NFFC Message Boards

This thread is really a discussion about draft slots not being created equal. this is additional ammo to the blind bidding on draft slots debate.

UFS posted some crap, I mean stats, about the top 30 NFFC teams in week 6….trying to show that drafting late does not put owners at a disadvantage….and that you can win from every draft slot (which is true – but he fails to mention that all draft slots aren’t created equal). I’m not picking on you UFS, as many people are misled on this one.

using the stats from this event is too small a sample size to draw any conclusions. AND this is a first year event with a lot of newbies. you almost have to expect some bizarre stats, and that is exactly what we have.

how about we look at a competing event that’s been in business for the past couple of years, with VERY similar rules. I won’t mention the contest, but let’s look at their results to date. remember this is an established contest, where the majority of owners have been doing the same system for at least one or two years. is there a normal distribution of lower-ranked teams in their top 20? UFS and others…listen up. Here are the draft positions for the top 20 teams (before the Monday night game) …
5
8
1
6
1
1
7
2
6
1
7
2
2
1
1
3
1
7
3
6
that makes ZERO teams in their top 20 that picked 9th, 10th, 11th, or 12th. why is that? I see a lot of #1’s on the list. how do you explain that? care to comment Greg, Tom, UFS, Vegas Gambler, others… love to hear it. i can picture you guys trying to think of reasoning (excuses) now, but it won't work...


of course, these results could change by year-end, but don’t you find it intriguing that ZERO teams drafting 9-12 are in the top 20? almost like they were drawing dead and didn’t even know it.


hey...look over there, all draft slots are created equal...


[ October 25, 2004, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

LOL, you criticize someone for posting data based on 30 teams, then you post results of 20 teams ?!?! Talk about a "small sample size" .

Your argument is skewed because the "other" contest scores 4 points for a passing TD. Culpepper factors in just slightly. Please compare apples to apples next time.

Hey, that sounded like one of your retorts!

Hojin

[ October 25, 2004, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: LB Big Richards ]

Also, in that "contest" the team picking #1 gets their second pick four picks higher than in NFFC.

Originally posted by LB Big Richards:
LOL, you criticize someone for posting data based on 30 teams, then you post results of 20 teams ?!?! Talk about a "small sample size" . the NFFC sample size is small due to it being a first year event. come on, you aren't going to dispute taking results from a "new" contest and using them to support your claim.

Originally posted by LB Big Richards:
Your argument is skewed because the "other" contest scores 4 points for a passing TD. Culpepper factors in just slightly. Please compare apples to apples next time. in this business, you will likely never have apples and apples. you should know that. 4pts compared to 6 pts for a passing TD is the best you can do? that's meaningless. I know you agree if that's all you got. thanks.

Originally posted by LB Big Richards:
Hey, that sounded like one of your retorts! you are learning. need to use it at the right time though. good job for the first time.

Hey Geeko...I'm not involved with this one, but I gotta give you style points here.

Gordon, I can't believe Lenny still allows you to look on their boards. Didn't they institute some type of spam blocker or something designed just for you????

If you say those numbers are relevent to this discussion, then why are you so in favor of a 12-team, 20-round contest? That's what they have and from your data, drafting in the second half of that draft where two RBs is so important is almost like donating cash to the cause. Your data would almost tilt the scales towards our 14-team setup, 6 pts for passing TDs, 0.5 points per RB reception and more. Just using the data from our Top 30 and their Top 20, you'd have to say our system seems more fair. So why are you trying to change it?

I'm sure you have their data from last year as well. Is this consistent with the last two years' results? C'mon, give that info up as you know you have it.

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
If you say those numbers are relevent to this discussion, then why are you so in favor of a 12-team, 20-round contest? I'll be happy with the blind-bidding on draft slots if i had to choose. 14 teams is tough due to the talent being so thin. i also don't want to have pick 13 or 14 again. ya, you can win from there, but it's tougher in my opinion.

