2008 $35,000 Subscriber Contest (5 Viewers)

[OU#1]

Down to 1000 teams so it's definately coming down to uniqueness at this point. The question is will your unique players get outperformed by the more common guys?

Bold: Difference Maker-Anybody that has consistently scored well and is less than 10% owned.

Italics: Potential Difference Maker-Haven't been consitent but could potentially set me apart from the field if they pick it up (or they can be dead weight which they have been for the most part so far...I'm not singling you out Mr. Kelly).

Rodgers 5.72% Survived (3.4% Owned)

Warner 12.61 (81.9)

ADP 2.83 (3.2)

CJ3 14.99 (36.0)

Rice 10.24 (57.3)

Slaton 12.86 (92.1)

Stewart 8.93 (8.4)

DMac 3.94 (3.1)

Schmitty 12.76 (24.6)

Megatron 16.63 (47.2)

DeSean 15.20 (39.5)

Cotch 10.24 (36.6)

BJones 6.29 (1.0)

Bradley 7.57 (5.1)

Kelly 3.57 (0.2)

Breaston 14.53 (2.0)

Keller 16.86 (60.1)

Watson 4.98 (3.9)

Bironas 7.97 (7.8)

Gould 6.21 (7.5)

SF D 9.10 (12.5)

MIN D 6.72 (14.4)

This has been a fun ride and has given me something else to cheer for in FF. I don't think my unique players have enough big play potential to take me much further in this contest but they have surprised me so far. If Watson and Keller can keep up last weeks pace: Lookout!

 

[Das Boot]

Looks like this might boil down to kickers and def in the finals. Still hoping the FBG.com looks for ways to keep this from happening in future contests.

May as well open it up to suggestions. While anything is possible, I think it's safe to say that we are pretty committed to keeping the basic structure the same. It will almost definitely remain set-it-and-forget-it, and the prices will be fixed once posted in early August.With that in mind, how could we set prices on August 1 to promote more diverse rosters on December 1?

Doug - I understand that the main purpose of this contest is to drive subscriptions so the timeframe will remain roughly the same. However given what you've cranked out stat wise and formatted quickly, why isn't it possible for the prices to ebb and flow after each pre-season game. In that instance the sharks that knew Warner would win the job could keep him at the low price, but the guys getting on the value bandwagon after he's announced the starter would pay fair market value. Those really into this contest would set a lineup early and monitor the new prices to see if they wanted to make adjustments and sacrifice the early prices. I don't see why this would be difficult since the submit button would timestamp the entry with the current values. One of these years LT, DWilly, and ADP will all get hurt in pre-season leaving virtually every lineup with their value play back-up in place. As shown by Slanton this year, if you fight the crowd you will be virtually banishing yourself to elimination. If you don't have that guy when he goes off, your fighting an uphill battle against most of the field.Not complaining. I like this contest so much that i still follow it despite being eliminated. I would just find it more interesting if there were more diverse roosters competing against each other.

I love this idea! Totally and completely. The only thing I would add on is to add players as weeks progress. Brett Favre, Eddie Royal, etc. could be added. Those who chose an early team would have to decide whether to hold onto those cheap guys they got early as players get added and prices change. You could have a guy like Warner for $5, then drop him for a better value, then end up picking him again for a higher price. That would happen quite a bit.

It is an interesting idea.A couple drawbacks would be that those who didn't pick an early team would be at a disadvantage... plus as someone mentioned earlier, there would be lots of controversy when prices changed as to whether they were fair or not, too high, too low, etc...As it stands now, everyone has a level playing field - same players, same cost, same decisions, same opportunity.I'd like the above idea as a side contest, but not as the main one.

 

[Frank Costanza's Lawyer]

A couple drawbacks would be that those who didn't pick an early team would be at a disadvantage... plus as someone mentioned earlier, there would be lots of controversy when prices changed as to whether they were fair or not, too high, too low, etc...As it stands now, everyone has a level playing field - same players, same cost, same decisions, same opportunity.I'd like the above idea as a side contest, but not as the main one.

This is is the key as I see it. No changes should be made that result in an unlevel playing field, and changing prices during the preseason would definitely do that. If some people were able to lock in players at a low price, they would effectively have a higher salary cap than the other teams. Hell, it'd probably be worth locking in 22 low-priced players, hoping to hit on the Warner and Slaton types before they rise in price.Allowing prices to change opens too many negative possibilities, IMO.

 

[ClownDogs]

I'm the only team left with this trio:RB Frank GoreRB Clinton PortisQB Drew Brees...hanging my hopes on this trio.

I am only team left with MB3/Colston/Marshall/Housh/T.Gonzo.With 1.5ppr, not sure why ALL teams didn't take a top tier TE.

 

[Aussie Cowboy]

It looks like I snuck through by .8, but will likely be gone next week.

QB - Jay Cutler - 14QB - Jake Delhomme - 12QB - Kurt Warner - 5RB - Frank Gore - 49RB - Willie Parker - 23RB - DeAngelo Williams - 15RB - Ricky Williams - 8RB - Derrick Ward - 5RB - Ray Rice - 4WR - Brandon Marshall - 23WR - Donald Driver - 16WR - Santana Moss - 14WR - Javon Walker - 12WR - Vincent Jackson - 11WR - Robert Meachem - 6WR - Kevin Walter - 6TE - Zach Miller - 15TE - Anthony Fasano - 3PK - Mason Crosby - 3PK - Joe Nedney - 1TD - Carolina Panthers - 3TD - New York Jets - 2

 

[Das Boot]

A couple drawbacks would be that those who didn't pick an early team would be at a disadvantage... plus as someone mentioned earlier, there would be lots of controversy when prices changed as to whether they were fair or not, too high, too low, etc...

As it stands now, everyone has a level playing field - same players, same cost, same decisions, same opportunity.

I'd like the above idea as a side contest, but not as the main one.

