the backs of the small group who can afford a massive number of entries. For the record, I am not saying the NFFC is trying to build the event on the backs of the handful of people who can buy tons of teams, I am just making a broader point."
You got off topic, not me. Your going to throw this comment in and not expect people to respond to it? I responded to it not because I have less than 5 teams or more than 20. But because it didn't make sense to me. I'm not here on the boards to start arguments. Just wanted to understand the thinking behind the comment above. For the record I didn't call anyone names. Maybe foolish or silly would have been a better word to use than asinine?
Frank - I can assure you that I don't look to disrespect people on these boards or in person. To be honest I rather speak to someone in person rather than typing because things can get taken out of context real quick.
Renman - I apologize if I offended you. [/QB]Franchise,
You do not owe me an apology. As long as we are all respectful we should be able to have good exchanges here even with some differing opinions and do it as mature adult and even friends.
My point (that you quoted) was a response to something someone else said. I tried to explain my point. I think the NFFC is a stronger entity if it has 500 people who enter one high stakes team than 100 people who enter 3. Which is why I do not believe rules should be made to "appease" the handful of people who can provide multiple entries even if we are in a market where those multiple entries are really important. Now I KNOW Greg & Tom are not going to make rules to appease this group (at least I believe they wouldn't). So I do not feel either of them need to come out and clarify this. This discussion shouldn't even be happening...lol
My point is that it is my opinion that the event is stronger when we have MORE players who can put in one entry. I think the NFFC classic would be a better event if you were only allowed one entry. I know currently the event needs re-entries or multiple entries to keep it viable.
Franchise... No worries and no hard feelings... I have been called worse than asinine! lol
I am coming off the worst NFFC and fantasy season of my life and look forward to a new season... whatever decisions Greg/Tom come up with I will be supporting whether they are to my liking or not.
-
King of Queens
- Posts: 5262
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:00 pm
The Faab process.. do people enjoy it?
Originally posted by King of Queens:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSiFXhrx ... re=related How do you find this stuff?!?!?!?!
LOL
Wayne
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSiFXhrx ... re=related How do you find this stuff?!?!?!?!
LOL
Wayne