Wacky idea with only 4 owners (1 Viewer)

[Marvelous]

Our old fantasy football league is splitting in two to give it a more local flavor. But we are left with only four owners and recruitment has not gone well.

So two of the owners have proposed:

Each owner owns two teams. An AFC team and an NFC team. Two separate drafs to fill rosters. Other details still to be worked out.

I was wondering if anyone had done something similar to this or if you guys had an opinion.

 

[wannabee]

How about a league where you draft four teams with huge starting lineups each week like:

5 QBs

8 RBs

10 WRs

5 TEs

5 Ks

5 Ds

This will mean that each team starts some studs and some average players

 

[Z-Dog]

How about you play with more guys...

AFC vs. NFC is kinda cool, but I'd go with very deep rosters also. Another option is for each owner to draft one offensive team and one defensive team, and have the offense play the defense. You may have to equalize the defensive scoring, but it could give a nice flavor to the league.

 

[SSOG]

There was a discussion earlier this offseason where I said that, in my opinion, the league that would require the most talent to win would be a 2-team league that started 16 QBs, 24 RBs, 32 WRs, 16 TEs, 16 PKs, and 16 Defenses, just because, with more data points, you're going to be less prone to outliers (such as injured players or real flukes like Larry Johnson who single-handedly won leagues with thinner rosters last year). If I had a chance to start up a 4-team league, I would jump at it. In fact, I think it'd be a ton of fun.

I guess you can count me down as a vote for a 4-team league with ridiculously deep starting rosters (4-8 QBs, 6-10 RBs, 8-16 WRs, 4-8 TEs, 4-8 PKs, 4-8 Defenses).

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Here's another way to consider doing it:

Have normal rosters (1QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1K and 1 D) but have NO bench players. The waiver wire has a ton of talent, but you have to give up your starting RB or WR to get them. It makes fantasy owners give a LOT of thought to match-ups and bye weeks will be pure torture. Every waiver move will be huge.

I think a four team league would provide a different (and interesting) kind of challenge. I would highly suggest an auction format to pick players and a two-week Super Bowl for the top two teams in weeks 15 and 16. I would also suggest all teams play each other every week.

 

[joey]

awesome ideas here. almost makes me want to start up a 4 team league on the side!

 

[Borat]

...let's start a ONE team league!

 

[DropKick]

There was a discussion earlier this offseason where I said that, in my opinion, the league that would require the most talent to win would be a 2-team league that started 16 QBs, 24 RBs, 32 WRs, 16 TEs, 16 PKs, and 16 Defenses, just because, with more data points, you're going to be less prone to outliers (such as injured players or real flukes like Larry Johnson who single-handedly won leagues with thinner rosters last year). If I had a chance to start up a 4-team league, I would jump at it. In fact, I think it'd be a ton of fun.I guess you can count me down as a vote for a 4-team league with ridiculously deep starting rosters (4-8 QBs, 6-10 RBs, 8-16 WRs, 4-8 TEs, 4-8 PKs, 4-8 Defenses).

OK, so with 120 "starters" on each team haven't you created so many data points that it becomes a 50-50 crapshoot? Sorry, but, with just two teams, I will give myself a 50% chance of winning. I don't see how this format requires the most talent to win.

 

[goonsquad]

There was a discussion earlier this offseason where I said that, in my opinion, the league that would require the most talent to win would be a 2-team league that started 16 QBs, 24 RBs, 32 WRs, 16 TEs, 16 PKs, and 16 Defenses, just because, with more data points, you're going to be less prone to outliers (such as injured players or real flukes like Larry Johnson who single-handedly won leagues with thinner rosters last year). If I had a chance to start up a 4-team league, I would jump at it. In fact, I think it'd be a ton of fun.I guess you can count me down as a vote for a 4-team league with ridiculously deep starting rosters (4-8 QBs, 6-10 RBs, 8-16 WRs, 4-8 TEs, 4-8 PKs, 4-8 Defenses).

OK, so with 120 "starters" on each team haven't you created so many data points that it becomes a 50-50 crapshoot? Sorry, but, with just two teams, I will give myself a 50% chance of winning. I don't see how this format requires the most talent to win.

I have the 1.1 pick in my upcoming draft. Can't decide whether to pick "heads" or "tails". Opinions?

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

There was a discussion earlier this offseason where I said that, in my opinion, the league that would require the most talent to win would be a 2-team league that started 16 QBs, 24 RBs, 32 WRs, 16 TEs, 16 PKs, and 16 Defenses, just because, with more data points, you're going to be less prone to outliers (such as injured players or real flukes like Larry Johnson who single-handedly won leagues with thinner rosters last year). If I had a chance to start up a 4-team league, I would jump at it. In fact, I think it'd be a ton of fun.I guess you can count me down as a vote for a 4-team league with ridiculously deep starting rosters (4-8 QBs, 6-10 RBs, 8-16 WRs, 4-8 TEs, 4-8 PKs, 4-8 Defenses).

OK, so with 120 "starters" on each team haven't you created so many data points that it becomes a 50-50 crapshoot? Sorry, but, with just two teams, I will give myself a 50% chance of winning. I don't see how this format requires the most talent to win.

I have the 1.1 pick in my upcoming draft. Can't decide whether to pick "heads" or "tails". Opinions?

you can't hedge your bet?

 

[Z-Dog]

There was a discussion earlier this offseason where I said that, in my opinion, the league that would require the most talent to win would be a 2-team league that started 16 QBs, 24 RBs, 32 WRs, 16 TEs, 16 PKs, and 16 Defenses, just because, with more data points, you're going to be less prone to outliers (such as injured players or real flukes like Larry Johnson who single-handedly won leagues with thinner rosters last year). If I had a chance to start up a 4-team league, I would jump at it. In fact, I think it'd be a ton of fun.I guess you can count me down as a vote for a 4-team league with ridiculously deep starting rosters (4-8 QBs, 6-10 RBs, 8-16 WRs, 4-8 TEs, 4-8 PKs, 4-8 Defenses).

OK, so with 120 "starters" on each team haven't you created so many data points that it becomes a 50-50 crapshoot? Sorry, but, with just two teams, I will give myself a 50% chance of winning. I don't see how this format requires the most talent to win.

I have the 1.1 pick in my upcoming draft. Can't decide whether to pick "heads" or "tails". Opinions?

Take Tails - you can get his handcuff really cheap in the 48th round, but if you go heads, you'll have to burn your 5th rounder to get his backup.

 

[SSOG]

There was a discussion earlier this offseason where I said that, in my opinion, the league that would require the most talent to win would be a 2-team league that started 16 QBs, 24 RBs, 32 WRs, 16 TEs, 16 PKs, and 16 Defenses, just because, with more data points, you're going to be less prone to outliers (such as injured players or real flukes like Larry Johnson who single-handedly won leagues with thinner rosters last year). If I had a chance to start up a 4-team league, I would jump at it. In fact, I think it'd be a ton of fun.I guess you can count me down as a vote for a 4-team league with ridiculously deep starting rosters (4-8 QBs, 6-10 RBs, 8-16 WRs, 4-8 TEs, 4-8 PKs, 4-8 Defenses).

OK, so with 120 "starters" on each team haven't you created so many data points that it becomes a 50-50 crapshoot? Sorry, but, with just two teams, I will give myself a 50% chance of winning. I don't see how this format requires the most talent to win.

I'm saying that winning is more a reflection of talent in that league. Quality projections will do more to influence your chance to win in that league than in any other, since you're injury-proof and outlier-proof.Let's compare this to the other extreme. Let's say there's a 16 team league where everyone just drafts one player. That league is going to be entirely luck- you could have perfect projections on every single player except for one, and if that's the guy you wind up with, it's a total crapshoot. Likewise, a single injury will make or destroy your squad.Yes, your objective odds of winning a 2-team league will be 50%, but if you play in a ton of 2-teamers with that setup, your actual winning percentage will be a much better reflection of the quality of your projections. If you play 100 2-teamers and win 60 times, then that's clear evidence that you are significantly better than average. If you play in 100 16-teamer and win 9 times (everyone has an expected winning% of 6.25), that doesn't tell me much about how good you are- even though you won at a 50% higher clip than you were projected to (compared to a 20% higher clip on the 2-teamers). For all I know you just grabbed Larry Johnson in every league. While that tells me that it was a good thing you were high on LJ last year, it doesn't tell me squat about the rest of your projections.Just because you have a better chance of winning doesn't mean that a format requires less talent. If you compare arm-wrestling to guessing the result of a 20-sided die... you have a higher objective chance of winning in arm wrestling, but I'd still contend that it would take more talent to do so.

 

[dickey moe]

...let's start a ONE team league!

Who are your sleeper picks?