Greg, please help Las Vegas #8..

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:43 am

Sound advice: I thought u QUIT the nffc? Why are u still here?

btw, I don't think the moniker "sound advice" really works for you (from what we've all seen). Perhaps u should change it.

renman · Post by **renman** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:43 am

I also just noticed Shrink attack said almost the exact same thing that I did...lol

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:49 am

Originally posted by Shrink Attack:
Because there's potential conflict between what would be the truest, fairest method for determining FF success vs. what's best for running a FF business.

I agree that an "all-play" format is a better measure of success and reduces the luck factor. I've played this format many times, and I like it, but I'll tell you my observations. What happens is that many more teams are eliminated earlier in the season when they fall way behind, and the result is that many more teams end up quitting earlier in the season. Sure, the teams that quit don't disproportionately affect the other remaining teams in this format, but many of those eliminated did not enjoy the "short" season and don't return. That's not particularly good for business. While the traditional H2H format involves luck, it does keep more players engaged during the season with a chance of making the playoffs.

The same argument could be made about eliminating the Won-Loss concept altogether and ranking teams only by Total Points scored. Is that a better measure of FF skill? Maybe, but it sure wouldn't be as fun for most players.

Let me be clear: I'm NOT advocating H2H. I'm just saying that there's a potential difference between what's the best measure of FF skill vs. what's best for FF business. If the rules are changed to satisfy the "serious" FF player, then the "average" or "casual" player (i.e., dead-money contributors) might not play.

While changing to an "all-play" format might draw some additional players, it would probably cost the NFFC more players than it would bring in.

Just my opinion. A well-thought out post!!! The MB has been missing posts like these. You make some good points. I guess I was playing the role of Ollie Optimist. Shitt!!! Damn this H2H BS. Btw, this will be a topic of discussion for the Roundtable in AC next month.

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:03 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
Sound advice: I thought u QUIT the nffc? Why are u still here? What is that saying about a pot calling a kettle black?

GG, you're a work of art.

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:07 am

Originally posted by Mankind:
Greg, we have 5-6 teams that has a legit shot at winning the league. The problem is MIAMI CANES has just quit the league, starts bye week players, benches premium players and starts mediocore players. This team has not even checked on his roster in over a week...doesnt' respond to e-mails, plain doesn't give a %#&@. Can't we at least have his line-up set with starting players..The first four weeks this team was competitive and know it is a disadvantage to the teams who have already played MIAMI CANES. Guys, there's really nothing we can do here. We can reach out to this person and see what's going on but we can't start managing other people's rosters or forcing them to stay competitive. It's their $1,300 so they have to decide how they want to handle their teams during the season. We certainly offer incentives - weekly prizes, a consolation round - to keep people active even if their season hasn't gone as planned but the reality is everyone here is an adult and responsible for their own teams. We can't be babysitters here.

I realize this stinks but unfortunately this is one of the realities of every fantasy league. There is the possibility an owner may be unhappy with his or her season and decide to tune out. We believe our format and the extras we provide offers everyone plenty of strong reasons to play throughout the season but the reality is there will be times when people choose to ignore all that and tune out. It's unfortunate and we definitely understand the frustration it causes but there isn't anything we can do I'm afraid.

Nag' · Post by **Nag'** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:12 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
quote:Originally posted by Nag':
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
quote:Originally posted by Quahogs:
those were the rules of the game. It was possible for inferior teams to come out ahead. Mine was one. I'm sure the majority understood that this could happen yet they anted up anyway.
as posted earlier in this thread...

H2H is just getting outdated for the serious owners. i guess we need to wait until we have enough serious owners before the H2H format is thrown into the trash heap (where it belongs). [/QUOTE]Put me down as a non-serious owner. [/QUOTE]Why would anyone using reason and logic as the basis for making decisions (I believe you do, maybe I'm wrong) want to use an inferior method for determining a large chunk of FF success? [/QUOTE]Beacause I find total pts or all-play formats BORING. Is that logical enough of an answer?

renman · Post by **renman** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:11 am

Originally posted by Tom Kessenich:
quote:Originally posted by Mankind:
Greg, we have 5-6 teams that has a legit shot at winning the league. The problem is MIAMI CANES has just quit the league, starts bye week players, benches premium players and starts mediocore players. This team has not even checked on his roster in over a week...doesnt' respond to e-mails, plain doesn't give a %#&@. Can't we at least have his line-up set with starting players..The first four weeks this team was competitive and know it is a disadvantage to the teams who have already played MIAMI CANES. Guys, there's really nothing we can do here. We can reach out to this person and see what's going on but we can't start managing other people's rosters or forcing them to stay competitive. It's their $1,300 so they have to decide how they want to handle their teams during the season. We certainly offer incentives - weekly prizes, a consolation round - to keep people active even if their season hasn't gone as planned but the reality is everyone here is an adult and responsible for their own teams. We can't be babysitters here.

