Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
-
Walla Walla
- Posts: 1359
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
Greg, Why don't you think about e-mailing everyone with a survey? It would probably give you a better feed back than here.
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
Catching up here:
1. Expanding the draft by 4, or 5 or 6 more rounds is ridiculous... I see no benefit in making this a draft champions league and allowing people to stock pile their rosters and make the waiver pool a frivolous afterhought. That's simply idiotic. A good manager SHOULD take advantage of the waiver wire. I see no negative whatsoever that someone earlier got Bill Mueller from the waiver wire. Sounds like good management. Now, if you want to make an adjustment by 1 more round or 2 ? Hey fine, but let's not get stupid.
2. I'm kind of intrigued by the idea of making them 16 team leagues and having more league money to distribute, that's not a bad thought IMHO
3. I like larger league money. How about getting someone to sponsor the overall prize so that entry fee cash can go towards building league cash (what most of us play for) and then have the overall prize $50,000 + a trip to the Bahamas sponsored by Best Buy, etc.
4. I'm not satisfied with the current manipulation of position elgibility from minor leaguers to major league players, etc. A major leaguer with 19 games at 2b last year is not a 2b, but a minor leaguer with 0 games at 2b last year could be? Silly... I know this is going to be lambasted as outrageous, but when the Red Sox put in Mientkiwicz at 2b, how come I couldn't use him there? A simple 5 or 10 game position eligibility 'hard' rule would mean that all rookies start the year as utility-only players until they get their 5 or 10 in. Make it 10 games at the big league level in previous year or current year at a position to be qualified for that position.
5. I think you might consider with the auction leagues doing something like having 8 pitcher slots or 1 less OF slot to manage rosters more efficiently. Waivers were weak, but not impossible and I would rather have less starters than less bench spots to manage my roster effectively.
6. I have no interest in daily transactions here, but perhaps a couple of 'free passes' per team per year to sub in players mid week would be perfect. Nobody needs to be 'addicted' to the site and yet don't we all check our scores daily? It wouldn't take all that much to identify my starting 1b went on the IR on Tuesday morning so I should be able to sub in a 1b from my bench. It makes sense to reduce the luck factors and allowing a good manager to make intelligent moves. What's the harm in allowing an occasional very limited intra-week move?
7. The stupid owner (somewhere above in this thread) who posted that he was confused about how this transaction would be processed:
1. Pujols $10 drop Helton
2. Pujols $10 drop Sheffield
Do you have any concept of the '1' and the '2' and what they mean? Just to help that poor person along, if you click on overall standings - those are organized in order a well. Don't want you to think if you have a #100+ by your name you really are in first place, etc.
Thanks,
Dyv
1. Expanding the draft by 4, or 5 or 6 more rounds is ridiculous... I see no benefit in making this a draft champions league and allowing people to stock pile their rosters and make the waiver pool a frivolous afterhought. That's simply idiotic. A good manager SHOULD take advantage of the waiver wire. I see no negative whatsoever that someone earlier got Bill Mueller from the waiver wire. Sounds like good management. Now, if you want to make an adjustment by 1 more round or 2 ? Hey fine, but let's not get stupid.
2. I'm kind of intrigued by the idea of making them 16 team leagues and having more league money to distribute, that's not a bad thought IMHO
3. I like larger league money. How about getting someone to sponsor the overall prize so that entry fee cash can go towards building league cash (what most of us play for) and then have the overall prize $50,000 + a trip to the Bahamas sponsored by Best Buy, etc.
4. I'm not satisfied with the current manipulation of position elgibility from minor leaguers to major league players, etc. A major leaguer with 19 games at 2b last year is not a 2b, but a minor leaguer with 0 games at 2b last year could be? Silly... I know this is going to be lambasted as outrageous, but when the Red Sox put in Mientkiwicz at 2b, how come I couldn't use him there? A simple 5 or 10 game position eligibility 'hard' rule would mean that all rookies start the year as utility-only players until they get their 5 or 10 in. Make it 10 games at the big league level in previous year or current year at a position to be qualified for that position.
5. I think you might consider with the auction leagues doing something like having 8 pitcher slots or 1 less OF slot to manage rosters more efficiently. Waivers were weak, but not impossible and I would rather have less starters than less bench spots to manage my roster effectively.
