The Faab process.. do people enjoy it?
The Faab process.. do people enjoy it?
On other football message boards I have seen people "threaten" game organizers saying "I wont enter with as many teams if you have 2 faab periods (which seems to make sense from a game format standpoint with the Thursday games) because due to the large number of entries I can afford, faab becomes too much "work." I just find that to be a bit unreasonable to do to game organizers who have been put in a tough spot by the NFL scheduling.
[/QB]Renman,
I think there is a big difference between threatening and just being honest. I have said that here and elsewhere and I definitely didn't mean it as a threat. And I sure haven't taken anyone else as threatening game operators. But if your intentions are less leagues then I think it's best if operators know that. It's not the operators fault that the NFL is making this move. But I also can't do waivers for 20 leagues by Wednesday. Heck , I wasn't even doing a good job at it when they were due by Friday.
Like I said before, I'll spend a similar amount but it will almost definitely be over less leagues. And I sure don't understand why a contest has to cater to people doing less than 5 leagues or more than 20. What difference does it make??? I really don't care if I'm playing against guys who have one team or 150 teams. Let's just have fun.
Wayne
-
Cocktails and Dreams
- Posts: 514
- Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:00 pm
- Contact:
The Faab process.. do people enjoy it?
Originally posted by renman:
[
.
I agree repeat business is important. I would rather have an event that fulfills and gets 200 guys who play 2 leagues (400 entries) to come back every year as repeat business than taylor my rules to appease 10 guys who each have 20 entries (200 total entries). That is all I am saying. I certainly never said or implied the guys who can put in many entries are not important.
On other football message boards I have seen people "threaten" game organizers saying "I wont enter with as many teams if you have 2 faab periods (which seems to make sense from a game format standpoint with the Thursday games) because due to the large number of entries I can afford, faab becomes too much work. I just find that to be a bit unreasonable to do to game organizers who have been put in a tough spot by the NFL scheduling.
s. [/QB]You honestly think that that first item I quoted is a valid example? Not a single NFFC league would fill if there were only 10 people involved. You act as if there is this huge difference between all those that have 1 team and people that have 50 teams. Just because your view is at that other end of the spectrum from mine and some others that play a lot of teams, doesn't mean those of us at each end of the spectrum are representative of all of those in our respective categories. For that reason, I don't think your posts are making very much sense. Glenn, Glenn, Wayne and I all have a lot of teams. We all think free agency should be done a different way. And if you think that all players that have few teams agree with you, then you are badly mistaken as well. It is also annoying when you use the word "afford" as if all people would play more if they could afford them. There are tons of people that can afford lots of teams that do not choose to play a lot of teams.
Also the use of the word "threatening" is wrong as well. To make those people out to be unreasonable bad guys for having to cut back on teams, if certain FAAB methods are used, is asinine. And it certainly isn't your place to tell us we are unreasonable for doing so. You don't have the first clue what it takes to do that much FAAB in the first place, let alone what some of these choices would require going forward. Despite this, you call someone unreasonable for stating they will have to cut back teams when they don't have the time and energy to spend doing that much new Faab work? We should just shut up and then if they choose the poor option then enter less teams? I would prefer to be honest about it upfront, so they have all of the factors to weigh when making the decisions.
I also don't understand your logic about catering it around teams that only have few teams. If that was a good idea the NFFC would limit teams, not allow for more. Whatever grows the game to better levels is what should be done, and ignoring the thoughts of your largest revenue generators typically isn't how I would teach someone to grow their business.
[ February 18, 2012, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Cocktails and Dreams ]
[
.
I agree repeat business is important. I would rather have an event that fulfills and gets 200 guys who play 2 leagues (400 entries) to come back every year as repeat business than taylor my rules to appease 10 guys who each have 20 entries (200 total entries). That is all I am saying. I certainly never said or implied the guys who can put in many entries are not important.
On other football message boards I have seen people "threaten" game organizers saying "I wont enter with as many teams if you have 2 faab periods (which seems to make sense from a game format standpoint with the Thursday games) because due to the large number of entries I can afford, faab becomes too much work. I just find that to be a bit unreasonable to do to game organizers who have been put in a tough spot by the NFL scheduling.
s. [/QB]You honestly think that that first item I quoted is a valid example? Not a single NFFC league would fill if there were only 10 people involved. You act as if there is this huge difference between all those that have 1 team and people that have 50 teams. Just because your view is at that other end of the spectrum from mine and some others that play a lot of teams, doesn't mean those of us at each end of the spectrum are representative of all of those in our respective categories. For that reason, I don't think your posts are making very much sense. Glenn, Glenn, Wayne and I all have a lot of teams. We all think free agency should be done a different way. And if you think that all players that have few teams agree with you, then you are badly mistaken as well. It is also annoying when you use the word "afford" as if all people would play more if they could afford them. There are tons of people that can afford lots of teams that do not choose to play a lot of teams.
Also the use of the word "threatening" is wrong as well. To make those people out to be unreasonable bad guys for having to cut back on teams, if certain FAAB methods are used, is asinine. And it certainly isn't your place to tell us we are unreasonable for doing so. You don't have the first clue what it takes to do that much FAAB in the first place, let alone what some of these choices would require going forward. Despite this, you call someone unreasonable for stating they will have to cut back teams when they don't have the time and energy to spend doing that much new Faab work? We should just shut up and then if they choose the poor option then enter less teams? I would prefer to be honest about it upfront, so they have all of the factors to weigh when making the decisions.