This is is the key as I see it. No changes should be made that result in an unlevel playing field, and changing prices during the preseason would definitely do that. If some people were able to lock in players at a low price, they would effectively have a higher salary cap than the other teams. Hell, it'd probably be worth locking in 22 low-priced players, hoping to hit on the Warner and Slaton types before they rise in price.Allowing prices to change opens too many negative possibilities, IMO.

That is exactly the strategy that would be employed if this idea were to be implemented.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

Looks like this might boil down to kickers and def in the finals. Still hoping the FBG.com looks for ways to keep this from happening in future contests.

May as well open it up to suggestions. While anything is possible, I think it's safe to say that we are pretty committed to keeping the basic structure the same. It will almost definitely remain set-it-and-forget-it, and the prices will be fixed once posted in early August.

With that in mind, how could we set prices on August 1 to promote more diverse rosters on December 1?

I've been thinking about this a little. I don't know how many of you are involved in the price setting process but if it's only a few then this idea may help. I was thinking you should release the initial prices to a small number of people (20-30 maybe) and have them make up some teams. These people could be the entire staff and maybe some staff members from other sites you guys get along with (anyone who wouldn't be eligible for the contest). This might give you some feedback about which players are priced too low and you could adjust them accordingly.

Nice idea, and they probably did something like that amongst themselves early on, but the prices are set August 1st. As in BEFORE we knew Favre retired/unretired and wants to play for the Vikes.

Warner was going to start the season (everyone knew it was Lienart to start the season...duh!!!)

Slaton the starter over Ahman Green and Chris Brown? Dream on bud.

What price can you put on Slaton that early besides $1 - $3

I suggest the contest remain as it is. Look at how fun it has been for all of us talking about our teams and fretting over how many players to take at each position. Out of the 12,000 plus entries, NONE were exact duplicates. That sounds like a good model to me.

Slaton is a perfect example. While we didn't know Slaton was going to start over Green and Brown, we knew both their injury histories and also knew he would get at least a role carved out for him. We also knew he had big play ability. At $1, all he has to do is occasionally break a long run or pass for a TD and he scores 15-20 points for you, making him a bargain. We knew this coming out of training camp, before the August 4th release of prices. Maybe you wouldn't have had 56% ownership but it likely would have still been very high. A test drive may have revealed this.Favre wasn't available in the contest so he doesn't really matter.

As for Warner, you're wrong. Look here and you'll see that the overwhelming thoughts from the shark pool and staff, prior to August 4th, was that Warner would get the bulk of the season work. It was clear in the middle of July that Warner was a bargain for $5. Again, maybe a test would have revealed a lot of people thinking he was a value at $5 and they could have adjusted him upward.

 

[Parkers99]

My first and only address to the post:

In my now numbed & drunken stupor I realize that this contest was reason enough to join the site. I'm an old school poster for the "competition" and I was drawn into this site due to their technical deficulties.

I was eliminated from the contest this week... and not until now do I realize how much that actually hurts. It's become an important part of my Tuesday afternoon. I only play in two competitve leagues and this contest.

In the meantime, I've come to respect several of the regular posters here and the site's become a part of of my daily routine. I've found that I feel guilty now when I have a little info that I only share w/ my "normal" message board...

In short, the terrific people running this site are simply winning me over. Next year I believe I'll be a Footballguy...

Sorry for not contributing more this season. You can expect to receive my limited expertice of the Titans and Falcons next year.

Really enjoyed the contest,

Parkers99

 

[Charley]

Another installment of "The Extreme Teams"

1QB - 3 teams

6QB's - 1 team

Least spent - $5

Most spent - $71

3RB's - 1 team

9RB's - 1 team

Least spent - $37

Most spent - $132

3WR's - 1 team

10WR's - 4 teams

Least spent - $55

Most spent - $161

1TE - 17 teams

4TE's - 14 teams

Least spent - $2

Most spent - $61

1K - 19 teams

6K's - 2 teams

Least spent - $1

Most spent - $21

1D - 25 teams

5D's - 9 teams

Least spent - $1

Most spent - $26

FYI on overall team makeups

1QB (.3%), 2QB (29.4%), 3QB (65.8%), 4QB (4.5%), 5QB (.3%), 6QB (.1%)

3RB (.1%), 4RB (5.6%), 5RB (33.7%), 6RB (44.9%), 7RB (13.7%), 8RB (2.3%), 9RB (.1%)

3WR (.1%), 4WR (.6%), 5WR (13.8%), 6WR (38.6%), 7WR (33.2%), 8WR (11.3%), 9WR (2.4%), 10WR (.4%)

1TE (1.7%), 2TE (63.8%), 3TE (33.5%), 4TE (1.4%)

1K (1.9%), 2K (66.0%), 3K (28.3%), 4K (3.9%), 5K (.1%), 6K (.2%)

1D (2.5%), 2D (67.7%), 3D (26.4%), 4D (2.9%), 5D (.9%)

This may have been discussed already. If the "optimal" team structure is 3/6/7/2/2/2, then I've been questioning the value of the 2nd kicker. From a quick analysis of the points scored by kickers, it looks like the value of having a 2nd kicker is slightly less than 3 points per week (over the course of the 1st 16 weeks of the season). This takes into account the fact that the second kicker will get points when the 1st kicker has a bye, plus the extra points scored by the second kicker when he outscores the 1st kicker.For any two kickers, the results will vary but I think it would be rare for a 2nd kicker to add more than 4 points per week, on average (excluding injuries). About half of the weeks you get no additional points from the 2nd kicker. The other weeks you'll get 1-15 added points from the 2nd kicker, usually about 6-8.

Instead of a 2nd kicker, you could use that position for an extra QB, RB, WR, TE, or D. I think it's well-established that 3 QBs is best. And I don't know if a 3rd defense adds more than 4 points per week, compared to 2 defenses. But I really like the idea of getting an extra RB, WR or TE for the roster slot and dollars that would go to a 2nd kicker.

