14 or 12 team leagues.. which is better for NFFC going forward.

renman · Post by **renman** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 4:52 am

i have a very good sense that this NFFC thing is really going to take off over the next few years and be a consistently popular high stakes fantasy event. the main reason for this is (aside from how much we all enjoy fantasy football) how well it seems to be run and how hands on the guys running it are.

i was on the fence about this league prior to the season as it was my first venture into a high stakes fantasy leagues. i, like many here, dominated my local leagues with local pals and wanted to challenge self against the big boys. i emailed the league to ask some questions that would help me determine if i was going to try this league. i got an email from Greg Ambrosius that was so professional and courteous that it really shocked me. how i was treated by Greg over the coming couple weeks really lead to me joining this league as opposed to others i was peeking at. he was up front about the average entries they were having and the change in the top prize. i am sure i am not the only one who was treated so well. and because of this i firmly believe this league/event will grow and be very popular in coming seasons.

i have noticed many debates and threads on this message board among member on ways to make the league better, more popular, more fun, etc. things that might lead to more entries (word of mouth among players will do that in my opinion and the fact there are regional draft sites).

here is a new topic to debate... which would be better? 14 or 12 team leagues? what are the pros and cons. to me, the one problem with a 14 team league is some teams can really get flat out SHUT OUT of enough starting RB's to even field starters during bye weeks. with theoretically only 32 starting RB's available. and each team needing 3 to cover all weeks plus bye weeks, there are not enough starting RB's to go around in a 14 team league. and of course i do know things change during the season, rosters change, roles change (droughns/mcGahee/mewelde etc).

i was thinking maybe with a 14 team league, owners can get pigeon holed into "must picks" where they MUST take this marginal RB because he is one of the last remaining, rather then a good player they like at another position. i was wondering if 12 team leagues would be a bit more fair, or give owners more latitude and flexibility during the draft process... plus, with 12 team leagues maybe there will be less debate over what draft position one draws if it is random...

I am not sure i am 100% for one way or the other. i am just throwing the topic out there and i am curious to hear the thoughts from the other serious fantasy footballers here...

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 5:03 am

ha! this debate could take up well over 10 pages. i like the 12 team format the best. with that said, i don't think the NFFC will change to 12 team leagues. there are pros and cons on both sides of the debate.

renman · Post by **renman** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:06 am

thanks for the reply gordon... i look forward to seeing those pros and cons...

i saw you were in northeastern PA in a past post.. where were you? what for? good luck in game this week.. just watched kickoff.. time to watch the games...

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:30 am

14 is helpful for prizes, 12 is helpful for loading up all star teams. Clearly this is a DIFFICULT setup for football and that's why it's appropriate here. Personally, I would recommend we go from requiring 2 RB to requiring 1 RB and adding a 2nd flex spot. That takes care of all of the issues and let's people truly draft the best team they can get instead of (as you note) having to gamble on crap RB like Warrick Dunn and Tiki Barber

Keep it 14 or consider 16... I don't want this to be easy.

Dave

lichtman · Post by **lichtman** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:20 am

How about 12 teams and add a flex? I've done 10, 12 and 14 and never found 12 teams to be All-Star teams at all.

renman · Post by **renman** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 10:38 am

i do not think 12 owner leagues are "easy".. how easy or hard a league is would be determined by the skill level of those in the league.

[ October 24, 2004, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: renman ]

richieprimo · Post by **richieprimo** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:57 pm

Originally posted by Dyv:
14 is helpful for prizes, 12 is helpful for loading up all star teams. Clearly this is a DIFFICULT setup for football and that's why it's appropriate here. Personally, I would recommend we go from requiring 2 RB to requiring 1 RB and adding a 2nd flex spot. That takes care of all of the issues and let's people truly draft the best team they can get instead of (as you note) having to gamble on crap RB like Warrick Dunn and Tiki Barber

Keep it 14 or consider 16... I don't want this to be easy.

Dave Dave...my thoughts exactly. I've lobbied for that stipulation on a few other threads. I've been in quite a few leagues that allow you to employ a "run and shoot" offense, with one RB and four WR. The concept of 14 teams is what makes this league more challenging, so I wouldn't want to mess with that. It just seems wrong to have to pass up a Hines Ward type to grab an RBBC guy or the like. Something that Greg and Tom should seriously consider and feel out the league members on. Just my .2

Route Collectors · Post by **Route Collectors** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:47 pm

14 - no doubt in my mind. The degree of difficulty is what seperates this event from all the others. I think a 2nd flex makes it easier but not necessarily better. It's true we are forced into some tough choices on draft day but I want to add a thought to Primo's post. If you feel you have to pass up on Ward to take a RBBC player then maybe you're to prone to think inside the traditional box. The scoring system is different so why wouldn't you draft accordingly.

It doesn't matter where your points come from, as long as you score. 14 teams - definately

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 2:14 pm

I have never been in any online leagues or any high stakes football events before, why do most leagues use two RB and flex? Why don't they use one RB and one flex? It seems like it would take the premium off of the backs.

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 4:44 pm

Originally posted by Route C:
14 - no doubt in my mind. The degree of difficulty is what seperates this event from all the others. I think a 2nd flex makes it easier but not necessarily better.

It doesn't matter where your points come from, as long as you score. 14 teams - definately

This is correct IMO... Needing to use only 1 RB would make the game too easy.

There are 32 RB's and 14 teams. The teams that get 2-3 RB's won't get the top WR's and QB's, which have already proven to be quite valuable.

I'd like to see yardage cat for defense. A DOMINATING defensive effort isn't rewarded the way it should be IMO.