Are ten-team leagues growing more popular? (1 Viewer)

[Chris Smith]

I've always thought of 12-teams as the 'typical' fantasy football league... I myself have played in 8,10,12,14,16 and 18 team leagues over the years but most of the time find myself in the 12-team format...

I have received 13 emails so far in the past twenty-four hours requesting another draft slots article for 10-team leagues.

I am surprised to see so much interest when it comes to 10-team leagues.

Have any of you seen an increase of 10-team leagues over the past year or two?

Just curious if there has been a shift out there to the smaller leagues. I have always found the greatest challenge to be in the 12-16 team leagues.

 

[jziccfbg]

I've always felt the smaller the league the more luck is involved and conversely, less skill. I like 14 team leagues as the perfect balance right now.

 

[Dreamer]

I've always felt the smaller the league the more luck is involved and conversely, less skill. I like 14 team leagues as the perfect balance right now.

 

[zanti8]

i like a variety of setups . i like 12 the best . 13 week regular season 6 make playoffs with the top 2 getting the playoff bye week 14 .

10 teamers i like for 4 playoff teams and the 14 week regular season . i also think 2QB and 2 team defense are great in 10 teamers .

 

[Football Menace]

I've played in a 10-team league for the past 6 years. It's a competitive league that's filled with long-time friends.

 

[Football Menace]

I've always felt the smaller the league the more luck is involved and conversely, less skill. I like 14 team leagues as the perfect balance right now.

IMO, if all of the owners are hardcore and competitive, the "luck" factor is the same regardless of league size.

 

[jziccfbg]

IMO, if all of the owners are hardcore and competitive, the "luck" factor is the same regardless of league size.

If you look at FF as a combination of luck and skill, and you grant the obvious that a 16 team league requires more skill than a ten team league, then the result is that there must be more luck involved in a ten team league. Of course this all falls apart if you don't think that you can discretely qualify luck and skill as the only aspects of ff performance...

 

[hook014]

I commish a 10 team league and there is a reason for its popularity IMO.

Ours used to be a 12 teamer with a smaller starting lineup, but we found that when a team in that format had a major injury or 2 he fell out of the race.

On sunday a big name would go down and you could look at that owners roster and know he was done. Oh he'd still be respectable, but he was out of the race. For that year. A long time when so much work had gone into building his team.

So I set out to change it. When we lost 2 owners to out of state moves we contracted.

Then we expanded the starting req, while leaving the bench rather small. Installed blind bidding for ww moves and gave the owners a reasonable budget of fantasy dollars.

So a big injury/ bust situation leaves the owner with some options. And he can still crawl back into it this year.

The other owners also have the option of blocking his moves by burning up some of their budget (and limited roster space) on a pick up. Makes for some very interesting exchanges. Misinformation and bluffing re; what the weekly bids will be are rampant.

Guy blows half his budget on a player that nobody else even bid on. Hilarity ensues.

The thing is, the better players still seem to be at the top of the standings every year. But everybody has a chance till deep in the season.

PS. No playoffs, by the way, You wanna win? catch the leader.

 

[Football Jones]

Eventually, I believe 14-team leagues will be the norm. The problem with the standard 12-team league is the schedule dynamics. In a 14-team league, you have one division & play everybody once (13 weeks). 6 team-playoff for 3 weeks ending on week-16. That's ideal, IMO.

In a 12-team league, you just about have to use 3 divisions of 4 teams each, meaning you play the teams in your own division twice & the rest of the teams once. That, in itself, lends to more luck being involved (than 14-team leagues).

I really think the appeal of the 10-team league is just the fact they're easier to assemble. Simply less owners to recruit. Often times, the recruiting stops at 10 because the group would have a hard time getting the last couple owners for a 12-team league.

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

I've always felt the smaller the league the more luck is involved and conversely, less skill.  I like 14 team leagues as the perfect balance right now.

IMO, if all of the owners are hardcore and competitive, the "luck" factor is the same regardless of league size.

I agree.

 

[CanadianNFLJunkie]

Everyone has a freaking All-Star team in 10-team leagues, hence the team that is the healthiest would advance in the playoffs. I prefer 12-14-16 team leagues easily, where your knowledge of lesser-knowns are more important, especially late in the season.

 

[joffer]

unfortunately yes :(

 

[The Jerk]

If you look at FF as a combination of luck and skill, and you grant the obvious that a 16 team league requires more skill than a ten team league, then the result is that there must be more luck involved in a ten team league. Of course this all falls apart if you don't think that you can discretely qualify luck and skill as the only aspects of ff performance...

Except that it's not "obvious" that a 16-team league requires more skill. Different league sizes require different drafting and team management approaches. In a 16-team redraft league, with talent diluted, draft slots become even more important, as there can be a huge difference between the top picks of the first 3-4 slots vs. the last 3-4 slots. So if draft slots are random, then there's a lot of luck involved in getting that early slot and having a substantial advantage. More luck, I might add, than in a 10-team redraft. I could go on, but that's enough for now.