Every year, there are cheap players who turn out to be the biggest bargains of the whole contest (Slaton, Rice, Walter, A. Bryant, D. Jackson, Breaston, Keller, Fasano, etc.). IMO getting another one of these players on your roster is a lot more valuable than the extra 3-4 points per week you'd get from a 2nd kicker. Not every one of these players pans out, but a reasonable percentage do -- and adding a 7th RB or 8th WR or 3rd TE could improve your team substantially.

Plus, an extra RB, WR or TE can fill the flex position and give you more depth there. During the season, there are always a couple weeks where you're in danger of not making the cut in the contest. There are no sure things, but I think I'd rather take my chances with an extra RB, WR or TE than a 2nd kicker.

Is this crazy thinking? I could be underestimating the value of a 2nd kicker. Also, the points from the extra kicker are virtually guaranteed, and there's definite value in that. But if you do it right (by selecting a quality bargain player), I think you come out ahead significantly more than 50% of the time -- (1) with a stronger team overall, (2) with better odds of avoiding elimination during weeks 1-13, and (3) with better chances of scoring substantially higher in weeks 14-16.

 

[NYRAGE]

I went with two kickers, unfortunately one of them was Mike Nugent. If you go with one kicker and he gets hurt, then you'll be wishing that you had selected a second kicker. I'd want two just for the bye week and insurance in case one gets hurt (or cut).

 

[BassNBrew]

Looks like this might boil down to kickers and def in the finals. Still hoping the FBG.com looks for ways to keep this from happening in future contests.

May as well open it up to suggestions. While anything is possible, I think it's safe to say that we are pretty committed to keeping the basic structure the same. It will almost definitely remain set-it-and-forget-it, and the prices will be fixed once posted in early August.With that in mind, how could we set prices on August 1 to promote more diverse rosters on December 1?

Doug - I understand that the main purpose of this contest is to drive subscriptions so the timeframe will remain roughly the same. However given what you've cranked out stat wise and formatted quickly, why isn't it possible for the prices to ebb and flow after each pre-season game. In that instance the sharks that knew Warner would win the job could keep him at the low price, but the guys getting on the value bandwagon after he's announced the starter would pay fair market value. Those really into this contest would set a lineup early and monitor the new prices to see if they wanted to make adjustments and sacrifice the early prices. I don't see why this would be difficult since the submit button would timestamp the entry with the current values. One of these years LT, DWilly, and ADP will all get hurt in pre-season leaving virtually every lineup with their value play back-up in place. As shown by Slanton this year, if you fight the crowd you will be virtually banishing yourself to elimination. If you don't have that guy when he goes off, your fighting an uphill battle against most of the field.Not complaining. I like this contest so much that i still follow it despite being eliminated. I would just find it more interesting if there were more diverse roosters competing against each other.

That's not a bad idea....Are the new power rankings out? Dying to see where I sit among the top 1000.

This idea crossed my mind also, but this contest has $ involved and opinions. (you know what they say about opinions) If the prices for players jumped up and down, you'd have people screaming FIX!!! over several of the moves. The contest can become angry rather than more fun.

If everyone knows the ground rules going in and the staff can't win prizes then there is no fix. Opinions change as pre-season progresses. The cleanest option would be a one day window with set values for everyone to pick a team. that said, it benefits this site from a subscriber and revenue standpoint to leave the contest open as long as possbile. Taking this to the extreme, let's say they opened the contest in February with fixed values. By kickoff even more of the teams would look the same. By changing the values as circumstances warrant, you diversify the teams and reward the guys who deduce things in advance of the herd. My point is that when 90% of the teams have Slanton this late in the season, something is wrong. Given the right events with a pre-season injury this percentage could be even higher.

 

[David Dodds]

If everyone knows the ground rules going in and the staff can't win prizes then there is no fix. Opinions change as pre-season progresses. The cleanest option would be a one day window with set values for everyone to pick a team. that said, it benefits this site from a subscriber and revenue standpoint to leave the contest open as long as possbile. Taking this to the extreme, let's say they opened the contest in February with fixed values. By kickoff even more of the teams would look the same. By changing the values as circumstances warrant, you diversify the teams and reward the guys who deduce things in advance of the herd. My point is that when 90% of the teams have Slanton this late in the season, something is wrong. Given the right events with a pre-season injury this percentage could be even higher.

I don't see us ever doing this as the winner of the contest would almost always be the guy that manipulated all the preseason tweaks the best so that he had a huge cap value and then just bought a ton of studs. This always looks like everybody has the same players, but in reality there were no duplicate rosters of the 12,000+ submissions.Many rosters at the end will obviously have the very best bargains (Warner and Slaton here) because having those values made their teams hard to get eliminated as they posted big scores on most weeks. If we make any change at all next year, I could see adding two more roster spots and playing a dual flex to spread out the scoring a tad more. Personally I think the format is pretty good though (although always open to different ideas).Some other points:1. The contest does help sales quite a bit. And 60% of our subscription sales happen after August 1st. Our goal will always be to make this a level playing field to everyone regardless when they subscribe because to do something else would possibly impact those late adds.2. Our biggest challenge always will be in establishing prices on August 1st. Injuries/benchings clearly tweak values and usually leads to a few players being incredible bargains every year. We could delay the contest opening, but most of the best bargains happen around week 3 of the preseason.3. We do release the contest to staff people and have them comment on too low / too high, etc. We then tweak accordingly before releasing the contest. And on or around August 1st when we open this up, I do think the pricing is very stable. It becomes less stable as the preseason goes on. 4. Keeping a level playing field makes it easy to scan for illegal entries. If we allowed prices to fluctuate and someone had a roster that equaled $535, would people find that believable? And even if the roster is confirmed real (person guessed correctly multiple times on players that would move on the updates), is it really fun for the majority of the other owners to compete with a team around $250-$275 knowing that one guy has Tomlinson, Peterson, Gore and Westbrook at RBs, Owens, Moss, Marshall, Wayne at WR, etc. I think the beauty of the contest is you can only have so many studs. And having them usually requires sacrifices in other areas.

