***Official*** 2011 FBG Subscriber Contest Thread (1 Viewer)

[Bad_Mo]

Is there a way to find out how you've done in prior year's contests?

I thought I did OK last year but exited a round or two before the money round. I can't remember exactly and probably have revisionist history.

 

[LittlePhatty]

Is there a way to find out how you've done in prior year's contests?

You can take the "standings" web link and change the year and week number.The only catch is you'll have to remember your team's entry number from previous years.

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2010/week-16.php

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2009/week-16.php

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2008/week-16.php

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2007/week-16.php

 

[Saint]

Welcome back Earl Bennett!

 

[OU#1]

What's the cutoff gonna be?

 

[QuizGuy66]

Done at 176.5

Welcome to the list of dudes who have scored for me, Marion Barber. Only Lee Evans, Evan Moore, and Jay Feely have failed to tally for me. (24 out of 27 have scored)

-QG

 

[Regis]

Welcome back Earl Bennett!

Bennett and Barber may have saved my team with Peterson, Stafford and Jason Hill on bye, S. Moss and Felix Jones injured. I was worried about this week... Think I have 144 now, hopefully that's enough.

 

[apalmer]

whew--survived by .75 pts. I was sure that Wallace's "interception" from Brown was going to doom me.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Whew. Bennett came out of nowhere to keep my team alive.

 

[Bad_Mo]

Although it doesn't mean much, coming in at #9 this week is the highest finish I've had in any week doing this contest. I'm now officially jinxed and heading for an exit this week.

 

[Balco]

On to next week. I really need a rb to emerge like Antonio Brown did for my WR crew. Beanie Wells is really struggling right now, and Ray Rice and Wells are pretty much all that I have at this point. Aaron Hernandez and Jimmy Graham have been my mvps.

 

[Deranged Hermit]

Rivers really saved my bacon this week. I knew there was a reason I took him.

 

[elcohiba]

I'm right in that meaty part of the curve - not showing off, not falling behind.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Donovan McNabb $11 10.15 12.60 17.65 21.10 14.85 8.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mike Sims-Walker $11 1.50 15.20 6.60 1.60 0.00 0.00 2.10 0.00 0.00 out? out? out? out? out? out? out? Bernard Berrian $5 0.00 2.70 0.00 3.00 0.00 10.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 bye bye bye bye bye bye bye
Averaging about 180 points the last couple weeks. Its a shame I cant get a refund on these turds.

 

[Typical White Guy]

Of the 291 teams that started Week 9 with the Stafford/Megatron combo, more than half (148) were eliminated during their bye this week. Ouch.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Congrats to the Turk on making it to the final 7 of staff entries still alive!

He's up against Tefertiller, Henry, Wimer, Halloway and the mysterious Entry 107660 and Entry 100972.

-QG

 

[chet]

Do you think you could assemble a winning team now? i.e. You are subject to the same salary cap and position requirements, but you have the benefit of the YTD data. 2300 teams left.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Do you think you could assemble a winning team now? i.e. You are subject to the same salary cap and position requirements, but you have the benefit of the YTD data. 2300 teams left.

I think it would be interesting to have a mid-season contest just for fun. I know of at least 3 RBs, and maybe 4, who wouldn't be rostered on a single team. They're all on my current roster.

 

[kylechoffman]

Anyone got a count on the number of teams left by roster size?

 

[northwoods]

Season-to-date Survival Rates through week 9 -

18 player teams - 13.73%

30 player teams - 34.93%

As it should be...

 

[comfortably numb]

Count me as one of those Calvin Johnson/Matt Stafford owners who thought I was completely dead midway through the late games. But Brady came through big, Denver's late Punt Return TD, and Mendy gets a rare TD tonight. And even with all of that, I am at 133.4 with only Hester (-5.4) left. I may not make it through, but I will at least feel like I have a chance for the next 24 hours.

291 with the Stafford/Johnson combo coming into the week.Lets see how many will remain.

143 still alive with the CJ/Stafford combo148 couldn't make it past the DET bye.

 

[wollac]

Anyone got a count on the number of teams left by roster size?

