KJ Duke's Lifetime NFFC Leaderboard

TamuScarecrow · Post by **TamuScarecrow** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:08 am

You can't keep the people putting on the show from making a profit. But, if I see Greg or Tom coming to the draft in that stretch limo Hummer, then I might get on here and rant a little.

renman · Post by **renman** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:11 am

What if you had the number one pick and took LT2 over LJ and SA? Should you get praise for that? Luck is a major part of this event when it comes to overall event winners. Judging how teams do within individual leagues over a larger sample, to me, is the better way to judge things in terms of NFFC rankings.

Some people got "lucky" this year to get Colston off the free agent wire, some got lucky to get Boldin a couple years ago or Droughns, I think Teds Cracked Head would be the first to admit that having Bulger, S Jackson, AND the 3rd reciever (Bruce) all from the same team all go off in the SAME GAME, giving him the overall championship, is more a stroke of luck at the right time, than overall fantasy skill (of which he has a ton), someone had the great D. Bennett take them to a fantasy title when he had a career couple weeks in the post season a few years ago, isn't that "luck?"

This is again why I am not sure that overall money or winning the overall event should be weighed so much more than showing consistent cashing or playoff reaching results in NFFC sanctioned leagues. Just an opinion.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:59 am

No - the only luck I'm talking about is people lucking into LT2.

Everyone has input into free agents. Don't disappoint me ren. You're smarter than that

Btw, All of my points have been generated from dogshitt draft slots.

David Wooderson · Post by **David Wooderson** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:04 am

If you are still looking for correct data, the info under the team owner, Scott Gunaca is wrong based on your scoring system. We won our leagues in 2004 and 2005, and finished in the top 8 overall in 2005. Based on yoru scoring info that should be 40 points, not 20.

Also just my 2 cents, but if you are giving overall winners 40 points, thats insane. Considering the top 2 guys 56 points all came from one fabulous year in winning both their league and overall, yet they havent done anything in the other years, skews your rankings. Not to take anything away from either of those guys, as winning the entire thing is a greater accomplishment in itself then any ranking or league title, but if you have followed the NFFC for 3 years and are trying to show a true model based on consistency, and were comparing King of Queens vs. Gordon Gekko, it's not even close. KOQ is far and away a more superior player yet your rankings dont reflect that.

It's like saying that Trent Dilfer is a better QB then Peyton Manning because he won a Super Bowl and Manning didnt.

Giving points for satellite wins and other non main league events isnt a good indicator either as now you are mixing different contests. You should come up with a formula for each event, as it will give you a better indicator of consistency.

renman · Post by **renman** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:07 am

Gekko,

All the examples I gave were examples of how "luck" can and does play a major roll in the overall WINNING of an event in the postseason. If you want to talk about one specific TYPE of fantasy football luck (the random luck that puts an owner in a position to have LT2 fall into their lap) then I understand the point you are making. Though anyone who took LT2 OVER LJ and SA made a great pick and was not lucky (outside of the good fortune to draft from that position).

If your success has come from challenging draft positions, bravo.. more power to you. To me, that is part of the challenge of fantasy football. In 2004, everyone thought Priest Holmes was the consensus stud number one pick. Those who took him with their first pick were dead and thus had a "dogshitt" draft position when you look back on it in hindsight.

I am just saying that if we are to measure NFFC success or have an NFFC rating system, the better measuring stick to me is overall success in terms of winning individual leagues, or being tops in points in leagues as opposed to placing such significants to who might have caught lightening in a bottle with a miracle finish in week 16. Or judging it by who has the most money to play in the most leagues and generate the most amount of money in terms of cashing.

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:07 am

Originally posted by Sound Advice:
Could we get one of the "big" names that carry so much more weight around here than everyone else, to please ask that the 500 and 250 sat leagues don't have money taken away from the payout pool.

Now that they have made the $100 leagues a better payout % than the $500 leagues, (unheard of anywhere in fantasy sports) it would really be nice if one of the big names could have that rule changed. That's what is important, not some dumb list.

For the purse to take a big hit in those leagues "due to growth" is totally unacceptable in my book.

Growth equates to better purses not less.
(Fantasy players know their guzzintoos.)
If we get less money as the event grows, then I am 100% against all future growth. I'm not playing for "fame" like Rob Z. or Gekko. I'm playing for cash. Payout matters to me, not being plastered on a magazine as the payout % plummets.

If Billy/GG or Lumpy's would suggest that (what's only fair) instead of concentrating on what they feel will help them most, that would be a step in the right direction.
It would get taken care of in a heartbeat.
They would not get the answer about "growth" being the culprit. (like I did) I'd bet money on that.
And I don't think they would be told that they should be happy with the 6.5 times entry, when it is 6.9(?) for the 100 leagues and 6.3 for the 500 and 250s.

This is the only event I've ever been involved in that the purse has shrunk and the purse% has shrunk. Due to "growth" or otherwise.