 

[The Jerk]

Everyone has a freaking All-Star team in 10-team leagues, hence the team that is the healthiest would advance in the playoffs. I prefer 12-14-16 team leagues easily, where your knowledge of lesser-knowns are more important, especially late in the season.

Then you might need to increase the starting lineups some. I understand your point, but there are inequities in larger leagues as well. 10-team leagues mitigate the advantage of having a top 3 overall pick, especially this year. I have found different sized leagues to be more or less equally challenging, but they can be quite different in the drafting and team management techniques needed to be competitive.

 

[BigRed]

Actually I think 10 was more the norm in days gone by and 12s or more were getting more popular, but just an impression.

I've played in 10s and 12s. IMO 10 is the ideal number, although 12 is OK. Anything more IMO blows because the waiver wire doesn't have squat on it, taking away that additional aspect of the game.

And the idea that a 10 team league is easier/requires less skill is laughably wrong.

Also I don't like having 3 divisions w/12 because there's a much greater chance that there could be a weak division and the div winner will (undeservedly) get into the playoffs.

 

[jziccfbg]

In a 16-team redraft league, with talent diluted, draft slots become even more important, as there can be a huge difference between the top picks of the first 3-4 slots vs. the last 3-4 slots. So if draft slots are random, then there's a lot of luck involved in getting that early slot and having a substantial advantage. More luck, I might add, than in a 10-team redraft. I could go on, but that's enough for now.

Nothing like proving my point--- you mention that if you don't get a good draft spot that you are at a disadvantage (or HARDER -- requiring more skill) ---- I grant you that your point in terms of draft slotting that there are more inequities in a 16 team league ----; I just don't like the "all star" leagues (10 man)

 

[jziccfbg]

Anything more IMO blows because the waiver wire doesn't have squat on it, taking away that additional aspect of the game.And the idea that a 10 team league is easier/requires less skill is laughably wrong.

Again, proving the point that in a 16 team league you have to have a great draft --- no getting some out of nowhere guy on the waiver wire who wins the league for you --- getting that guy comes down to luck. BTW I also think 16 teams is too much -- 14 is perfect.If you haven't played in a 10,12, 14,16 -- you really can't comment (not a reply to you but just a general statement) (well -- as this isn't CHINA - I guess you can comment but you know what I mean)

 

[secretid]

Can we drop this "10-team leagues are luck" nonsense?

If you're talking about the same roster req's then, yes, there's more luck.

If you're expanding the roster req's even a little bit I don't think it's a tough argument at all that there's a lot more skill involved.

 

[Noahs Troopers]

Yes they are growing more popular, 2 QB leagues are becoming a new fad, one I have no desire to participate in but have absolutely nothing against people who do!

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I play in a 10, a 12 and a 14, think of them as blonde, brunette, and a red head.

None better, none worse, just a little variety.

 

[jziccfbg]

I play in a 10, a 12 and a 14, think of them as blonde, brunette, and a red head.

My thoughts exactly I just like my blonde 14 team better

 

[tytyty]

Simply, it's more fun in a 10 teamer due the talent level is a little higher on the teams. Plus I only have 9 friends.

 

[jziccfbg]

Plus I only have 9 friends.

Now you know why I win my 1-team league every year....

 

[hook014]

If you look at FF as a combination of luck and skill,  and you grant the obvious that a 16 team league requires more skill than a ten team league, then the result is that there must be more luck involved in a ten team league.  Of course this all falls apart if you don't think that you can discretely qualify luck and skill as the only aspects of ff performance...

Except that it's not "obvious" that a 16-team league requires more skill. Different league sizes require different drafting and team management approaches. In a 16-team redraft league, with talent diluted, draft slots become even more important, as there can be a huge difference between the top picks of the first 3-4 slots vs. the last 3-4 slots. So if draft slots are random, then there's a lot of luck involved in getting that early slot and having a substantial advantage. More luck, I might add, than in a 10-team redraft. I could go on, but that's enough for now.

I agree with the jerk here. He makes some excellent points.I would go even further and say that the top spot is definetly feast or famine.

Let's say you have the #1 in a 16 team draft, and pick one of the top 3. I won't say which one cause it's not important. Your choice.

Now you get the 32nd best player (give or take) in the second round.

Game one: Your #1 pick goes down for the year.

How are you gonna compete with the 32nd guy being your best player?

Assuming you're in a league with knowledgable players, you're cooked for the year.

Now I can hear some of you already saying "That's why the later rounds are so important. Seperates the sharks from the dead money" etc.

It would take an out of this world draft to overcome this disparity.

