TheWinz
Footballguy
All the ones that will advance to week 2, even with a week 1 goose egg.How many entries selected no players from week 1?
All the ones that will advance to week 2, even with a week 1 goose egg.How many entries selected no players from week 1?
Not necessarily. They might have week 1 players who didn't score.All the ones that will advance to week 2, even with a week 1 goose egg.
You asked how many entries had no week 1 players, not how many entries had week 1 players that didn't score.Not necessarily. They might have week 1 players who didn't score.
I asked how many participants selected no players from week 1. You answered coyly with an inaccurate statement.You asked how many entries had no week 1 players, not how many entries had week 1 players that didn't score.
I will try to make it a little clearer. There WILL be entries that selected players only from BAL, KC, SF, and GB and were guaranteed to be booted if there was any sort of cutline, even .01 point. Of course, none of us know exactly how many entries that is right now. But of those entries, how many EXPECTED the amount of entries to drop from 6782 to under 4000? Not even the FBG staff saw this coming. If they did, they would've either changed to the cut down to something like 3000, or would've made the cut a percentage of teams entered.
Here's another way to think of it - You have been playing your weekly lottery for a few years, and your lucky numbers are 2, 11, 18, 25, and 34. You turn on the TV and see balls numbered only 1 thru 10. Who has a better shot at winning - you, or a child who can only count to 10?
My answer is 100% accurate - read it againI asked how many participants selected no players from week 1. You answered coyly with an inaccurate statement.
I realize there's not much point arguing semantics. But I asked how many, and you didn't give a number. You said all entries that will advance to week 2, even with a zero in week 1. That was inaccurate on two levels: 1. it's saying all entries advancing to next week, 2. the comma is misused, but if you meant to say that the answer is all entries advancing to week 2 even with a zero in week 1, then I was pointing out that that's also inaccurate because you could have chosen someone in week 1 who didn't score, thus advancing to week 2 despite having a zero in week 1.My answer is 100% accurate - read it again
BTW, I noticed you said your roster was only 13, and that you had questioned on Friday whether there would even be a week 1 cutoff. I then replied with the total entries from the past 5 years. What I haven't seen yet is your entry. Care to share?
Steeler - can you post the link again when it's up? Cheers!!Calcomatic will be down for a bit during this first game. I have to get the lineups from FBG and upload them - so stand by.
I think you knew what I was saying, no matter how grammatically correct I was. You also know that no one knows actual numbers yet, because that hasn't been announced. The fact is, all entries will advance, no matter what. And looking at your team, only Michael Thomas is playing week 1. You either screwed up, or took a wild guess that entry submission would drop by nearly 50%.I realize there's not much point arguing semantics. But I asked how many, and you didn't give a number. You said all entries that will advance to week 2, even with a zero in week 1. That was inaccurate on two levels: 1. it's saying all entries advancing to next week, 2. the comma is misused, but if you meant to say that the answer is all entries advancing to week 2 even with a zero in week 1, then I was pointing out that that's also inaccurate because you could have chosen someone in week 1 who didn't score, thus advancing to week 2 despite having a zero in week 1.
If you meant to say all entries who didn't have a player in week 1, then yes it's obvious that the answer to the question of how many were there is "how many there are." Still not a number.
Sure, here's my team:
WR - Michael Thomas $34
I think he added Thomas as a hedge, which was a good idea. If there are 4025 or 4040 entries or something like that, I imagine that a good portion of them would have less points total than Thomas. I wish I had thought through what he and Bass figured out. I considered it at one point, but thought it was just too risky.I think you knew what I was saying, no matter how grammatically correct I was. You also know that no one knows actual numbers yet, because that hasn't been announced. The fact is, all entries will advance, no matter what. And looking at your team, only Michael Thomas is playing week 1. You either screwed up, or took a wild guess that entry submission would drop by nearly 50%.
