NFFC Message Boards

looking for constructive criticism...

UFAAB (Universal Free Agent Acquisitions Budget)

Question: Have you ever experienced any of the following free agent frustrations?

• An owner in your league picked up a valuable free agent (S.Gado, R.Droughns, R.Moats, etc…) a week before he was on your (or anyone else’s) radar screen?
• A good player (B.Favre, B.Roethlisberger, L.Johnson, J.Bettis) was dropped in another league?
• You had the 2nd highest bid on a player in the entire NFFC (280 teams), but unfortunately, the owner with the single highest bid in the entire NFFC came from, you guessed it, your league?
• Have you ever been blocked from picking up a free agent? If not, imagine this scenario:
1. Your starting QB just went down to a season-ending injury
2. Your 2nd QB is on a bye week
3. There are only three starting QB’s available in your league FA pool
4. You have $50 FAAB remaining
5. You bid all of your remaining FAAB to pick up one of the three QB’s available
6. Unfortunately another owner in your league bids $51 for each of the three remaining QB’s
7. You have been blocked from picking up a starting QB and must take a zero from your quarterback position

Answer: Probably! Unfortunately these frustrations are currently part of the NFFC landscape. The real question is…do they have to be?

How can we remove these frustrations? The answer is easy…expand each team’s free agent pool to include every available FA in every NFFC main event league. I call this format UFAAB or Universal Free Agent Acquisition Budget. Simply put, UFAAB allows every single owner a much greater pool of free agents to bid on. This simple step will remove or significantly mitigate all of the frustrations I mentioned above.

How would this work in the NFFC? In 2005, suppose Kevin Jones was hurt in Week 1 and out for the year. The Lions announce that A.Pinner is their new starting running back. Noting that Pinner was not drafted by any NFFC team on draft day, there would be 20 Pinners in each team’s free agent pool. Owners who are interested in Pinner would need to have one of the top 20 highest bids in the entire NFFC to acquire him. The number of “Pinners” in the entire NFFC main event is still capped at the total number of leagues (as it is under the current system). Some leagues may have two or more Pinners in them, and some leagues may not have any Pinners.

From the moment draft day is over, every owner is competing against every other owner, regardless of what league their in, via the overall point standings for the Grand Prize ($100,000). Since owners are competing for the big money against every other owner, shouldn’t they compete against every other owner for free agents? Under the current FAAB system, imagine if an owner won the $100,000 specifically because they were able to pick up a Larry Johnson or similar stud via free agency. Suppose that Larry Johnson was only available in that one league. Would the event be tainted because only 14 owners out of 260 were able to bid on Larry Johnson? Possibly.

Advantages of UFAAB?
• This situation won’t happen anymore…Some owner in your NFFC league picked up a S.Gado, R.Moats, R.Droughns, etc… a week before he was on your (or anyone else’s) radar screen.
• You can bid on a B.Favre, J.Bettis, L.Johnson, etc… even if they weren’t dropped in your league. No more standing on the sidelines
• The free agent pool will be improved. You will have many more options available to you. More options = more strategy = more fun
• This situation won’t happen anymore…You had the second highest bid in the entire NFFC for S.Gado, but unfortunately the highest bid in the entire NFFC, came from another owner in your league and you missed out on acquiring S.Gado.
• You will be a lot less likely to be “blocked” out of acquiring a free agent
• With the turnover of free agents, it may be possible to expand rosters to 19 players.

Thoughts on UFAAB?

I like the concept of so people can "get what they want", but I just don't see it being implemented for the one obvious reason.

I imagine most people's problem would be that it would be "weird" to have the same player on possibly a FEW teams in one 14 team league!!!

To do this you would have to COMPLETELY eliminate head to head, as how fun would it be to be losing by 2 going into Monday night and the only player you and your opponent have is the SAME GUY??? If you made every league TOTAL POINTS (with zero haed to head), then I think it is possible, but I doubt Greg and Tom would want to go away from "head to head".