 

[BassNBrew]

If everyone knows the ground rules going in and the staff can't win prizes then there is no fix. Opinions change as pre-season progresses. The cleanest option would be a one day window with set values for everyone to pick a team. that said, it benefits this site from a subscriber and revenue standpoint to leave the contest open as long as possbile. Taking this to the extreme, let's say they opened the contest in February with fixed values. By kickoff even more of the teams would look the same. By changing the values as circumstances warrant, you diversify the teams and reward the guys who deduce things in advance of the herd. My point is that when 90% of the teams have Slanton this late in the season, something is wrong. Given the right events with a pre-season injury this percentage could be even higher.

I don't see us ever doing this as the winner of the contest would almost always be the guy that manipulated all the preseason tweaks the best so that he had a huge cap value and then just bought a ton of studs. This always looks like everybody has the same players, but in reality there were no duplicate rosters of the 12,000+ submissions.Many rosters at the end will obviously have the very best bargains (Warner and Slaton here) because having those values made their teams hard to get eliminated as they posted big scores on most weeks. If we make any change at all next year, I could see adding two more roster spots and playing a dual flex to spread out the scoring a tad more. Personally I think the format is pretty good though (although always open to different ideas).Some other points:1. The contest does help sales quite a bit. And 60% of our subscription sales happen after August 1st. Our goal will always be to make this a level playing field to everyone regardless when they subscribe because to do something else would possibly impact those late adds.2. Our biggest challenge always will be in establishing prices on August 1st. Injuries/benchings clearly tweak values and usually leads to a few players being incredible bargains every year. We could delay the contest opening, but most of the best bargains happen around week 3 of the preseason.3. We do release the contest to staff people and have them comment on too low / too high, etc. We then tweak accordingly before releasing the contest. And on or around August 1st when we open this up, I do think the pricing is very stable. It becomes less stable as the preseason goes on. 4. Keeping a level playing field makes it easy to scan for illegal entries. If we allowed prices to fluctuate and someone had a roster that equaled $535, would people find that believable? And even if the roster is confirmed real (person guessed correctly multiple times on players that would move on the updates), is it really fun for the majority of the other owners to compete with a team around $250-$275 knowing that one guy has Tomlinson, Peterson, Gore and Westbrook at RBs, Owens, Moss, Marshall, Wayne at WR, etc. I think the beauty of the contest is you can only have so many studs. And having them usually requires sacrifices in other areas.

Addressing your points David...

I don't see us ever doing this as the winner of the contest would almost always be the guy that manipulated all the preseason tweaks the best so that he had a huge cap value and then just bought a ton of studs.

I think you misunderstand my post. No manipulation is possible. On August 1 you release your values...people are free to submit an entry. On august 8 you revise the values. People are fre to sit on their current enrty prior to addition info coming out or submit a new one based on your values. On August 15 the values change again. people can sit on their Aug 1 entry, or their Aug 8 entry, or submit again based on your new values and the info available at the time.

Many rosters at the end will obviously have the very best bargains (Warner and Slaton here) because having those values made their teams hard to get eliminated as they posted big scores on most weeks.

You must admit that when 50% of the field has a player rostered and that player does well (and you don't have them), you are fighting a losing battle. The probelm with this format is that if you beat Slaton/Warner in weeks 6 and 7, it only takes week 8 to put you behind the eight ball. You could be right wiht your selections most on the time exceeding Slaton/Warner, but it only takes one week with the majority of the field owning them to take you down. Further proof...Doug's simulation based on your projections is more accurate by a landslide than your actual projections. when the elimaintion stats meet you stats on accurate projections, then you have a contest.

The contest does help sales quite a bit.  And 60% of our subscription sales happen after August 1st.  Our goal will always be to make this a level playing field to everyone regardless when they subscribe because to do something else would possibly impact those late adds.

Agree which is why I'm not suggesting a narrowed timeframe. If you really want to help you revenue stream, open the contest in Feb with you're projections. the "sharks" here will hop on board early for a chance to "beat the pro" in his early projections.

Our biggest challenge always will be in establishing prices on August 1st.  Injuries/benchings clearly tweak values and usually leads to a few players being incredible bargains every year.  We could delay the contest opening, but most of the best bargains happen around week 3 of the preseason.

mark my words...it may not be this year or the nest, but eventually this will turn the contest upside down. Slaton was only an above average value at the close of this contest with the questions still remaining. I'd hazard to guess that you would have valued him at 8-10 prior around sept 1 which would have grossly changed the ownership %. What happens when Lt or ADP goes down and everyone grabs their backup???

We do release the contest to staff people and have them comment on too low / too high, etc.  We then tweak accordingly before releasing the contest.  And on or around August 1st when we open this up, I do think the pricing is very stable.  It becomes less stable as the preseason goes on.

Agree, and that's why I'm suggestion a tweak to make it more stable.

Keeping a level playing field makes it easy to scan for illegal entries.  If we allowed prices to fluctuate and someone had a roster that equaled $535, would people find that believable?

David...you and I both know this is a strawmant argument. What it would take to discover these entires is far less than what it take Doug to develope and post a simulation in a few hours.

I think the beauty of the contest is you can only have so many studs.  And having them usually requires sacrifices in other areas.

Agree and you just made my point. And the best way to keep people from having too many studs is to have people pick rosters based on the curent valuation from the best in business. right now people have their 'studs" plus stus stud Slaton/Warner. if they were selecting based on your valuation prior to week one kickoff, they wouldn't have all these guys unless they were extremely perceptive early on.This contest basically comes down to who can best beat the pros valuation (which is the beauty of it). Great format...i'm just suggesting that the pro gets to update his valuations based on the same information that we have and the same time. To simplify this let me make you a challenge. Next year you set player values on Aug 1 and pick a team. I get to pick a team based on your Aug 1 valuations on Sept 1. We play head to head best ball for whatever amount you deem fair. You on??? If your answer is no, then this contest can be tweaked to make it more challenging for everyone.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

As for changing the cost of players, I was all for it just last night. Then I fell asleep and woke up with a different mindset. As someone mentioned a few posts back, there is an easy way to beat that, and I had the same thought while lying in bed. If the values change, I am going to select 22 cheap players when the contest opens early. Sure, I know we have a $250 max, but why use it? Studs like Peyton, ADP, Fitz, etc. will already be at/around their value, so the chance of their price rising before the deadline is slim-to-none. Why choose your studs early when you can get them at the same price 4 weeks later? If Peyton starts at $27, his price has only one way to move, and that is down. The smart thinking early sharks would simply roster all the cheap cost players at the start and see how they pan out. Heck, my first submission would probably be something like 2QB, 13RB, 4WR, 1TE, 1K, 1D, with a total cost of around $50.