Size	Total	Alive	Percent18	3568	490	13.73%19	1393	230	16.51%20	1059	198	18.70%21	836	194	23.21%22	766	209	27.28%23	641	161	25.12%24	547	153	27.97%25	396	121	30.56%26	415	133	32.05%27	296	97	32.77%28	269	109	40.52%29	214	82	38.32%30	375	131	34.93%

 

[The Man With No Name]

Done at 176.5Welcome to the list of dudes who have scored for me, Marion Barber. Only Lee Evans, Evan Moore, and Jay Feely have failed to tally for me. (24 out of 27 have scored)-QG

The only 2 of my 26 that haven't counted are out for the year on IR.Wish I could have that $16 back to use over.

 

[BassNBrew]

Anyone got a count on the number of teams left by roster size?

Size	Total	Alive	Percent18	3568	490	13.73%19	1393	230	16.51%20	1059	198	18.70%21	836	194	23.21%22	766	209	27.28%23	641	161	25.12%24	547	153	27.97%25	396	121	30.56%26	415	133	32.05%27	296	97	32.77%28	269	109	40.52%29	214	82	38.32%30	375	131	34.93%

Size Total Remain Percent 18 3568 728 20.40% 19 1393 349 25.05% 20 1059 276 26.06% 21 836 265 31.70% 22 766 277 36.16% 23 641 212 33.07% 24 547 193 35.28% 25 396 152 38.38% 26 415 165 39.76% 27 296 116 39.19% 28 269 130 48.33% 29 214 94 43.93% 30 375 155 41.33%Trimmed 32.7% of the 18 man rosters this week, 34.1% of the 19 man rosters, 15.5% of the 30 man rosters.

 

[Touchdown There]

I have been crying all morning because I am out.

 

[The Man With No Name]

Flex scores-

Rb- 4 times. F.Jones 14.1, C.Wells 15.3, J.Ringer 5.3, B.Tate 17.5

Wr- 0 times

Te- 5 times. Daniels 21.1, Olsen 18.5, Olsen 12.6, Olsen 11.7, Daniels 12.0

 

[DWI]

What should be interesting is if the trend of smaller rosters getting bumped continues this week with no byes.

 

[Bad_Mo]

I have been crying all morning because I am out.

Want some cheese with that whine?Sorry, man. I've been waiting for the perfect opportunity to reply to one of your posts with a cheese reference. I went for it.

 

[northwoods]

Anyone got a count on the number of teams left by roster size?

Size	Total	Alive	Percent18	3568	490	13.73%19	1393	230	16.51%20	1059	198	18.70%21	836	194	23.21%22	766	209	27.28%23	641	161	25.12%24	547	153	27.97%25	396	121	30.56%26	415	133	32.05%27	296	97	32.77%28	269	109	40.52%29	214	82	38.32%30	375	131	34.93%

I/m sticking with my over/under of 40 18 man teams in the final 250. We'll see what happens this week with no byes...

 

[QuizGuy66]

Category leaders through week 9:

6 Quarterback Guy!

14 Running Back Guy!

15 Wide Receiver Guy!

7 Tight End Guy!

9 Kicker Guy!

7 Defense Guy!

-QG

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

Of the 291 teams that started Week 9 with the Stafford/Megatron combo, more than half (148) were eliminated during their bye this week. Ouch.

I was one of the ones bounced. Of course in addition to those two, I was also missing Kolb (my only other QB), Ingram, Felix, Hightower, Karim, Amendola,, Burleson and Pettigrew. I think I will be leaning closer to 30 next year than the 25 I did this year. All in all I am happy with how I did my first year in the contest.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

What should be interesting is if the trend of smaller rosters getting bumped continues this week with no byes.

I assume the final 250 will include something like 50 teams with 23 or fewer and 200 teams with 24 or larger roster sizes.I also assume random variation means that there is one roster in the 200 that will outperform the best roster in the 50.That's good and bad. It might be interesting to run next year with either a highly restrictive roster minimum size (25-30 only) or a maximum size (18-24 only).Or if you want to get really crazy, have a random assignment created for each contest entrant.

Dear XXXX,The randomizer has determined that you must select a 29 man roster for this year's contest.Sincerely,The Turk

Imagine how many small roster guys would flip out when forced to take a big roster, and vice versa, lol.

 

[Genester]

Category leaders through week 9:

6 Quarterback Guy!

-QG

The really impressive part here is that he only got 14.45 points from his QBs this week and STILL survived!

 

[Nick Vermeil]

Category leaders through week 9:

9 Kicker Guy!

-QG

Right on the cut line! If he survives week 11, I'll eat my hat.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I haven't really been staying on top of this, but I finally just updated my DB with the last 5 weeks or so of results.

