I would like to go on record on saying I think the random head to head aspect of the scheduling is just fine. I am perfectly OK with a team with more points missing out on the playoffs to a team with fewer points but with a better won-loss record. To me, that’s part of the game and I am willing to accept it.
I find it interesting that the very element of the hobby that fuels its charm and allure, the random head to head competition between participants has been the subject of all this discussion. It is this random head to head competition that has spurred fantasy football to far surpass all other fantasy sports in popularity. In our local leagues, while some have certainly addressed the perceived fault of the random head to head system, most have embraced it. To me the reason is two-fold. First, “there’s always next year” in local leagues and second, the financial aspect is not as much of a burden. This is not to say high stakes private leagues do not exist, but surveys have shown the vast majority have entry fees well under $100. Surveys have also suggested that although winning some money is nice, the camaraderie between league mates and the associated smack talk and bragging rights is what keeps leagues perpetuating.
Now, just because the stakes have been raised and we aren’t playing for bragging rights between friends there is a need to alter the defining element of the hobby? Personally, I’m not buying it. As mentioned earlier, if I end up with more points than a team making the playoffs and end up playing in the Consolation Bowl, I chalk it up to fate. Just as if I made the playoffs and place in the money with a team that accrued fewer points, I’m not about to tell Greg and Tom to keep my check, I don’t deserve it.
I realize I am likely out on an island on this one, but that’s OK. I’m just not willing to throw the primary reason this hobby has prospered under the bus just because the stakes are higher. Going head to head on a weekly basis with a league mate is what has differentiated fantasy football from all others. The agony of feeling you have a better team than someone who made the playoffs in your stead whets your appetite for the following season.
For me, the above is enough to “vote” we keep things the way they are. That said, I also feel that there are strategies associated with playing head to head that one can employ that one may not employ if the judge were total points. The end result here would be that if changes were made in some instances (not all), the better team would indeed have amassed fewer points yet not made the playoffs in spite of a better record.
In fantasy football, my objective is to have a juggernaut heading into the playoffs. Granted, up until the NFFC my primary experience has been playing in 12 team leagues with a 14-16 man roster thus the dynamics of the competition here are much different. I have not yet played in this format long enough to determine if this style won’t work here, but I’ll probably cough up another $1250 to find out. In a 12-team league with 6 making the playoffs, you can afford to lose a couple games early. This means you do not have to bid big money on the first available potential starting running back like Lamar Gordon and Aaron Stecker. You can wait and try to pick up Nick Goings or Julius Jones well into the season. The result is your points at the beginning of the season may have been tempered, but by the end you will have put all the pieces in place to compete in the playoffs. The problem with this strategy is that there are 2 more teams competing for the 6 playoff spots, there are more spots on each team’s roster severely weakening the free agent pool and there is more competition for the available free agents.
In addition, one can draft players one expects to contribute down the line in lieu of players able to help from week one. A huge mistake I made this season was anticipating Chris Perry and Tatum Bell would be major players at this point of the season. The point being that you can sacrifice some points early in the season to roster some players who will benefit you later. The end result again is having a better team but accruing fewer points than your fellow combatants come playoff time.
Again, this is just one man’s opinion. I completely understand the reasoning behind the discussions concerning the perceived unfairness of the random head to head schedule. I am by no means saying anyone who feels that way is wrong. I’m just saying that I don’t feel that way.
Thanks for taking the time to read this and good luck in either the main playoffs or consolation bracket.
[ December 04, 2004, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: Todd Zola ]
A Contrarian's View (very long)
A Contrarian's View (very long)
"No one cares about your team but you."
-
Route Collectors
- Posts: 3525
- Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 6:00 pm
A Contrarian's View (very long)
Todd
I respect your opinion and you did a good job of expressing it while in turn respecting the opposing viewpoints.
This competition is a little different than local leagues. Not just because of the higher stakes, but for the opportunity to say you're the best because you beat the best.
We're competing against people that have been a part of this industry for a long time. The best "FF minds" so to speak. I would hate to think that I had drafted, used my FAAB, and managed my team well enough to beat all the other entrants, only to be denied that chance due to dumb luck. All we're doing is trying to make sure that denial doesn't happen in this event.
One more thing - if this senerio had happened to me and no one wanted to make a change to improve it for the following year - I wouldn't be back!
I could get the same thing in my local league for alot less investment of my time and money.
RC
I respect your opinion and you did a good job of expressing it while in turn respecting the opposing viewpoints.
This competition is a little different than local leagues. Not just because of the higher stakes, but for the opportunity to say you're the best because you beat the best.
