What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Footballguys Subscriber Contest is LIVE (2 Viewers)

It's hard to maintain the courage of conviction for high dollar wide receivers when the list is so long.

I currently have 8 WRs in my roster, the most expensive being $13.

:kicksrock:

 
QB - Tom Brady - TB/13 - $15
QB - Joe Burrow - CIN/9 - $11
RB - Derrick Henry - TEN/7 - $30
RB - Clyde Edwards-Helaire - KC/10 - $27
RB - Chris Carson - SEA/6 - $21
RB - Ryquell Armstead - JAX/7 - $8
RB - Darwin Thompson - KC/10 - $3
WR - Michael Thomas - NO/6 - $33
WR - T.Y. Hilton - IND/7 - $17
WR - Tyler Boyd - CIN/9 - $16
WR - Curtis Samuel - CAR/13 - $10
WR - Randall Cobb - HOU/8 - $6
TE - Hayden Hurst - ATL/10 - $15
TE - Jared Cook - NO/6 - $13
TE - Blake Jarwin - DAL/10 - $9
PK - Younghoe Koo - ATL/10 - $4
PK - Chris Boswell - PIT/8 - $3
TD - New England Patriots - NE/6 - $5
TD - Los Angeles Rams - LAR/9 - $4

Total value: 250

I am sure I will continue to tinker with this, but this is what I have settled on today

I did not see Darrel Williams from KC on there so I went with Darwin.

Am I missing Williams from KC?  Is he on the sheet?

 
I am working back to 2010, hunting for a reason to roster an expensive defense versus multiple cheap ones.  I figured going back 10 seasons (contests) would certainly be a big enough sample size.  I am currently compiling data on the 2012 contest, but just wanted to take a break and post.  I think I have finally found the ONLY logical reason to roster an expensive D - the only way I can see justifying big bucks on a single D is if your roster has 29 other positions, and you use the remaining $$ on your final roster spot.  A little history on the most expensive D's in this contest:

2019 - The Bears were $10.  If you had used that $10 to purchase multiple D's, the only team you could not have had were the Rams, because they were $8, and there were no $2 D's offered.  Of the remaining 30 teams, there were 283 combinations you could have chosen for $10 or below.  Every single one of the 283 combos scored higher than the Bears, who ended up scoring 76 points (tied for 24th place).  You could not have chosen worse, even if you tried!

It's not just one high priced D scoring poorly in a single year that makes rostering them a bad idea.  Just look at the Rams.  They were the 2nd most expensive D at $8, scored 111 points, and finished 6th overall (by all accounts a pretty successful season).  But what if you had just chosen any combo of the four $3 D's that were offered?  Not only would you have scored higher, but you also would've saved $2.  The worst you would've scored was CIN/NYJ for 120 points, and the best was SF/TB at a whopping 189 points.  Even if you passed on CHI & LAR, and instead opted for one of the five D's for $7, you still would've scored less and been out a buck.

Stay tuned for 2018 results, coming up shortly...    

 
TheWinz said:
I am working back to 2010, hunting for a reason to roster an expensive defense versus multiple cheap ones.  I figured going back 10 seasons (contests) would certainly be a big enough sample size.  I am currently compiling data on the 2012 contest, but just wanted to take a break and post.  I think I have finally found the ONLY logical reason to roster an expensive D - the only way I can see justifying big bucks on a single D is if your roster has 29 other positions, and you use the remaining $$ on your final roster spot.  A little history on the most expensive D's in this contest:

2019 - The Bears were $10.  If you had used that $10 to purchase multiple D's, the only team you could not have had were the Rams, because they were $8, and there were no $2 D's offered.  Of the remaining 30 teams, there were 283 combinations you could have chosen for $10 or below.  Every single one of the 283 combos scored higher than the Bears, who ended up scoring 76 points (tied for 24th place).  You could not have chosen worse, even if you tried!

It's not just one high priced D scoring poorly in a single year that makes rostering them a bad idea.  Just look at the Rams.  They were the 2nd most expensive D at $8, scored 111 points, and finished 6th overall (by all accounts a pretty successful season).  But what if you had just chosen any combo of the four $3 D's that were offered?  Not only would you have scored higher, but you also would've saved $2.  The worst you would've scored was CIN/NYJ for 120 points, and the best was SF/TB at a whopping 189 points.  Even if you passed on CHI & LAR, and instead opted for one of the five D's for $7, you still would've scored less and been out a buck.

Stay tuned for 2018 results, coming up shortly...    
Click to expand...
Nobody beats the Winz! Nobody!!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheWinz said:
I am working back to 2010, hunting for a reason to roster an expensive defense versus multiple cheap ones.  I figured going back 10 seasons (contests) would certainly be a big enough sample size.  I am currently compiling data on the 2012 contest, but just wanted to take a break and post.  I think I have finally found the ONLY logical reason to roster an expensive D - the only way I can see justifying big bucks on a single D is if your roster has 29 other positions, and you use the remaining $$ on your final roster spot.  A little history on the most expensive D's in this contest:

2019 - The Bears were $10.  If you had used that $10 to purchase multiple D's, the only team you could not have had were the Rams, because they were $8, and there were no $2 D's offered.  Of the remaining 30 teams, there were 283 combinations you could have chosen for $10 or below.  Every single one of the 283 combos scored higher than the Bears, who ended up scoring 76 points (tied for 24th place).  You could not have chosen worse, even if you tried!

