FF is a science...

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:23 am

Originally posted by ultimatefantasyfootballcheatsheets:
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

2) A 14 team 18 man roster can be very unforgiving when trying to manage bye weeks and injuries I couldn't agree more with this! I think the roster is too limited for the league size. This only favors the less prepared as they now have equal chance to FAs once the season starts!!!

I'd love to see this increased going forward. [/QUOTE]There is a fine line to maintain between having enough reserve players to handle the bye weeks and injuries, and enough talent in the free agent market to help you with the bye weeks and injuries. We already have 252 players removed from the player pool for active rosters and taking out an additional 28 players to sit on teams' reserve rosters could make FAAB useless.

When I originally wrote the NFFC rules, I did call for 20-man rosters, but through much discussion with our first-year players like GG, KOQ and others, we settled at 18 players and have had 18 players through all four seasons. Personally, I think 20 players per team would decrease the free agent pool as it would take 280 players out of action.

So again, it's a fine line. A fine line that owners have to manage from Draft Day through the season.

Hard heads · Post by **Hard heads** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:37 am

his comment said 20 players per team, so no he meant 280.

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:39 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
quote:Originally posted by ultimatefantasyfootballcheatsheets:
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

2) A 14 team 18 man roster can be very unforgiving when trying to manage bye weeks and injuries I couldn't agree more with this! I think the roster is too limited for the league size. This only favors the less prepared as they now have equal chance to FAs once the season starts!!!

I'd love to see this increased going forward. [/QUOTE]There is a fine line to maintain between having enough reserve players to handle the bye weeks and injuries, and enough talent in the free agent market to help you with the bye weeks and injuries. We already have 252 players removed from the player pool for active rosters and taking out an additional 28 players to sit on teams' reserve rosters could make FAAB useless.

When I originally wrote the NFFC rules, I did call for 20-man rosters, but through much discussion with our first-year players like GG, KOQ and others, we settled at 18 players and have had 18 players through all four seasons. Personally, I think 20 players per team would decrease the free agent pool as it would take 280 players out of action.

So again, it's a fine line. A fine line that owners have to manage from Draft Day through the season. [/QUOTE]Greg,

I get what you're saying. However, it appears to me that there are a tremendous number of FA transactions that have happened thus far. So, taking 28 more players out of the pool wouldn't cripple the FA market as I see it.

It is just a suggestion.

I do think limiting the roster size does help the less-prepared players regardless.

Again, just my $0.02

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:42 am

taking an additional 28 players would indeed cripple the free agent process

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:43 am

Originally posted by renman:
Gekko,

This talk is getting me interested in my one time fruitful fantasy baseball career again. Outside of the divorce that would result, I see no downside... if you are a fan of a game that allows the more-skilled owner to win out more than football, i'd seriously consider the NFBC

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:44 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
taking an additional 28 players would indeed cripple the free agent process Care to explain your rationale?

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:45 am

Originally posted by SNAKE:
quote: SNAKE has started a thread on this very same subject before as well, and for the record feels that it is 60% skill, 40% luck... [/QB][/QUOTE]I probably should stay out of this debate, but I can't help myself when SNAKE throws numbers around like wedding confetti. SNAKE, in a true or false test you have a 50-50 chance of being right. Are you saying that fantasy football is just slightly harder than that? I mean, 40 PERCENT LUCK??

Maybe in a Yahoo fantasy football league or a family league where free agent pickups are "first come, first serve" you can factor luck as a big part of the equation. And there are several ways to be lucky: Injuries, matchups, your opponent failing to change his lineup, free agent pickups, performances, etc.

In these type of high-stakes formats where hopefully all 13 of your league mates are as prepared as you are on Draft Day and are as intense as you are during the season, I honestly think that skill still far outweighs luck. That doesn't mean you can't be skillful and unlucky, as Lance is saying, but 60-40 isn't the correct formula.

Lance, fantasy football is about as scientific as betting on NFL games. You can do all your homework, know the teams inside and out, know all the betting trends and still lose money throughout the year. Even in that "hobby" where you have a 50-50 chance, crazy things happen and your skill isn't rewarded. Fantasy football is the same beast because the NFL is such an unpredictable beast.

Billy is right, over time you'll see many of the same passionate fantasy football owners excel in multiple leagues. There definitely is a skill to this game and some folks have it. But the tougher competition you seek, the harder it is for that skill to be marginally better than other peoples' skills. And some years, Lady Luck just isn't on your side.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:45 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
When I originally wrote the NFFC rules, I did call for 20-man rosters, but through much discussion with our first-year players like GG, KOQ and others, we settled at 18 players and have had 18 players through all four seasons. Personally, I think 20 players per team would decrease the free agent pool as it would take 280 players out of action.Right you are, Greg. While it would be nice to carry one or two extra players on your roster, the league size makes that all but impossible. Imagine trying to get through the bye weeks with the best 28 free agents off the board. Yucko.

I would still like to see the roster size increase for the playoffs, even if by only one spot. Having the ability to carry a 3rd QB, a backup TE, an extra kicker or even a supplemental defense would be ideal.

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:45 am

Is it our goal to keep the FAAB process intact or have the best game in the land?

Are they mutually exclusive?