Earlier in the year Modog was posting some stats related to the probability of small rosters scoring big points. Here are those stats updated through week 9. For all 10775 rosters entered in the contest:

Size Count Average StDev 3-Week Avg 3-Week SD P(>600)18 3568 146.82 32.71 440.45 56.65 0.24%19 1393 148.28 31.79 444.85 55.07 0.24%20 1059 148.74 31.81 446.21 55.09 0.26%21 836 150.15 31.13 450.45 53.91 0.28%22 766 150.58 30.01 451.75 51.98 0.22%23 641 149.88 30.20 449.65 52.32 0.20%24 547 151.52 30.09 454.57 52.12 0.26%25 396 151.66 29.58 454.99 51.24 0.23%26 415 151.67 28.81 455.01 49.89 0.18%27 296 150.87 29.20 452.62 50.58 0.18%28 269 152.47 27.41 457.40 47.47 0.13%29 214 152.16 27.48 456.48 47.60 0.13%30 375 151.83 27.57 455.48 47.75 0.12%
For just the remeaining 2308 live rosters:

Size Count Average StDev 3-Week Avg 3-Week SD P(>600)18 490 161.14 27.04 483.42 46.83 0.64%19 230 160.98 27.34 482.95 47.36 0.67%20 198 161.80 27.48 485.39 47.60 0.80%21 194 161.55 26.75 484.66 46.33 0.64%22 209 160.71 26.94 482.12 46.66 0.58%23 161 160.01 26.46 480.04 45.84 0.44%24 153 160.69 26.79 482.07 46.40 0.55%25 121 160.26 26.60 480.77 46.08 0.48%26 133 159.83 25.13 479.48 43.52 0.28%27 97 159.02 25.52 477.07 44.20 0.27%28 109 159.57 25.38 478.70 43.96 0.29%29 82 159.17 25.44 477.51 44.06 0.27%30 131 160.20 24.77 480.61 42.90 0.27%
For those who aren't familiar, these tables show roster size, the number of entries, their average weekly score, and their weekly standard deviation. From these we calculate a three-week average and standard deviation, and then use those to calculate the probability that a team will score 600 or more points over a three-week period, assuming scores follow a normal distribution (this cutoff was chosen since a score of 600+ has historically been where the top few teams score in the playoffs).

As expected, the smaller rosters have higher variance in weekly scores. In the past, this was somewhat offset by the fact that larger rosters exhibited a higher mean score than smaller rosters; that doesn't appear to be the case so far this year, at least not among the still-alive teams. These result in smaller rosters having a higher chance of scoring 600+ points, lending support to the idea that small rosters are more likely to win the big money if they make it to the finals.

 

[northwoods]

What should be interesting is if the trend of smaller rosters getting bumped continues this week with no byes.

I assume the final 250 will include something like 50 teams with 23 or fewer and 200 teams with 24 or larger roster sizes.I also assume random variation means that there is one roster in the 200 that will outperform the best roster in the 50.

That's good and bad. It might be interesting to run next year with either a highly restrictive roster minimum size (25-30 only) or a maximum size (18-24 only).

Or if you want to get really crazy, have a random assignment created for each contest entrant.

Dear XXXX,The randomizer has determined that you must select a 29 man roster for this year's contest.Sincerely,The TurkImagine how many small roster guys would flip out when forced to take a big roster, and vice versa, lol.

I don't think the bolded above will turn out to be true...only 50 teams from the 23 and under in the final 250? That is some serious attrition with only 1 more bye week to go before the finals. I would expect the distribution to skew large but not that much...edited to add that the survival rate would have to be below 4% to get 50 23-and-under teams in the final...there are 1482 still alive, not going to happen.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

What should be interesting is if the trend of smaller rosters getting bumped continues this week with no byes.

I assume the final 250 will include something like 50 teams with 23 or fewer and 200 teams with 24 or larger roster sizes.I also assume random variation means that there is one roster in the 200 that will outperform the best roster in the 50.

That's good and bad. It might be interesting to run next year with either a highly restrictive roster minimum size (25-30 only) or a maximum size (18-24 only).

Or if you want to get really crazy, have a random assignment created for each contest entrant.