We're competing against people that have been a part of this industry for a long time. The best "FF minds" so to speak. I would hate to think that I had drafted, used my FAAB, and managed my team well enough to beat all the other entrants, only to be denied that chance due to dumb luck. All we're doing is trying to make sure that denial doesn't happen in this event.
One more thing - if this senerio had happened to me and no one wanted to make a change to improve it for the following year - I wouldn't be back!
I could get the same thing in my local league for alot less investment of my time and money.
RC
A Contrarian's View (very long)
what is wrong with how we have it now? head to head WITH value given to highest total point leaders?
there will NEVER be a perfect circumstance... but i think head to head it a MUST for fantasy football to fulfill as it has.
am i missing something? we currently have a great value placed on head to head.. PLUS, rewards for those with highest point totals who did not get good fortune in the head to head...
whats missing?
there will NEVER be a perfect circumstance... but i think head to head it a MUST for fantasy football to fulfill as it has.
am i missing something? we currently have a great value placed on head to head.. PLUS, rewards for those with highest point totals who did not get good fortune in the head to head...
whats missing?
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 7222
- Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:00 pm
A Contrarian's View (very long)
zola: thanks for the post. i'm getting some new furniture so i apologize if my response is curt. i knew there was at least one person (other than Greg) who likes random H2H (I think Tom said something about points being a better indicator of the best team)
Originally posted by Todd Zola:
I would like to go on record on saying I think the random head to head aspect of the scheduling is just fine. acknowledging you are okay with inefficient means of determining wins/losses is interesting.
Originally posted by Todd Zola:
I find it interesting that the very element of the hobby that fuels its charm and allure, the random head to head competition between participants has been the subject of all this discussion. It is this random head to head competition that has spurred fantasy football to far surpass all other fantasy sports in popularity. na, i think the prize money is the draw. H2H is not charming, nor is it alluring to me. see fantasy baseball as a reference. i like the prize money. take away the prize money, i wouldn't invest my time/energy, nor would anyone else. H2H was "first on the scene" but it continues to lose fantasy football market share. more all-play, total pts, etc... formats are building market share. sooner or later once the "fantasy football audience" is educated enough, you can bury the H2H format, along with random draft slots.
Originally posted by Todd Zola:
perceived fault of the random head to head system, most have embraced it funny, i haven't seen anyone embrace H2H. most people are sheep and will go with whatever format is GIVEN to them. in addition, the fault is not "perceived" as you say. it is real. admission is the first step.
Originally posted by Todd Zola:
I chalk it up to fate. hehe
Originally posted by Todd Zola:
I realize I am likely out on an island on this one, but that’s OK. I’m just not willing to throw the primary reason this hobby has prospered under the bus just because the stakes are higher. Going head to head on a weekly basis with a league mate is what has differentiated fantasy football from all others. for now, you have greg on your side, and that's all you need. i understand greg won't make a change next year, so i'm working on "proposals" that will help the "better" teams get rewarded.
Originally posted by Todd Zola:
I also feel that there are strategies associated with playing head to head that one can employ that one may not employ if the judge were total points. what strategy do the highest 50 PA teams have to play when the start off EVERY week (on the average) in a 19 point hole compared to the lowest 50 PA teams? oh ya, i guess that's fate
[ December 04, 2004, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]
Originally posted by Todd Zola:
I would like to go on record on saying I think the random head to head aspect of the scheduling is just fine. acknowledging you are okay with inefficient means of determining wins/losses is interesting.
Originally posted by Todd Zola:
I find it interesting that the very element of the hobby that fuels its charm and allure, the random head to head competition between participants has been the subject of all this discussion. It is this random head to head competition that has spurred fantasy football to far surpass all other fantasy sports in popularity. na, i think the prize money is the draw. H2H is not charming, nor is it alluring to me. see fantasy baseball as a reference. i like the prize money. take away the prize money, i wouldn't invest my time/energy, nor would anyone else. H2H was "first on the scene" but it continues to lose fantasy football market share. more all-play, total pts, etc... formats are building market share. sooner or later once the "fantasy football audience" is educated enough, you can bury the H2H format, along with random draft slots.
Originally posted by Todd Zola:
perceived fault of the random head to head system, most have embraced it funny, i haven't seen anyone embrace H2H. most people are sheep and will go with whatever format is GIVEN to them. in addition, the fault is not "perceived" as you say. it is real. admission is the first step.
Originally posted by Todd Zola:
I chalk it up to fate. hehe
Originally posted by Todd Zola:
I realize I am likely out on an island on this one, but that’s OK. I’m just not willing to throw the primary reason this hobby has prospered under the bus just because the stakes are higher. Going head to head on a weekly basis with a league mate is what has differentiated fantasy football from all others. for now, you have greg on your side, and that's all you need. i understand greg won't make a change next year, so i'm working on "proposals" that will help the "better" teams get rewarded.