So only 57 get eliminated in week 2? Wow. Those that screwed up and took players from only two teams get a big break. FBGs really need to look at a % advancing rather than a hard number. They want to make it harder to pick a winner with tougher pricing but setting a hard number when there are only 3057 entries really rewards those that mailed it in.Numbers are in - 3057 entries this year
Still no contest querier though, so can't research ownership numbers
Fair enough. I guess my original point was that everyone was complaining about the published rules without even knowing what the impact was. I don't have any idea how to manipulate the entries/databases or however it works like some of the rest of you do, so I'll be interested to see how many entries didn't have any player from week 1, if that's possible to query.I think you knew what I was saying, no matter how grammatically correct I was. You also know that no one knows actual numbers yet, because that hasn't been announced. The fact is, all entries will advance, no matter what. And looking at your team, only Michael Thomas is playing week 1. You either screwed up, or took a wild guess that entry submission would drop by nearly 50%.
Again.So only 57 get eliminated in week 2? Wow. Those that screwed up and took players from only two teams get a big break. FBGs really need to look at a % advancing rather than a hard number. They want to make it harder to pick a winner with tougher pricing but setting a hard number when there are only 3057 entries really rewards those that mailed it in.
1057So only 57 get eliminated in week 2? Wow. Those that screwed up and took players from only two teams get a big break. FBGs really need to look at a % advancing rather than a hard number. They want to make it harder to pick a winner with tougher pricing but setting a hard number when there are only 3057 entries really rewards those that mailed it in.
The cut will be down to 2000 after week 2, not 3000. Even so, there may be teams advancing to week 3 that chose not only players from just 2 teams, but from 2 teams that don't even play week 1.So only 57 get eliminated in week 2? Wow. Those that screwed up and took players from only two teams get a big break. FBGs really need to look at a % advancing rather than a hard number. They want to make it harder to pick a winner with tougher pricing but setting a hard number when there are only 3057 entries really rewards those that mailed it in.
First, I will say congrats on your strategery (yes, it's word, ask Bush). But I have to ask - since the entry # hasn't been lower than 6200 over the past 3 years, and has risen each year., and the lowest week 1 cut during that time was 79, how did you expect to make it to week 2 with only Thomas?Fair enough. I guess my original point was that everyone was complaining about the published rules without even knowing what the impact was. I don't have any idea how to manipulate the entries/databases or however it works like some of the rest of you do, so I'll be interested to see how many entries didn't have any player from week 1, if that's possible to query.
This contest, like the regular season contest and all fantasy football, requires a ton of luck to win. A team built to make it to the end can't win, and a team built to win in the end can't make it there. The best I've ever done was the year the Patriots and Seahawks played in the Super Bowl. I don't remember my exact strategy, but I had guessed those two teams would make it and I think had at least 4 or 5 players from each team. I don't know how I made it through, but I remember thinking I should have a great shot at winning. But I finished out of the prizes, maybe in the 15-30 range, because other people had even more of those players than I did.
So in my opinion, the only way to win is to load up on the right Super Bowl teams and then somehow skate through to the end by the seat of your pants or by the whiskers of your chinny chin chin. I certainly didn't screw up (except possibly from a strategy standpoint), nor did I take a wild guess that entries would drop by 50%. I just realized that I needed to get lucky somehow no matter what, so maybe M.Thomas goes off enough to get me past the other crazy lineups in week 1 (including people taking a zero for whatever reason). As soon as the games started, I realized I should have taken that $34 and spread it out to Tannehill, Henry, etc. but of course at that point it was too late.
ETA: I still have big concerns in week 2 as well, which I knew going in.
I stand corrected. The point remains that those selecting only players from teams with a 1st round bye get a big break. Maybe it was a bungled entry, maybe it was a calculated risk. Either way, they get a break. But I would guess that the number of legitimate entries that took the calculated risk (and anticipated a small number of entries) and going without any players in week 1 is relatively very small.The cut will be down to 2000 after week 2, not 3000. Even so, there may be teams advancing to week 3 that chose not only players from just 2 teams, but from 2 teams that don't even play week 1.