I guess the only change I would make is to add more players to the contest, especially in the backup RB area. When the prices were set on August 1st, Edge and Gore were the only RB's to choose from on their teams. At the same time, NE and SEA had 4 RB's each. Four more teams had 3 RB's to choose from (DEN, NO, NYG, OAK). The remaining teams had 2 RB's to choose from. Granted, some teams are harder to figure out than others, but why would there be no possible backups for an aging vet and a stud with major past injuries? If the FBG experts couldn't decide who the backups were by August 1st, why not just add a few and let the masses decide? I bet if you offered Tim Hightower at $1, he would've been on many rosters. He was battling Shipp and Arrington for backup duty on August 1st. And Deshaun Foster at around $5 would've been scooped up too. Perhaps more people would've taken Gore if they could've nabbed his backup for cheap. Over 1/3 of the Betts owners chose him because they had Portis.

 

[bengalboy]

I guess the only change I would make is to add more players to the contest, especially in the backup RB area. When the prices were set on August 1st, Edge and Gore were the only RB's to choose from on their teams. At the same time, NE and SEA had 4 RB's each. Four more teams had 3 RB's to choose from (DEN, NO, NYG, OAK). The remaining teams had 2 RB's to choose from. Granted, some teams are harder to figure out than others, but why would there be no possible backups for an aging vet and a stud with major past injuries? If the FBG experts couldn't decide who the backups were by August 1st, why not just add a few and let the masses decide? I bet if you offered Tim Hightower at $1, he would've been on many rosters. He was battling Shipp and Arrington for backup duty on August 1st. And Deshaun Foster at around $5 would've been scooped up too. Perhaps more people would've taken Gore if they could've nabbed his backup for cheap. Over 1/3 of the Betts owners chose him because they had Portis.

 

[pennystock]

I like the contest the way it is, although I like the idea of adding a couple of more roster spots and creating another flex position. The only thing I would change is the payout structure. About 85% of the $35K goes to the top five people, I think that's too much when you have over 12,000 people entering the contest. I think everyone who makes the final cut of 250 should "make the money" and the distribution of the money should be flatter (maybe $10K for 1st place instead of $20K with the other $10K being spread out to people outside the top five).

Just my

 

[gpalmer]

What if the % owned stats were published, while the contest was open?

This would lead to more transparency, where everyone could figure out the bargains. But on the flip side, everyone would know the players that were being ignored. It may sound backwards, but it should lead to more unique teams.

Sorry if this has already been proposed, I didn't read through the entire thread.

 

[AB in DC]

Every year, there are cheap players who turn out to be the biggest bargains of the whole contest (Slaton, Rice, Walter, A. Bryant, D. Jackson, Breaston, Keller, Fasano, etc.). IMO getting another one of these players on your roster is a lot more valuable than the extra 3-4 points per week you'd get from a 2nd kicker. Not every one of these players pans out, but a reasonable percentage do -- and adding a 7th RB or 8th WR or 3rd TE could improve your team substantially.

Or you could get a "bargain" player who turns out to be worthless. It's easy to forget about those three months later, but there were two or three dozen players below $5 who would contribute much less than 3-4 points per week.

 

[gruecd]

Not complaining. I like this contest so much that i still follow it despite being eliminated. I would just find it more interesting if there were more diverse roosters competing against each other.

Roosters.......now that would be interesting......

 

[Marvin88]

Not complaining. I like this contest so much that i still follow it despite being eliminated. I would just find it more interesting if there were more diverse roosters competing against each other.

Roosters.......now that would be interesting......

There's got to be a Michael Vick joke looming here somewhere.

 

[Jayrod]

You can't complain about players being owned at such high percentages at the end of the contest because its a SURVIVOR format. Players that do well for their price are going to reward their owners by helping them advance.

No matter what you do preseason, there will always be some highly owned low dollar players because those owners survived at a greater rate, thus increasing ownership percentages.

The simplicity of set prices in August and no additional moves once the contest starts makes this both easy to participate in but challenging to win. I love it and wouldn't change a thing. I wouldn't even want to see more roster spots, because that takes a bit of the drama out of it.

Of course I'm still alive, so that may be skewing my perceptions.

 

[Jayrod]

If everyone knows the ground rules going in and the staff can't win prizes then there is no fix. Opinions change as pre-season progresses. The cleanest option would be a one day window with set values for everyone to pick a team. that said, it benefits this site from a subscriber and revenue standpoint to leave the contest open as long as possbile. Taking this to the extreme, let's say they opened the contest in February with fixed values. By kickoff even more of the teams would look the same. By changing the values as circumstances warrant, you diversify the teams and reward the guys who deduce things in advance of the herd. My point is that when 90% of the teams have Slanton this late in the season, something is wrong. Given the right events with a pre-season injury this percentage could be even higher.