I think your system would work for THE PLAYOFFS, as then there isn't a "head to head" system, and if there happened to be a free agent available from one of the 20+ leagues, then two teams could have him.

I understand why you did it Gekko, but having a contest where more than one team in each league can have the same player is NOT for a head to head league IMO. The only other place you can do this (that I know of) is CDM fantasy football, and that is a SALARY CAP BASED LEAGUE.

I give BBDS a 10, I give this about a 4.

[ July 05, 2006, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: BillyWaz ]

Originally posted by BillyWaz:

I imagine most people's problem would be that it would be "weird" to have the same player on possibly a FEW teams in one 14 team league!!!if you could get over the "weirdness" plug, what would your other reservations be (if any)? do you think folks thought that FAAB was weird when it was first rolled out?

Originally posted by BillyWaz:
having a contest where more than one team in each league can have the same player is NOT for a head to head league IMO. why (in your opinion) would H2H gameplay be diminished if there were two Pinners in a league?

[ July 05, 2006, 08:11 AM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

No, I don't think FAAB was considered "weird" because it was "fair", and there really was no negatives and only positives (much like the BBDS IMO!) other than local leagues where the commissioner got to see the bids first, and cheating was a possibility (certainly not an issue in the NFFC)

As far as having "two Pinners" in one league, what is the point of playing if in theory there could be ONE league (only 14 teams, if there are 20 leagues) that could ALL have the same player????

You now would be getting into "this league is easier because they don't have 5 Samkon Gado's", etc. THIS WOULD COMPLETELY MESS UP THE TOTAL POINTS THAT EVERYONE TAKES INTO THE PLAYOFFS!!!!That would create a TON of bitching by other leagues, and I feel it would cause even MORE people to "give up" on thier teams midway through the season.

It completely takes away the 14 team league concept and it DOES make it a contest to where you are playing against everyone.

Now I know you will say "you are", but you AREN'T for the first 13 weeks (under the current format- which IS "head to head"!

More people "quitting" because they now have to go against FIVE Samkon Gado's, Reuben Droughns, etc. AND more people frustrated because there is NO ONE in their league who has a shot at one of them is a BIG negative IMO.

[ July 05, 2006, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: BillyWaz ]

Originally posted by BillyWaz:
I like the concept of so people can "get what they want" I am not in the ME but I will comment.

I don't like this concept because people can "get what they want". Personally, I enjoy the competition for free agents. If an owner picks up Gado before he is on the radar of anyone else then he/she is to profit for his/her combination of forward thinking and exceptionally good luck.

Shutting owners out of free agents is part of the end game stategy of fantasy football.

The idea is intriguing and it would certainly change the dynamics of the NFFC but IMHO the change would not make a more enjoyable experience because it limits stategy.

Going back to the Gado example. We all make these decisions. Do I take some non-descript backup that MAY go off in the event of an injury to the starter or do I take the TD guy that I know will get few carries but seven to ten TDs or the third down back that will at least get a few receptions every game. I just don't like the idea of reducing these strategic decisions.

In summary, the idea is novel and has merit. It would make the competition for the overall championship a more level playing field. However, it would reduce the enjoyment of participation in the league and therefore it would reduce the size of the league because of the increase in difficulty of recruiting new entrants(again, IMHO).

[ July 05, 2006, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: Bezoar ]

Actually my reaction was ... I initially liked the idea. Best of both worlds. The main drawback is:

If I am astute enough to grab Gado before anyone else in my league. The rest of my H2H league would also get a chance at him and I wouldn't (unless I can get him twice and that's not gona happen). It almost penalizes the guy who got the first Gado.

I actually had already thought about the concept of having a BBDS league with 25 of each player available (assuming 350 owners) how fair would that be. Your idea (I never got that far as I gave up on it quickly) would be perfect for that concept ... of course ... total points only for 100,000. I personally would get in something like that in a heart beat.