6. I have no interest in daily transactions here, but perhaps a couple of 'free passes' per team per year to sub in players mid week would be perfect. Nobody needs to be 'addicted' to the site and yet don't we all check our scores daily? It wouldn't take all that much to identify my starting 1b went on the IR on Tuesday morning so I should be able to sub in a 1b from my bench. It makes sense to reduce the luck factors and allowing a good manager to make intelligent moves. What's the harm in allowing an occasional very limited intra-week move?
7. The stupid owner (somewhere above in this thread) who posted that he was confused about how this transaction would be processed:
1. Pujols $10 drop Helton
2. Pujols $10 drop Sheffield
Do you have any concept of the '1' and the '2' and what they mean? Just to help that poor person along, if you click on overall standings - those are organized in order a well. Don't want you to think if you have a #100+ by your name you really are in first place, etc.
Thanks,
Dyv
Just Some Guy
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 4317
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
1) allowing you to draft any player on Draft Day – makes sense
2) easier FAAB bidding system – works GREAT for football
3) in-season position eligibility – no lower than 10. 5 is too few. no need to reward the lucky more than they already are
4) daily transactions – never.
4a) mid-week period to adjust your starting lineup – YES for ALL leagues
5) auction prices - $650 and $1,250. what about having a mixed auction league?
6) 6) Starting Times of Auction Leagues - doesn’t matter
7) fewer reserve players for auction leagues – no lower than 5. NFFC reserve rosters – I’d like to see 7, but 6 is acceptable
8) prize structure
100,000 grand prize - yes
$5,200 for first place, $1,750 for second and $550 for third (taxes?)
9) starting line-up time - doesn’t matter
[ October 02, 2004, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]
2) easier FAAB bidding system – works GREAT for football
3) in-season position eligibility – no lower than 10. 5 is too few. no need to reward the lucky more than they already are
4) daily transactions – never.
4a) mid-week period to adjust your starting lineup – YES for ALL leagues
5) auction prices - $650 and $1,250. what about having a mixed auction league?
6) 6) Starting Times of Auction Leagues - doesn’t matter
7) fewer reserve players for auction leagues – no lower than 5. NFFC reserve rosters – I’d like to see 7, but 6 is acceptable
8) prize structure
100,000 grand prize - yes
$5,200 for first place, $1,750 for second and $550 for third (taxes?)
9) starting line-up time - doesn’t matter
[ October 02, 2004, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
I've held off commenting but the time is right.
1) First thing we'll definitely change is allowing you to draft any player on Draft Day. I agree here if for no other reason being simplicity. Only concern is the need for some fairly easy to understand rules on position eligibility because some obscure player may be drafted
2) STATS has already created a much easier FAAB bidding system for our football event and thus the same system will be used for the NFBC in 2005. Hear Hear
3) In-season position eligibility. I like the 10-game change. Five is too few but 20 was too many
4) Daily transactions. I started a daily transaction thread. I like them. However, any change from the weekly transaction period will cost you some teams. Until the game has a waiting list, nothing should be done which would cause a team not to enter.
5) Auction League prices. Don’t do them so I have no input here.
6) Starting Times of Auction Leagues. Same as #5.
7) Fewer reserve players. In the main league, 6 reserve players is good. Fewer bench spots make injuries more killing than they already are. More would make for precious little in free agency. I would not even recommend a DL type slot as that creates unnecessary situations. If you raise the rosters to 30, I am Ok but 29 is a nice number.
8) Prize structure. You need to keep the $100,000 on top. That is the drawing card even though it is a hard goal to obtain. I also like the $5000 league prize. You may consider some revised league prizes. Something like $5000, $2000, $1000 or $5000, $2000, free entry. People should not be all that concerned about passing the 1099-tax threshold. You can’t claim a loss but you can deduct expenses up to winnings on a Schedule C and then at least $1250 (even without travel costs) would go against winnings.
9) Starting lineups time. No change here. Moving the time based on when games actually start opens you for problems.
10) Lifetime standings. Fine, whatever. This is non-essential fluff but lots of people like fluff. Same with League .vs. league standings but like I said, fluff can be good.
A few other things were mentioned. Why does anyone care if a person changes their team name? It is not as if they changed their players.