I don't see us ever doing this as the winner of the contest would almost always be the guy that manipulated all the preseason tweaks the best so that he had a huge cap value and then just bought a ton of studs. This always looks like everybody has the same players, but in reality there were no duplicate rosters of the 12,000+ submissions.Many rosters at the end will obviously have the very best bargains (Warner and Slaton here) because having those values made their teams hard to get eliminated as they posted big scores on most weeks. If we make any change at all next year, I could see adding two more roster spots and playing a dual flex to spread out the scoring a tad more. Personally I think the format is pretty good though (although always open to different ideas).Some other points:1. The contest does help sales quite a bit. And 60% of our subscription sales happen after August 1st. Our goal will always be to make this a level playing field to everyone regardless when they subscribe because to do something else would possibly impact those late adds.2. Our biggest challenge always will be in establishing prices on August 1st. Injuries/benchings clearly tweak values and usually leads to a few players being incredible bargains every year. We could delay the contest opening, but most of the best bargains happen around week 3 of the preseason.3. We do release the contest to staff people and have them comment on too low / too high, etc. We then tweak accordingly before releasing the contest. And on or around August 1st when we open this up, I do think the pricing is very stable. It becomes less stable as the preseason goes on. 4. Keeping a level playing field makes it easy to scan for illegal entries. If we allowed prices to fluctuate and someone had a roster that equaled $535, would people find that believable? And even if the roster is confirmed real (person guessed correctly multiple times on players that would move on the updates), is it really fun for the majority of the other owners to compete with a team around $250-$275 knowing that one guy has Tomlinson, Peterson, Gore and Westbrook at RBs, Owens, Moss, Marshall, Wayne at WR, etc. I think the beauty of the contest is you can only have so many studs. And having them usually requires sacrifices in other areas.

Thanks for the info, David, but where the heck are my projections?!?! Get to work, dangit! :whipcrack:

 

[Worm]

The only change I would recommend would be to add a few more cheap/flyer players like someone suggested. It would add a little more diversity without changing any of the basics of the contest.

 

[blend]

the only thing I would change would be to add more players to select from. I like the roster size and everything else about this contest. I would have liked to have had more players to choose from though.

 

[BR33ZE]

This is the best team I've seen and at this point my pick to win it all:

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2008/100292.php

(not my team btw)

Tony Romo $23

Drew Brees $23

Kurt Warner $5

Thomas Jones $21

DeAngelo Williams $15

Chris Johnson $14

Ricky Williams $8

Steve Slaton $1

Calvin Johnson $25

Brandon Marshall $23

Jerricho Cotchery $23

Roddy White $23

Ted Ginn $13

Robert Meachem $6

L.J. Smith $12

John Carlson $4

Dustin Keller $2

Mike Nugent $1

Jason Hanson $1

Buffalo Bills $3

New York Jets $2

New Orleans Saints $2

The running backs may not be enough, but the QB's and WR's are sick.

That's a scary good team right there.

Seriously? $51 for QB and only $59 for RB? $113 for WR and only $18 for TE?The only thing I really like about that squad is the Bills/Jets/Saints committee, and even that could have been Bills/Jets/$1.

Kudos for the Roddy White pick; I wouldn't have had the stones to spend $23 on him before this year started....

Agree that $59 for RBs is not a lot, but what he spent there, he spent really well.And yes, he spent a lot on WRs, but pretty much knocked it out of the park.

 

[sinatravolta]

I agree with the last 2 posters. I would probably not change anything about the contest. But if you changed anything - it would be to just add a few more players options. That would help diversity a little.

I think people are oversweating the Slaton/Warner thing. You have 22 players on the roster. If practically everyone has one of them (9 in 10 having Slaton) and the vast majority have another (8 in 10 having Warner) - that's really not a big deal. Odds are good that in the weeks to come - most Warner owners will use another QB in at least a week or two - so it's not like everyone is playing the same QB. If you took Brees or Romo or Cutler or whoever - how they perform compared to each other (and Warner) is still going to matter.

At RB - it's even more likely that Slaton won't count for many of his owners in multiple weeks. When he has a bad week - owners who spent more on other RBs are likely to do well, and when he has a good week - owners that spent more at other positions will survive at a higher rate. So to me - even if everyone has Slaton - how people viewed him will still impact the outcome. If you thought - hey - Slaton is a sure thing - I don't have to spend that much at RB - you probably benefitted more from him than those who just recognized that he was a bargain but didn't think he'd be this good. This same thing is also true about Warner - if you somehow predicted he would have a huge year (like those 3 people remaining who have only him at QB) - then you are benefitting more from him than others - you had more money left to spend on other players. If you took Brees, Romo and Warner - you probably have a fantastic QB score every week but you have a tougher time at other positions.

Anyway - I think the changing roster values in the preseason is a bad idea.

 

[sinatravolta]

This is the best team I've seen and at this point my pick to win it all:

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2008/100292.php

(not my team btw)

Tony Romo $23

Drew Brees $23

Kurt Warner $5

Thomas Jones $21

DeAngelo Williams $15

Chris Johnson $14

Ricky Williams $8

Steve Slaton $1

Calvin Johnson $25

Brandon Marshall $23

Jerricho Cotchery $23

Roddy White $23

Ted Ginn $13

Robert Meachem $6

L.J. Smith $12

John Carlson $4

Dustin Keller $2

Mike Nugent $1

Jason Hanson $1

Buffalo Bills $3

New York Jets $2

New Orleans Saints $2

The running backs may not be enough, but the QB's and WR's are sick.

That's a scary good team right there.

Seriously? $51 for QB and only $59 for RB? $113 for WR and only $18 for TE?The only thing I really like about that squad is the Bills/Jets/Saints committee, and even that could have been Bills/Jets/$1.

Kudos for the Roddy White pick; I wouldn't have had the stones to spend $23 on him before this year started....

Agree that $59 for RBs is not a lot, but what he spent there, he spent really well.And yes, he spent a lot on WRs, but pretty much knocked it out of the park.

This is a very good team - but if the QBs all score similar points each week - that advantage may not be worth much, and the RBs could have a bad week or two. Also if Nugent doesn't come back I ultimately think only having one active kicker will make it tough to win it all.

 

[Cantonese32]

I love this contest as is. Minor tweaks are OK but to make major changes could possibly ruin a good contest set-up.

I'm still in this thing but don't like my chances of moving on with SJackson not playing!!

I keep coming back to the one roster decision that haunts me...selecting Selvin Young($21) instead of Thomas Jones($21) simply because of SJackson's wk5 bye!!! Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda.