Interesting GG

Oh yea

the concept which I love = 9 1/2
only doing it with the FA part = 4 (Billy's grade)
implementability = 2

Don't like this idea at all. Billy nailed it for me so I won't be redundant.

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
looking for constructive criticism...

UFAAB (Universal Free Agent Acquisitions Budget)

Question: Have you ever experienced any of the following free agent frustrations?

• An owner in your league picked up a valuable free agent (S.Gado, R.Droughns, R.Moats, etc…) a week before he was on your (or anyone else’s) radar screen?
• A good player (B.Favre, B.Roethlisberger, L.Johnson, J.Bettis) was dropped in another league?
• You had the 2nd highest bid on a player in the entire NFFC (280 teams), but unfortunately, the owner with the single highest bid in the entire NFFC came from, you guessed it, your league?
• Have you ever been blocked from picking up a free agent? If not, imagine this scenario:
1. Your starting QB just went down to a season-ending injury
2. Your 2nd QB is on a bye week
3. There are only three starting QB’s available in your league FA pool
4. You have $50 FAAB remaining
5. You bid all of your remaining FAAB to pick up one of the three QB’s available
6. Unfortunately another owner in your league bids $51 for each of the three remaining QB’s
7. You have been blocked from picking up a starting QB and must take a zero from your quarterback position

Answer: Probably! Unfortunately these frustrations are currently part of the NFFC landscape. The real question is…do they have to be?

How can we remove these frustrations? The answer is easy…expand each team’s free agent pool to include every available FA in every NFFC main event league. I call this format UFAAB or Universal Free Agent Acquisition Budget. Simply put, UFAAB allows every single owner a much greater pool of free agents to bid on. This simple step will remove or significantly mitigate all of the frustrations I mentioned above.

How would this work in the NFFC? In 2005, suppose Kevin Jones was hurt in Week 1 and out for the year. The Lions announce that A.Pinner is their new starting running back. Noting that Pinner was not drafted by any NFFC team on draft day, there would be 20 Pinners in each team’s free agent pool. Owners who are interested in Pinner would need to have one of the top 20 highest bids in the entire NFFC to acquire him. The number of “Pinners” in the entire NFFC main event is still capped at the total number of leagues (as it is under the current system). Some leagues may have two or more Pinners in them, and some leagues may not have any Pinners.

From the moment draft day is over, every owner is competing against every other owner, regardless of what league their in, via the overall point standings for the Grand Prize ($100,000). Since owners are competing for the big money against every other owner, shouldn’t they compete against every other owner for free agents? Under the current FAAB system, imagine if an owner won the $100,000 specifically because they were able to pick up a Larry Johnson or similar stud via free agency. Suppose that Larry Johnson was only available in that one league. Would the event be tainted because only 14 owners out of 260 were able to bid on Larry Johnson? Possibly.

Advantages of UFAAB?
• This situation won’t happen anymore…Some owner in your NFFC league picked up a S.Gado, R.Moats, R.Droughns, etc… a week before he was on your (or anyone else’s) radar screen.
• You can bid on a B.Favre, J.Bettis, L.Johnson, etc… even if they weren’t dropped in your league. No more standing on the sidelines
• The free agent pool will be improved. You will have many more options available to you. More options = more strategy = more fun
• This situation won’t happen anymore…You had the second highest bid in the entire NFFC for S.Gado, but unfortunately the highest bid in the entire NFFC, came from another owner in your league and you missed out on acquiring S.Gado.
• You will be a lot less likely to be “blocked” out of acquiring a free agent
• With the turnover of free agents, it may be possible to expand rosters to 19 players.

Thoughts on UFAAB? I am rarely this adamant about about league rules. I hate this idea. The frustrations mentioned are part of the stategy invoved. Proper planning can help alleviate these frustrations. And besides - luck is a major part of our game - like it or not!

This is a truly terrible idea for the NFFC which is divided into LEAGUES.

Back to the drawing board lizard