I also don't understand your logic about catering it around teams that only have few teams. If that was a good idea the NFFC would limit teams, not allow for more. Whatever grows the game to better levels is what should be done, and ignoring the thoughts of your largest revenue generators typically isn't how I would teach someone to grow their business.
[ February 18, 2012, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Cocktails and Dreams ]
-
Shrink Attack
- Posts: 1802
- Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 6:00 pm
- Location: Memphis, TN
The Faab process.. do people enjoy it?
I don't enjoy the free Agent process. Period. Does that make me less of a Fantasy player? Hell no. I love the draft, lineup decisions, and following my players on Sundays. I just don't don't like working the WW. It's necessary, it's part of the hobby, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
If there are two waiver periods, then that decreases the enjoyment of this hobby for me. That's just a fact for me personally, Renman. FOR ME. I'm not talking about anyone else, and I'm also not going to pass judgement on them if they have an opposite viewpoint. So if I'm up front that I'll have to cut the number of teams I field, or that I'll lean towards contests that do offer only one waiver period, that's called being HONEST. Am I suppose to hide that fact? Do I spring that on Greg AFTER he makes his decision, or before? Greg asked for opinions and feed back, so there it is.
There are legitimate and sincere differences of opinions on this issue. There is no one right answer. Game operators will have to weigh their options and make decisions. Then players will play in contests that fit their needs the best.
It's not my intention to pile on, but I don't understand how the things you state make sense from a business model standpoint. I just don't.
[ February 18, 2012, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Shrink Attack ]
If there are two waiver periods, then that decreases the enjoyment of this hobby for me. That's just a fact for me personally, Renman. FOR ME. I'm not talking about anyone else, and I'm also not going to pass judgement on them if they have an opposite viewpoint. So if I'm up front that I'll have to cut the number of teams I field, or that I'll lean towards contests that do offer only one waiver period, that's called being HONEST. Am I suppose to hide that fact? Do I spring that on Greg AFTER he makes his decision, or before? Greg asked for opinions and feed back, so there it is.
There are legitimate and sincere differences of opinions on this issue. There is no one right answer. Game operators will have to weigh their options and make decisions. Then players will play in contests that fit their needs the best.
It's not my intention to pile on, but I don't understand how the things you state make sense from a business model standpoint. I just don't.
[ February 18, 2012, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Shrink Attack ]
"Deserve" ain't got nothin' to do with it
---Clint Eastwood in The Unforgiven
---Clint Eastwood in The Unforgiven
-
Jersey Dawg
- Posts: 816
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 6:00 pm
The Faab process.. do people enjoy it?
The waiver wire process is work, just like being a Playboy photographer is work, but someone has to do it.
That said, I am pretty darn sure that almost every really good free agent will be scooped up on Wednesday if we go to two waiver wire periods per week. Friday will become a "fill in" waiver if someone is missed in your league or you personally have an injury update that makes a void in your lineup. My guess is that waiver wire period will have far fewer players picked up and maybe only 25 % of the teams in your league will use it. Advantage goes to the teams that do their homework earlier in the week.
Pete
That said, I am pretty darn sure that almost every really good free agent will be scooped up on Wednesday if we go to two waiver wire periods per week. Friday will become a "fill in" waiver if someone is missed in your league or you personally have an injury update that makes a void in your lineup. My guess is that waiver wire period will have far fewer players picked up and maybe only 25 % of the teams in your league will use it. Advantage goes to the teams that do their homework earlier in the week.
Pete
-
Greg Ambrosius
- Posts: 36423
- Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 6:00 pm
The Faab process.. do people enjoy it?
Nelson makes a very good rebuttable and I have to admit, I agree with it. This FAAB decision has nothing to do with how many teams you have in the NFFC, it's a decision on what is right for including the Thursday Night players and what is right for still giving enough time for everyone to fairly do FAAB. I mean, that's a decision that affects you whether you have 1, 2, 5 or 20 teams. And again, it's a decision we need to make ONCE and live with it, so it's a very, very important decision.
James, let's admit that you have a history of asking a fair, open-ended question and then inflicting your opinion into it in the next paragraph and being surprised that people didn't just answer your first question. That again is happening here and you seem surprised by Nelson's response. Bottom line is that most people feel that FAAB is a necessary evil of fantasy football. We all love to find the Victor Cruz's of the world on the free agent wire, but heck, let's all admit that uncovering diamonds in the rough takes a lot of time, work and energy when all we really want to do is enjoy NFL games and see our fantasy teams win? Isn't that the answer you want to hear? And yes it's fun and still work at the same time no matter how many NFFC teams you have, right?
The NFFC doesn't want 600 owners with 1 team and we'll never have that. We want 1,600 owners with 10 teams each if you'd really like to know!!
And honestly, our average owner has 3 or more NFFC teams and you know that first hand because you usually have multiple teams. Even at 3, that's a lot of FAAB to work.
We'll try to give everyone the earliest possible chance to look at the waiver wire in all NFFC leagues (after Friday's FAAB runs) and open FAAB earlier each week (Saturdays now instead of Tuesdays) and survey all past NFFC owners this week to see which option works best. And then we'll make the call and live with the NFL's decision to have one bad Thursday Night Game every week of the season from 2012 to eternity. The NFL made the decision and now fantasy owners all across the country have to cater their games around it. Not much else we can do.
