NFFC Plans For 2009: Provide Some Feedback

[Ted's Cracked Head]

I would like to see the following:

-- The 14 team event remains the signature event and offers the higher prize and entry fee.

-- The 12 team event is a supplemental event on the same day and would have a lower price point. I would suggest $500 with a $35K first prize or whatever 500 each comes out to. I believe that your numbers for this event will increase at this price point even in these tough economic times.

You want to set yourself apart further? Make this challenge an auction and I would possibly play for $1300. Otherwise I will probably drop this event in 2009 to play in the Friday 14 teamers (DC/Auction). It is unlikely that I will be able to afford to play in them all and prefer that format to the 12 teamers.

-- The Online Championship NEEDS to be a 14 team event as stated above. I see no reason to offer a 12 team challenge when your foundation and main difference from the rest of the pack is the 14 team events. A $300 cost would be fine with me.

-- I also think that tethering these events together with overall prizes is a much better idea then offering the million dollar bonus. I could do without that aspect.

-- I also agree with allowing more teams into the Championship Round.

-- I would like to see more payouts for the Championship Round teams and less for the consolation.

The economy is going to affect my ability to play next year. How deep will I have to cut back? Only time will tell but right now I am budgeting approx $2600 here. I would choose the Friday 14 team events over the 12 team main event to go along with the NFFC Main if the NBC cost is not reduced.

Cities? - I would focus more on the three that you are established in but that is easy for me to say as I live in one of them. I too thought that Florida would be a good state to target and was suprised that your pool from the sunshine state hasn't grown quicker. Adding a new fourth city would be hard to justify in this economy. I would invest more to advertise and develop the base in your 3 main cities. NY and Chicago each have hundreds of thousands of players ripe for the plucking.

Dropping the cost of the NBC main might help hook some of these folks and increase participation. I know numerous players who could afford $500 but cannot justify/afford $1300 to play. That is a tough sell to a sig other while $500 or $250 if you have a partner is easy even in this economy.

Lower the price = increased participation which builds your client base which establishes a base that will likely expand their involvement over time = smart business move?

I would seek local sponsorship opportunities in each draft city and offer prizes to city specific winners provided by these sponsors to reward the outstanding players in each city.

I too have more and will add such soon.

[Greg Ambrosius]

Everyone, these are all good points and this is why I started this thread. There's a lot to digest and that's why I chose not to just go down the same path in 2009. It wouldn't be the right decision for the long-term health of our event if we didn't make some changes.

Just some quick feedback from me: If I leave the NFFC Classic at $1300 and just shoot for the same amount of teams as 2008 (308), the grand prize would have to be dropped to $75,000, although I would leave the league prizes as they are. That was my thought all along anyway.

Secondly, if we drop the NFFC Primetime to $700 ($2,000 for both events) and shoot for 300 teams (which is 48 more teams from 2008), the grand prize would have to start out at $40,000 if we keep the league prize percentage the same. If we get above 300 teams we can add to the overall grand prize, but I'm just stating that this all looks different if prices and guarantees are modified. I don't want to downgrade the event too much and without the $1 million bonus there is a smaller carrot to get folks to join both events, so I'll mull this over before making any final decisions.

We could add prizes for all three championships if we run the NFFC Online Championship at $350. Then you'd have five sets of overall standings to follow: NFFC Classic, NFFC Primetime, Combined Standings, NFFC Online Championship and the NFFC Trifecta (all three together). Could be pretty cool. We'd have to create meaningful prizes for all three areas, but again with lower entry fees we'll have to be smart to make it all work.

As for the NFFC Satellite Leagues, we'll keep them as is and fill what we can. You have to remember that 80 percent of the money in those leagues are returned in league prizes and the Online Championship removes some of that money for the overall prizes. So some folks may still like the better payout percentages for the private 14-team online leagues. We'll probably have fewer of them, but that's okay if we add to our totals through the Online Championship.

I certainly understand what the economy is doing to everyone's discretionary income and I do not want to move the league payouts from what we have now, at least not percentage wise. I also know what other game operators are planning to do in 2009 and while I appreciate their aggressiveness, I don't want to go through another summer like last year. I'd rather create games that you folks like, that will fill, and that will create a fun and affordable football season for all of us. With two live events in each city, I can cover expenses even if we do decide to lower one event's entry fee. But then the concern is still filling up the other one.

Anyway, keep the thoughts coming. We'll make this decision together and move forward definitely before the end of January. Again, I have my ideas on which way I'm leaning and some of you have pushed me a little differently. That's okay. Keep the thoughts coming and we'll see where we land.

[bald is beautiful]

Originally posted by RC Techies:
It is my personal opinion that the economy is going to get worse than it is now. I see a decline in the number of entries for all fantasy sports as disposable income dries up. In my business we are all taking a 25% cut to insure that our business can stay profitable. I hope that I am wrong but I believe that entries will decline this year instead of growing. I know that I am considering not playing the NBC this year.

It was not why I signed up to play. Save the money on a the pipe dream that will never occur and use it to award prizes based on combined standings. If I want to play the lottery I will buy powerball tickets. That would be much more incentive for me to play both events then some million dollar bonus.

2. I plan on playing the NFFC. At $1300 I am leaning towards not playing the NBC. There are plenty of 12 team formats that I am already playing (FFPC and WCOFF). That decision for me will be based on what the economy does. I would consider playing the NBC at a reduced price.

3. If you have to reduce prizes, make it the grand prize. I would seriously have to reconsider my position on playing if the league prizes are reduced.