Cells phones are a sticky issue. Because there is a charge to have a co-owner at the draft and given the somewhat limited space we have reference materials at the draft table, I don’t think it is fair for an owner to have access to one or more co-owners who are at home with computers. I never gave this much thought before but since the phone charges, if any, are definitely less than the $100 in-draft co-manager fee, these owners have an advantage. Heck, I may even consider it next year. Eliminate the co-manager fee at the draft and I would probably change my mind. But I doubt if this “extra” money will be eliminated. Alternatively, charge $100 for cell phone use at the draft - the same as a co-owner.
[ October 03, 2004, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: viper ]
1) First thing we'll definitely change is allowing you to draft any player on Draft Day. I agree here if for no other reason being simplicity. Only concern is the need for some fairly easy to understand rules on position eligibility because some obscure player may be drafted
2) STATS has already created a much easier FAAB bidding system for our football event and thus the same system will be used for the NFBC in 2005. Hear Hear
3) In-season position eligibility. I like the 10-game change. Five is too few but 20 was too many
4) Daily transactions. I started a daily transaction thread. I like them. However, any change from the weekly transaction period will cost you some teams. Until the game has a waiting list, nothing should be done which would cause a team not to enter.
5) Auction League prices. Don’t do them so I have no input here.
6) Starting Times of Auction Leagues. Same as #5.
7) Fewer reserve players. In the main league, 6 reserve players is good. Fewer bench spots make injuries more killing than they already are. More would make for precious little in free agency. I would not even recommend a DL type slot as that creates unnecessary situations. If you raise the rosters to 30, I am Ok but 29 is a nice number.
8) Prize structure. You need to keep the $100,000 on top. That is the drawing card even though it is a hard goal to obtain. I also like the $5000 league prize. You may consider some revised league prizes. Something like $5000, $2000, $1000 or $5000, $2000, free entry. People should not be all that concerned about passing the 1099-tax threshold. You can’t claim a loss but you can deduct expenses up to winnings on a Schedule C and then at least $1250 (even without travel costs) would go against winnings.
9) Starting lineups time. No change here. Moving the time based on when games actually start opens you for problems.
10) Lifetime standings. Fine, whatever. This is non-essential fluff but lots of people like fluff. Same with League .vs. league standings but like I said, fluff can be good.
A few other things were mentioned. Why does anyone care if a person changes their team name? It is not as if they changed their players.
Cells phones are a sticky issue. Because there is a charge to have a co-owner at the draft and given the somewhat limited space we have reference materials at the draft table, I don’t think it is fair for an owner to have access to one or more co-owners who are at home with computers. I never gave this much thought before but since the phone charges, if any, are definitely less than the $100 in-draft co-manager fee, these owners have an advantage. Heck, I may even consider it next year. Eliminate the co-manager fee at the draft and I would probably change my mind. But I doubt if this “extra” money will be eliminated. Alternatively, charge $100 for cell phone use at the draft - the same as a co-owner.
[ October 03, 2004, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: viper ]
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 4317
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
Cell phones?
FYI - I haven't used a cell phone in either the NFBC or NFFC. While some people can be annoying with their constant cell phone usage, I really don't see a practical way around it. Does KP really want to be the cell phone police?
As far as it being an advantage, you can use a cell phone as well. No one is restricting you.
FYI - I haven't used a cell phone in either the NFBC or NFFC. While some people can be annoying with their constant cell phone usage, I really don't see a practical way around it. Does KP really want to be the cell phone police?
As far as it being an advantage, you can use a cell phone as well. No one is restricting you.
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
My biggest complaints on cell phones in public spaces (and our draft is a public area) is how loud some people tend to talk. Shouting is sometimes the operative word rather than talking. When I am concentrating on my next pick, I certainly do not want to be sitting next to a non-quiet conversation. That is a distraction which should not be happening. I don't recall any problems in the NFBC draft - not a single one. But apparently some folks did because the issue was raised here. I had not thought about it before but now realize how they could be used. I didn't even own one at the baseball draft but have one now.
[ October 03, 2004, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: viper ]
[ October 03, 2004, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: viper ]
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
Can STATS provide us the ability to see "Live Scoring" totals for the overall. ie. If you wanted to see what "Triple A" was doing but you were not in his league you could.