And in a league like ours where value doesn't fall in the draft more than a coupla picks, it's not gonna happen.

You have a mediocre bad beat story and thats it.

In a 10 teamer with a large starting req. you can still outplay your opponents and the season has hope. Heck, this can be the year you beat your opponents "without" a 1st rd pick.

For us, it's about having fun. And it's no fun if you get knocked out of the year on 1 awkward tackle in week one.

 

[The Jerk]

Nothing like proving my point--- you mention that if you don't get a good draft spot that you are at a disadvantage (or HARDER -- requiring more skill) ---- I grant you that your point in terms of draft slotting that there are more inequities in a 16 team league ----;  I just don't like the "all star" leagues (10 man)

1. You're right that my comments did "nothing" toward proving your point. In any league, you're in a disadvantage if you don't draft well. Where I disagree is that having more teams be at a random disadvantage (or harder as you say) makes the league better. It just makes it less fair.2. Thanks for agreeing to the inequity aspect. Let's take it to the extremes: Probably the fairest league would be a 2-team league. No matter where you draft, you're guaranteed to have a shot at every player but 1. On the other extreme, a 100-team league would all but guarantee that the teams drafting last would have no shot at the title. Based on this absurd but illuminating comparison, a 10-team league seems to be better (or at least fairer) than a 16-team league.

3. You really ought to learn how to quote. It's driving me crazy.

 

[BigRed]

Again, proving the point that in a 16 team league you have to have a great draft

Being in larger leagues mean you need to be a better DRAFTER - that much I agree with. But this is offset by needing to be more adept at the FA wire thing.

- no getting some out of nowhere guy on the waiver wire who wins the league for you

You act like that's a common or easy thing to do. Not....yknow how many times someone picks up a FA who they THINK is going to HELP them win (no one guy wins a league for you) and they don't? Knowing when to pull the trigger or not is part of the skill involved with smaller leagues (in fact a 12 teamer could argue that to a 14-16 teamer to an extent).

getting that guy comes down to luck.

? Not most leagues I've seen. And really taking some 1000-1 longshot in the draft....you don't think it's luck if he produces or not? Sure in hindsight you can call it skill and how you "knew" this guy would emerge blah blah, but we know better. A longshot is a longshot.

 

[jziccfbg]

Nothing like proving my point--- you mention that if you don't get a good draft spot that you are at a disadvantage (or HARDER -- requiring more skill) ---- I grant you that your point in terms of draft slotting that there are more inequities in a 16 team league ----; I just don't like the "all star" leagues (10 man)

1. You're right that my comments did "nothing" toward proving your point. In any league, you're in a disadvantage if you don't draft well. Where I disagree is that having more teams be at a random disadvantage (or harder as you say) makes the league better. It just makes it less fair.2. Thanks for agreeing to the inequity aspect. Let's take it to the extremes: Probably the fairest league would be a 2-team league. No matter where you draft, you're guaranteed to have a shot at every player but 1. On the other extreme, a 100-team league would all but guarantee that the teams drafting last would have no shot at the title. Based on this absurd but illuminating comparison, a 10-team league seems to be better (or at least fairer) than a 16-team league.

3. You really ought to learn how to quote. It's driving me crazy.

is this quote better?Now then, my last attempt ------ Give me a computer generated team (random as you can get) on a 10 teamer --- Think of programming the software to do this ---- there are far less permutations required in a ten team vs. a 16 team (the computer generated 10team will be indistinguishable from a good human -- the AI required to do a 16 team would cause this to be alot less likely -----**** My point is that the overall experience on a 16 team league is a lot more difficult in terms of drafting and waiver wire ----- I am not commenting on which is more fun -- that's a matter of taste ***** Anyone know a good 14 teamer $200 (cough cough) available?

 

[Kleck.]

One of the leagues I enjoy most is a 10-teamer. The format we use with two conferences could not be any better for the playoffs. It's also local so the get-to-gethers are always a good time too.

 

[The Jerk]

Nothing like proving my point--- you mention that if you don't get a good draft spot that you are at a disadvantage (or HARDER -- requiring more skill) ---- I grant you that your point in terms of draft slotting that there are more inequities in a 16 team league ----;  I just don't like the "all star" leagues (10 man)

1. You're right that my comments did "nothing" toward proving your point. In any league, you're in a disadvantage if you don't draft well. Where I disagree is that having more teams be at a random disadvantage (or harder as you say) makes the league better. It just makes it less fair.2. Thanks for agreeing to the inequity aspect. Let's take it to the extremes: Probably the fairest league would be a 2-team league. No matter where you draft, you're guaranteed to have a shot at every player but 1. On the other extreme, a 100-team league would all but guarantee that the teams drafting last would have no shot at the title. Based on this absurd but illuminating comparison, a 10-team league seems to be better (or at least fairer) than a 16-team league.

