Odds on winning the_100K

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:21 am

the fantasy world is ripe for the taking. these "new" ideas are only the beginning

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:41 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:
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. I don't think adding one spot Week 13 is going to cause any damage to the game at all.

One spot doesn't really detract from the draft and in season playoff planning that needs to be part of the game as the other post stated.

More times than not, it's just going to make an owner feel better w/o having much impact.

The negative thing is you could see some teams out of it blocking just to spite someone.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:42 am

Originally posted by BONGIZMO:
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? dumb it down by roster expansion?? how is that dumbing it down? you might not remember, but this event was originally 20 man rosters. it was quickly changed after it was realized that the FA pool would be crap. AGAIN, THIS EVENT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED AS 20 MAN ROSTERS. IT WAS "DUMBED DOWN" BECAUSE THE 14 TEAM LEAGUE FORMAT WOULDN'T SUPPORT 20 MAN ROSTERS. IDEALLY EACH TEAM SHOULD HAVE 20 MAN ROSTERS.

Originally posted by BONGIZMO:
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. oh yes, the old "the event will flounder" scare tactic. this has worked to kill many new and good ideas. people who use the tactic tend to be opposed to any type of change.

checkmate

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:43 am

Originally posted by UFS:
The negative thing is you could see some teams out of it blocking just to spite someone. john - if someone wants to block out of spite , they will do so no matter if roster sizes are 16, 17, 18, 19...

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:45 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
quote:Originally posted by UFS:
The negative thing is you could see some teams out of it blocking just to spite someone. john - if someone wants to block out of spite , they will do so no matter if roster sizes are 16, 17, 18, 19... [/QUOTE]OK... I was referring to one more than whatever regular season is.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:49 am

Originally posted by UFS:
OK... I was referring to one more than whatever regular season is. i don't get the blocking arguement. why does someone who wants to block because of spite need an extra roster spot to do so?

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:56 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
quote:Originally posted by UFS:
OK... I was referring to one more than whatever regular season is. i don't get the blocking arguement. why does someone who wants to block because of spite need an extra roster spot to do so? [/QUOTE]All I'm talking about is if rosters go from 18 to 19 Week 13, a team out of it could block a team on a certain need if they wanted to. Since they are out of it, most times, this would be out of spite.

They would get a free spot to do so.

[ December 22, 2005, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: UFS ]

BONGIZMO · Post by **BONGIZMO** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:58 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
quote:Originally posted by BONGIZMO:
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? dumb it down by roster expansion?? how is that dumbing it down? you might not remember, but this event was originally 20 man rosters. it was quickly changed after it was realized that the FA pool would be crap. AGAIN, THIS EVENT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED AS 20 MAN ROSTERS. IT WAS "DUMBED DOWN" BECAUSE THE 14 TEAM LEAGUE FORMAT WOULDN'T SUPPORT 20 MAN ROSTERS. IDEALLY EACH TEAM SHOULD HAVE 20 MAN ROSTERS.

Originally posted by BONGIZMO:
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. oh yes, the old "the event will flounder" scare tactic. this has worked to kill many new and good ideas. people who use the tactic tend to be opposed to any type of change.

checkmate [/QUOTE]As is typical of you, if it isn't an opinion that matches yours, it is wrong and you will attempt to get the last word in. That hints at issues far deeper than Fantasy Football but I'll allow your therapist to continue to work with you on that...

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:01 pm

Originally posted by UFS:
All I'm talking about is if rosters go from 18 to 19 Week 13, a team out of it could block a team on a certain need if they wanted to. Since they are out of it, most times, this would be out of spite.

They would get a free spot to do so. if they are doing it out of spite, why would they require an extra roster spot to block?

answer = they don't. they will block without the roster expansion

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:06 pm

Originally posted by BONGIZMO:
As is typical of you, if it isn't an opinion that matches yours, it is wrong and you will attempt to get the last word in. That hints at issues far deeper than Fantasy Football but I'll allow your therapist to continue to work with you on that... i use facts in my post, you use conjecture. the dumbing down has already occurred and you didn't even know it. mmuuuhahaha!!!