14 Team Leagues vs. 12 Team Leagues

[TamuScarecrow]

I would hope that if we get the 350 we are shooting for this year the GP will go up accordingly to at least $125k next year. I wouldn't jump ship if it didn't happen but Greg would be hearing about it from me every day how 3 years ago when he started the NFFC he was going to pay out $250k for 608 entries and as an accounting type I'm into pro-ration.

$250,000/608 entries = $411.18 per entry payout
$411.18 X 350 entries = $143,915

Increase to $125,000 would be expected.

[Greg Ambrosius]

Originally posted by Nag':
Consider this thought for a second.

While it seems to be the popular belief to think that 12 team leagues are "easier" that 14 teamers, I think this is an illogical conclusion. To make a NFL analogy, its like suggesting that it became easier for teams to win games (or championships) when the NFL added expansion teams because the player talent become dilluted. It did not become easier for anyone. The level of "ease" of "difficulty" was and remains constant for ALL teams.

Same thing applies in the 12 vs 14 argument. It may seem "easier" to draft in a 12 teamer vs 14, or it may seem "easier" to find talent in a 12 teamer vs 14 but in reality, all 12 owners have it just as easy and all 14 owners have it just as difficult in their respective leagues.
You can argue that the experience playing in 14 teamers gives you an edge when going back to 12, and this may (or may not) be true, but all things being equal, and when all owners have similar experience and skill, their ability to win in 12 teamers is NO EASIER than their ability to win in 14.

That is my position. Discuss. No dispute there, Nag. My point is that you FEEL like you did better in a 12-team league draft than you do after a 14-team draft. Obviously, you have two more teams to beat and thus just by the sheer numbers it's tougher to win in this format than in a 12-team league. But both are obviously very tough.

I guess this year with 12 solid RBs and then a dropoff to the second tier, those 14-team drafts seem very difficult. Lots of tough decisions at the end of the first round and all the way through the second round. I guess it's tough in either format, but it sure seems tougher this year for some reason.

As for BBDS, I'd be up for putting together a satellite league in early to mid July for anyone who wants to do a league using BBDS. Let's show the masses how badly those top three picks are worth. Anyone up for it? If so, we'll start another league as quickly as we did last week.

[Greg Ambrosius]

Originally posted by Tamuscarecrow:
I would hope that if we get the 350 we are shooting for this year the GP will go up accordingly to at least $125k next year. I wouldn't jump ship if it didn't happen but Greg would be hearing about it from me every day how 3 years ago when he started the NFFC he was going to pay out $250k for 608 entries and as an accounting type I'm into pro-ration.

$250,000/608 entries = $411.18 per entry payout
$411.18 X 350 entries = $143,915

Increase to $125,000 would be expected. It was $200,000 for 608 teams and I failed!

Right now it's 79 percent return at 350 teams and obviously it's been in the mid 80s the last two years when I kept the prize pool intact at 224 teams and 280 teams. I sure hope to make money on all of this this year as raising the league payouts $500 per league last year pushed my planned payout too high.

If we get beyond 350, I'd raise the second through 10th overall prizes higher first and then eventually raise the grand prize. That would be my plan.

[RiFF]

I can only comment from a prospective view, but the 14 team format is exactly what attracted me here. If this was just "another" 12 team set up I may have looked, but suspect I would have just continued in the events I have entered in the past. Also after investigating the site I was impressed by the contest format and apparent level of competition that existed here. But after seeing the results of a couple early drafts, I see I was mistaken on the latter. (just kidding!!) Intuitively, it seems, that drafting from the identical pool of talent, the prepared player would have a much more distinct advantage over the "cheatsheet" player in a 14 team league vs a 12 team league. I disagree with the person who feels you have more "options" in a 12 team set up and are more pigeon-holed into a "base" strategy in a 14 team league. In actuality what I believe happens is that in a 12 team league you can make a number of drafting mistakes and overcome them; while in a 14 team league those drafting mistakes will quickly put you into the 2nd tier of teams and keep you there. So, if thats defined as options, than I would agree that 12 team leagues have more options.(too mistakes)


Again, being a newbie, I'm not totally sure what people are referring to as BBDS, but if that means using your starting free agent pool dollars to bid on particular draft spots, I would be 110% in favor. (actually, 100% is the maximum in this instance, but 110% sounds better) This would obviously make a player "earn" a spot he feels valuable from a starting point and penalize him going forward, as his FA monies have been depleted. This would also take the "luck" out of getting a preferred drafting slot. Greg, as I believe I mentioned to you earlier, I firmly believe if you more actively advertised your satellite setup (live internet drafts) you would generate significant traffic which would not only grow the satellites but get players familiar with the site and setup which would eventually lead to greater participation in the main event. Prior to signing up for the Main Event, I thought this contest was like SNAKE or RI (or both) referring to GG; a one trick pony. That is, the Main Event only.

[Shrink Attack]

Originally posted by Nag':
Consider this thought for a second.

While it seems to be the popular belief to think that 12 team leagues are "easier" that 14 teamers, I think this is an illogical conclusion. To make a NFL analogy, its like suggesting that it became easier for teams to win games (or championships) when the NFL added expansion teams because the player talent become dilluted. It did not become easier for anyone. The level of "ease" of "difficulty" was and remains constant for ALL teams.

Same thing applies in the 12 vs 14 argument. It may seem "easier" to draft in a 12 teamer vs 14, or it may seem "easier" to find talent in a 12 teamer vs 14 but in reality, all 12 owners have it just as easy and all 14 owners have it just as difficult in their respective leagues.
You can argue that the experience playing in 14 teamers gives you an edge when going back to 12, and this may (or may not) be true, but all things being equal, and when all owners have similar experience and skill, their ability to win in 12 teamers is NO EASIER than their ability to win in 14.