3. You really ought to learn how to quote. It's driving me crazy.

is this quote better?Now then, my last attempt ------ Give me a computer generated team (random as you can get) on a 10 teamer --- Think of programming the software to do this ---- there are far less permutations required in a ten team vs. a 16 team (the computer generated 10team will be indistinguishable from a good human -- the AI required to do a 16 team would cause this to be alot less likely -----**** My point is that the overall experience on a 16 team league is a lot more difficult in terms of drafting and waiver wire ----- I am not commenting on which is more fun -- that's a matter of taste ***** Anyone know a good 14 teamer $200 (cough cough) available?

Yes, and thanks!! I can agree with you on two factors of playing in larger leagues.

1. The price of an early round bust is higher than in a smaller league.

2. Some schmo can be totally clueless and still end up with a decent RB2 or WR3 in smaller leagues 2-3 rounds later than they should be drafted. That doesn't happen in larger leagues.

However, I still don't think that makes larger leagues declaratively better, just different. To each his own. Good discussion.

 

[TheLaw]

10 team league going on its 12th year. we start 2QB, 3RB, 4WR, 2TE, 2K, and 2D/ST. I prefer this league to every other one I have been in.

 

[Facenda's Voice]

.....let's see, should I start Rudi Johnson against Houston, or Edge against Detroit?

 

[jziccfbg]

Nothing like proving my point--- you mention that if you don't get a good draft spot that you are at a disadvantage (or HARDER -- requiring more skill) ---- I grant you that your point in terms of draft slotting that there are more inequities in a 16 team league ----; I just don't like the "all star" leagues (10 man)

1. You're right that my comments did "nothing" toward proving your point. In any league, you're in a disadvantage if you don't draft well. Where I disagree is that having more teams be at a random disadvantage (or harder as you say) makes the league better. It just makes it less fair.2. Thanks for agreeing to the inequity aspect. Let's take it to the extremes: Probably the fairest league would be a 2-team league. No matter where you draft, you're guaranteed to have a shot at every player but 1. On the other extreme, a 100-team league would all but guarantee that the teams drafting last would have no shot at the title. Based on this absurd but illuminating comparison, a 10-team league seems to be better (or at least fairer) than a 16-team league.

3. You really ought to learn how to quote. It's driving me crazy.

is this quote better?Now then, my last attempt ------ Give me a computer generated team (random as you can get) on a 10 teamer --- Think of programming the software to do this ---- there are far less permutations required in a ten team vs. a 16 team (the computer generated 10team will be indistinguishable from a good human -- the AI required to do a 16 team would cause this to be alot less likely -----**** My point is that the overall experience on a 16 team league is a lot more difficult in terms of drafting and waiver wire ----- I am not commenting on which is more fun -- that's a matter of taste ***** Anyone know a good 14 teamer $200 (cough cough) available?

Yes, and thanks!! I can agree with you on two factors of playing in larger leagues.

1. The price of an early round bust is higher than in a smaller league.

2. Some schmo can be totally clueless and still end up with a decent RB2 or WR3 in smaller leagues 2-3 rounds later than they should be drafted. That doesn't happen in larger leagues.

However, I still don't think that makes larger leagues declaratively better, just different. To each his own. Good discussion.

good discussion (argument?)Actually, I'm just a stubborn SOB who will attempt to argue any point just to be stubborn --- My wife loves me for this...

 

[jziccfbg]

10 team league going on its 12th year. we start 2QB, 3RB, 4WR, 2TE, 2K, and 2D/ST. I prefer this league to every other one I have been in.

Now that looks like a fun 10 teamer....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ShaqAttaq]

as league size rises, the importance of the draft increases

as league size decreases, the importance of lineup choices increases

i've played in leagues that range from 8 to 16 teams. this year, it will be 10, 12, 12, 14, and 16

 

[fsufan]

I've always felt the smaller the league the more luck is involved and conversely, less skill.  I like 14 team leagues as the perfect balance right now.

IMO, if all of the owners are hardcore and competitive, the "luck" factor is the same regardless of league size.

I play in two 10 team dynasty leagues and two 14 team dynasty league (MOX 3 and 5)

I am the commish the two 10 team dynasty leagues (one is in its 9th year and the other in its 3rd). All owners are hardcore/diehard FF players. 10 team leagues can be very competitive if you have 10 hardcore owners

 

[fsufan]

Everyone has a freaking All-Star team in 10-team leagues,

no they do notHere is a post in the AC of my main dynasty league I have been playing/ commishing for the past 9 years. As you will see not all team are loaded.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...opic=251436&hl=

 

[GroveDiesel]

Speaking of the draft slots article, when I click on it, it takes me to the correct link, but the article there is the Rearview SOS - Quarterbacks article.