NFFC owners will have their voices heard on all six options this week. We aren't mandating any of the options; all six are on the ballot and we look forward to your responses. And after that, then people will vote with their pocketbooks on whether the NFFC made the right decision or not. And either way, we'll do our best to offer the best possible HSFF game out there. I hate Thursday Night Games, but what the hell, it's the new NFL landscape and I love the NFL, so let's all go for the ride.
James, let's admit that you have a history of asking a fair, open-ended question and then inflicting your opinion into it in the next paragraph and being surprised that people didn't just answer your first question. That again is happening here and you seem surprised by Nelson's response. Bottom line is that most people feel that FAAB is a necessary evil of fantasy football. We all love to find the Victor Cruz's of the world on the free agent wire, but heck, let's all admit that uncovering diamonds in the rough takes a lot of time, work and energy when all we really want to do is enjoy NFL games and see our fantasy teams win? Isn't that the answer you want to hear? And yes it's fun and still work at the same time no matter how many NFFC teams you have, right?
The NFFC doesn't want 600 owners with 1 team and we'll never have that. We want 1,600 owners with 10 teams each if you'd really like to know!!
And honestly, our average owner has 3 or more NFFC teams and you know that first hand because you usually have multiple teams. Even at 3, that's a lot of FAAB to work.We'll try to give everyone the earliest possible chance to look at the waiver wire in all NFFC leagues (after Friday's FAAB runs) and open FAAB earlier each week (Saturdays now instead of Tuesdays) and survey all past NFFC owners this week to see which option works best. And then we'll make the call and live with the NFL's decision to have one bad Thursday Night Game every week of the season from 2012 to eternity. The NFL made the decision and now fantasy owners all across the country have to cater their games around it. Not much else we can do.
NFFC owners will have their voices heard on all six options this week. We aren't mandating any of the options; all six are on the ballot and we look forward to your responses. And after that, then people will vote with their pocketbooks on whether the NFFC made the right decision or not. And either way, we'll do our best to offer the best possible HSFF game out there. I hate Thursday Night Games, but what the hell, it's the new NFL landscape and I love the NFL, so let's all go for the ride.
Founder, National Fantasy Football Championship & National Fantasy Baseball Championship
Twitter: @GregAmbrosius
Twitter: @GregAmbrosius
-
Greg Ambrosius
- Posts: 36423
- Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 6:00 pm
The Faab process.. do people enjoy it?
Originally posted by Jersey Dawg:
The waiver wire process is work, just like being a Playboy photographer is work, but someone has to do it.
That said, I am pretty darn sure that almost every really good free agent will be scooped up on Wednesday if we go to two waiver wire periods per week. Friday will become a "fill in" waiver if someone is missed in your league or you personally have an injury update that makes a void in your lineup. My guess is that waiver wire period will have far fewer players picked up and maybe only 25 % of the teams in your league will use it. Advantage goes to the teams that do their homework earlier in the week.
Pete I have a feeling you are right. Most every key free agent will be picked up on Wednesday in every league whether that is the only FAAB date of the week or the first of two. The Friday is almost a safety net if you will, something NFFC owners have been asking for since 2004.
The waiver wire process is work, just like being a Playboy photographer is work, but someone has to do it.
That said, I am pretty darn sure that almost every really good free agent will be scooped up on Wednesday if we go to two waiver wire periods per week. Friday will become a "fill in" waiver if someone is missed in your league or you personally have an injury update that makes a void in your lineup. My guess is that waiver wire period will have far fewer players picked up and maybe only 25 % of the teams in your league will use it. Advantage goes to the teams that do their homework earlier in the week.
Pete I have a feeling you are right. Most every key free agent will be picked up on Wednesday in every league whether that is the only FAAB date of the week or the first of two. The Friday is almost a safety net if you will, something NFFC owners have been asking for since 2004.
Founder, National Fantasy Football Championship & National Fantasy Baseball Championship
Twitter: @GregAmbrosius
Twitter: @GregAmbrosius
The Faab process.. do people enjoy it?
Originally posted by Cocktails and Dreams:
quote:Originally posted by renman:
[
.
I agree repeat business is important. I would rather have an event that fulfills and gets 200 guys who play 2 leagues (400 entries) to come back every year as repeat business than taylor my rules to appease 10 guys who each have 20 entries (200 total entries). That is all I am saying. I certainly never said or implied the guys who can put in many entries are not important.
On other football message boards I have seen people "threaten" game organizers saying "I wont enter with as many teams if you have 2 faab periods (which seems to make sense from a game format standpoint with the Thursday games) because due to the large number of entries I can afford, faab becomes too much work. I just find that to be a bit unreasonable to do to game organizers who have been put in a tough spot by the NFL scheduling.
s. You honestly think that that first item I quoted is a valid example? Not a single NFFC league would fill if there were only 10 people involved. You act as if there is this huge difference between all those that have 1 team and people that have 50 teams. Just because your view is at that other end of the spectrum from mine and some others that play a lot of teams, doesn't mean those of us at each end of the spectrum are representative of all of those in our respective categories. For that reason, I don't think your posts are making very much sense. Glenn, Glenn, Wayne and I all have a lot of teams. We all think free agency should be done a different way. And if you think that all players that have few teams agree with you, then you are badly mistaken as well. It is also annoying when you use the word "afford" as if all people would play more if they could afford them. There are tons of people that can afford lots of teams that do not choose to play a lot of teams.
