Roster Size...

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:07 am

Originally posted by da bears:
Thats true UFS, I like the challenge of trying to win a 14-team league and feel no changes in roster size or team number is needed. But a change in scoring as Jersey Paul suggested could help level the playing field. please post your thoughts on the "challenge" after the season is over. like to see if you have changed your view.

as for scoring system changes, please start a new thread. you guys are diluting the thread. thanks.

Nag' · Post by **Nag'** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:07 am

If the current set up is hard for someone, that means you're not good enough to compete. And I don't say this to insult anyone, I'm being very serious. This is NOT your typical league. It's tough, very tough and will only get tougher as the season developes. There are strategies to manage your roster in this set up that will help you stay competative and then there are those "strategies" that will end your season by Week 6. If you screw up and learn from your mistakes, you'll get better - if not this year, then the next, Otherwise, you'll be a donator forever.
I definitely support this roster/scoring setup and encourage Greg and Tom to leave it for at least another year. Thanks.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:17 am

Originally posted by Nag':
There are strategies to manage your roster in this set up that will help you stay competative I guess you mean having one TE, one K, and one D on your team.

Originally posted by Nag':
I definitely support this roster/scoring setup and encourage Greg and Tom to leave it for at least another year. Thanks. What advantage do you see of having 14 team leagues with 18 man rosters, as opposed to 12 team leagues with 20 man rosters?

[ September 23, 2004, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

TamuScarecrow · Post by **TamuScarecrow** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:23 am

Gordon, you drafted 10th and are ahead of me in the standings so I have no idea why you're whining about this. As for Vegas, he should have said he whined about it 3 months ago instead of saying he lobbied for it. Greg and Tom should make it a poll question to see which format would be the most popular choice. Greg, see if Stats can put the team number in parenthesis next to the team name so we can see what draft positions are dominating the top 50. That will either put this thread to rest or give it credibility.

Nag' · Post by **Nag'** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:25 am

GG...I will not engage in a discussion regarding which strategies (or 12 vs 14 league setups) are better or worse for obvious reasons and I encourage you to do the same. But if you can learn something by looking at my roster (good or bad), then you're alrady on the right track to improving yourself as FF owner.

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:28 am

Originally posted by Nag':
If the current set up is hard for someone, that means you're not good enough to compete. And I don't say this to insult anyone, I'm being very serious. This is NOT your typical league. It's tough, very tough and will only get tougher as the season developes. There are strategies to manage your roster in this set up that will help you stay competative and then there are those "strategies" that will end your season by Week 6. If you screw up and learn from your mistakes, you'll get better - if not this year, then the next, Otherwise, you'll be a donator forever.
I definitely support this roster/scoring setup and encourage Greg and Tom to leave it for at least another year. Thanks. exactly.

The enduring success of NFFC will be a result of:

The degree of the test + Customer service.

lichtman · Post by **lichtman** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 9:06 am

Making passing yards worth the same as rushing/receiving yards would sure shake things up.

I just wrote that off the top of my head without much thought so I'm not advocating it -- just mentioning it.

FFMadMan · Post by **FFMadMan** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 9:25 am

I think the rosters and # of teams are just right. Look no further than the great debates that we had after the draft about WR and RB. It's all about strategy. Now teams that are stuck are obviously a little uneasy. Quality running backs were there at the bottom, its just that people wanted Holt, Harrison, Owens etc. instead of Davis, Barlow, and heck even T. Jones or C. Martin (with a little faith and homework).
We weren't going to let Jones or Martin fall to those who already had their stud receivers but now we are stuck with Price and Porter. Again all strategy, and I do think you can win from any spot - it just depends on the league. I saw some great teams at the 13 and 14 slots.

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 9:40 am

Originally posted by I Cojones:
Making passing yards worth the same as rushing/receiving yards would sure shake things up.

I just wrote that off the top of my head without much thought so I'm not advocating it -- just mentioning it. That's not really true.

It would, of course, change the dynamic of QB scoring versus other positions. But QB scoring is only important relative to other QBs. This would increase scoring for all QBs and only marginally change the spread between QBs. There is a much larger spread between 1st and 28th RBs or 1st and 42nd WRs than between 1st and 14th QBs.

To change the dynamic you have to consider changing the starting roster requirement. That's why I floated 1RB, 3WRs, and 2 Flex.

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:52 am

Some quick thoughts:

1. How about rosters of 16 (or 18?), but give you 2 IR slots that can ONLY be used for injured players. This leaves more on the free agent wire for in-season management (that's a good thing, right?) but also accounts for how many 'crippled' players you have that should be called bad luck and given a modest chance (by using their bench spots on something else) to make up for the loss of the player. If Priest Holmes is out for a month and his owner is now given a 'free' bench spot to speculate on another player then I'm okay with that... seems like a very very modest compromise.

2. I drafted 13th in the Gekko invitational and I thought the draft was FAR better than when I had the #2 pick in the main NFFC event. I got Fred Taylor with #13 and Barlow on the way back... 2 solid RB who could easily be top 10 at year end.

I know it sucks that you have to do research and think and draft well and manage your teams well and all, but this is what I signed up for and am happy it's been a test. So far, my teams haven't performed very well. A month or so from now I'll be able to tell you if that was poor drafting or poor projections or a fluke.

Maybe Greg can do a 6 team league exhibition 'cupcake' league for some of you... how about $12 entry fee, winner takes all? Draft on the Sunday following the draft... 10am brunch with tea and crumpets?

I know, I know! You could even get a sponsor...

"Strawberry Shortcake Fantasy Football Event"

Good luck with that,

Dyv

[ September 23, 2004, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: Dyv ]