What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

ESPN League vs MFL? (1 Viewer)

chasyone

chasyone

Footballguy
Hope this is the proper forum. I have been the commissioner of a league for 11 years. We just went to MFL for the last 3 years and it has been good. We just do a basic 2 player keeper league with standard scoring, no ppr and start QB 2RB 2WR TE K DEF. We get the league upgraded early and it cost $70.

My question is with just running a basic league with nothing really fancy would it be better to do a free keeper league on ESPN?

Does anybody commish a keeper league on ESPN and how do you like it?

Has anyone made a switch from MFL to ESPN or vice verse? Thanks

 
BroadwayG said:
Not much of a reason to pay for league hosting unless you need something you can't get for free.
Click to expand...
If that were true, there would be no such thing as the bottled water industry.

MFL can do a lot of things ESPN can't, and in a 10- or 12-team league, it works out to only $6 or $7 bucks per man.

Having said that, BroadwayG has a point. If a FREE site has everything you need, it's a viable option.

 
I'm finding Yahoo's stat tracking easier than MFLs these days. Yahoo's limited league structure and customization though keeps me from suggesting it to the league.

 
Insein said:
I'm finding Yahoo's stat tracking easier than MFLs these days. Yahoo's limited league structure and customization though keeps me from suggesting it to the league.
Click to expand...
Yea a few my owners have said they didn't like MFL live scoring and thought they focus more on other things like trash talk videos instead of on making things easier for them to find on the site
 
Last edited by a moderator:
chasyone said:
Insein said:
I'm finding Yahoo's stat tracking easier than MFLs these days. Yahoo's limited league structure and customization though keeps me from suggesting it to the league.
Click to expand...
Yea a few my owners have said they didn't like MFL live scoring and thought they focus more on other things like trash talk videos instead of on making things easier for them to find on the site
Click to expand...
I haven't noticed any issues with MFL's live scoring.

 
I really wish MFL would take some of their money and invest it in their horrid design and user interface. It's terrible and embarrassing as the commissioner converting a home league from yahoo to MFL.

The feature set is great and they are the only shop in town for what they offer.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
By the way, if you do stick with MFL, don't forget there's a $10 per league discount for FBG subscribers.

There's also a multi-league discount, another $10 for each league after the first. Just have the same person pay for each league. We end up paying $60 for the fist league and then $50 for each after that.

 
tone1oc said:
I really wish MFL would take some of their money and invest it in their horrid design and user interface. It's terrible and embarrassing as the commissioner converting a home league from yahoo to MFL.

The feature set is great and they are the only shop in town for what they offer.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I used to stump for them because I thought they were a product worth supporting. I'll still point someone there for a league that wants to use advanced features, but have dropped off a bit other than that.

 
chasyone said:
Hope this is the proper forum. I have been the commissioner of a league for 11 years. We just went to MFL for the last 3 years and it has been good. We just do a basic 2 player keeper league with standard scoring, no ppr and start QB 2RB 2WR TE K DEF. We get the league upgraded early and it cost $70.

My question is with just running a basic league with nothing really fancy would it be better to do a free keeper league on ESPN?

Does anybody commish a keeper league on ESPN and how do you like it?

Has anyone made a switch from MFL to ESPN or vice verse? Thanks
Click to expand...
I am the commish of a league that features two keepers and we use ESPN. We used to use a pay site, but switched to ESPN 4 or 5 years ago. I have no complaints.

 
Greg Russell said:
tone1oc said:
I really wish MFL would take some of their money and invest it in their horrid design and user interface. It's terrible and embarrassing as the commissioner converting a home league from yahoo to MFL.

The feature set is great and they are the only shop in town for what they offer.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I used to stump for them because I thought they were a product worth supporting. I'll still point someone there for a league that wants to use advanced features, but have dropped off a bit other than that.
Click to expand...
It's clear to me they are just collecting checks and no real work is being done to improve the product. It's a shame. I will be reevaluating fleaflicker again after this season to see if they have caught up on the feature set that keeps me with MFL.

 
We do trade future picks so if ESPN can do that it might a good idea to save $70 a year and make the switch

 
MFL.com can be pretty sexy IF you have someone (Commish) willing to put in the time, and has some ability to take advantage of the customizable features. Without that, it's plain Jane with outdated formatting. I'll take everyone's word on the latter as we have been on MFL.com for 12 years and love it.