Also the use of the word "threatening" is wrong as well. To make those people out to be unreasonable bad guys for having to cut back on teams, if certain FAAB methods are used, is asinine. And it certainly isn't your place to tell us we are unreasonable for doing so. You don't have the first clue what it takes to do that much FAAB in the first place, let alone what some of these choices would require going forward. Despite this, you call someone unreasonable for stating they will have to cut back teams when they don't have the time and energy to spend doing that much new Faab work? We should just shut up and then if they choose the poor option then enter less teams? I would prefer to be honest about it upfront, so they have all of the factors to weigh when making the decisions.
I also don't understand your logic about catering it around teams that only have few teams. If that was a good idea the NFFC would limit teams, not allow for more. Whatever grows the game to better levels is what should be done, and ignoring the thoughts of your largest revenue generators typically isn't how I would teach someone to grow their business. [/QB][/QUOTE]Cocktails,
What I have a problem with is when people INVENT things I am not saying and then make arguments against what they invented.
I made it clear I do not think there are only 2 kinds of owners... those with 1 or 2 teams and those with 20. Quite frankly, I fall in between personally so obviously I am aware that there is a spectrum.
I also DO HAVE A CLUE as to what it takes to run faab for 20 teams. All I have to do is look at what it takes to run faab for 5 teams and multiple that by 4. I do not doubt that it is a lot of work. When did I say all people with a few teams agree with me? (I never did.) This is what I mean about how people get whipped into a frenzy here and turn what should be reasonable dialogue into something acrimonious. It is why I post here less. Why is it annoying to use the word "afford" regarding people who can play 20 leagues? If you know someone who CAN'T afford 20 leagues who plays 20 leagues I would get your point. My point is everyone that DOES can afford to. I never said everyone who doesn't play 20 teams doesn't do so because of money. This is another example of putting words in my mouth. I know lots of guys who could afford 50 teams who maybe enter 2 because that is all they want. I am not sure why that annoys. If I could drive a Mercedes SUV because I could afford to and someone said "hey, you can afford a Mercedes SUV" why would that be annoying? It quite frankly is flattering.
I have seen people on multiple message boards "apologize" for their comments (more how they were presented) about cutting back teams if the Faab rules were not to their liking. They apologized because the tone of their posts was threatening. I am not calling any specific people out but I don't think it is unreasonable to say some people had that tone in their postings. I also do not recall defining people as "bad guys" if faab rules were not made to their liking. I also do not recall saying anyone is "unreasonable" for having the opinion that one faab is best.
I would be willing to bet the NFFC would MUCH PREFER people only being allowed one entry in their bigger events. I would bet they would much prefer 500 guys with one entry in the classic. They opened it up to multiple entries because they needed more entries because the marketplace had changed. In a perfect world (and I believe I have seen Greg type this when explaining his logic behind opening up people to multiple entries) everyone would be limited to one entry and we all would draft at the same time.
I am surprised you are confused by my logic about what makes a more stable event. 200 guys who can be counted on for 2 entries each = 400 entries. That is more important and dependable than 10 guys who can supply 10 entries each = 100 entries. Obviously there would be all kinds of people in between.
I believe the NFFC should be making rules that creates the most fair contest with the best playability and fantasy gaming experience. I believe Greg and Tom will do just that. I don't think that is an unreasonable viewpoint to have and I am not the only person who has it.
quote:Originally posted by renman:
[
.
I agree repeat business is important. I would rather have an event that fulfills and gets 200 guys who play 2 leagues (400 entries) to come back every year as repeat business than taylor my rules to appease 10 guys who each have 20 entries (200 total entries). That is all I am saying. I certainly never said or implied the guys who can put in many entries are not important.
On other football message boards I have seen people "threaten" game organizers saying "I wont enter with as many teams if you have 2 faab periods (which seems to make sense from a game format standpoint with the Thursday games) because due to the large number of entries I can afford, faab becomes too much work. I just find that to be a bit unreasonable to do to game organizers who have been put in a tough spot by the NFL scheduling.
s. You honestly think that that first item I quoted is a valid example? Not a single NFFC league would fill if there were only 10 people involved. You act as if there is this huge difference between all those that have 1 team and people that have 50 teams. Just because your view is at that other end of the spectrum from mine and some others that play a lot of teams, doesn't mean those of us at each end of the spectrum are representative of all of those in our respective categories. For that reason, I don't think your posts are making very much sense. Glenn, Glenn, Wayne and I all have a lot of teams. We all think free agency should be done a different way. And if you think that all players that have few teams agree with you, then you are badly mistaken as well. It is also annoying when you use the word "afford" as if all people would play more if they could afford them. There are tons of people that can afford lots of teams that do not choose to play a lot of teams.
Also the use of the word "threatening" is wrong as well. To make those people out to be unreasonable bad guys for having to cut back on teams, if certain FAAB methods are used, is asinine. And it certainly isn't your place to tell us we are unreasonable for doing so. You don't have the first clue what it takes to do that much FAAB in the first place, let alone what some of these choices would require going forward. Despite this, you call someone unreasonable for stating they will have to cut back teams when they don't have the time and energy to spend doing that much new Faab work? We should just shut up and then if they choose the poor option then enter less teams? I would prefer to be honest about it upfront, so they have all of the factors to weigh when making the decisions.
I also don't understand your logic about catering it around teams that only have few teams. If that was a good idea the NFFC would limit teams, not allow for more. Whatever grows the game to better levels is what should be done, and ignoring the thoughts of your largest revenue generators typically isn't how I would teach someone to grow their business. [/QB][/QUOTE]Cocktails,
What I have a problem with is when people INVENT things I am not saying and then make arguments against what they invented.