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
Your data would almost tilt the scales towards our 14-team setup, 6 pts for passing TDs, 0.5 points per RB reception and more. Just using the data from our Top 30 and their Top 20, you'd have to say our system seems more fair. So why are you trying to change it? na, the scoring changes between leagues are insignificant as it relates to this discussion. it shouldn't matter, as most of you guys are saying that all draft slots are created equal and you can win from anywhere. can you take a shot and answer why aren't there any 9-12 draft slot teams in their top 20?

the only reason we don't see it in the NFFC is that this is a first year event and you get crazy results with year 1 projects.

in time, my guess is that the NFFC's draft results will mimic the other event. higher draft slots tend to fare better.

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
I'm sure you have their data from last year as well. Is this consistent with the last two years' results? C'mon, give that info up as you know you have it. actually, i don't. sorry.

[ October 25, 2004, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
This thread is really a discussion about draft slots not being created equal. this is additional ammo to the blind bidding on draft slots debate.

UFS posted some crap, I mean stats, about the top 30 NFFC teams in week 6….trying to show that drafting late does not put owners at a disadvantage….and that you can win from every draft slot (which is true – but he fails to mention that all draft slots aren’t created equal). I’m not picking on you UFS, as many people are misled on this one.

using the stats from this event is too small a sample size to draw any conclusions. AND this is a first year event with a lot of newbies. you almost have to expect some bizarre stats, and that is exactly what we have.

how about we look at a competing event that’s been in business for the past couple of years, with VERY similar rules. I won’t mention the contest, but let’s look at their results to date. remember this is an established contest, where the majority of owners have been doing the same system for at least one or two years. is there a normal distribution of lower-ranked teams in their top 20? UFS and others…listen up. Here are the draft positions for the top 20 teams (before the Monday night game) …
5
8
1
6
1
1
7
2
6
1
7
2
2
1
1
3
1
7
3
6
that makes ZERO teams in their top 20 that picked 9th, 10th, 11th, or 12th. why is that? I see a lot of #1’s on the list. how do you explain that? care to comment Greg, Tom, UFS, Vegas Gambler, others… love to hear it. i can picture you guys trying to think of reasoning (excuses) now, but it won't work...


of course, these results could change by year-end, but don’t you find it intriguing that ZERO teams drafting 9-12 are in the top 20? almost like they were drawing dead and didn’t even know it.


hey...look over there, all draft slots are created equal...
This is comedy. You're really trying to compare 12 team leagues to 14 team leagues?

And you have the nerve to tell someone else there data is flawed?

What a freakin hypocrite.

[ October 26, 2004, 01:35 AM: Message edited by: UFS ]

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
Gordon, I can't believe Lenny still allows you to look on their boards. Didn't they institute some type of spam blocker or something designed just for you????

If you say those numbers are relevent to this discussion, then why are you so in favor of a 12-team, 20-round contest? That's what they have and from your data, drafting in the second half of that draft where two RBs is so important is almost like donating cash to the cause. Your data would almost tilt the scales towards our 14-team setup, 6 pts for passing TDs, 0.5 points per RB reception and more. Just using the data from our Top 30 and their Top 20, you'd have to say our system seems more fair. So why are you trying to change it?

I'm sure you have their data from last year as well. Is this consistent with the last two years' results? C'mon, give that info up as you know you have it. Exactly Greg...

And one thing I've been hesitant to add....

Right now, we have 5 12/13/14 in the Top 10.

Next year, it could just as easily be 1/2/3 with 5 teams in the Top 10.

Why?

It's about the owners that make the most quality picks in a 14-team league.

If you can get 3 solid RB's, that is the best strategy, but ONLY if they ALL come through.

Important point here. They have to come through. Merely drafting 3 of them, which so many insist on, IS a flawed strategy if you don't draft the RGHT ones.. My hats off to anyone that got a PROVEN player like Barber or Dunn in RD 3/4.

<<<Just using the data from our Top 30 and their Top 20, you'd have to say our system seems more fair. So why are you trying to change it?
>>>


I played year one in WCOFF main, and the best pick at the end of the season was #6.

[ October 26, 2004, 01:32 AM: Message edited by: UFS ]

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LB Big Richards:
[qb] 4pts compared to 6 pts for a passing TD is the best you can do? that's meaningless. This is more than BS, it's just plain ignorant.

Culpepper has 38 more pts in 6 games with those 2 extra points on the 19 TD's he has. That's an increase of 20.2% over 4 pt method.