Good Luck to all still alive.

 

[dirty_martini]

I like the contest as it is. It's simple, compelling, allows for an infinite variety of strategies and is a good mix of skill and luck.

Changing player values has several problems in my eyes. First, if you allow people to keep some players at old values you are creating a stock market game which requires people to all enter on the first day of the game to really have a shot at it and it removes most if not all of the alternate strategies. Any one who has played a stock market game will tell you that it's all about raising the cap as high as possible.

I think BassNBrew is suggesting you require people to pick a whole new roster from the new value list with the same set cap amount. While that avoids creating a stock market game, it does create a very unlevel playing field for people who subscribed and entered late since they will have only the final list available to them. You will then have some people who got Slaton at say $8 screaming "UNFAIR" because they are competing against people who got Slaton at $1. I wouldn't want to be answering those emails. As it stands now, every entry has the same chance to pick a lineup using all the information available at the deadline.

Finally, I don't think changing player values will even address the issue that BassNBrew is trying to address - that some player prices on that list were extraordinary values. Each list you put up will have some players on it who turn out to be extraordinary values. Changing the values will only change the players who are undervalued, not the fact that some players are undervalued. And the contest winners will probably still reflect the ability to pick 1 or 2 of those undervalued players AND avoid the overvalued players and injuries.

 

[Synthesizer]

If I had one suggestion it would be to open the contest and set the final prices about 2 weeks before the season starts. That's enough time for everyone to set their lineup, but also enough time for FBG to set accurate prices (Warner and Slaton would have been at least $10 each which would have seriously dropped their initial ownership percentage).

 

[gpalmer]

What if the % owned stats were published, while the contest was open?

This would lead to more transparency, where everyone could figure out the bargains. But on the flip side, everyone would know the players that were being ignored. It may sound backwards, but it should lead to more unique teams.

Sorry if this has already been proposed, I didn't read through the entire thread.

Just to expand upon my original post. I thought about it more and I am really liking the idea of publishing the ownership rates. It would have the following affect on the contest:-A players true cost would become a function of their Price(fixed) AND Ownership Rate(variable).

-There would be a visible ebb and flow of ownership rates as the preseason progresses, so their true cost would float based upon the market for that player.

-Price becomes almost secondary to the ownership rate. Should satisfy people who want a floating price.

-Should help balance out over priced and under priced players.

-Over priced players would have a lower than average ownership rate. Selecting these players would increase your teams uniqueness. May be willing to take a gamble on an over priced player because of theirownership rate.

-Under priced players would have a higher than average ownership rate. Selecting these players would probably help you survive weekly cuts by staying with the herd.

-People could bluff their picks to throw the masses off and then change their picks at the last minute.

-However at a macro level the bargains should still become obvious.

 

[dancingbones]

Anyone have the link where I can find the % owned for the players on my team?

Thankfully still alive, and I need to know who to REALLY cheer for!

 

[Otis]

Seems to me that the expensive guys who were hurt for some portion of the season could make the difference.

Many of their owners may not have survived due to them being out, and so lots of them are whittled down. For those who made it through their injuries, they would be in extra good shape when those guys return (if they return strong).

I'm counting a lot on Bush. Only 31 teams remain with Reggie Bush on the roster. That could be a huge advantage if we can survive till he gets back.

Same goes for Anquan Boldin who missed a few weeks.

Only 5 teams remain with my Bush-Boldin combo. :fingerscrossed:

 

[ctriopelle]

What if the % owned stats were published, while the contest was open?

This would lead to more transparency, where everyone could figure out the bargains. But on the flip side, everyone would know the players that were being ignored. It may sound backwards, but it should lead to more unique teams.

Sorry if this has already been proposed, I didn't read through the entire thread.

Just to expand upon my original post. I thought about it more and I am really liking the idea of publishing the ownership rates. It would have the following affect on the contest:-A players true cost would become a function of their Price(fixed) AND Ownership Rate(variable).

-There would be a visible ebb and flow of ownership rates as the preseason progresses, so their true cost would float based upon the market for that player.

-Price becomes almost secondary to the ownership rate. Should satisfy people who want a floating price.

-Should help balance out over priced and under priced players.

-Over priced players would have a lower than average ownership rate. Selecting these players would increase your teams uniqueness. May be willing to take a gamble on an over priced player because of theirownership rate.

-Under priced players would have a higher than average ownership rate. Selecting these players would probably help you survive weekly cuts by staying with the herd.

-People could bluff their picks to throw the masses off and then change their picks at the last minute.

-However at a macro level the bargains should still become obvious.

I completely disagree with this, and would argue that it would further add to the lack of diversity everyone seems so interested in (although I'd contend is OK as is). If a decent player is flying under some people's radar, why throw what is obvious to everyone else in the face of the slacker? If Slayton was on 60% of rosters to begin with, he may well have ended up on 80% in the end if people figured there must be a reason everyone's got him. I'd just assume keep investigative information in the dark as much as possible, just like keeping the bye week data off the lists. It promotes advancement of those that actually THINK about making a team, as opposed to helping those that that just want to be spoon-fed clues and hints so that they can expect to compete with teams with a real plan.Personally, I think the contest is fine as is. I only put in about 1-2 hours time each year, and I believe my simple, but reasoned out methods give me as good a shot as anyone to win in the end. I like that it is completely different than my league play, and that I can wait to worry about the contest after all my drafts are complete. The only thing that I wouldn't mind adding is an "unofficial" official FBG live update of some kind (since stats could be necessarily changed up until the cut is published), although I don't know if their resources are best spent on this kind of thing. I don't mind doing my own version of the same thing, but of course it is never a perfect match without all the team data. Drinen's latest advancement simulator is GREAT, and if that gets used from the beginning next year (with SNF updates), that would be a great alternative.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Fantasy Football is all luck. The fact I'm still in this thing proves it.