I made it clear I do not think there are only 2 kinds of owners... those with 1 or 2 teams and those with 20. Quite frankly, I fall in between personally so obviously I am aware that there is a spectrum.
I also DO HAVE A CLUE as to what it takes to run faab for 20 teams. All I have to do is look at what it takes to run faab for 5 teams and multiple that by 4. I do not doubt that it is a lot of work. When did I say all people with a few teams agree with me? (I never did.) This is what I mean about how people get whipped into a frenzy here and turn what should be reasonable dialogue into something acrimonious. It is why I post here less. Why is it annoying to use the word "afford" regarding people who can play 20 leagues? If you know someone who CAN'T afford 20 leagues who plays 20 leagues I would get your point. My point is everyone that DOES can afford to. I never said everyone who doesn't play 20 teams doesn't do so because of money. This is another example of putting words in my mouth. I know lots of guys who could afford 50 teams who maybe enter 2 because that is all they want. I am not sure why that annoys. If I could drive a Mercedes SUV because I could afford to and someone said "hey, you can afford a Mercedes SUV" why would that be annoying? It quite frankly is flattering.
I have seen people on multiple message boards "apologize" for their comments (more how they were presented) about cutting back teams if the Faab rules were not to their liking. They apologized because the tone of their posts was threatening. I am not calling any specific people out but I don't think it is unreasonable to say some people had that tone in their postings. I also do not recall defining people as "bad guys" if faab rules were not made to their liking. I also do not recall saying anyone is "unreasonable" for having the opinion that one faab is best.
I would be willing to bet the NFFC would MUCH PREFER people only being allowed one entry in their bigger events. I would bet they would much prefer 500 guys with one entry in the classic. They opened it up to multiple entries because they needed more entries because the marketplace had changed. In a perfect world (and I believe I have seen Greg type this when explaining his logic behind opening up people to multiple entries) everyone would be limited to one entry and we all would draft at the same time.
I am surprised you are confused by my logic about what makes a more stable event. 200 guys who can be counted on for 2 entries each = 400 entries. That is more important and dependable than 10 guys who can supply 10 entries each = 100 entries. Obviously there would be all kinds of people in between.
I believe the NFFC should be making rules that creates the most fair contest with the best playability and fantasy gaming experience. I believe Greg and Tom will do just that. I don't think that is an unreasonable viewpoint to have and I am not the only person who has it.
The Faab process.. do people enjoy it?
Originally posted by Shrink Attack:
If there are two waiver periods, then that decreases the enjoyment of this hobby for me. That's just a fact for me personally, Renman. FOR ME. I'm not talking about anyone else, and I'm also not going to pass judgement on them if they have an opposite viewpoint. So if I'm up front that I'll have to cut the number of teams I field, or that I'll lean towards contests that do offer only one waiver period, that's called being HONEST. Am I suppose to hide that fact? Do I spring that on Greg AFTER he makes his decision, or before? Greg asked for opinions and feed back, so there it is.
There are legitimate and sincere differences of opinions on this issue. There is no one right answer. Game operators will have to weigh their options and make decisions. Then players will play in contests that fit their needs the best.
It's not my intention to pile on, but I don't understand how the things you state make sense from a business model standpoint. I just don't. Shrink,
We have something in common. Neither of us is "passing judgement" on anyone else. I am giving my OPINION that faab is an enjoyable part of the fantasy football experience. I believe most people enjoy it. If they didn't, DC leagues would be the main stream. If they didn't, we would have voted out the faab system and used some other system for free agents.
Who asked you to hide from the fact you do not like faab and might cut back on your entries if you had to do more off it due to the NFL having Thursday games?
I agree with you there are fair differences of opinion and there is no "right" answer. Which begs the question. Why are people coming down on me for having a differing opinion?
Interesting question if you think about it.
You do not understand how an event is more stable with 200 people who can be counted on for 2 entries per person equaling 400 entries as opposed to 10 people who can be counted on for 10 entries that equals 100 entries? You cannot see the business sense behind more people who enjoy the event as opposed to needing to depend on a small group of people to provide a large number of entries?
Not only do I see the business sense in that point. I have seen the "lets focus on the 10 who can provide lots of entries" approach fail miserably in a different, but very similar industry.
Again, everyone knows it doesn't have to be "one type of consumer as opposed to the other..." That should go without saying. Greg/Tom clearly would want to cater to every consumer.
I would be curious to know what the voting would be for the faab topic among a large sample of fantasy players. There is obviously no right or wrong answer or opinion. I am curious to know what people think is the fairest way to run faab and what creates the best gaming experience.
If there are two waiver periods, then that decreases the enjoyment of this hobby for me. That's just a fact for me personally, Renman. FOR ME. I'm not talking about anyone else, and I'm also not going to pass judgement on them if they have an opposite viewpoint. So if I'm up front that I'll have to cut the number of teams I field, or that I'll lean towards contests that do offer only one waiver period, that's called being HONEST. Am I suppose to hide that fact? Do I spring that on Greg AFTER he makes his decision, or before? Greg asked for opinions and feed back, so there it is.
There are legitimate and sincere differences of opinions on this issue. There is no one right answer. Game operators will have to weigh their options and make decisions. Then players will play in contests that fit their needs the best.
It's not my intention to pile on, but I don't understand how the things you state make sense from a business model standpoint. I just don't. Shrink,
We have something in common. Neither of us is "passing judgement" on anyone else. I am giving my OPINION that faab is an enjoyable part of the fantasy football experience. I believe most people enjoy it. If they didn't, DC leagues would be the main stream. If they didn't, we would have voted out the faab system and used some other system for free agents.