Originally posted by Todd Zola:
I also feel that there are strategies associated with playing head to head that one can employ that one may not employ if the judge were total points. what strategy do the highest 50 PA teams have to play when the start off EVERY week (on the average) in a 19 point hole compared to the lowest 50 PA teams? oh ya, i guess that's fate
[ December 04, 2004, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]
Is my "weekend warrior" prep better than your prep?
A Contrarian's View (very long)
Good post Todd. I agree with you on many elements of the appeal and strategy of h2h. I only disagree with you on the idea that a very high luck component is OK. Would you be against preserving h2h while trying to equalize the schedule?
A Contrarian's View (very long)
Let me throw out another view from my perspective as an industry/business analyst.
INDUSTRY:
Demand for Fantasy Football is exceptionally strong. The incredible proliferation in media this year ensures that demand will grow significantly again next year. Other factors also support strong growth, such as increasing mass market penetration and usage of broadband internet access, and growth in gambling in general including games of both skill and luck.
The number of game sponsors at every level will continue to grow, as will the diversity in game formats. The failure of several high stakes leagues this year was simply the result of too much too soon. Next year, more will succeed.
The NFFC:
Demand for this game will keep growing because of industry growth, and because the NFFC has proven to is customers that it is very well managed whether we are talking about logistics, customer service or product design. Word of mouth and early-mover advantage will be significant for next year. Good management also understands that running a business is an ongoing process of improvement to meet or beat the competition. Greg and Tom clearly understand this. If I were looking at fantasy games as an investor, the NFFC/NFBC would be at the top of my list for probable long-term success. All of that said, let me go in a different direction which addresses both what Todd has thrown out and other recent discussions.
The NFFC customers WILL be there so long as the basic elements of the game that people enjoy are there. I don't think the NFFC necessarily has to bow to the "most accepted" mass market desire. This is a premium product, it does not have to appeal to the largest audience, it has to appeal to its niche audience. I believe we can easily segment the premium market into 2 distinct audiences.
The Competitors. These are the guys that want to win, and expect to win, because they believe they are skilled at the task at hand. If they don't win because they lost to a better team they can accept it, and they'll be back next year with a drive to be even better. If they lose to an inferior team they may be back, but they may also move on to an alternative game that employs more skill and less luck.
The Gamblers. The second segment would encompass players who believe that everyone has a great chance to win with some good luck. They may believe that the game has so much randomness that even if they are the best their chances of winning aren't much better than anyone else's because of the luck component. They are OK with that. They play because they enjoy the game, and because the high-stakes component increases the "high" of competing, and because they like to gamble anyway.
Finally, I don't think these two groups are mutually exclusive, but the dominant component for any player probably determines which side of these issues he comes down on.
Now back to the NFFC. A big part of this comes down to philosohpy of the guys who are running this league. You've got a successful product, brand equity and you'll have great word-of-mouth for next year. But you're serving two relatively distinct markets. You're walking a fine line between the two. As markets mature, segmentation to better serve distinct customer profiles will emerge. I think this is already occurring.
Changes entail risk, but so does not changing. My observation would be that the product needs to move toward the "competitor" market if your philosophy is indeed to distinguish yourself as a "national championship" game.
In reality, if it were my company, I would move toward what virtually every successful consumer product company employs, market segmentation, with the idea of capturing the "competitior" market with the championship game while using brand equity to sell various other games to capture the "gambler" profile.
INDUSTRY:
Demand for Fantasy Football is exceptionally strong. The incredible proliferation in media this year ensures that demand will grow significantly again next year. Other factors also support strong growth, such as increasing mass market penetration and usage of broadband internet access, and growth in gambling in general including games of both skill and luck.
The number of game sponsors at every level will continue to grow, as will the diversity in game formats. The failure of several high stakes leagues this year was simply the result of too much too soon. Next year, more will succeed.
The NFFC:
Demand for this game will keep growing because of industry growth, and because the NFFC has proven to is customers that it is very well managed whether we are talking about logistics, customer service or product design. Word of mouth and early-mover advantage will be significant for next year. Good management also understands that running a business is an ongoing process of improvement to meet or beat the competition. Greg and Tom clearly understand this. If I were looking at fantasy games as an investor, the NFFC/NFBC would be at the top of my list for probable long-term success. All of that said, let me go in a different direction which addresses both what Todd has thrown out and other recent discussions.