I realize this stinks but unfortunately this is one of the realities of every fantasy league. There is the possibility an owner may be unhappy with his or her season and decide to tune out. We believe our format and the extras we provide offers everyone plenty of strong reasons to play throughout the season but the reality is there will be times when people choose to ignore all that and tune out. It's unfortunate and we definitely understand the frustration it causes but there isn't anything we can do I'm afraid. [/QUOTE]Tom,

You make a bunch of fair points here, but it is not just that owners $1300. We all invested $1300, and many other owners $1300 investment can be ruined or at least negatively impacted by one team who ruins the integrity of a league. Now I know this is not a huge huge deal since this kind of thing only happens occasionally in a very select number of leagues. We might even go a season or two without really seeing it be a big issue.

I guess I am just saying we should at least open up discussion on creative ways we can address this kind of issue here on this board. There are enough smart guys here to be able to come up with some decent ideas. I know some leagues have a failsafe where the highest averaging active players on a bench would get inserted automatically into a dead teams lineup for injured or bye week players left in active. No one would be making transations for the dead team, but if there is a viable player on the bench, he would get inserted. Maybe this could happen minutes after kickoff so owners would have total control up until kickoff. I am just throwing out ideas.

Again, I am not saying this is a huge issue, but to me, the message board is designed to discuss good ideas. Some of the best changes the NFFC has seen were born from message board discussion.

Raiders · Post by **Raiders** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:32 am

Originally posted by Nag':
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
quote:Originally posted by Nag':
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
quote:Originally posted by Quahogs:
those were the rules of the game. It was possible for inferior teams to come out ahead. Mine was one. I'm sure the majority understood that this could happen yet they anted up anyway.
as posted earlier in this thread...

H2H is just getting outdated for the serious owners. i guess we need to wait until we have enough serious owners before the H2H format is thrown into the trash heap (where it belongs). [/QUOTE]Put me down as a non-serious owner. [/QUOTE]Why would anyone using reason and logic as the basis for making decisions (I believe you do, maybe I'm wrong) want to use an inferior method for determining a large chunk of FF success? [/QUOTE]Beacause I find total pts or all-play formats BORING. Is that logical enough of an answer? [/QUOTE]To some, but you to need to be older than 5 years old to understand.

BillyWaz · Post by **BillyWaz** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 4:10 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
solution is all-play or some variation. H2H is just getting outdated for the serious owners. i guess we need to wait until we have enough serious owners before the H2H format is thrown into the trash heap (where it belongs). Mark,

I don't think I am following this correctly. On the other thread (posted about 5 hours prior) you were wondering if you would be considered for "manager of the year" if you would make the playoffs, and admitted that the only way you get in would be H2H. Now you are saying that H2H belongs on the trash heap???

I'm assuming your request to be known as "manager of the year" was just a joke.

For the record, I have ALWAYS been an advocate of points, and don't think H2H is a good way of declaring a winner. However, H2H DOES keep more teams involved longer in the season, as MANY more teams would quit in an all points format. Bottom line is you will NEVER be able to eliminate "deadbeat teams" (very sad considering the entry fee), unless you were to say something like if "2 weeks or more during the season that a player on bye is started, that player will not be able to return to the NFFC the following year (totally spitballing here). Of course, people could enter under other names or be co-managers. So yes, it is VERY hard to eliminate "deadbeat teams".

The way the playoffs are structured now, IS an improvement, as the total points team has a GREAT chance for the 5K rather than the 2.5K.

I think Greg and Tom have done everything they possibly can to make this contest as FAIR as possible and to keep as many teams "alive" as possible. You will ALWAYS have people who don't value $$, and "quit" when things don't go there way.

It is simply human nature (for some).