Who asked you to hide from the fact you do not like faab and might cut back on your entries if you had to do more off it due to the NFL having Thursday games?
I agree with you there are fair differences of opinion and there is no "right" answer. Which begs the question. Why are people coming down on me for having a differing opinion?
Interesting question if you think about it.
You do not understand how an event is more stable with 200 people who can be counted on for 2 entries per person equaling 400 entries as opposed to 10 people who can be counted on for 10 entries that equals 100 entries? You cannot see the business sense behind more people who enjoy the event as opposed to needing to depend on a small group of people to provide a large number of entries?
Not only do I see the business sense in that point. I have seen the "lets focus on the 10 who can provide lots of entries" approach fail miserably in a different, but very similar industry.
Again, everyone knows it doesn't have to be "one type of consumer as opposed to the other..." That should go without saying. Greg/Tom clearly would want to cater to every consumer.
I would be curious to know what the voting would be for the faab topic among a large sample of fantasy players. There is obviously no right or wrong answer or opinion. I am curious to know what people think is the fairest way to run faab and what creates the best gaming experience.
The Faab process.. do people enjoy it?
Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
Nelson makes a very good rebuttable and I have to admit, I agree with it. This FAAB decision has nothing to do with how many teams you have in the NFFC, it's a decision on what is right for including the Thursday Night players and what is right for still giving enough time for everyone to fairly do FAAB. I mean, that's a decision that affects you whether you have 1, 2, 5 or 20 teams. And again, it's a decision we need to make ONCE and live with it, so it's a very, very important decision.
James, let's admit that you have a history of asking a fair, open-ended question and then inflicting your opinion into it in the next paragraph and being surprised that people didn't just answer your first question. That again is happening here and you seem surprised by Nelson's response. Bottom line is that most people feel that FAAB is a necessary evil of fantasy football. We all love to find the Victor Cruz's of the world on the free agent wire, but heck, let's all admit that uncovering diamonds in the rough takes a lot of time, work and energy when all we really want to do is enjoy NFL games and see our fantasy teams win? Isn't that the answer you want to hear? And yes it's fun and still work at the same time no matter how many NFFC teams you have, right?
The NFFC doesn't want 600 owners with 1 team and we'll never have that. We want 1,600 owners with 10 teams each if you'd really like to know!! And honestly, our average owner has 3 or more NFFC teams and you know that first hand because you usually have multiple teams. Even at 3, that's a lot of FAAB to work.
We'll try to give everyone the earliest possible chance to look at the waiver wire in all NFFC leagues (after Friday's FAAB runs) and open FAAB earlier each week (Saturdays now instead of Tuesdays) and survey all past NFFC owners this week to see which option works best. And then we'll make the call and live with the NFL's decision to have one bad Thursday Night Game every week of the season from 2012 to eternity. The NFL made the decision and now fantasy owners all across the country have to cater their games around it. Not much else we can do.
NFFC owners will have their voices heard on all six options this week. We aren't mandating any of the options; all six are on the ballot and we look forward to your responses. And after that, then people will vote with their pocketbooks on whether the NFFC made the right decision or not. And either way, we'll do our best to offer the best possible HSFF game out there. I hate Thursday Night Games, but what the hell, it's the new NFL landscape and I love the NFL, so let's all go for the ride. Greg,
Yes, I have a history of asking a fair question and giving MY OPINION to start the discussion. I fail to see why that is a problem or why that would result in a hostile response. Am I surprised that I am called "asinine" or my point is called "asinine" when I can so easily and so clearly outline why my point has some validity? Yes, I am surprised by that Greg.
Listen, if you think most people characterize Faab as a "necessary evil" (ie, something they do not enjoy but have no choice but to deal with) I will say I stand corrected. The majority of people I have ever met in fantasy football enjoy the "mini auction" each week and consider that a skill based part of fantasy football. I have introduced the NFFC faab approach to home leagues and every single player has loved it and now much prefers it. Preparing for a draft is lots of "work." Scouting every NFL player is work. But as fantasy football players isn't that what we are passionate about?
I do not think I should have to apologize for thinking the faab experience is fun and that with Thursday games we need 2 faab runs to allow fantasy owners the most control over free agent picks ups in our high stakes events. I am going to be putting in my entries next year no matter which faab option becomes the norm. I will do this because I believe this event is the best event in the market.
Nelson makes a very good rebuttable and I have to admit, I agree with it. This FAAB decision has nothing to do with how many teams you have in the NFFC, it's a decision on what is right for including the Thursday Night players and what is right for still giving enough time for everyone to fairly do FAAB. I mean, that's a decision that affects you whether you have 1, 2, 5 or 20 teams. And again, it's a decision we need to make ONCE and live with it, so it's a very, very important decision.
James, let's admit that you have a history of asking a fair, open-ended question and then inflicting your opinion into it in the next paragraph and being surprised that people didn't just answer your first question. That again is happening here and you seem surprised by Nelson's response. Bottom line is that most people feel that FAAB is a necessary evil of fantasy football. We all love to find the Victor Cruz's of the world on the free agent wire, but heck, let's all admit that uncovering diamonds in the rough takes a lot of time, work and energy when all we really want to do is enjoy NFL games and see our fantasy teams win? Isn't that the answer you want to hear? And yes it's fun and still work at the same time no matter how many NFFC teams you have, right?