The NFFC customers WILL be there so long as the basic elements of the game that people enjoy are there. I don't think the NFFC necessarily has to bow to the "most accepted" mass market desire. This is a premium product, it does not have to appeal to the largest audience, it has to appeal to its niche audience. I believe we can easily segment the premium market into 2 distinct audiences.
The Competitors. These are the guys that want to win, and expect to win, because they believe they are skilled at the task at hand. If they don't win because they lost to a better team they can accept it, and they'll be back next year with a drive to be even better. If they lose to an inferior team they may be back, but they may also move on to an alternative game that employs more skill and less luck.
The Gamblers. The second segment would encompass players who believe that everyone has a great chance to win with some good luck. They may believe that the game has so much randomness that even if they are the best their chances of winning aren't much better than anyone else's because of the luck component. They are OK with that. They play because they enjoy the game, and because the high-stakes component increases the "high" of competing, and because they like to gamble anyway.
Finally, I don't think these two groups are mutually exclusive, but the dominant component for any player probably determines which side of these issues he comes down on.
Now back to the NFFC. A big part of this comes down to philosohpy of the guys who are running this league. You've got a successful product, brand equity and you'll have great word-of-mouth for next year. But you're serving two relatively distinct markets. You're walking a fine line between the two. As markets mature, segmentation to better serve distinct customer profiles will emerge. I think this is already occurring.
Changes entail risk, but so does not changing. My observation would be that the product needs to move toward the "competitor" market if your philosophy is indeed to distinguish yourself as a "national championship" game.
In reality, if it were my company, I would move toward what virtually every successful consumer product company employs, market segmentation, with the idea of capturing the "competitior" market with the championship game while using brand equity to sell various other games to capture the "gambler" profile.
A Contrarian's View (very long)
WTF... someone typing more than I do? Zola - out of bounds!
I have no problem with your logic or your reasoning or your opinion. All good, even if I disagree with some points.
A couple of specific questions:
1. Don't you feel that the higher stakes DO raise the need to reduce luck as an overall factor in prizes? The attempted goal here is to produce a 'National Champion' of Fantasy Football, not just to give out a bunch of money. Would you feel the objective has been achieved if the team with the 7th highest points won the $100,000?
2. The fantasy game you are describing from the past... the one that has gained such popularity and is growing rapidly, etc., etc. is NOT this game. I know it seems like it, but the fact you're taking cumulative leagues and producing playoff contenders for a huge overall prize makes it far different than what you're pining over. SINGLE leagues I think H2H is good to go. In this format, the purpose of the leagues is to produce the best possible playoff teams.
Dyv
[ December 04, 2004, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Dyv ]
I have no problem with your logic or your reasoning or your opinion. All good, even if I disagree with some points.
A couple of specific questions:
1. Don't you feel that the higher stakes DO raise the need to reduce luck as an overall factor in prizes? The attempted goal here is to produce a 'National Champion' of Fantasy Football, not just to give out a bunch of money. Would you feel the objective has been achieved if the team with the 7th highest points won the $100,000?
2. The fantasy game you are describing from the past... the one that has gained such popularity and is growing rapidly, etc., etc. is NOT this game. I know it seems like it, but the fact you're taking cumulative leagues and producing playoff contenders for a huge overall prize makes it far different than what you're pining over. SINGLE leagues I think H2H is good to go. In this format, the purpose of the leagues is to produce the best possible playoff teams.
Dyv
[ December 04, 2004, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Dyv ]
The Wonderful thing about Dyv's is I'm the only one!
-
King of Queens
- Posts: 5262
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:00 pm
A Contrarian's View (very long)
Originally posted by Dyv:
Would you feel the objective has been achieved if the team with the 7th highest points won the $100,000?I would LOVE to see the 7th highest point scorer win $100,000.
As of now, anyways.
Would you feel the objective has been achieved if the team with the 7th highest points won the $100,000?I would LOVE to see the 7th highest point scorer win $100,000.
As of now, anyways.
A Contrarian's View (very long)
My response to those directing questions to me...
Would you be against preserving h2h while trying to equalize the schedule?
We're talking about the all-play format here. Personally, I don't like assigning the top 7 teams a win and the bottom 7 a loss and I also do not like competing against the average, but I do see some benefit to literally playing every team, every week. I won't go pimping a competitor to Stats Inc here, but a major scoring service offers this feature as a bonus even if you use standard H2H and I make a point at checking how the league fared using this every week.
A couple of specific questions:
1. Don't you feel that the higher stakes DO raise the need to reduce luck as an overall factor in prizes? In short, no. What I want is an equal shot at that luck, that is all. Aside from the possibilty that one draft site is more favorable than another (a contention I disagree with), as we are filling out the on-line entry form, all our chances are exactly equal. That works for me.