I honestly didn't figure I'd make it past week 1. But like I said, I had to rely on luck anyway, so I prefer going out in week 1 than getting to the end with no shot. I also didn't have a clue as to what that cut number was, I guess I should have read more of the thread.First, I will say congrats on your strategery (yes, it's word, ask Bush). But I have to ask - since the entry # hasn't been lower than 6200 over the past 3 years, and has risen each year., and the lowest week 1 cut during that time was 79, how did you expect to make it to week 2 with only Thomas?
And when it was posted in here that the cut in week 1 last year was above 70? That's one heck of a game for Thomas.First, I will say congrats on your strategery (yes, it's word, ask Bush). But I have to ask - since the entry # hasn't been lower than 6200 over the past 3 years, and has risen each year., and the lowest week 1 cut during that time was 79, how did you expect to make it to week 2 with only Thomas?
Maybe I did see that and just glossed over it based on my luck strategy.And when it was posted in here that the cut in week 1 last year was above 70? That's one heck of a game for Thomas.
So, you did submit an ignorant entry. Ignorant doesn't mean stupid; it means lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing. And, as I said, the people who had the least information were actually rewarded for it. Yes, I am sure there were some entries that knew all the information and still created a team like yours, but I am sure they are few and far between.I honestly didn't figure I'd make it past week 1. But like I said, I had to rely on luck anyway, so I prefer going out in week 1 than getting to the end with no shot. I also didn't have a clue as to what that cut number was, I guess I should have read more of the thread.
That's pretty condescending. You submitted an ignorant entry as well, because you didn't know there were less than 4000 entries. No one is going to have all the information. Like I said in a subsequent post, I think maybe I did read that but chose to ignore it. It didn't matter in my decision making.So, you did submit an ignorant entry. Ignorant doesn't mean stupid; it means lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing. And, as I said, the people who had the least information were actually rewarded for it. Yes, I am sure there were some entries that knew all the information and still created a team like yours, but I am sure they are few and far between.
P.S. Go Saints!
So you based your strategy on . . . . luck?Maybe I did see that and just glossed over it based on my luck strategy.
You admitted either not knowing or ignoring past data. You effectively closed your eyes and threw a hail mary. Many others took the time to gather all the available data and make educated guesses. In the case of this contest, the most informed people did not benefit. The ignorant ones did. At least @BassNBrew provided a reason why the # of entries dwindled.That's pretty condescending. You submitted an ignorant entry as well, because you didn't know there were less than 4000 entries. No one is going to have all the information. Like I said in a subsequent post, I think maybe I did read that but chose to ignore it. It didn't matter in my decision making.
My "hail mary" is just as likely to win as your "educated guess." That was the point of my previous post. Luck is the biggest part of this or any ff contest. I need luck to get through the first couple of weeks. You need luck that your combination of 4 remaining players is going to be better than the other combinations of 4 remaining players. That doesn't make my entry ignorant, it just makes it different.You admitted either not knowing or ignoring past data. You effectively closed your eyes and threw a hail mary. Many others took the time to gather all the available data and make educated guesses. In the case of this contest, the most informed people did not benefit. The ignorant ones did. At least @BassNBrew provided a reason why the # of entries dwindled.
The rules were published, so I don't understand the hurt feelings. Do you complain that week 1 in the regular season contest is a gimme also?OK, OK
Let's stop beating this horse. It is was it is. Next year, I am sure the FBG staff will make adjustments to ensure this doesn't happen again.
This year, with low number of entries? YesMy "hail mary" is just as likely to win as your "educated guess." That was the point of my previous post. Luck is the biggest part of this or any ff contest. I need luck to get through the first couple of weeks. You need luck that your combination of 4 remaining players is going to be better than the other combinations of 4 remaining players. That doesn't make my entry ignorant, it just makes it different.