That is my position. Discuss. I don't disagree with that premise at all, especially when you're talking about the differences between winning and losing between teams all playing on a level field.

The question is really about the level of difficulty between the two formats. I think the differences between the two have more to do with how Owners come away feeling after the drafts. In a 12-teamer, you in all probability got "more of what you wanted" in terms of multiple studs, targeted players, and few (if any) holes in your roster. You can't help but feel good about that. But in a 14-teamer, you'll get less of what you wanted...maybe only 2-3 studs with the potential of gaping holes screaming to be filled. You can't help but come away from that experience feeling a bit more concerned, and concluding that it was "harder."

The biggest factor, really, is the level of competition within the league itself. It doesn't matter if it's 8 or 12 or 14 teams, if you're drafting against fishes then you gobble them up, but if you're drafting with Sharks you might go hungry. In that respect, I have the feeling that the NFFC and the **** have about an equal number of sharks in the pool, but the ***** has a lot more fishes swimming around. In that respect, the NFFC is probably harder. Not to mention that in the NFFC you have to beat 13 other teams rather than 11 in order to win your league.

I'm not sure that one format is any harder or any better than the other, just different. That's why I like playing in both, and having to think. It keeps the old melon from ripening to soon.

[GOD Loves You]

Originally posted by Nag':
Consider this thought for a second.

While it seems to be the popular belief to think that 12 team leagues are "easier" that 14 teamers, I think this is an illogical conclusion. Nag, I somewhat agree with you, but from my experience last year, it is definitely a conclusion the 12 team leagues are easier.

After spending all summer prepping for the NFFC, when it was time to draft for all of my 12 team leagues, I "cleaned up". I was able to get value the entire draft and added a few stud FA's throughout the season. One can make the argument that it could've been my competition, but I disagree.

I know from my experience last year, I found it extremely easy to draft in a 12 teamer, regardless of every other owner having the same chances. For the average joe, you can make your arguments, but for the adept fantasy owners who play in 14 teamers, the 12 team leagues should be a breeze. But the key word is adept.

18 rds 252 players drafted
18 rds 216 players drafted

That's a difference of 36 players, equivalent to 3 more teams in a 12 team league. How can this not make it easier?? Again, we are talking about adept drafters, not inept. And I know every league is comprised of both.

[TamuScarecrow]

I agree with you, NAG, but I think the argument is more along the lines of the quality of players in a 14-team draft disappearing quicker than in a 12-team draft. It all boils down to each player's perception of the number of quality players there are to draft. Those who think there are only 30 are going to say the top 2 picks have the advantage. Those who think there are 50 or more won't. It all boils down to one's perception.

[RiFF]

and when all owners have similar experience and skill, their ability to win in 12 teamers is NO EASIER than their ability to win in 14.


Nag, I find it difficult to dispute this statement; but after doing this for 4 years on various sites and various formats; I have yet to be in a league where this has been the case. In virtually every league I've been a member there has been a WIDE variance in talent level and ongoing participation between contestants. Its this variance that I believe comes into play to a much greater degree in 14 team leagues vs 12 team leagues. Because of the defined talent pool to draw from, a less proficient contestant is better able to overcome mistakes in a 12 team format.

[Greg Ambrosius]

Originally posted by RiFF:
I can only comment from a prospective view, but the 14 team format is exactly what attracted me here. If this was just "another" 12 team set up I may have looked, but suspect I would have just continued in the events I have entered in the past. Also after investigating the site I was impressed by the contest format and apparent level of competition that existed here. But after seeing the results of a couple early drafts, I see I was mistaken on the latter. (just kidding!!) Intuitively, it seems, that drafting from the identical pool of talent, the prepared player would have a much more distinct advantage over the "cheatsheet" player in a 14 team league vs a 12 team league. I disagree with the person who feels you have more "options" in a 12 team set up and are more pigeon-holed into a "base" strategy in a 14 team league. In actuality what I believe happens is that in a 12 team league you can make a number of drafting mistakes and overcome them; while in a 14 team league those drafting mistakes will quickly put you into the 2nd tier of teams and keep you there. So, if thats defined as options, than I would agree that 12 team leagues have more options.(too mistakes)


Again, being a newbie, I'm not totally sure what people are referring to as BBDS, but if that means using your starting free agent pool dollars to bid on particular draft spots, I would be 110% in favor. (actually, 100% is the maximum in this instance, but 110% sounds better) This would obviously make a player "earn" a spot he feels valuable from a starting point and penalize him going forward, as his FA monies have been depleted. This would also take the "luck" out of getting a preferred drafting slot. Greg, as I believe I mentioned to you earlier, I firmly believe if you more actively advertised your satellite setup (live internet drafts) you would generate significant traffic which would not only grow the satellites but get players familiar with the site and setup which would eventually lead to greater participation in the main event. Prior to signing up for the Main Event, I thought this contest was like SNAKE or RI (or both) referring to GG; a one trick pony. That is, the Main Event only. RiFF, you are quickly becoming one of our more astute MB members. Good call on all.

Yes, I will find a way to start promoting the satellite leagues more heavily. I agree that it has the potential to be our best recruiting tool to our 14-team format and our top-rate customer service. I'll get on that once Tom and I are done with our seventh, eighth and ninth fantasy football magazine deadlines!!

BBDS is exactly what you think it is. The format has merit and will be tried in some satellite leagues. For now, we are allowing each owner to use the Kentucky Derby Style for our main event, Draft Champions Leagues and Satellite Leagues, which still has random drawing of the draft spots but then allows you to rank your spot preferences. Unfortunately, the top 3-4 random draw winners will likely take the top 3-4 draft spots this year. But it's a step in the right direction.