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

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:08 am

Originally posted by JerseyPaul:
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
Dropping the RB requirement to one will NEVER work, and I will NEVER support the change. Guess what, some people don't care if you support it or not. [/QUOTE]Doesn't matter. Never happen.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:12 am

Originally posted by Vega$ Gambler$:
Actually, you can have 14 teams and 2 RBs. That's 28 by my count. There are even 4 extra starters. I guess it comes down to making the right decisions at the right time. Hey...you came up with a winner.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:52 am

JP, I didn't mean to get off topic with my post as this thread is about 14 teams or 12 teams. You say it's not fair to expand the number of teams by two and still keep the 2-RB position requirement, although you admit in another post that it's okay to do that in a 12-team setup. You're talking about four extra starting RBs per week being an unfair contest. It's a point worth noting, but I haven't seen a lot of other NFFC owners jump on that bandwagon.

Again, let's not hijack this thread toward the starting position requirement. Start another thread for that. Is 14 teams fair or too difficult? So far it seems like a lot of guys like the difficulty factor. Me too.

And Vega$, that's "National Championship" we're all trying to win, not "World Championship!"

dgamblnman · Post by **dgamblnman** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:00 am

Sorry Greg, didn't mean to step on anyone's toes

National Championship... I'll get it right sooner or later.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:38 am

I have a feeling if you remain undefeated and advance to the playoffs, you'll remember "National Championship."

kjduke · Post by **kjduke** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:47 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

Is 14 teams fair or too difficult? So far it seems like a lot of guys like the difficulty factor. Me too.

Agreed. Making it difficult to have a good draft makes for a better contest. Take the RIGHT two (or three) RBs and your team is in good shape.

Two RBs and 14 teams seems just about right, I'd be against making it easier.

LB Big Richards · Post by **LB Big Richards** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:02 am

To add to Greg's post, and I don't think anyone has mentioned this, but the 14 team league and 13 regular season weeks means we play each team exactly once with the current format. If the format was changed to 12 team leagues, I guarantee a thread with complaints about the scheduling and who's playing whom twice.

Now, only if we could get Greg to up the league prize considering the extra teams...

.

Hojin

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:19 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
JP, I didn't mean to get off topic with my post as this thread is about 14 teams or 12 teams. You say it's not fair to expand the number of teams by two and still keep the 2-RB position requirement, although you admit in another post that it's okay to do that in a 12-team setup. You're talking about four extra starting RBs per week being an unfair contest. It's a point worth noting, but I haven't seen a lot of other NFFC owners jump on that bandwagon.

Again, let's not hijack this thread toward the starting position requirement. Start another thread for that. Is 14 teams fair or too difficult? So far it seems like a lot of guys like the difficulty factor. Me too.

Greg, it's really like 5 RBs with 2 extra teams. Keep in mind that the stud RB guys in the early draft positions frequently take 3. So let's take a look at what happens:

Here are some RBs started this week in NY6:

Richie Anderson (weekly for **Kate and Halle**)
Michael Bennett
Tony Fisher
Kevin Barlow (on bye but no replacement)
Willis McGahee
Steven Jackson
Musa Smith
Najeh Davenport

Did starting those guys make it fun this week?

There are 28 starting RBs on bye weeks and 56 WRs plus a few more WRs that get significant playing time like Stokely. So we are required to start every RB but only 42 of 56 starting WRs.

Since many teams like to have 3 starting RBs on their teams, you get the list above.

Now it's true that some of those garbage RBs outscored a lot of starting WRs this week. I would have been a lot better off starting Moe Williams instead of Tory Holt. But the results are not the issue, the numbers are.

That goes back to it's "easier" to draft and evaluate RBs than it is to evaluate WRs. I think that's why guys are afraid to let go of their beloved RBs. No matter what the roster and league sizes are, all the RBs will play. It's a matter of who you MUST play versus who you WANT TO play.

So back to 14 versus 12. Yes, it really makes a difference.

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:31 am

Originally posted by LB Big Richards:
To add to Greg's post, and I don't think anyone has mentioned this, but the 14 team league and 13 regular season weeks means we play each team exactly once with the current format. If the format was changed to 12 team leagues, I guarantee a thread with complaints about the scheduling and who's playing whom twice.

Now, only if we could get Greg to up the league prize considering the extra teams...

.

Hojin Many alternatives to this Hojin. They include:

1. Creating a playoff structure to get to the finals and have more teams in contention (4-6). Use a week or two for the playoffs to get to the finals.

2. Position weeks. 1 vs. 2, 3 vs. 4, etc. - like bowling leagues.

3. Longer finals

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:40 am

Originally posted by JerseyPaul:
So back to 14 versus 12. Yes, it really makes a difference. 12 teams/league makes the most sense to me. maybe even 13 team leagues

you have my support if this is where you are going. talent is too thin with 14 teams.

plus the 13 and 14 slots SUCK.

[ October 25, 2004, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]