Incentive to keep owners in the game all season

kjduke · Post by **kjduke** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:37 pm

What if the NFFC charged an additional $100 per main event team and offered 100% payback on those funds with a $200 weekly high score prize in the form of a fanball credit for weeks 7 thru 13?

That could keep a lot more teams in the game all season, and add to the excitement of the league itself.

Winning just one week would pay for the extra main event cost for the next 2 seasons - would that be a tough sell, even for the cost-conscious? How many players enter the season thinking they couldn't win one week?

You could do something similar for baseball - reduce the prize to $150 and spread it over 10 weeks since you'd have an extra team paying into the pot.

Thoughts?

KOTRAX · Post by **KOTRAX** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:41 pm

I LIKE IT KEVIN AND I REALLY HOPE IT GETS IMPLEMENTED!!

kjduke · Post by **kjduke** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:39 am

One response so far. Maybe Lance is right, most people just want to complain but don't actually want the problem of teams that quit to be fixed.

At least Kotrax is enthusiastic, seeing that he wrote his entire response in CAPS!

[ November 04, 2009, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:26 am

NFFC Classic owners put up $1400 per team. Is the lure of a $200 credit enough to motivate people?

Might work, might not.

renman · Post by **renman** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:45 am

I somehow missed this. I am not against this idea but still don't think it does enough to address the actual problem. I also would fall along the lines of King of Queens questioning whether the $200 would inspire a team (that in theory isn't strong anyway) to focus on his roster.

But at least it is an idea and that is the point of these discussions. To throw out ideas. This issue is an issue to just about every single fantasy football player WHEN IT IMPACTS THEM in a negative way. I happen to be here talking about it when it has yet to ever impact me and isn't currently impacting me. It is unfortunate that most people wont address a problem, even if they are aware of the problem, until the problem somehow impacts them.

By then it is too late. Maybe being proactive would be a good idea?

kjduke · Post by **kjduke** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:09 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:
NFFC Classic owners put up $1400 per team. Is the lure of a $200 credit enough to motivate people?

Might work, might not. $200 every week for 7 weeks ... I think it would motviate a lot of owners as they at least could salvage a lost cause into a discount for next season.

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:09 am

I see this as only helping the rich get richer. Abandoned teams are typically weak. No way they work the WW to go from weak to top scorer any week IMO.

If it were modified to pay out to teams who score the highest point differential over their average score from the first half of the season, then I could see giving everyone a fair chance.

Ex.

Team A averages 145 the first 7 weeks then score 180 in week 8 and have the highest score over their average. They win.

Or a weak team averages 125 over the first 7 weeks, then they score 155 in week 9 and are the highest over their average, then they win.

Make sense? This way, there is a real chance to win by every team.

You could either pay out $200 to a weekly winner or $1400 to the team with the highest 2nd half differential. I'd prefer the weekly, but the other option might be more popular.

Thoughts? Sucks? Decent?

Thanks KJ for getting the ball rolling.

jjsegura78 · Post by **jjsegura78** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:33 am

IMHO, the prize setup as it is now is enough for me to stay in the whole season. I've yet to hit any prize money in my three years, but I continue through the season to start the best team possible.

Maybe the guys that quit should just draft better, and manage their teams better. These guys/gals that quit playing as early as weeks 7,8, and 9 should just be eliminated from playing for at least one season. It might be a good idea to lay that out as a rule prior to the season. Maybe less quitters will sign up, and more quality games will be onboard for this great league...

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:44 am

The problem with banning people is you need players of all strengths to participate to keep the event maintaining or growing.

Dead money is good for the event.

Look at the World Series of Poker. While it sucks to be at a table loaded with talent when there is dead money all around you, but I feel like it eventually evens out.

Gordon Gekko II · Post by **Gordon Gekko II** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:49 am

High stakes events NEED all the signups they can get, including deadbeats. look around not many events are selling out or increasing their signups.