"All of Life is part of the Divine"---Ancient Hindu saying
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
Originally posted by viper:
My biggest complaints on cell phones in public spaces (and our draft is a public area) is how loud some people tend to talk. Shouting is sometimes the operative word rather than talking. When I am concentrating on my next pick, I certainly do not want to be sitting next to a non-quiet conversation. That is a distraction which should not be happening. I don't recall any problems in the NFBC draft - not a single one. But apparently some folks did because the issue was raised here. I had not thought about it before but now realize how they could be used. I didn't even own one at the baseball draft but have one now. Just as there are no rule prohibiting excessive cellphone use, there are also no rules prohibiting the entire league from standing behind the guy on the cellphone and screaming in draft order until his pick expires.
Greg, they prohibit cellphones at the casino tables. Why not just ban them from the draft room? IF someone wants to scurry outside the draft room to talk to their 'smarter' partner about who to pick - then let 'em go. But when it gets to a point of distracting other owners then it's obviously become an issue, hasn't it?
Dyv
My biggest complaints on cell phones in public spaces (and our draft is a public area) is how loud some people tend to talk. Shouting is sometimes the operative word rather than talking. When I am concentrating on my next pick, I certainly do not want to be sitting next to a non-quiet conversation. That is a distraction which should not be happening. I don't recall any problems in the NFBC draft - not a single one. But apparently some folks did because the issue was raised here. I had not thought about it before but now realize how they could be used. I didn't even own one at the baseball draft but have one now. Just as there are no rule prohibiting excessive cellphone use, there are also no rules prohibiting the entire league from standing behind the guy on the cellphone and screaming in draft order until his pick expires.
Greg, they prohibit cellphones at the casino tables. Why not just ban them from the draft room? IF someone wants to scurry outside the draft room to talk to their 'smarter' partner about who to pick - then let 'em go. But when it gets to a point of distracting other owners then it's obviously become an issue, hasn't it?
Dyv
Just Some Guy
-
JT the Buffmeister
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
Guys - INbound cell calls are definitely a problem, BUT an OUTbound line is not. I used a phone off and on for most of the draft and guys in my league didn't even know it. It's up to each person to be discreet and to respect the other owners. Talking quietly on a phone is no different than talking to your co-manager sitting next to you. There were some very loud co-managers in my draft room, but I knew we were there to have fun. My co-manager couldn't make it to Vegas, so the phone was the only option.
Charging for a co-manager was something that WCOFF started and it's a major flaw in the design of High Stakes contests. No other contests charge you to team up with a friend to manage your team. If an extra person pays to commute to a draft, that's enough extra expense. There should be no charge for a helper... a TEAM fee should be a TEAM fee. Yes, there should be a limit on the number of people that can sit at the draft table, but a quiet cell phone doesn't matter. If a contest has an expensive banquet or party, then add a fee for the meal or the party, but that's it.
Charging for a co-manager was something that WCOFF started and it's a major flaw in the design of High Stakes contests. No other contests charge you to team up with a friend to manage your team. If an extra person pays to commute to a draft, that's enough extra expense. There should be no charge for a helper... a TEAM fee should be a TEAM fee. Yes, there should be a limit on the number of people that can sit at the draft table, but a quiet cell phone doesn't matter. If a contest has an expensive banquet or party, then add a fee for the meal or the party, but that's it.
www.SportsBuff.com
Who will be Mr. Fantasy Baseball 2006?
Who will be Mr. Fantasy Baseball 2006?
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
How about a message board for team comments and smack talking exclusive to the Overall Chanpionship. Put it on the home page(Below or next to the daily standings-but posts to it only through team pages:>)
"All of Life is part of the Divine"---Ancient Hindu saying
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
JT, first of all congrats on the great year. My problem with this is not only the distraction part of it, it is the competitive part of it. The BIGGEST part of this competition should be ones ability to manage a draft and sitting in the draft room will all the distrations just like everyone else you are competing with should be part of it. I'm not saying you did anything against the rules, but allowing continuous use of cell phones during the draft just opens up way too many possibilities with this much at stake. I, for one, will not compete next year if a rule is not put in place. Congrats again.
-
Greg Ambrosius
- Posts: 40290
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
See JT, there was someone in your league that thought the cell phone was a problem.
I don't want to be the cell phone police, either, but I think we will need to tackle this problem and set a ruling. JT had a head piece on in Las Vegas and I don't think many people even knew he had an outbound call. But still there were complaints from league owners later when his team was winning that maybe he gained an unfair advantage (which I don't believe). There were other owners who were pretty loud on their cell phones in LV 2 and 4 and I had to deal with those complaints at the draft. So we need to find a middle ground here and work together, but I think stating NO CELL PHONES AT THE DRAFT isn't the way that I want to go. Let me work on this a bit.