The NFFC doesn't want 600 owners with 1 team and we'll never have that. We want 1,600 owners with 10 teams each if you'd really like to know!!
And honestly, our average owner has 3 or more NFFC teams and you know that first hand because you usually have multiple teams. Even at 3, that's a lot of FAAB to work.We'll try to give everyone the earliest possible chance to look at the waiver wire in all NFFC leagues (after Friday's FAAB runs) and open FAAB earlier each week (Saturdays now instead of Tuesdays) and survey all past NFFC owners this week to see which option works best. And then we'll make the call and live with the NFL's decision to have one bad Thursday Night Game every week of the season from 2012 to eternity. The NFL made the decision and now fantasy owners all across the country have to cater their games around it. Not much else we can do.
NFFC owners will have their voices heard on all six options this week. We aren't mandating any of the options; all six are on the ballot and we look forward to your responses. And after that, then people will vote with their pocketbooks on whether the NFFC made the right decision or not. And either way, we'll do our best to offer the best possible HSFF game out there. I hate Thursday Night Games, but what the hell, it's the new NFL landscape and I love the NFL, so let's all go for the ride. Greg,
Yes, I have a history of asking a fair question and giving MY OPINION to start the discussion. I fail to see why that is a problem or why that would result in a hostile response. Am I surprised that I am called "asinine" or my point is called "asinine" when I can so easily and so clearly outline why my point has some validity? Yes, I am surprised by that Greg.
Listen, if you think most people characterize Faab as a "necessary evil" (ie, something they do not enjoy but have no choice but to deal with) I will say I stand corrected. The majority of people I have ever met in fantasy football enjoy the "mini auction" each week and consider that a skill based part of fantasy football. I have introduced the NFFC faab approach to home leagues and every single player has loved it and now much prefers it. Preparing for a draft is lots of "work." Scouting every NFL player is work. But as fantasy football players isn't that what we are passionate about?
I do not think I should have to apologize for thinking the faab experience is fun and that with Thursday games we need 2 faab runs to allow fantasy owners the most control over free agent picks ups in our high stakes events. I am going to be putting in my entries next year no matter which faab option becomes the norm. I will do this because I believe this event is the best event in the market.
-
Cocktails and Dreams
- Posts: 514
- Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:00 pm
- Contact:
The Faab process.. do people enjoy it?
Originally posted by renman:
[]Cocktails,
What I have a problem with is when people INVENT things I am not saying and then make arguments against what they invented.
I made it clear I do not think there are only 2 kinds of owners... those with 1 or 2 teams and those with 20. Quite frankly, I fall in between personally so obviously I am aware that there is a spectrum.
I also DO HAVE A CLUE as to what it takes to run faab for 20 teams. All I have to do is look at what it takes to run faab for 5 teams and multiple that by 4. I do not doubt that it is a lot of work. When did I say all people with a few teams agree with me? (I never did.) This is what I mean about how people get whipped into a frenzy here and turn what should be reasonable dialogue into something acrimonious. It is why I post here less. Why is it annoying to use the word "afford" regarding people who can play 20 leagues? If you know someone who CAN'T afford 20 leagues who plays 20 leagues I would get your point. My point is everyone that DOES can afford to. I never said everyone who doesn't play 20 teams doesn't do so because of money. This is another example of putting words in my mouth. I know lots of guys who could afford 50 teams who maybe enter 2 because that is all they want. I am not sure why that annoys. If I could drive a Mercedes SUV because I could afford to and someone said "hey, you can afford a Mercedes SUV" why would that be annoying? It quite frankly is flattering.
I have seen people on multiple message boards "apologize" for their comments (more how they were presented) about cutting back teams if the Faab rules were not to their liking. They apologized because the tone of their posts was threatening. I am not calling any specific people out but I don't think it is unreasonable to say some people had that tone in their postings. I also do not recall defining people as "bad guys" if faab rules were not made to their liking. I also do not recall saying anyone is "unreasonable" for having the opinion that one faab is best.
I would be willing to bet the NFFC would MUCH PREFER people only being allowed one entry in their bigger events. I would bet they would much prefer 500 guys with one entry in the classic. They opened it up to multiple entries because they needed more entries because the marketplace had changed. In a perfect world (and I believe I have seen Greg type this when explaining his logic behind opening up people to multiple entries) everyone would be limited to one entry and we all would draft at the same time.
I am surprised you are confused by my logic about what makes a more stable event. 200 guys who can be counted on for 2 entries each = 400 entries. That is more important and dependable than 10 guys who can supply 10 entries each = 100 entries. Obviously there would be all kinds of people in between.
I believe the NFFC should be making rules that creates the most fair contest with the best playability and fantasy gaming experience. I believe Greg and Tom will do just that. I don't think that is an unreasonable viewpoint to have and I am not the only person who has it. [/QB]I will try and address this point by point.
I didn't do any inventing so save that for someone that does. I used my perceptions of what you posted and how they came across to me.
To me your post implied you did think there were 2 kinds of owners. Those with a lot of teams and those without. And the fact that you incorrectly stated that the NFFC should cater to those with few teams, implies that you do not think that those with few teams all will have varying opinions of how FAAB should be done,just like the people with a lot of teams.
I stand by you not having much of a clue on the FAAB front. If you had any you would not call people "unreasonable" for having to cut back teams. You either don't have a clue what it takes to do that much FAAB work or are out of line for saying people are unreasonable. It has to be one or the other and neither is particularly good.
I am not "whipped into a frenzy," but make no mistake about it. Your dialogue was not reasonable at all, thus my need to respond to the nonsense in the first place.