Nah. It's partly luck.If it was all luck, you could throw darts at a draft board to pick your team. That random selection would put a lot of bums on your team.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Another vote for no changes, or minimal changes to the contest.If I'm not mistaken, out of 12k+ teams, there were no duplicates. That's diverse enough for me.Once it gets down to the final 250, everyone will have a player or 3 that will make the difference for them, and that's fine.I'm not sure what we're even talking about aiming for here... 250 teams at the end that are all somehow magically diverse?I like the deadline being right before the season... it rewards those who are serious about the contest and pay attention to preseason all the way through. And it takes away the sickening possibility that one on your contest picks could go down with an injury in the last preseason game.I love having $1 bargain bin players to choose from. Heck, even with Slaton at $1, look at how many contest teams DIDN'T have him on their roster.I think the length of this contest thread shows the contest is plenty popular with no major overhauls needed.There are always minor tweaks possible, but this contest definitely ain't broke and definitely doesn't need to be fixed.My one suggestion... add MORE players... there were lots of players who became very relevant this year who would have been a stretch at $1 at the beginning of the year. Add a couple prospects from each team for a buck... then you'll get more diversity and unique teams, as well as some interesting repositioning of power rankings as the season goes on and some of those flyer players start getting more playing time and contributing to contest teams.Man I love this contest.

This.

 

[Fred Lane]

Here is my pick to win it all...

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2008/107188.php

No, this is not my team. In fact, the only players I have in common are Ricky Williams, Steve Slaton, Brandon Marshall, Derrick Mason, Steve Breaston, Dustin Keller, and the Dolphins D.

He is one of only 145 remaining Peyton Manning owners, and one of only 10 remaining Ronnie Brown owners. And he is the only one left with both.

Still my pick to win it all. He's the last remaining Ronnie Brown owner, and one of only 26 left with Peyton. The only negative I see is Turner's schedule.

Nice to know my 1-person fan club is still alive and kicking! As for the comments on changes, how about only listing players to select from whose value is $2 or greater; every remaining valid player not in the list defaults to a value of $1 and can be selected...

 

[Alberta Clipper]

RE: not listed players. I think the contest needs a set list of players but I also agree the list should or could be larger.

I think comparing to say the top 300 players being drafted according to July/Aug ADP would provide a much more complete list.

I'd also recommend that $1 and $2 players only apply to players that are much deeper on the depth chart. i.e. WR4+, QB2 or even QB3, RB3+, K non starting the year #1.

The min sal for D or starting K should be $3+.

There would be many more $1 and/or $2 players listed but not Slaton for $1 types cuz he was a RB 1 and/or 2 depending on injuries, etc. at the time sals were finalized.

More choice but less obvious bargains could help reduce high % players BUT with the 3-4 weeks of preseason there will always be injuries or other issues that bring up bargains.

 

[Alberta Clipper]

I like the contest rules just the way they are.

The only thing I'd possibly consider is eliminating the max# of players selected.

Why not have no min or max roster sizes?

That would allow all sorts of different risk/reward and strategy options.

Teams that don't take enough WR or RB to field a squad some weeks just get zeros.

Something to consider. It definately would help with more different combinations.

 

[CrossEyed]

I think the contest should be changed to allow for scoring that should have happened if the refs knew the rulebook.

 

[dancingbones]

Anyone have the link where I can find the % owned for the players on my team?

Thankfully still alive, and I need to know who to REALLY cheer for!

Anyone??

 

[Dirty Weasel]

I think the contest should be changed to allow for scoring that should have happened if the refs knew the rulebook.

To be cut from the contest's a shame,but on a play like that is just lame.You had 6 points in the bag,and then a striped phag,screwed the call and you're out of this game!I'm just practicing for next year's limerick contest (had to change spelling of f_ag)...

 

[Dirty Weasel]

Anyone have the link where I can find the % owned for the players on my team?

Thankfully still alive, and I need to know who to REALLY cheer for!

Anyone??

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2008/stats.phpHere you go. Now add it to your favorites at once!

 

[dancingbones]

Anyone have the link where I can find the % owned for the players on my team?

Thankfully still alive, and I need to know who to REALLY cheer for!

Anyone??

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2008/stats.phpHere you go. Now add it to your favorites at once!

Thanks.

 

[yabahos]

Love the contest and wouldn't change a thing with the structure. My suggestions are more around the team entries and elimination -

I'd like them to open up the contest to multiple entries. Charge $5 to $10 more per additional entry and add it to the payout pool. This would be well worth it IMO. I'd be willing to bet that at least 50% of the subscribers that enter teams would do at least one more even with a small fee. The prize $$ would not be small either - even @ $5 per entry you would be adding about $25K to $30K in additional prizes.

Another cool thing would be to put the cut teams in a losers bracket an play for a lifetime subscription or some smaller prize. This way if you get cut Week #2, you've still got something to play for.

 

[CrossEyed]

I think the contest should be changed to allow for scoring that should have happened if the refs knew the rulebook.

To be cut from the contest's a shame,but on a play like that is just lame.

You had 6 points in the bag,

and then a striped phag,

screwed the call and you're out of this game!

I'm just practicing for next year's limerick contest (had to change spelling of f_ag)...

This has to be the early favorite.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Estimated week 12 survival probabilities. Rest-of-contest sim results to come shortly (hopefully)...

 

[Xenopax]

Another installment of "The Extreme Teams"1TE - 17 teams4TE's - 14 teamsLeast spent - $2Most spent - $61

So I'm the $61 "extreme team" with:TE - Jason Witten - 31TE - Kellen Winslow - 28TE - Dustin Keller - 2I'm also still in it

 

[Doug Drinen]

Rest-of-season simulations. Usual caveats apply.

 

[Xenopax]

For everyone complaining about the contest and player prices, may I point out that everyone has the opportunity to buy the low-price players with huge upside? Players like Warner and Slaton are obviously no-brainers when you build your team and they act more as a way to eliminate people who aren't paying attention to the game than as a overall winning strategy. The real game is played among the higher priced players because that's where the people who pay attention to the game have differing opinions on value vs. price.