Sorry for the rant. But after not having a clue where we were going to play last year till the final second, we had it mapped out already for next year. Then we find that 3 of the leagues we had planned on entering, got butchered.
Now we are back to square one. Just like last year.

Maybe we'll enter 5 100 leagues since the payout is so much better than 1 500 league.

That is of course, unless Billy or Gekko complain about it. It would be taken care of so fast your head would spin.

Playoff for 3rd is an obvious must change. But since it wasn't one of the teacher's pets that suggested it, it will be considered for 2008.

Billy mentions it, and it goes retroactive to last year. If these guys are going to run the asylum, then they should start making decent suggestions that do more than just improve their lot.

KJ - a 250 league should be worth more than a 100 league. Please don't fall into the "less is more" trap.
Winning a 250 league should be worth more 3rd in a 500 league don't you think?
The way you have it 3rd in a 100 league is worth the same as 2nd in a 250 league. I thought John Crane wasn't playing these days

As someone in the business for 24 years, let me say that without a shadow of a doubt, that you have no clue about what it takes to run this type of business. Absolutely none, nada, zippo.

To sit there and try to use others to get your point accross and to split hairs on a few percentages when we all know for a fact that Greg/Tom listens to EVERY customer's concerns is pathetic at best.

Greg raised payout percentages from initial projections to fit different circumstances at different stages to ensure growth. I have no problem with the fact that he needs to get back to original percentages, which will only lead to the type of investment needed for future growth. And that will benefit all of us.

Sorry to all for the rant, but this crap really ticks me off.

David Wooderson · Post by **David Wooderson** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:12 am

Originally posted by UFS:
As someone in the business for 24 years, let me say that without a shadow of a doubt, that you have no clue about what it takes to run this type of business. Absolutely none, nada, zippo.

To sit there and try to use others to get your point accross and to split hairs on a few percentages when we all know for a fact that Greg/Tom listens to EVERY customer's concerns is pathetic at best.

Greg raised payout percentages from initial projections to fit different circumstances at different stages to ensure growth. I have no problem with the fact that he needs to get back to original percentages, which will only lead to the type of investment needed for future growth. And that will benefit all of us.

Sorry to all for the rant, but this crap really ticks me off. I have to back up UFS here. If you want to get picky here, Im sure Greg could list what he has to pay for marketing, rent, utilities, all the way down to what he has to pay for stamps and ordering checks, however he spares you the details of all that and focuses on paying back what he can to everyone.

Just like anything else, this is a business. One of the hidden values that Greg does not get a lot of credit for, is that he provides an arena where he gives everyone a chance to play for 100K by bringing in x amount of players. If you try doing that with your friends or for your local league, it's probably not going to happen. That costs money and he deserves to make money. The structure here is more then fair, and everyone should trust in the man himself that he gives back as much as he can to the prize pool while still being able to successfully try and operate a business.

Viva Ambrosius!!!

[ January 11, 2007, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: David Wooderson ]

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:15 am

Wooderson - when the last time you had facts to back up your posts. Yours was one of the worst posts of the year. I'm at the gym now, but will settle this business later tonight. It's a shame that you are tring to bash me (incorrectly btw). As trump says, is some attacks you, you gotta come back even harder. Thanks for this opportunity. Now backs to curls...

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:36 am

I was going to respond to Sound Advice initially, but thought better of it. All I did with the satellite league payouts for 2007 was make them more consistent at 80 percent payouts as I had some at 83 percent in the past. The satellite leagues were part of my original contract with STATS because neither side felt it would be more than a handful of leagues to manage. But we topped 30 leagues last year and with all the wild private leagues you guys have created, STATS had to start charging me for my extra work, and rightfully so. Now I have an added expense that is manageable, but paying back 80 percent ratheer than 83 percent is the right move to make. All satellite leagues are now consistently paying out, outside of the free entry that I give away for $100 leagues.

Mike Williams is correct in his post above, there are many expenses involved with each league we run. I never talk about them and I always take the hit on the live drafts if we don't reach our goals. Such is life. The NFFC Satellite Leagues pay back a very fair percentage of total revenue and I don't feel a need to apologize for our payout schedule. I trust Dennis will make a wise decision when he decides which games to choose in 2007 and maybe they will be ours. Maybe not.

Now back to civility. Life is too good.

kjduke · Post by **kjduke** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:42 am

Originally posted by David Wooderson:
If you are still looking for correct data, the info under the team owner, Scott Gunaca is wrong based on your scoring system. We won our leagues in 2004 and 2005, and finished in the top 8 overall in 2005. Based on yoru scoring info that should be 40 points, not 20.

5th overall = 8 pts
1st in 05 = 8 pts
2nd in 04 = 4 pts
total = 20

you telling me you won in 04 rather than finished second (if you did that would be 24 pts, not 40) ?

.. here is the winner according to Tom's post from Dec 2004:

Chicago League 2
1. Gary Winner, Highland Park, IL (sly guys)
2. Scott Gunaca, Romulus, MI (fantasyjungle.com)