It is my opinion that the use of afford is inappropriate and does not come off as being complimentary in any way, shape or form. If you really cannot understand why, I will not waste my keystrokes trying to explain it to you,
There is a HUGE difference between a clarification and an apology. Those people had nothing to apologize for, but may have felt the need to clarify things a bit.
You have a short memory, as saying people were unreasonable for potentially having to cut back teams is EXACTLY what you said and one of the main reasons I responded in the first place.
I am not confused by anything you posted, so perhaps it is you who is confused? I have a very good understanding of what the owners should or shouldn't want through my dealings with all kinds of game operators and am not confused about my thoughts at all.. Thinking you are incorrect about something does not make me confused.
And finally your last paragraph in response to me has nothing to do with anything I said so don't act like I don't think Greg and Tom should come up with a fair solution to the problem. That is exactly what I think they should do, and if anything, I don't feel you do with your belief that they should cater to the people with few teams. That would be a very unfair way to do it and that is what YOU said they should do, not me.
Hope this helps you clear things up.
[ February 21, 2012, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: Cocktails and Dreams ]
[]Cocktails,
What I have a problem with is when people INVENT things I am not saying and then make arguments against what they invented.
I made it clear I do not think there are only 2 kinds of owners... those with 1 or 2 teams and those with 20. Quite frankly, I fall in between personally so obviously I am aware that there is a spectrum.
I also DO HAVE A CLUE as to what it takes to run faab for 20 teams. All I have to do is look at what it takes to run faab for 5 teams and multiple that by 4. I do not doubt that it is a lot of work. When did I say all people with a few teams agree with me? (I never did.) This is what I mean about how people get whipped into a frenzy here and turn what should be reasonable dialogue into something acrimonious. It is why I post here less. Why is it annoying to use the word "afford" regarding people who can play 20 leagues? If you know someone who CAN'T afford 20 leagues who plays 20 leagues I would get your point. My point is everyone that DOES can afford to. I never said everyone who doesn't play 20 teams doesn't do so because of money. This is another example of putting words in my mouth. I know lots of guys who could afford 50 teams who maybe enter 2 because that is all they want. I am not sure why that annoys. If I could drive a Mercedes SUV because I could afford to and someone said "hey, you can afford a Mercedes SUV" why would that be annoying? It quite frankly is flattering.
I have seen people on multiple message boards "apologize" for their comments (more how they were presented) about cutting back teams if the Faab rules were not to their liking. They apologized because the tone of their posts was threatening. I am not calling any specific people out but I don't think it is unreasonable to say some people had that tone in their postings. I also do not recall defining people as "bad guys" if faab rules were not made to their liking. I also do not recall saying anyone is "unreasonable" for having the opinion that one faab is best.
I would be willing to bet the NFFC would MUCH PREFER people only being allowed one entry in their bigger events. I would bet they would much prefer 500 guys with one entry in the classic. They opened it up to multiple entries because they needed more entries because the marketplace had changed. In a perfect world (and I believe I have seen Greg type this when explaining his logic behind opening up people to multiple entries) everyone would be limited to one entry and we all would draft at the same time.
I am surprised you are confused by my logic about what makes a more stable event. 200 guys who can be counted on for 2 entries each = 400 entries. That is more important and dependable than 10 guys who can supply 10 entries each = 100 entries. Obviously there would be all kinds of people in between.
I believe the NFFC should be making rules that creates the most fair contest with the best playability and fantasy gaming experience. I believe Greg and Tom will do just that. I don't think that is an unreasonable viewpoint to have and I am not the only person who has it. [/QB]I will try and address this point by point.
I didn't do any inventing so save that for someone that does. I used my perceptions of what you posted and how they came across to me.
To me your post implied you did think there were 2 kinds of owners. Those with a lot of teams and those without. And the fact that you incorrectly stated that the NFFC should cater to those with few teams, implies that you do not think that those with few teams all will have varying opinions of how FAAB should be done,just like the people with a lot of teams.
I stand by you not having much of a clue on the FAAB front. If you had any you would not call people "unreasonable" for having to cut back teams. You either don't have a clue what it takes to do that much FAAB work or are out of line for saying people are unreasonable. It has to be one or the other and neither is particularly good.
I am not "whipped into a frenzy," but make no mistake about it. Your dialogue was not reasonable at all, thus my need to respond to the nonsense in the first place.
It is my opinion that the use of afford is inappropriate and does not come off as being complimentary in any way, shape or form. If you really cannot understand why, I will not waste my keystrokes trying to explain it to you,
There is a HUGE difference between a clarification and an apology. Those people had nothing to apologize for, but may have felt the need to clarify things a bit.
You have a short memory, as saying people were unreasonable for potentially having to cut back teams is EXACTLY what you said and one of the main reasons I responded in the first place.
I am not confused by anything you posted, so perhaps it is you who is confused? I have a very good understanding of what the owners should or shouldn't want through my dealings with all kinds of game operators and am not confused about my thoughts at all.. Thinking you are incorrect about something does not make me confused.
And finally your last paragraph in response to me has nothing to do with anything I said so don't act like I don't think Greg and Tom should come up with a fair solution to the problem. That is exactly what I think they should do, and if anything, I don't feel you do with your belief that they should cater to the people with few teams. That would be a very unfair way to do it and that is what YOU said they should do, not me.
Hope this helps you clear things up.
[ February 21, 2012, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: Cocktails and Dreams ]