The attempted goal here is to produce a 'National Champion' of Fantasy Football, not just to give out a bunch of money. Would you feel the objective has been achieved if the team with the 7th highest points won the $100,000?
Perhaps it's semantics, I believe it is a little more. I don't believe we are producing a "National Champion of Fantasy Football". I believe we are producing a tournament or contest winner. I don't think the winner of the tournament or contest is by definition "the best fantasy football player" aka a "Fantasy Football Champion". They are the winner of this fantasy football tournament. They won the contest--the contest winner is awarded $100,000. Suits me fine. If the entire thing were set up head to head and the last team standing had scored the 7th most number of points overall, I would have no issue with it.
2. The fantasy game you are describing from the past... the one that has gained such popularity and is growing rapidly, etc., etc. is NOT this game. I know it seems like it, but the fact you're taking cumulative leagues and producing playoff contenders for a huge overall prize makes it far different than what you're pining over. SINGLE leagues I think H2H is good to go. In this format, the purpose of the leagues is to produce the best possible playoff teams.And your question is?
Kidding aside, the point about the meshing of all the individual leagues into a playoff league is a good one. That indeed differentiates it from the normal local or private league. Upon initial consideration though, it does not sway me from my opinion as presented.
For the purpose of full disclosure, I am a fantasy baseball guy. While my full-time job is not in the industry, for me fantasy baseball is more than just a hobby. If the NFBC were to switch to a head to head format and eschew roto-style, I would object, citing the "too much luck" factor. That said, I have played fantasy football even longer than fantasy baseball and have grown accustomed to luck being part of the fabric of the game. I do not believe it to be a problem or believe head to head to be an inefficient means of "scoring". The dynamics of fantasy baseball and fantasy football are different so I see no contradiction in feeling one way towards one and an opposite way towards the other.
Would you be against preserving h2h while trying to equalize the schedule?
We're talking about the all-play format here. Personally, I don't like assigning the top 7 teams a win and the bottom 7 a loss and I also do not like competing against the average, but I do see some benefit to literally playing every team, every week. I won't go pimping a competitor to Stats Inc here, but a major scoring service offers this feature as a bonus even if you use standard H2H and I make a point at checking how the league fared using this every week.
A couple of specific questions:
1. Don't you feel that the higher stakes DO raise the need to reduce luck as an overall factor in prizes? In short, no. What I want is an equal shot at that luck, that is all. Aside from the possibilty that one draft site is more favorable than another (a contention I disagree with), as we are filling out the on-line entry form, all our chances are exactly equal. That works for me.
The attempted goal here is to produce a 'National Champion' of Fantasy Football, not just to give out a bunch of money. Would you feel the objective has been achieved if the team with the 7th highest points won the $100,000?
Perhaps it's semantics, I believe it is a little more. I don't believe we are producing a "National Champion of Fantasy Football". I believe we are producing a tournament or contest winner. I don't think the winner of the tournament or contest is by definition "the best fantasy football player" aka a "Fantasy Football Champion". They are the winner of this fantasy football tournament. They won the contest--the contest winner is awarded $100,000. Suits me fine. If the entire thing were set up head to head and the last team standing had scored the 7th most number of points overall, I would have no issue with it.
2. The fantasy game you are describing from the past... the one that has gained such popularity and is growing rapidly, etc., etc. is NOT this game. I know it seems like it, but the fact you're taking cumulative leagues and producing playoff contenders for a huge overall prize makes it far different than what you're pining over. SINGLE leagues I think H2H is good to go. In this format, the purpose of the leagues is to produce the best possible playoff teams.And your question is?
Kidding aside, the point about the meshing of all the individual leagues into a playoff league is a good one. That indeed differentiates it from the normal local or private league. Upon initial consideration though, it does not sway me from my opinion as presented.
For the purpose of full disclosure, I am a fantasy baseball guy. While my full-time job is not in the industry, for me fantasy baseball is more than just a hobby. If the NFBC were to switch to a head to head format and eschew roto-style, I would object, citing the "too much luck" factor. That said, I have played fantasy football even longer than fantasy baseball and have grown accustomed to luck being part of the fabric of the game. I do not believe it to be a problem or believe head to head to be an inefficient means of "scoring". The dynamics of fantasy baseball and fantasy football are different so I see no contradiction in feeling one way towards one and an opposite way towards the other.
"No one cares about your team but you."
A Contrarian's View (very long)
Zola, agree on all your points. Count me in as the 3rd person Gordon now knows that doesn't mind random H2H.
For Players. By Players.