 
ESPN seems for newbies while MFL seems for more experienced FF people. I have never dug into it and I'm sure others will reply with them offering XYZ but...perception is going to be important if you're moving 11 other guys there

 
Dizzy said:
MFL.com can be pretty sexy IF you have someone (Commish) willing to put in the time, and has some ability to take advantage of the customizable features. Without that, it's plain Jane with outdated formatting. I'll take everyone's word on the latter as we have been on MFL.com for 12 years and love it.
Click to expand...
I was told 3 years ago that MFL is the best but I have had guys just say it's a little complicated sometimes. I still have guys asking questions after 3 years. I enjoy the site and I have no trouble just thought maybe as basic as we are in scoring and format that it may be better to go to a free site that does what we do
 
Dizzy said:
MFL.com can be pretty sexy IF you have someone (Commish) willing to put in the time, and has some ability to take advantage of the customizable features. Without that, it's plain Jane with outdated formatting. I'll take everyone's word on the latter as we have been on MFL.com for 12 years and love it.
Click to expand...
None of the sexiness you can add makes the user interface bearable. It's terrible. And while paying for graphics/stylesheets or doing it on your own might bring the look and feel up to 2005ish instead of 1999, it still is lipstick on a pig.

The javascript library they are using is over 10 years old. It really bothers me that they don't open up the coffers to some professional design/UX guys.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a reoccurring theme whenever MFL.com is discussed. They have the most flexible format, but least appealing (oldest?) interface.

Can you be more specific? If you had to build the ultimate league hosting website... what kind of mash-up would you piece together from the various offerings out there?

I'm curious because while we are long-time users of MFL.com, we're not married to the site and would consider switching to something more appealing at a competitive price.

 
Dizzy said:
This is a reoccurring theme whenever MFL.com is discussed. They have the most flexible format, but least appealing (oldest?) interface.

Can you be more specific? If you had to build the ultimate league hosting website... what kind of mash-up would you piece together from the various offerings out there?

I'm curious because while we are long-time users of MFL.com, we're not married to the site and would consider switching to something more appealing at a competitive price.
Click to expand...
If you are asking me, I'd say that FleaFlicker is a great starting point as far as user interface / design. They utilize a lot of modern web techniques/libraries. Unfortunately the feature set still isn't there to compete with MFL for the most part. I've evaluated FF after the past 2 seasons to see if they are able accommodate my leagues and will do so again this year.

As someone else mentioned, I have owners in my leagues for multiple years and still have issues finding where something is or even predrafting correctly. It's easy for someone who has a full grasp of the clunky site to do this correctly but if many or even some are having issues navigating/using site it doesn't mean they are noob to fantasty, it means they struggle with an overwhelming/dated/terrible layout.

 
I have had my league on another site besides ESPN or MFL for over 10 years, but I do play in a league that used ESPN so I was familiar w/ their site. I was considering moving my league to ESPN this year and started looking more into it and realized very quickly that the ESPN free leagues can NOT do a league with an odd numbered # of teams. (long story, but last year we dropped down to 9 teams and played doubleheaders each week so I made the schedule work w/o anyone having a "bye")

Just giving feedback...but I thought that was weird that ESPN could only do Even # of teams leagues.

(BTW: my league was able to add another owner before the draft)

 
Nemesis said:
I have had my league on another site besides ESPN or MFL for over 10 years, but I do play in a league that used ESPN so I was familiar w/ their site. I was considering moving my league to ESPN this year and started looking more into it and realized very quickly that the ESPN free leagues can NOT do a league with an odd numbered # of teams. (long story, but last year we dropped down to 9 teams and played doubleheaders each week so I made the schedule work w/o anyone having a "bye")

Just giving feedback...but I thought that was weird that ESPN could only do Even # of teams leagues.

(BTW: my league was able to add another owner before the draft)
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure Yahoo (quite sure) & CBS (not as quite sure) are the same way.

 
tone1oc said:
I really wish MFL would take some of their money and invest it in their horrid design and user interface. It's terrible and embarrassing as the commissioner converting a home league from yahoo to MFL.

The feature set is great and they are the only shop in town for what they offer.
Click to expand...
Ditto. MFL has two huge downsides, that eventually will catch up to them: the dinosaur interface and a lack of a quality draft/auction agent. What ESPN does with drafts and auctions is spectacular, IMO.

 
Yes, lack of further development on the auction tool is probably the thing that could most drive us to another site right now for my league that uses a lot of the advanced features. Not just improvements, but tightening up some of the issues it has.

 
chasyone said:
Hope this is the proper forum. I have been the commissioner of a league for 11 years. We just went to MFL for the last 3 years and it has been good. We just do a basic 2 player keeper league with standard scoring, no ppr and start QB 2RB 2WR TE K DEF. We get the league upgraded early and it cost $70.

My question is with just running a basic league with nothing really fancy would it be better to do a free keeper league on ESPN?

Does anybody commish a keeper league on ESPN and how do you like it?