Dear XXXX,The randomizer has determined that you must select a 29 man roster for this year's contest.Sincerely,The TurkImagine how many small roster guys would flip out when forced to take a big roster, and vice versa, lol.

I don't think the bolded above will turn out to be true...only 50 teams from the 23 and under in the final 250? That is some serious attrition with only 1 more bye week to go before the finals. I would expect the distribution to skew large but not that much...edited to add that the survival rate would have to be below 4% to get 50 23-and-under teams in the final...there are 1482 still alive, not going to happen.

some pretty serious firepower on the bench in week 11 with NOS, PIT, HOU, IND(?)...on bye...some of those smaller rosters that have been getting through the previous bye weeks with some of these guys could take a hit....

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

What should be interesting is if the trend of smaller rosters getting bumped continues this week with no byes.

I assume the final 250 will include something like 50 teams with 23 or fewer and 200 teams with 24 or larger roster sizes.I also assume random variation means that there is one roster in the 200 that will outperform the best roster in the 50.

That's good and bad. It might be interesting to run next year with either a highly restrictive roster minimum size (25-30 only) or a maximum size (18-24 only).

Or if you want to get really crazy, have a random assignment created for each contest entrant.

Dear XXXX,The randomizer has determined that you must select a 29 man roster for this year's contest.Sincerely,The TurkImagine how many small roster guys would flip out when forced to take a big roster, and vice versa, lol.

I don't think the bolded above will turn out to be true...only 50 teams from the 23 and under in the final 250? That is some serious attrition with only 1 more bye week to go before the finals. I would expect the distribution to skew large but not that much...edited to add that the survival rate would have to be below 4% to get 50 23-and-under teams in the final...there are 1482 still alive, not going to happen.

I may have low balled it. I have a 23 man roster btw. I'll say 66 spots 23 and under roster size. Make your guess.

 

[levinakl]

Had some fun with the query today.....

My key guys (meaning if they do well, I should do well)

Frank Gore (owned by 3.2% of remaining entries), Michael Bush (5.78%), Thomas Jones (2.43%), Roddy White (7.0%), Devin Hester (3.17%), Devery Henderson (4.91%), Patrick Crayon (2.96%), Fred Davis (8.09%), David Thomas (1.13%), Dan Carpenter (5.09%), Nick Folk (9.7%), Tampa Bay D (6.7%), Miami D (2.17%)

Guys who are pretty widely owned:

Colt McCoy (26.87%), Deji Karim (16.74%), Steve Johnson (13.52%), Lance Moore (28.26%), Dexter McCluster (16.7%), Rian Lindell (11.43%), Jay Feely (29.65%), Buffalo D (15.87%), Denver D (17.74%)

Guys who will help me "hold serve" if they do well:

Ben Tate (53.39%), Lance Kendricks (44.13%), Phillip Rivers (30.81%), Aaron Hernandez (31.3%), Ray Rice (30.7%)

Wish they weren't hurt, so I could have taken advantage had they done well like I had hoped/projected:

Roscoe Parrish (3.61%), Danny Amendola (25.22%)

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

What should be interesting is if the trend of smaller rosters getting bumped continues this week with no byes.

I assume the final 250 will include something like 50 teams with 23 or fewer and 200 teams with 24 or larger roster sizes.I also assume random variation means that there is one roster in the 200 that will outperform the best roster in the 50.

That's good and bad. It might be interesting to run next year with either a highly restrictive roster minimum size (25-30 only) or a maximum size (18-24 only).

Or if you want to get really crazy, have a random assignment created for each contest entrant.

Dear XXXX,The randomizer has determined that you must select a 29 man roster for this year's contest.Sincerely,The TurkImagine how many small roster guys would flip out when forced to take a big roster, and vice versa, lol.

I don't think the bolded above will turn out to be true...only 50 teams from the 23 and under in the final 250? That is some serious attrition with only 1 more bye week to go before the finals. I would expect the distribution to skew large but not that much...edited to add that the survival rate would have to be below 4% to get 50 23-and-under teams in the final...there are 1482 still alive, not going to happen.

I may have low balled it. I have a 23 man roster btw. I'll say 66 spots 23 and under roster size. Make your guess.

I agree that 50 sounds too low. I'm working on something to help me answer an unrelated question, but in the meantime I think I can use it to model the final survival rates. Just eyeballing some of the things I have here, I'd say the number will probably be closer to 100 than it is to 50. But I'll post up a real guess tomorrow.