As for charging extra for a co-manager, it's not a FLAW as JT says. By doubling the space you reserve at the hotel for co-managers, you are paying twice as much for space. If we had no co-managers, the amount of space needed at each hotel would be less and thus our costs would be less. KP PAYS for space at each hotel and we don't charge our customers extra for that expense. We eat that expense and having co-managers makes that expense more.
It's been a great year and all of the winners from 2004 should be congratulated for a great season. Let's keep the constructive rules proposals going and I promise I will consider everything before Draft Day. Let's fine-tune the NFBC even more and make 2005 a perfect season. Thanks everyone.
I don't want to be the cell phone police, either, but I think we will need to tackle this problem and set a ruling. JT had a head piece on in Las Vegas and I don't think many people even knew he had an outbound call. But still there were complaints from league owners later when his team was winning that maybe he gained an unfair advantage (which I don't believe). There were other owners who were pretty loud on their cell phones in LV 2 and 4 and I had to deal with those complaints at the draft. So we need to find a middle ground here and work together, but I think stating NO CELL PHONES AT THE DRAFT isn't the way that I want to go. Let me work on this a bit.
As for charging extra for a co-manager, it's not a FLAW as JT says. By doubling the space you reserve at the hotel for co-managers, you are paying twice as much for space. If we had no co-managers, the amount of space needed at each hotel would be less and thus our costs would be less. KP PAYS for space at each hotel and we don't charge our customers extra for that expense. We eat that expense and having co-managers makes that expense more.
It's been a great year and all of the winners from 2004 should be congratulated for a great season. Let's keep the constructive rules proposals going and I promise I will consider everything before Draft Day. Let's fine-tune the NFBC even more and make 2005 a perfect season. Thanks everyone.
Greg Ambrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
Originally posted by JT the Buffmeister:
Guys - INbound cell calls are definitely a problem, BUT an OUTbound line is not. I used a phone off and on for most of the draft and guys in my league didn't even know it. It's up to each person to be discreet and to respect the other owners. Talking quietly on a phone is no different than talking to your co-manager sitting next to you. There were some very loud co-managers in my draft room, but I knew we were there to have fun. My co-manager couldn't make it to Vegas, so the phone was the only option.
Charging for a co-manager was something that WCOFF started and it's a major flaw in the design of High Stakes contests. No other contests charge you to team up with a friend to manage your team. If an extra person pays to commute to a draft, that's enough extra expense. There should be no charge for a helper... a TEAM fee should be a TEAM fee. Yes, there should be a limit on the number of people that can sit at the draft table, but a quiet cell phone doesn't matter. If a contest has an expensive banquet or party, then add a fee for the meal or the party, but that's it. Sitting next to you during the draft Buff I have determined your cell phone use allowed for you to take all of the successful winning players from me thus i will file a protest...
Seriously though, if one is checking who is one the phone and who isn't, I'd think you have far greater difficulties going forward...as long as its not ringing or the person speaking isnt loud it really is a non event in my opinion.
Great year Buff, was pulling for you to snag the overall title!
Guys - INbound cell calls are definitely a problem, BUT an OUTbound line is not. I used a phone off and on for most of the draft and guys in my league didn't even know it. It's up to each person to be discreet and to respect the other owners. Talking quietly on a phone is no different than talking to your co-manager sitting next to you. There were some very loud co-managers in my draft room, but I knew we were there to have fun. My co-manager couldn't make it to Vegas, so the phone was the only option.
Charging for a co-manager was something that WCOFF started and it's a major flaw in the design of High Stakes contests. No other contests charge you to team up with a friend to manage your team. If an extra person pays to commute to a draft, that's enough extra expense. There should be no charge for a helper... a TEAM fee should be a TEAM fee. Yes, there should be a limit on the number of people that can sit at the draft table, but a quiet cell phone doesn't matter. If a contest has an expensive banquet or party, then add a fee for the meal or the party, but that's it. Sitting next to you during the draft Buff I have determined your cell phone use allowed for you to take all of the successful winning players from me thus i will file a protest...