I read a lot of the thread and went with what I thought was best. Ignoring past data is not ignorant. It's recognizing it as irrelevant.
You guys don't have to worry, I probably won't make it past next week and you can all feel safe again in your ivory towers lol.
Without knowing what the roster constructions are going to be, it's up in the air anyhow. How many of the 5000+ entries read the thread where people provide some of the info? That doesn't mean they didn't know the rules or made "ignorant" entries.This year, with low number of entries? Yes
Normal year when the number of entries is well above 5000+? No
And no hurt feelings here. Just some analysis that the low cut line rewards those that punted week 1 in their entry, either due to ignorance or a luck strategy
More times than not the winner has barely cleared the initial cut and it’s due to some crazy huge performance from a player or two that wasn’t expected. Most years I’ve looked at the top finishers and said to myself I never would have expected that entry to survive week oneThis year, with low number of entries? Yes
Normal year when the number of entries is well above 5000+? No
And no hurt feelings here. Just some analysis that the low cut line rewards those that punted week 1 in their entry, either due to ignorance or a luck strategy
If this trend continues the adjustment is going to be to cut the contest.OK, OK
Let's stop beating this horse. It is was it is. Next year, I am sure the FBG staff will make adjustments to ensure this doesn't happen again.
Next year's winner will get a free t-shirt and 10% off a yearly subscriptionIf this trend continues the adjustment is going to be to cut the contest.
This is exactly right. It's the only way to win and it's random luck as to which ones get through to have the chance.More times than not the winner has barely cleared the initial cut and it’s due to some crazy huge performance from a player or two that wasn’t expected. Most years I’ve looked at the top finishers and said to myself I never would have expected that entry to survive week one
Didn’t TY Hilton have like 45 one year that moved a bunch of bad rosters to the second week?More times than not the winner has barely cleared the initial cut and it’s due to some crazy huge performance from a player or two that wasn’t expected. Most years I’ve looked at the top finishers and said to myself I never would have expected that entry to survive week one
How many times did the winning roster have only one WR or no players at all in week 1?More times than not the winner has barely cleared the initial cut and it’s due to some crazy huge performance from a player or two that wasn’t expected. Most years I’ve looked at the top finishers and said to myself I never would have expected that entry to survive week one
100% yes, but not because of MY entry. Unlike the yearly contest, this is only 4 weeks long. Do you think the staff would've adjusted the cutoff if they had known there was only going to be 3057 entries? If you say no, you are being... ignorant!And this year went one direction, does that mean FBG needs to change the rules now because it didn't work out for "your" entry?
Heh heh... I'm not going to say "no" but I'm not going to say "yes" either, because I don't know what they would have done.100% yes, but not because of MY entry. Unlike the yearly contest, this is only 4 weeks long. Do you think the staff would've adjusted the cutoff if they had known there was only going to be 3057 entries? If you say no, you are being... ignorant!
Yup.Didn’t TY Hilton have like 45 one year that moved a bunch of bad rosters to the second week?
We are the same, GB. Would love to punch Sean Payton in the face. Can't stand him. So fine seeing them lose today.My strategy? Pick the saints as my bowl team. Can’t stand them. When my post season gets eliminated I can enjoy the saints loss.
I picked Green Bay as my Super Bowl team. I am fine if they don’t make it there, but could win if they do.My strategy? Pick the saints as my bowl team. Can’t stand them. When my post season gets eliminated I can enjoy the saints loss.
Come over to the dark sideNorseman said:I picked Green Bay as my Super Bowl team. I am fine if they don’t make it there, but could win if they do.
So are we going to be butt-hurt over the ~30 teams that got a pass out of 3000 or all the teams that didn't meet some arbitrary 70 point threshold?ZWK said:Last year, 1.1% of all entries scored a zero week 1. 6708 out of 6782 scored positive points.
So I'd guess that about 30 entries this year selected no players from week 1. We'll find out the exact number soon enough.