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

dgamblnman · Post by **dgamblnman** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:16 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
quote: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. [/QUOTE]It only sucks if you don't draft well. That theory is already put to bed. You can win from anywhere.

14 teams makes this tough, there is no draft advantage. Draft accordingly.

dgamblnman · Post by **dgamblnman** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:22 am

Originally posted by JerseyPaul:
quote: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. [/QUOTE]Easier to draft RBs than WRs? Then whats the problem?

Anyway, I was chided a bit when I took 5 starting RBs during the draft. I knew the position would be thin and other teams already had 3RBs, so I picked up Emmitt Smith and Minor, I missed on one, but had a very good guy to plug in during my bye weeks

This needs to be tough, and like I said before, if you want an easier league, start one and charge everyone a $1000 to join and winner take all. You could make it an 8 team league then you all could have allstar rosters

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:37 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 Hojin is right, I like the straight 13-week regular season to determine the two playoff teams from each league. I'm not a fan of the one-week playoff format that JP is proposing or the 1 vs. 2, 3 vs. 4 format the second time around a schedule. I can already hear the screams of unfair matchups for the last two weeks of a 12-team regular season format.

I'm not trying to be different with a 14-team league format just for the sake of being different. I think it provides the toughest test, allows for the fairest regular season schedule, rewards the regular season standouts and still allows everyone a chance to win the grand prize.

Now about that part about paying more for league prizes......sheesh, let me make a dime first!!! The format was set up to pay back 75% of total entry fee revenue and that percentage is over 85 percent now before expenses! If you keep that team undefeated, Hojin, and hot during the playoffs, you will be glad I didn't take some of that $100,000 to spread among the league second and third place finishers.

Seriously, we hope to grow the NFFC and NFBC in 2005 and with some good fortune we will exceed our goals and reward the poor folks you are stumping for!

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:44 am

Originally posted by Vega$ Gambler$:
It only sucks if you don't draft well. golly gee, i didn't know that one. thanks mr. wizard.

Originally posted by Vega$ Gambler$:
You can win from anywhere. ya, and i can win the lottery with buying only one ticket. of course you can win from any slot. groundbreaking one there. what you fail to grasp is that some slots are more valuable than others.

Originally posted by Vega$ Gambler$:
there is no draft advantage. you continue to be wrong. but what else would i expect?

[ October 25, 2004, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:49 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
[/qb]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. [/QB][/quote]

Since you like drafting from the 13th spot so much, Gordon, at least in a 13-team league you'd have the swing picks! Is that your rationale?

Yes, the talent is thin with 14 teams. It makes it tough on Draft Day and during the FAAB period. But that's the point of a national championship.

Other than the fact that it makes starting RBs scarce, what is so drastically wrong with a 14-team format? And don't say you can't win from the 13th or 14th spots because our overall leader drafted 13th and other teams from those spots are leading their leagues. Other than the fact that it's tougher and you might have an RB that scores only a few points during the bye weeks, I don't see an overwhelming case for moving this to 12 teams. There's no complaints on the regular season schedule, the playoff format or the points setup. Just 14 teams and JP's request to allow only 1 starting RB.

Someone take hold of this thread with a strong case against 14 teams in 2005. I'll listen.

dgamblnman · Post by **dgamblnman** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:09 am

Originally posted by Vega$ Gambler$:
there is no draft advantage.

you continue to be wrong. but what else would i expect?

Gordon, did you miss that thread about the top teams?????? I beleive out of the top 30, 10 where from picks 11 and lower. So basically, 33% of the top 30 were picks 11,12,13,14. You are right, there is a draft advantage.... for the bottom teams

I hope you are not going to argue the numbers, they are there. The bottom 28% of the drafters (4 picks 11-14) comprise 33% of the top 30.

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:36 am

Originally posted by Vega$ Gambler$:
Originally posted by Vega$ Gambler$:
there is no draft advantage.

you continue to be wrong. but what else would i expect?

Gordon, did you miss that thread about the top teams?????? I beleive out of the top 30, 10 where from picks 11 and lower. So basically, 33% of the top 30 were picks 11,12,13,14. You are right, there is a draft advantage.... for the bottom teams

I hope you are not going to argue the numbers, they are there. The bottom 28% of the drafters (4 picks 11-14) comprise 33% of the top 30. The argument really isn't about draft slots.

Tom said it best about a week ago.

It's about which owners make the BEST picks overall. And that my friends, you can do from any spot. You only need to take the stats from this EVENT ONLY to see that clearly.

Gates, Wayne, Stokely, Barber,CMartin, et all were drafted all over the board. The #1 team looks like he picked more of these guys than the rest.

Gordon, give me some FACTS about why ANY particular spot is any better. Don't give me that BS garbage, or I need 3 hours garbage, give me some facts. Give me a SHREAD of evidence that supports your claim. I have yet to see it.

I've played in 10 team, 12 team, 14 team, trades, no trades, equal schedule, lopsided schedule, FAAB, worst to 1st, auction, blah, blah, blah.

The best teams in ANY of those leagues are the ones that pick the best OVERALL teams within the rules. If you pick the MOST quality players for that season, then you stand the best chance of winning, especially if you can escape injuries.

There is also a ton of luck involved. I won a game yesterday simply because my opponent had WASH, SF, and HOU players on byes. (only luck I've had all year)

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:44 am

Originally posted by Vega$ Gambler$:
Gordon, did you miss that thread about the top teams?????? ya, your argument was void there as well.

Originally posted by Vega$ Gambler$:
I hope you are not going to argue the numbers, they are there. The bottom 28% of the drafters (4 picks 11-14) comprise 33% of the top 30. sample size is too small for any conclusions.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:56 am

Originally posted by UFS:
The argument really isn't about draft slots. wrong. you will be enlightened later tonight, as will all.

Originally posted by UFS:
It's about which owners make the BEST picks overall. And that my friends, you can do from any spot. mr wizard told me that one. almost like saying that you can live longer if you don't drink booze. you are stating the obvious.

Originally posted by UFS:
Gordon, give me some FACTS about why ANY particular spot is any better. Don't give me that BS garbage, or I need 3 hours garbage, give me some facts. Give me a SHREAD of evidence that supports your claim. I have yet to see it. i will bring it. you want FACTS, i got FACTS. check back at 8pm. get your excuses ready. btw, your 20 years of data (as it relates to this event) is flawed due to trading, etc...

Originally posted by UFS:
The best teams in ANY of those leagues are the ones that pick the best OVERALL teams within the rules. If you pick the MOST quality players for that season, then you stand the best chance of winning, especially if you can escape injuries.read my mr wizard response above. same goes here.

[ October 25, 2004, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:03 pm

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
Other than the fact that it makes starting RBs scarce, what is so drastically wrong with a 14-team format? And don't say you can't win from the 13th or 14th spots because our overall leader drafted 13th and other teams from those spots are leading their leagues. remember i'm not saying anything about the RB's being scarce. that is JP, and while they are scarce, you should be able to draft around that. that really is a NON-ISSUE for me.

i'm not saying 14 teams is "wrong", but that i prefer an alternative. there are many reasons why. i'll try to post them in a couple of days, but no promise. gotta find some time. wish there were two of me. i'll start a new thread and throw out SOME of my ammo. you guys respond with your best shots. thanks for the opportunity.

[ October 25, 2004, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]