Odds on winning the_100K

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:35 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:
1) Early roster expansion allows teams that are still "in it" to participate in FA selections. Though the Consolation Bowl is a nice bone to throw to the 200+ non-Championship League teams, most of these teams are sleeping at the wheel by Week 13.MOST? i assume you have proof to back up the MOST part?

Originally posted by King of Queens:
2) The bye weeks are much more of a dilutive factor than the 19-man rosters. I say the free agent pool will be BETTER in Week 11 with expanded rosters versus the current format during the byes (Weeks 3-10).how will the FA pool be BETTER?

Originally posted by King of Queens:
3) Nope, this is virgin territory for all of us (with the possible exception of Zaleski). i think zaleski only has 5 years of data on this, as opposed to 20

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:57 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
quote:Originally posted by King of Queens:
1) Early roster expansion allows teams that are still "in it" to participate in FA selections. Though the Consolation Bowl is a nice bone to throw to the 200+ non-Championship League teams, most of these teams are sleeping at the wheel by Week 13.MOST? i assume you have proof to back up the MOST part?

Originally posted by King of Queens:
2) The bye weeks are much more of a dilutive factor than the 19-man rosters. I say the free agent pool will be BETTER in Week 11 with expanded rosters versus the current format during the byes (Weeks 3-10).how will the FA pool be BETTER?

Originally posted by King of Queens:
3) Nope, this is virgin territory for all of us (with the possible exception of Zaleski). i think zaleski only has 5 years of data on this, as opposed to 20 [/QUOTE]1. Haven't done the comprehensive study yet, but based on playing the last two years, there are certainly A LOT of dead teams by the final week. The number of inactive teams is very likely LESS in Week 11 than in Week 13.

2. The (up to) 14 extra players taken out of the pool would not make nearly the same difference in Week 11 as it would in Week 10. My point was merely that there are more active players in Week 11 than Week 10. "Active" does not necessary mean "better," so I'll correct my choice of wording right now.

3. Awaiting the inevitable UFS response.

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 10:04 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
i think zaleski only has 5 years of data on this, as opposed to 20 [/QB][/quote]

All 20 years have been with 14-team leagues.

Roster limits have ranged from 18 to 21 in that time.

18 is right for NFFC.

Adding one Week 13 is not a bad idea.

I'm not sold on it because I feel part of the game strategy IS to prepare for the playoffs.

Not Week 12. Not Week 14. Week 13 only. It has to be the last week of the regular season. FAAB has to be used. This scenario creates positive strategy for the game, all others negative strategy (commish hat).

Adding one after Week 13 is a horrible idea. Many reasons, main one is some breakout player those weeks that had nothing to do with your regular season. McCown this week. Rod Gardner this week. You never know.

Nag' · Post by **Nag'** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 10:14 am

Mid-season roster expansion and blind bidding is totally new territory. My reasons for being against it in the beginning were based on my opinions that IN THEORY, I expected that it would cause some problems. Now I've thought about it some more and came to the conclusion that moving the roster expansion BACK a few weeks may prevent some of those problems. Again - IN THEORY.
That's all any of us can do - speculate. I don't think anyone knows what will work better and what won't in this situation. There's no precedence and the data which does exist proves nothing. If enough people are open to this suggestion in principal then a compromise can be reached as to what exactly will be changed. Maintaining an "all or nothing stance" by either sides could just prevent this change from happening entirely.

[ December 22, 2005, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Nag' ]

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 10:30 am

I would not put up $1250 to see all the hard work for the draft and in season go down because some clown picked up a FA after the regular season was over and won.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 10:43 am

Originally posted by UFS:
I would not put up $1250 to see all the hard work for the draft and in season go down because some clown picked up a FA after the regular season was over and won. first, i agree that the roster expansion can't take place AFTER week 13.

second, people put up $1,250 and don't have any free agent pickup during the MOST CRITICAL point of the season. and those people get a lump of coal, aka no edge, no harrison, no gado, no westbrook, no l.jordan, maybe no LT2, little manning this week, no d.davis, no k.jones, maybe no c.brown, maybe no d.bennett. i experienced some of that last year when westbrook didn't play weeks 15 and 16. it sucks. 18 man rosters are not a good thing when you have 3 weeks of no FA moves. it takes away from the "fun" factor, as well as introduces much more luck.

[ December 22, 2005, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 10:56 am

While I would prefer an earlier roster expansion, I suppose that making it ONLY for Week 13 makes some sense. Don't want to rock the boat too much...

As an aside, roster expansion is not a new concept. It has been going on in rotisserie league baseball since the early 80's -- maybe even longer (input Zaleski data here). To my knowledge, however, it's never been done in a major fantasy football league.

Nag' · Post by **Nag'** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:02 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:
As an aside, roster expansion is not a new concept. It has been going on in rotisserie league baseball since the early 80's -- maybe even longer (input Zaleski data here). To my knowledge, however, it's never been done in a major fantasy football league. I meant that roster expansion WITH blind bidding free agent pickups is completely new.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:16 am

Originally posted by Nag':
quote:Originally posted by King of Queens:
As an aside, roster expansion is not a new concept. It has been going on in rotisserie league baseball since the early 80's -- maybe even longer (input Zaleski data here). To my knowledge, however, it's never been done in a major fantasy football league. I meant that roster expansion WITH blind bidding free agent pickups is completely new. [/QUOTE]True true

BONGIZMO · Post by **BONGIZMO** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:20 am

Throwing my two cents in here, I am not for roster expansion. Much of one's strategy during the draft involves not only deciding how to stock your bench but I do think more than a few people look ahead to the playoffs when formulating their team. To me it's a matter of whether you like to take a short or long term approach and that adds the additionial element of strategy to the game. For example, I always try to look ahead to playoff matchups when drafting the players after the initial top 100. Sure it won't matter if I don't make the dance but my attitude is that I have drafted a team with the assumption that I will win my league and get there. If not why play?

Injuries and resting of players affects all teams at this point. Heck only one team in the top 12 has all of their studs still intact from the start of the playoffs until now. I have seen all sorts of shifting and strategizing from those teams through proper bench planning. In fact, look at the rosters and you'll see strategies of carrying only one Kicker and/or Defense utilized my some teams. Sure those teams can't play matchups as others can but they are insulated from the injury/resting bug better at key positions. It's more of the strategy that makes the game fun and all of our teams have an individual feel. You get to choose what method may best help your run for the overall crown.

I understand people love change but this event has worked great while still in it's infancy so why keep attempting to dumb it down or muddle up the rules with various changes and addendums? Greg is running a business and if you change things too much too soon, you run the risk of the event never fully gaining traction. Just some thoughts...