Seriously though, if one is checking who is one the phone and who isn't, I'd think you have far greater difficulties going forward...as long as its not ringing or the person speaking isnt loud it really is a non event in my opinion.
Great year Buff, was pulling for you to snag the overall title!
Never do card tricks for the people you play Poker with...
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 4317
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
Cell phones aren't the only distraction. Two owners sitting next to you can also strike up a "loud" conversation. How about anything over 20 decibels (quiet conversation) should be banned? Can someone supply some Sound Level Meters? Better yet let's go with the Sound Level Meter with Alarm?
I wonder how Barry Bonds is able to hit HR's when fans are yelling "colorful" thoughts at him?
I wonder how Barry Bonds is able to hit HR's when fans are yelling "colorful" thoughts at him?
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
Gekko, you meant to say "Giants Left Fielder", didn't you?
-
JT the Buffmeister
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
I love the decibels comment... showing how goofy this discussion really is getting. You either allow partners or not... whether they're on the phone being quiet or physically next to you being loud.
Greg - you created a fee for the contest and reserved space based on 2 or 3 chairs per team. There you have it... a fixed cost. Charge everyone the same next year and allow a maximum number of partners. (Let me talk your language for a minute - you will have a big advantage over WCOFF and WCOFB and can market that you don't have ridiculous co-manager fess!) With your logic above, anyone without a partner in the room should have received a discount, because their average square footage utilization was well below the utilization of others... and teams weighing a combined 400 pounds or occupying excessive cubic inches of room space should probably pay a larger guest fee.
None of these are huge issues. Soon, we will have wireless Internet connections easily accessible from hotel conference rooms. Will we not allow email communication or the use of computers next year? Are cell phones or computers an advantage or disadvantage? Are partners an advantage or disadvantage? I was ready to shoot my partners for most of the season and ended up spending way too much time going back and forth between them.
Sooners... you need to come back next year. It was fun competing against you. Please don't start a hunger strike on my account. BONGIZMO... thanks for rooting for us. We didn't think we'd even have a shot at winning this thing, so being in the hunt was a ton of fun. We decided to change our pitching strategy the last two weeks to give us a chance to move from 2nd to 1st, but it had the opposite effect... down to 5th.
Thanks Greg for running a great contest. Thousands of customers at SportsBuff.com followed along during the season and I'm sure more of them will come back to compete next year.
Greg - you created a fee for the contest and reserved space based on 2 or 3 chairs per team. There you have it... a fixed cost. Charge everyone the same next year and allow a maximum number of partners. (Let me talk your language for a minute - you will have a big advantage over WCOFF and WCOFB and can market that you don't have ridiculous co-manager fess!) With your logic above, anyone without a partner in the room should have received a discount, because their average square footage utilization was well below the utilization of others... and teams weighing a combined 400 pounds or occupying excessive cubic inches of room space should probably pay a larger guest fee.
None of these are huge issues. Soon, we will have wireless Internet connections easily accessible from hotel conference rooms. Will we not allow email communication or the use of computers next year? Are cell phones or computers an advantage or disadvantage? Are partners an advantage or disadvantage? I was ready to shoot my partners for most of the season and ended up spending way too much time going back and forth between them.
Sooners... you need to come back next year. It was fun competing against you. Please don't start a hunger strike on my account. BONGIZMO... thanks for rooting for us. We didn't think we'd even have a shot at winning this thing, so being in the hunt was a ton of fun. We decided to change our pitching strategy the last two weeks to give us a chance to move from 2nd to 1st, but it had the opposite effect... down to 5th.
Thanks Greg for running a great contest. Thousands of customers at SportsBuff.com followed along during the season and I'm sure more of them will come back to compete next year.
www.SportsBuff.com
Who will be Mr. Fantasy Baseball 2006?
Who will be Mr. Fantasy Baseball 2006?
-
Greg Ambrosius
- Posts: 40290
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
JT, props go out to you and your cohorts for a job well done this year in the NFBC. I know your customers have followed the contest since Draft Day because of your strong performance and I have a feeling your finish will increase the chances that some of your customers will join the NFBC next year because of that. Good job.