5. Separate events.

7. Good idea to add the 3rd place team. I have no problem with that.

I enjoyed playing in the NFFC and NBC but if I have to drop an event it will be the NBC. RC Techies saved me from having to type the exact same thing. I agree with everything he said. I am very unlikely to do the NBC next year, and the million bonus does nothing for me.

[ December 30, 2008, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: bald is beautiful ]

[TURBOUGH]

If you lowered the NBC 12-team draft to a $700 entry fee, what would the league prizes be?

I've always felt that payouts should be over 80% if not 85%. Its still a good profit without being greedy.

Here is my feedback:

1. Keep the DH Draft
2. I'm fine with the the $1300 but will be in both regardless (unless payouts dip too far)
3. Keep league payouts or even consider raising but lower the championship round payouts (overall)
4. I suggest not expanding to 4 cities this year. I will not be profitable once you figure travel expenses for the NFFC and paying facilitators and all that. This just doesn't make sense right now.

If you do expand to Dallas, I'd suggest the Anatole (where H2H holds theirs) or Gaylord Texan. Again, do not expand.

5. Keep the leagues seperate. H2H ties in a trophy league with the $500 leagues in the overall standings and I hate it. Someone can pay $50 and win the same $10k as the $500 entry. No sense in combining events when the entry fee is different.

6. Ok - regarding events i do not participate in

7. Ok with adding teams to the championship round.

I like higher payouts at the league level. Be different than the others and bump this up 10% or so and just lower the grand prize.

Also, my personal opinion is that the 14-team format will never grow. I like it just fine but most people that I talk to prefer the 12 team leagues. Its a comfort zone that people do not want to change. Its something you should really think about.

As you know, we need a playoff system. It expands the season for teams and people want there money's worth. I say take the top three teams at the end of week 13 and advance them to play for the big money but have a playoff system that runs through week 16 and if that means taking the top 6, then do it. People are paying too much money not to consider this.

[bald is beautiful]

Originally posted by KJ Duke:
Continuing ...

I agree with Waz on the merits of the online contest being a 14-teamer.

I agree with KJ and BWaz 100%. Your 14 teamer is what makes the NFFC unique!

[pizzatyme]

While the 14-teamer is unique, that doesn't mean it will sustain long-term growth.

Many look at it as having to beat 2 more players for the same money.

I'd prefer to lower the overall to $50K and raise the league prizes. The bonus round is just that, a bonus.

[Hard heads]

Originally posted by Just Russ:
While the 14-teamer is unique, that doesn't mean it will sustain long-term growth.

Many look at it as having to beat 2 more players for the same money.

I'd prefer to lower the overall to $50K and raise the league prizes. The bonus round is just that, a bonus. Funny that you just posted that Russ. Mike and I spoke last night and he made the same comment. Why would we play in the 14 team event for the same entry price and the same payouts? We could pay the same money and have to beat two fewer teams for the same payout. Makes much more sense when you think about it.

[BillyWaz]

Originally posted by Just Russ:
While the 14-teamer is unique, that doesn't mean it will sustain long-term growth.

Many look at it as having to beat 2 more players for the same money.

I'd prefer to lower the overall to $50K and raise the league prizes. The bonus round is just that, a bonus. Russ,

I agree 100% about raising the league prizes, as winning the overall prize is "hoping" your guys get hot at the right time.

I can see the logic of the doing the 12 over the 14 teamer, but maybe it is only for people who want more of a challenge. Regardless, it is the ONLY 14 teamer out there, and the industry already has at least 3 others who offer the 12 team format. Promoting the 12 teamer over the 14 would be a huge mistake IMO.

Problem here with reducing it to 50K is that there is already another contest out there (as you know Russ ) that offers 50K for first place and has an entry fee of $500. The problem with that contest is that they don't give back hardly anything to the league winners ($1,500 for 1st and $500 for 2nd).

The key is finding the right price point to give back at least 75K for the grand prize and give around 4x the entry fee for 1st place in league and 2x the entry fee for 2nd place in league.

The NFFC and NBC did this last year, but we will have to see if the NBC changes, as to what will happen with the price and prize distribution.

P.S. I hope Greg is keeping score as to making the online championship a 14 teamer.

[ December 30, 2008, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: BillyWaz ]

[ToddZ]

With respect to the 1M bonus, it is not a secret that an insurance policy is purchased to cover the odds. The is money that could be added to prizes. So it seems to me the question is does the policy get paid for by the additional signups that would not enter if it were not for that bonus potential?

Just making up numbers here for the sake of simplicity, because there are more factors that just does A = B, but let's say the policy is $13,000. That means 10 entries at $1300 are necessary, that would not have otherwise played.

Maybe 3 people do the 12 teamer that would have only done the 14 teamer

Maybe 3 people do the 14 teamer that would have only done the 12 teamer

Maybe 2 people do both that would have done neither.

There's 10. Again, it isn't as easy as $13,000 in entries = $13,000 for the policy, but it is close enough to use this principle as a way to determine if the 1M bonus adds or detracts from the money available for prize payouts. I have no idea what the policy costs or how many signups there are because of it, just speaking in general terms.

As sort of an aside, but somewhat related to the mindset of the discussion, something I have always wondered about has pretty much been confirmed in this discussion. I find it a little weird that so many enter the main event with the hopes of just winning their league, and then they let the chips fall where they may in the overall. It seems to me if this is the plan, then why not take that same $1300 and enter a $1000 satellite and a $250 satellite, or 5 $250 satellites or whatever so you get a better percent payout for winning the league? I guess my point is the overall prize needs to be attractive enough to prevent too many from thinking like this.