Has anyone made a switch from MFL to ESPN or vice verse? Thanks
Click to expand...
Yes. If you don't need your league to be completely customizable, then a free ESPN league is the way to go. All of the basics are there and work well. We paid CBS $150 a year until finally switching to ESPN, and once we did I felt like a fool for staying with CBS for so long. If it's a big money league with 12 or more teams, then maybe the few extra niceties of paid league management software would be worth it, but we decided that we would rather put that money into the prize pool.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jack White said:
BroadwayG said:
Not much of a reason to pay for league hosting unless you need something you can't get for free.
Click to expand...
If that were true, there would be no such thing as the bottled water industry.

MFL can do a lot of things ESPN can't, and in a 10- or 12-team league, it works out to only $6 or $7 bucks per man.

Having said that, BroadwayG has a point. If a FREE site has everything you need, it's a viable option.
Click to expand...
Great analogy, but probably not in the way you intended.

 
Greg Russell said:
tone1oc said:
I really wish MFL would take some of their money and invest it in their horrid design and user interface. It's terrible and embarrassing as the commissioner converting a home league from yahoo to MFL.

The feature set is great and they are the only shop in town for what they offer.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I used to stump for them because I thought they were a product worth supporting. I'll still point someone there for a league that wants to use advanced features, but have dropped off a bit other than that.
Click to expand...
Same here. I've commished on MFL for 14 years and used to be a strong supporter but I've grown dissillusioned with their lack of truly adding improved features. Now all the site news centers around plugs for daily games. I remember looking forward to site news for all the dynasty improvements in the works, etc. I guess they think they've arrived :shrug:

 
Dizzy said:
This is a reoccurring theme whenever MFL.com is discussed. They have the most flexible format, but least appealing (oldest?) interface.

Can you be more specific? If you had to build the ultimate league hosting website... what kind of mash-up would you piece together from the various offerings out there?

I'm curious because while we are long-time users of MFL.com, we're not married to the site and would consider switching to something more appealing at a competitive price.
Click to expand...
I would take MFL and combine it with Reality Sports Online (RSO) auction room format. That would be a major improvement for both sites.

 
It's not correct, as I lean with you both on that it's not technically a defensive failure resulting in points against the defense. Just adds an element of strategy to the equation. Like a decent Jets D coupled with Geno, that would give you pause to use them because of the rule. It's like debating the DH in baseball, one side says it adds strategy to the game, the other says pitchers aren't pure hitters so they shouldn't hit. Both can make a case. Mine has a flaw that would make it a loser, but from a fun/strategy perspective I always thought the ability for a crappy QB or a RB who fumbles potentially deciding a close matchup ratchets up the difficulty level, even though it's a bad argument to the real intent of D/ST scoring allowed.

 
mquinnjr said:
It's not correct, as I lean with you both on that it's not technically a defensive failure resulting in points against the defense. Just adds an element of strategy to the equation. Like a decent Jets D coupled with Geno, that would give you pause to use them because of the rule. It's like debating the DH in baseball, one side says it adds strategy to the game, the other says pitchers aren't pure hitters so they shouldn't hit. Both can make a case. Mine has a flaw that would make it a loser, but from a fun/strategy perspective I always thought the ability for a crappy QB or a RB who fumbles potentially deciding a close matchup ratchets up the difficulty level, even though it's a bad argument to the real intent of D/ST scoring allowed.
Click to expand...
I understand the added strategy, but it's akin to saying that if a WR catches the ball and then fumbles it, that the QB should be penalized for the fumble. Afterall, the QB threw him the ball and possibly put the WR in a bad position resulting in a fumble. 

Or if a kicker misses a FG, the player who touched the ball last on offense should be penalized, because they failed to get the 1st down in the first place. Would bring in a huge element of strategy... a good QB with a bad kicker would suddenly be worth a lot less. 

Those two scenarios are ridiculous but I could make a stronger case as to why the QB should be penalized in those two scenarios than a defense penalized for a pick 6. 

I am not a big fan of this at all. If a QB starts off the game throwing 2 pick 6s and the defense has never once stepped foot on the field, why should they start out with negative points? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it's stupid and always has been stupid.  I also don't think it adds anything positive to fantasy football since it's doesn't represent defense at all.

 
I give them credit for at least trying. It's perfect if it's a option that you can just switch on or off. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JohnnyU
MFL question: Add a draft pick at the end of a round
Replies
4
Views
139
JohnnyU
JohnnyU
shuke
  • Locked
League dominator not syncing correctly.
Replies
18
Views
1K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
J
MFL Modified Best Ball
Replies
4
Views
409
Ministry of Pain
Ministry of Pain

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top