 

[GDogg]

Just to update myself...I would have squeaked by the cut line this week had I not been cut in week 3. Finished with 113.1.

Again, would have gotten by.Finished with 127.35.

Again would have gotten by.Finished with 154.9.

And, again.Finished with 138.15.ETA: Had I made it through (out in week 3), I would have used 27 of my 30 players. The only guys I would not have used yet are Danny Amendola, Evan Moore and Harry Douglas.

Would have made it again.Finished with 186.05.Still at 27 of my 30 players contributing.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

What should be interesting is if the trend of smaller rosters getting bumped continues this week with no byes.

I assume the final 250 will include something like 50 teams with 23 or fewer and 200 teams with 24 or larger roster sizes.

Why in the world would you assume that? Last year 159 of the final 250 rosters were 23 or less -- roughly 63%. That means a variance of triple between last year and this year. Even assuming that's a reasonable assumption based on last year's numbers, this year's numbers show that it isn't. Right now, 1635 out of 2308 are rosters of 23 or less. That's 70.8%. To get down to 50, the smaller rosters will have to have to have a 97% attrition rate between now and week 13.I'm all for guys arguing for large vs. small rosters, but sheez. Some of you guys would have everyone believe that last year 18-19 man rosters were 90% of the total submissions (they were 46%) and were eliminated to 10-15% of the final 250 (they were 32%). Last year's number definitely trended towards the mid-sized rosters over the ends, with the larger rosters trending better than the smaller rosters.Thus far this year, according to the numbers run on "still-alive" rosters, smaller rosters statistically fare a better chance of topping 600 over a 3-week stretch than their larger counterparts AND are averaging higher scores. Note that I don't think for 1 second that means much of anything, but it is another data point. I mean, it's not like the smaller rosters are nothing more than wasted submissions as some seem to think.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

I may have low balled it. I have a 23 man roster btw. I'll say 66 spots 23 and under roster size. Make your guess.

160 is the number based on an even attrition rate across the board, so that may be a tad high. I'll go with 150, roughly a 10% and 12% survival rate for sub-23 and 24+ rostsers respectively.Yours assumes the 24+ rosters will suffer roughly a 5 times greater survival rate than the sub 23 rosters (4.5% vs. 22.2%).

 

[cdubz]

What should be interesting is if the trend of smaller rosters getting bumped continues this week with no byes.

I assume the final 250 will include something like 50 teams with 23 or fewer and 200 teams with 24 or larger roster sizes.I also assume random variation means that there is one roster in the 200 that will outperform the best roster in the 50.

That's good and bad. It might be interesting to run next year with either a highly restrictive roster minimum size (25-30 only) or a maximum size (18-24 only).

Or if you want to get really crazy, have a random assignment created for each contest entrant.

Dear XXXX,The randomizer has determined that you must select a 29 man roster for this year's contest.Sincerely,The TurkImagine how many small roster guys would flip out when forced to take a big roster, and vice versa, lol.

I don't think the bolded above will turn out to be true...only 50 teams from the 23 and under in the final 250? That is some serious attrition with only 1 more bye week to go before the finals. I would expect the distribution to skew large but not that much...edited to add that the survival rate would have to be below 4% to get 50 23-and-under teams in the final...there are 1482 still alive, not going to happen.

I may have low balled it. I have a 23 man roster btw. I'll say 66 spots 23 and under roster size. Make your guess.

I'll go with 141; based on a straight-line projection of relative survival odds so far. This might actually be understated if smaller rosters had a higher percentage of junk entries or the lack of bye weeks outweighs injury concerns for the smaller rosters. full disclosure: I have a 30 man roster and certainly hoping my above projection is too high.

 

[ditka...mike ditka]

Just to update myself...I would have squeaked by the cut line this week had I not been cut in week 3. Finished with 113.1.

Again, would have gotten by.Finished with 127.35.

Again would have gotten by.Finished with 154.9.

And, again.Finished with 138.15.ETA: Had I made it through (out in week 3), I would have used 27 of my 30 players. The only guys I would not have used yet are Danny Amendola, Evan Moore and Harry Douglas.

Would have made it again.Finished with 186.05.Still at 27 of my 30 players contributing.

You do realize this is probably true of a lot of teams. Too bad the point isn't to make it every week except 1.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

For the record, which 9 scrubs did you use?