Your point on the co-managers fee makes for good message board fodder, but you more than anyone else should know what costs are involved with running live drafts. You are correct, I have built in expenses for all of this, but I also feel strongly that paying back 75 percent of entry fees in prize money is important. The co-manager fee helps to pay for the live draft expenses you are talking about. Telling our participants that a co-manager fee is silly is like me going on your boards and saying that charging for transactions is silly. Your revenue model is different than mine and I'm not chastising you for it.
The comment here was on cell phones and like I said previously, we'll deal with this issue very soon. I have an idea on how we can work this out and knowing who will be on cell phones ahead of time is one step in the process. I won't outlaw them, but will likely work closer with everyone who plans on using them and making sure we're all on the same page when it comes to being courteous to others around you. That goes for those on cell phones or those who just have a co-manager next to them.
Your point on the co-managers fee makes for good message board fodder, but you more than anyone else should know what costs are involved with running live drafts. You are correct, I have built in expenses for all of this, but I also feel strongly that paying back 75 percent of entry fees in prize money is important. The co-manager fee helps to pay for the live draft expenses you are talking about. Telling our participants that a co-manager fee is silly is like me going on your boards and saying that charging for transactions is silly. Your revenue model is different than mine and I'm not chastising you for it.
The comment here was on cell phones and like I said previously, we'll deal with this issue very soon. I have an idea on how we can work this out and knowing who will be on cell phones ahead of time is one step in the process. I won't outlaw them, but will likely work closer with everyone who plans on using them and making sure we're all on the same page when it comes to being courteous to others around you. That goes for those on cell phones or those who just have a co-manager next to them.
Greg Ambrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
JT, I'm not trying to stir anything up about what happened this year, I'm just saying a change will have to be made next year. Seriously, congrats again. I think some people are missing entirely what my objection here is. Allowing people to spend the entire draft on the phone, reporting every single pick to who knows how many people on the other end, who can then use whatever means they have available to help with keeping track of players taken and your own team needs could be considered an unfair advantage. I'm not saying anything unfair was done, I'm just saying the possibility is there. Being able to keep track of ones team during the draft, whether it is done by 1 person or 2 who are both sitting there with all the other competitors, should be a big part of deciding the winner. It is certainly possible that any strategy could backfire and we all know how much luck is a factor in this, but I don't think I am offbase in thinking we should all be sitting in the draft room on what is for sure equal footing. Hope to see you all next year.
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
1) Can Draft anyone...GREAT!
2) New Bidding system...GREAT!
3) In season position eligibility...10 is good. Anything lower would be too low.
4) Daily Transactions...NEVER!
5) Auction Leagues...What happened to the suggestion for MIXED AUCTION LEAGUES???
8) Prize structure...Give more to the League prizes (still just top 3 though). Winning OA is luck. If you don't want to give more to the league prizes, at least give more to 2-9 OA.
Thanks and see you all in '05
2) New Bidding system...GREAT!
3) In season position eligibility...10 is good. Anything lower would be too low.
4) Daily Transactions...NEVER!
5) Auction Leagues...What happened to the suggestion for MIXED AUCTION LEAGUES???
8) Prize structure...Give more to the League prizes (still just top 3 though). Winning OA is luck. If you don't want to give more to the league prizes, at least give more to 2-9 OA.
Thanks and see you all in '05
-
Greg Ambrosius
- Posts: 40290
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
I haven't thrown out the idea for Mixed Auction Leagues yet, but obviously that is possible in each city if the demand is there. Right now I'm just trying to find enough meeting room space in each city to host the Auction Leagues at 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. (or 4 p.m.) and to host $1,250 leagues and $650 leagues at the same time. But feel free to start a separate thread on Mixed Auction Leagues and if the interest is there, I'll find a way to make it happen.
I honestly would like to give the second place finishers in each league more as that's a helluva accomplishment. Would $2,000 for second and $500 for third be a slight to the third-place finishers in each league? There was strong argument last year to keep the $100,000 grand prize and I agree, while also giving rewards to the top eight overall. So it's tough to please everyone, but if the signups come in like I expect then maybe we can figure out a way to please everyone. We'll see.
I honestly would like to give the second place finishers in each league more as that's a helluva accomplishment. Would $2,000 for second and $500 for third be a slight to the third-place finishers in each league? There was strong argument last year to keep the $100,000 grand prize and I agree, while also giving rewards to the top eight overall. So it's tough to please everyone, but if the signups come in like I expect then maybe we can figure out a way to please everyone. We'll see.
Greg Ambrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius