Why aren't there rankings for dynasty ppr? (1 Viewer)

[bigmiiiiike]

I see dynasty (non-ppr), and redraft ppr, but not dynasty ppr. I'd love to see a few of the FBG writers throw rankings together for dynasty ppr, or at least to see them in the form of a cheatsheet in your 163 Cheatsheet page.

I'd think that dynasty ppr would be fairly popular, so I bet several owners would be appreciative.

 

[golfguy]

good post

 

[JohnnyU]

I see dynasty (non-ppr), and redraft ppr, but not dynasty ppr. I'd love to see a few of the FBG writers throw rankings together for dynasty ppr, or at least to see them in the form of a cheatsheet in your 163 Cheatsheet page. I'd think that dynasty ppr would be fairly popular, so I bet several owners would be appreciative.

I would venture to guess that dynasty PPR leagues are more popular than redraft PPR leagues, and dynasty is more popular than redraft in general. So I'm with you on this one.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

 

[sib]

Agreed...dynasty PPR rankings would be sweet

 

[dmac37]

Dynasty PPR is the #1 missing ingredient in the plethora of great information that FBG's provide. Not only rankings but would also be great for the Draft Dominator.

 

[identikit]

I'm not sure why FBG is asleep at the wheel on this one...

 

[ddogs24]

Definitely long overdue for dynasty ppr rankings. Please FBG...make it happen!

 

[DA RAIDERS]

also be great for the Draft Dominator.

 

[valence]

i've wondered about this for awhile, but just figured it was something they'd eventually get around to.

 

[VonRomig]

Perhaps it's because Dynasty Ranking Lists are somewhat bogus to begin with.

In a Draft; Players either draft to win now (thus they might as well use a re-draft list) or they grab as many rookies as possible and hope for domination in a few years (most find out they grabbed a bunch of failures). Others will use the first couple of rounds to get a solid starting line-up and then switch to picking up prospects.

In an Auction start up, you will always have a player or two who will buy a #1 QB, RB, WR, and TE and then with their remaining few bidding bucks grab a bunch of super-cheap longshots. Another group will over pay for a bunch of over-hyped rookies and hope for the best in a few years. The rest will over buy in one position and be lacking in other positions.

With a dynasty league, players draft/buy players differently. Thus a single list can not cover the many different options. While with a re-draft league you are only concerned about ranking the best players for a single year... so everyone draft to win now.

Dynasty Ranking Lists are for an event that takes place once, yet has a major impact on your team for as long as you are in the league. The problem is that the rankings are based solely on the viewpoint of the players as of now, and as they are bound to be wrong with many their choices, they can screw up your team for a long time.

To add PPR considerations to such a near worthless list is only to exaggrerate the possibilities of being wrong. Afterall, the PPR feature is a primary addition to the WR position. And as WRs usually needs 3 years to see if they will even breakout, to assign a rank to first, second, and those just going into their third season is silly. You don't even know yet if they will be high rate possession receivers, go-to guys, or stuck as 3rd string. Plus you can't even judge with most of them who their QB will be a few years down the road... which effects their chances of success.

Von

 

[Jason Wood]

I see dynasty (non-ppr), and redraft ppr, but not dynasty ppr. I'd love to see a few of the FBG writers throw rankings together for dynasty ppr, or at least to see them in the form of a cheatsheet in your 163 Cheatsheet page. I'd think that dynasty ppr would be fairly popular, so I bet several owners would be appreciative.

I would venture to guess that dynasty PPR leagues are more popular than redraft PPR leagues, and dynasty is more popular than redraft in general. So I'm with you on this one.

You couldn't be more mistaken. For as much as hard core folks like all of us love the added challenges of things like auctions, IDP, dynasty and PPR, they are by far and away small components of the overall fantasy ecosystem. Without pulling back the curtain too much, I can tell you that the eyeballs we get both during the free period and the subscription/premium period are disproportionately skewed toward good old fashioned standard redraft leagues. Remember, most people do their leagues at places like CBS Sportsline, Yahoo! and ESPN and are generally fine with the default settings. PPR is still considered "new" to a lot of players.

 

[identikit]

So I guess one question would be is if having dynasty ppr rankings (for primarily us current FBG's who play in said leagues) is worthwhile since it doesn't really help enough (inferred from J Wood's post) with gaining new subscribers.

If true, that's pretty shortsighted.

Renewals are important for the bottom line as well (at least IMO).

 

[Jason Wood]

So I guess one question would be is if having dynasty ppr rankings (for primarily us current FBG's who play in said leagues) is worthwhile since it doesn't really help enough (inferred from J Wood's post) with gaining new subscribers.If true, that's pretty shortsighted.Renewals are important for the bottom line as well (at least IMO).

Of course they are, and I don't think anyone could fairly say we don't try to do everything bigger and better each and every year. We plan out the content for each season well in advance and, as you know, this is a business that has hard and fast costs both in terms of hard costs [i.e., what someone has to be paid to write/create something new] as well as soft costs [i.e., the time they're doing X means they have less time to do Y.] To that end, with every angle we need to make trade offs. But if you look at our dynasty and IDP content, both in terms of depth and breadth, it stacks up against anyone's and then some. And with the ability to configure our rankings and projections to literally any scoring format, I don't know that anyone else in the business allows for that.So are there going to be things that we don't cover? Sure, that's inevitable. As the industry evolves so too do the iterations. And only so much of that can be automated. But we also have to be realistic about the cost versus the net impact. As I said earlier, the vast majority of our subscribers are conventional redrafters. The 80/20 rules is almost a 95/5 rule in our case.Also please remember that the demographics of the Shark Pool do not match up tightly with the overall demographics of our subscriber base.

 

[JohnnyU]

I see dynasty (non-ppr), and redraft ppr, but not dynasty ppr. I'd love to see a few of the FBG writers throw rankings together for dynasty ppr, or at least to see them in the form of a cheatsheet in your 163 Cheatsheet page. I'd think that dynasty ppr would be fairly popular, so I bet several owners would be appreciative.

I would venture to guess that dynasty PPR leagues are more popular than redraft PPR leagues, and dynasty is more popular than redraft in general. So I'm with you on this one.

You couldn't be more mistaken. For as much as hard core folks like all of us love the added challenges of things like auctions, IDP, dynasty and PPR, they are by far and away small components of the overall fantasy ecosystem. Without pulling back the curtain too much, I can tell you that the eyeballs we get both during the free period and the subscription/premium period are disproportionately skewed toward good old fashioned standard redraft leagues. Remember, most people do their leagues at places like CBS Sportsline, Yahoo! and ESPN and are generally fine with the default settings. PPR is still considered "new" to a lot of players.

I don't play in redraft leagues, so I can see where I would be wrong about that. However, I really thought the tide had turned in favor of dynasty / keeper leagues. Most of the discussion in the Shark Pool is on dynasty, not redraft.

 

[sib]

So I guess one question would be is if having dynasty ppr rankings (for primarily us current FBG's who play in said leagues) is worthwhile since it doesn't really help enough (inferred from J Wood's post) with gaining new subscribers.If true, that's pretty shortsighted.Renewals are important for the bottom line as well (at least IMO).

Of course they are, and I don't think anyone could fairly say we don't try to do everything bigger and better each and every year. We plan out the content for each season well in advance and, as you know, this is a business that has hard and fast costs both in terms of hard costs [i.e., what someone has to be paid to write/create something new] as well as soft costs [i.e., the time they're doing X means they have less time to do Y.] To that end, with every angle we need to make trade offs. But if you look at our dynasty and IDP content, both in terms of depth and breadth, it stacks up against anyone's and then some. And with the ability to configure our rankings and projections to literally any scoring format, I don't know that anyone else in the business allows for that.So are there going to be things that we don't cover? Sure, that's inevitable. As the industry evolves so too do the iterations. And only so much of that can be automated. But we also have to be realistic about the cost versus the net impact. As I said earlier, the vast majority of our subscribers are conventional redrafters. The 80/20 rules is almost a 95/5 rule in our case.Also please remember that the demographics of the Shark Pool do not match up tightly with the overall demographics of our subscriber base.

Hey Jason,I definitely understand your point of view, but I'm wondering if you are considering the long-term interests of your subscriber base. As an example, I play in leagues with the "average" fantasy football player. These guys all have similarities: They participate in one league (tops 2), play in redraft leagues, are content with default settings in a league, would never pay a fee for hosting a site (they prefer Yahoo/ESPN to MFL/CBSsportsline) and would never pay for a service like FBG. At most, they may pick up a fantasy magazine for $5.99 in mid-August. The rest of their information comes from their own personal knowledge of football and free sites like ESPN, Yahoo, etc where you can find redraft rankings overall and by position, dynasty rankings, and even advanced discussions like VBD, Strength of Schedule, etc. FBG is one-stop-shopping for all of these items, but you can find very similar content/information if you spend 30 minutes browsing the web.So what seperates those average fantasy players from folks like myself who are subscribers. Well, I participate in multiple leagues (redraft & dynasty) and I pay for the information that comes in dynasty rankings and "Dark Phoenix/Dynasty Watch" articles as well as other tools you provide. Simply put, if I played in only redraft leagues, I probably wouldn't pay for FBG. I could find a lot of the same information for free. It wouldn't be as convenient (as mentioned FBG is the one stop for all information pertaining to fantasy football), but I could probably find what I needed on a week-to-week basis by doing some web browsing.I imagine that folks who are actually paying for FBG are the more hard-core followers of fantasy football. They may be playing in basic, redraft leagues now, but they will most likely join dynasty leagues, IDP leagues, auction leagues, etc than those not paying for the service. So while dynasty maybe a niche now and dynasty PPR even more of a niche, perhaps there is a trend in your subscriber base that is moving towards that? Obviously I've seen FBG respond with more dynasty content as demand for it has increased. While dynasty PPR may be in the interest of 3% of your subscriber base currently, it is probably something that will get more popular over time. Just my thoughts; you guys do great work regardless.

 

[JohnnyU]

So I guess one question would be is if having dynasty ppr rankings (for primarily us current FBG's who play in said leagues) is worthwhile since it doesn't really help enough (inferred from J Wood's post) with gaining new subscribers.If true, that's pretty shortsighted.Renewals are important for the bottom line as well (at least IMO).

Of course they are, and I don't think anyone could fairly say we don't try to do everything bigger and better each and every year. We plan out the content for each season well in advance and, as you know, this is a business that has hard and fast costs both in terms of hard costs [i.e., what someone has to be paid to write/create something new] as well as soft costs [i.e., the time they're doing X means they have less time to do Y.] To that end, with every angle we need to make trade offs. But if you look at our dynasty and IDP content, both in terms of depth and breadth, it stacks up against anyone's and then some. And with the ability to configure our rankings and projections to literally any scoring format, I don't know that anyone else in the business allows for that.So are there going to be things that we don't cover? Sure, that's inevitable. As the industry evolves so too do the iterations. And only so much of that can be automated. But we also have to be realistic about the cost versus the net impact. As I said earlier, the vast majority of our subscribers are conventional redrafters. The 80/20 rules is almost a 95/5 rule in our case.Also please remember that the demographics of the Shark Pool do not match up tightly with the overall demographics of our subscriber base.

Hey Jason,I definitely understand your point of view, but I'm wondering if you are considering the long-term interests of your subscriber base. As an example, I play in leagues with the "average" fantasy football player. These guys all have similarities: They participate in one league (tops 2), play in redraft leagues, are content with default settings in a league, would never pay a fee for hosting a site (they prefer Yahoo/ESPN to MFL/CBSsportsline) and would never pay for a service like FBG. At most, they may pick up a fantasy magazine for $5.99 in mid-August. The rest of their information comes from their own personal knowledge of football and free sites like ESPN, Yahoo, etc where you can find redraft rankings overall and by position, dynasty rankings, and even advanced discussions like VBD, Strength of Schedule, etc. FBG is one-stop-shopping for all of these items, but you can find very similar content/information if you spend 30 minutes browsing the web.So what seperates those average fantasy players from folks like myself who are subscribers. Well, I participate in multiple leagues (redraft & dynasty) and I pay for the information that comes in dynasty rankings and "Dark Phoenix/Dynasty Watch" articles as well as other tools you provide. Simply put, if I played in only redraft leagues, I probably wouldn't pay for FBG. I could find a lot of the same information for free. It wouldn't be as convenient (as mentioned FBG is the one stop for all information pertaining to fantasy football), but I could probably find what I needed on a week-to-week basis by doing some web browsing.I imagine that folks who are actually paying for FBG are the more hard-core followers of fantasy football. They may be playing in basic, redraft leagues now, but they will most likely join dynasty leagues, IDP leagues, auction leagues, etc than those not paying for the service. So while dynasty maybe a niche now and dynasty PPR even more of a niche, perhaps there is a trend in your subscriber base that is moving towards that? Obviously I've seen FBG respond with more dynasty content as demand for it has increased. While dynasty PPR may be in the interest of 3% of your subscriber base currently, it is probably something that will get more popular over time. Just my thoughts; you guys do great work regardless.

Well said :thumbsup:

 

[Jason Wood]

So I guess one question would be is if having dynasty ppr rankings (for primarily us current FBG's who play in said leagues) is worthwhile since it doesn't really help enough (inferred from J Wood's post) with gaining new subscribers.If true, that's pretty shortsighted.Renewals are important for the bottom line as well (at least IMO).

Of course they are, and I don't think anyone could fairly say we don't try to do everything bigger and better each and every year. We plan out the content for each season well in advance and, as you know, this is a business that has hard and fast costs both in terms of hard costs [i.e., what someone has to be paid to write/create something new] as well as soft costs [i.e., the time they're doing X means they have less time to do Y.] To that end, with every angle we need to make trade offs. But if you look at our dynasty and IDP content, both in terms of depth and breadth, it stacks up against anyone's and then some. And with the ability to configure our rankings and projections to literally any scoring format, I don't know that anyone else in the business allows for that.So are there going to be things that we don't cover? Sure, that's inevitable. As the industry evolves so too do the iterations. And only so much of that can be automated. But we also have to be realistic about the cost versus the net impact. As I said earlier, the vast majority of our subscribers are conventional redrafters. The 80/20 rules is almost a 95/5 rule in our case.Also please remember that the demographics of the Shark Pool do not match up tightly with the overall demographics of our subscriber base.

Hey Jason,I definitely understand your point of view, but I'm wondering if you are considering the long-term interests of your subscriber base. As an example, I play in leagues with the "average" fantasy football player. These guys all have similarities: They participate in one league (tops 2), play in redraft leagues, are content with default settings in a league, would never pay a fee for hosting a site (they prefer Yahoo/ESPN to MFL/CBSsportsline) and would never pay for a service like FBG. At most, they may pick up a fantasy magazine for $5.99 in mid-August. The rest of their information comes from their own personal knowledge of football and free sites like ESPN, Yahoo, etc where you can find redraft rankings overall and by position, dynasty rankings, and even advanced discussions like VBD, Strength of Schedule, etc. FBG is one-stop-shopping for all of these items, but you can find very similar content/information if you spend 30 minutes browsing the web.So what seperates those average fantasy players from folks like myself who are subscribers. Well, I participate in multiple leagues (redraft & dynasty) and I pay for the information that comes in dynasty rankings and "Dark Phoenix/Dynasty Watch" articles as well as other tools you provide. Simply put, if I played in only redraft leagues, I probably wouldn't pay for FBG. I could find a lot of the same information for free. It wouldn't be as convenient (as mentioned FBG is the one stop for all information pertaining to fantasy football), but I could probably find what I needed on a week-to-week basis by doing some web browsing.I imagine that folks who are actually paying for FBG are the more hard-core followers of fantasy football. They may be playing in basic, redraft leagues now, but they will most likely join dynasty leagues, IDP leagues, auction leagues, etc than those not paying for the service. So while dynasty maybe a niche now and dynasty PPR even more of a niche, perhaps there is a trend in your subscriber base that is moving towards that? Obviously I've seen FBG respond with more dynasty content as demand for it has increased. While dynasty PPR may be in the interest of 3% of your subscriber base currently, it is probably something that will get more popular over time. Just my thoughts; you guys do great work regardless.

Absolutely, and as you noted, we provide more focus on unconventional league formats than anyone else [if someone disagrees, I would love to see the site]. But we also understand we can't be all things to all people. It's never a perfect trade off. There are a list of 1000 other features the staff would collectively love to deliver in a perfect world, but you have to prioritize. If there's enough demand for dynasty PPR rankings, I'm sure we'll take that into consideration for next year and beyond.

 

[golfguy]

Absolutely, and as you noted, we provide more focus on unconventional league formats than anyone else [if someone disagrees, I would love to see the site]. But we also understand we can't be all things to all people. It's never a perfect trade off. There are a list of 1000 other features the staff would collectively love to deliver in a perfect world, but you have to prioritize. If there's enough demand for dynasty PPR rankings, I'm sure we'll take that into consideration for next year and beyond. thumbup1.gif

quite honestly i've been around since it was cheatsheets.net and i can say that i've been paying every since joe went that way, however, if they aren't any ppr dynasty rankings or in the draft dominator again this year, because it was asked about A LOT LAST year, i'll say that i am done paying. i don't really play in redraft leagues, and a lot of hardcore fantasy football players don't anymore either. the focus has shifted to the dynasty or at least keeper league mentality.and jason that are other sites that do provide these rankings, and have customizable draft sheets. just so you know.

 

[dmac37]

How about a poll for us subscribers to find out how many are in dynasty PPR leagues?

I think you may be surprised on the % of us that are. Also with everything that FBG already has in place this should not be such an overwhelming project.

 

[golfguy]

bump.