The nine most-owned $3 and $2 WRs:Antonio BrownDenarius MooreRandall CobbDarrius Heyward-BeyDexter McClusterJosh CribbsPatrick CraytonRoscoe ParrishMichael Jenkins (Cost was actually $22 instead of $23).

OK, now this is good stuff and is making me do a little more homework than I intended today. I removed Jennings from my roster and inserted the above players. Based upon my specific roster, my WR corps would have had the following contributions week-to-week (including the flex position in any week that either scenario would have included a WR as the flex position):With Jennings: 44.8 - 72.8 - 63.0 - 72.7 - 76.6 - 61.8 - 68.7 - 59.8W/o Jennings: 42.0 - 87.7 - 59.9 - 65.8 - 82.9 - 61.8 - 65.5 - 69.5

My ongoing analysis of the argument that simply inserting the most-owned $2 and $3 WR would have made my team better:With Jennings: 44.8 - 72.8 - 63.0 - 72.7 - 76.6 - 61.8 - 68.7 - 59.8 - 58.3W/o Jennings: 42.0 - 87.7 - 59.9 - 65.8 - 82.9 - 61.8 - 65.5 - 69.5 - 63.5So, it would have helped me 4 weeks (Jennings and Harvin byes being 2 of them), been a push 1 week, and hurt me 4 weeks. The average "help" would have been fairly large (9.025) whereas the average "hurt" would have been smaller (4.0). Obviously Jennings (as opposed to Wallace) being removed would have given me $4 more to spend elsewhere. Either way, I would still be alive so there would be no outcome impact to-date.

 

[Saint]

Well... I can officially say I am the ONLY owner that has the crushing combination of Kevin Boss and Mike Sims-Walker. If you haven't been following their manly numbers, Boss has given me a wonderful 0.0 for 5 weeks and Sims-Walker has given me 0.0 for 4 weeks. Of course MSW is giving me 0 the rest of the way, maybe there is hope for Boss yet this year.

As a side note, MSW is the only player I have not used in my roster. 23 of 24 used.

 

[Bad_Mo]

Just to update myself...I would have squeaked by the cut line this week had I not been cut in week 3. Finished with 113.1.

Again, would have gotten by.Finished with 127.35.

Again would have gotten by.Finished with 154.9.

And, again.Finished with 138.15.ETA: Had I made it through (out in week 3), I would have used 27 of my 30 players. The only guys I would not have used yet are Danny Amendola, Evan Moore and Harry Douglas.

Would have made it again.Finished with 186.05.Still at 27 of my 30 players contributing.

GDogg...If you want, I'll let you renew a 3-year subscription for me and we can ride the wave of my team together and split the winnings, if any. I just hate to see you beat yourself up over this each week.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Just to update myself...I would have squeaked by the cut line this week had I not been cut in week 3. Finished with 113.1.

Again, would have gotten by.Finished with 127.35.

Again would have gotten by.Finished with 154.9.

And, again.Finished with 138.15.ETA: Had I made it through (out in week 3), I would have used 27 of my 30 players. The only guys I would not have used yet are Danny Amendola, Evan Moore and Harry Douglas.

Would have made it again.Finished with 186.05.Still at 27 of my 30 players contributing.

You do realize this is probably true of a lot of teams. Too bad the point isn't to make it every week except 1.

Correct. GDogg, you're torturing yourself for no reason. Yours is just 1 of 3,157 entries that have missed the cut one week but otherwise would have made the cut every other week.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

There are 13 entries that would have missed the cut every single week so far.

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2011/100429.php

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2011/100730.php

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2011/101538.php

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2011/103041.php

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2011/106182.php

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2011/106416.php

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2011/107226.php

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2011/107297.php

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2011/108699.php

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2011/109090.php

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2011/109542.php

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2011/110220.php

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2011/110712.php

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I may have low balled it. I have a 23 man roster btw. I'll say 66 spots 23 and under roster size. Make your guess.

160 is the number based on an even attrition rate across the board, so that may be a tad high. I'll go with 150, roughly a 10% and 12% survival rate for sub-23 and 24+ rostsers respectively.Yours assumes the 24+ rosters will suffer roughly a 5 times greater survival rate than the sub 23 rosters (4.5% vs. 22.2%).

Looking at it a little more this morning, I think 66 is way too low and 150 is way too high. I'll put my official guess at 120.