It's not just one high priced D scoring poorly in a single year that makes rostering them a bad idea.  Just look at the Rams.  They were the 2nd most expensive D at $8, scored 111 points, and finished 6th overall (by all accounts a pretty successful season).  But what if you had just chosen any combo of the four $3 D's that were offered?  Not only would you have scored higher, but you also would've saved $2.  The worst you would've scored was CIN/NYJ for 120 points, and the best was SF/TB at a whopping 189 points.  Even if you passed on CHI & LAR, and instead opted for one of the five D's for $7, you still would've scored less and been out a buck.

Stay tuned for 2018 results, coming up shortly...    
Click to expand...
Thanks for doing this.  Will you do kickers next?

 
continuing on with my fight against expensive D's...

2018 - The Jaguars were $10.  If you had used that $10 to purchase multiple D's, the number of options for $10 and below is a staggering 1054.  The reason for the big jump from 2019 is there were D's offered for $2, increasing the combos significantly.  Again, every single one of the 1054 combos scored higher than the Jaguars, who ended up scoring 81 points (coincidentally, again tied for 24th place).  Just soak that in for a moment - any combo, even only 2 D's for $2 each ($4), would still have outscored JAX.

In 2018, the second most expensive D was once again the Rams, but this year the Eagles were also $8.  The Rams did their job and scored 114 (4th overall), but the Eagles weren't so lucky at 71 points (30th).  Still, even with a 4th place finish by the Rams, the 4 D's for $2 would've cost you same, and scored 45 more points.  Four D's were offered for $7, but alas, none can compete with 3 D's for $2 each.

And for those keeping track of the highest priced D, in the last 2 years, the score is now 1337 to 0 in favor of multiple cheaper D's.

 
the last 4-5 days have been brutal - I've  changed my lineup 6x. :doh:  

I like where it's at for now - we'll see if I picked good players. It's a little lean - I think 23 total players. I kept waffling on the head of a lion/tail of a mouse dilemma. 

 
SeniorVBDStudent said:
Thanks for doing this.  Will you do kickers next?
Click to expand...
I have already started.  I wanna finish the 10-year study on D's first, even though I am 100% sure of the outcome.  I will likely be done in the next 2 days.  I have always been a fan of multiple cheap K's, just like D's.  The problem is, if a kicker sucks balls, he gets replaced.  Just look at this year's six options for $2:

Catanzaro - lost his job a few weeks ago; now a free agent
Joseph  - waived today and now a free agent; I thought he was one of the safer $2 options
Pineiro - nursing an injury; Santos now in the mix
Sloman - battling with multiple guys, and it doesn't sound too promising for him
Gostkowski - took Joseph's job; was a FA just yesterday
Hopkins - at this point, he seems to be the safest choice

I know this already - I would be way more inclined to pick a single expensive K vs a single expensive D.  There is a reason a guy like Tucker finishes near the top every year - he is a great kicker on a good team.  He has finished top 5 the last 4 years, and has never been outside the top 10.  The same can't be said for D's.

 
getting back to the discussion of cheap vs expensive D...

2017 - The Broncos were $9.  If you had used that $9 to purchase multiple D's, you could not have rostered HOU or SEA, because they were $8.  Of the remaining 29 teams, there were 570 combos you could've chosen for $9 or below.  Once again, every single one of the 570 combos scored higher than the Broncos, who ended up scoring 79 points (this year they improved to 23rd).  OAK ($4) & CLE ($2) both scored under 60, but still would've been a better combo, and you would've had $3 to spare.

As for the two D's for $8, Seattle scored well (112 - 7th), but Houston was middle of the pack (89 - 16th).  The three D's for $7 fared even worse, the highest one (KC) scoring only 90 (15th), while ARI (87) and MIN (80) were 18th & 21st.  In 2017, the 4 D's for $2 each would've netted you 177 points.

And if you are following from a few posts above, the score is now 1907 to 0.  That bears repeating - in the last 3 years of this contest, there have been 1907 possible combinations of cheaper D's versus simply choosing the most expensive one.  In all 1907 cases, you would've outscored the top priced D, and in most cases, you would've saved $$$.

 
Once upon a time, 4 years ago...

2016 - The Broncos were $8.  If you had used that $8 to purchase multiple D's, you could not have rostered the 3 - $7 D's (ARI, CAR & SEA).  Of the remaining 28 teams, there were 237 combos you could've chosen for $8 or below.  This year, the highest priced D did well, scoring 112 points and finishing 5th overall.  Even so, the numbers still favor multiple cheap D's.

There have been 4 D's each of the last 4 seasons that were the cheapest.  Of those 4 cheapest teams, at least 1 every season ends up in the top 5.  2016 was no exception, as San Diego ($2 - 114 points) outscored Denver.

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
the last 4-5 days have been brutal - I've  changed my lineup 6x. :doh:  

I like where it's at for now - we'll see if I picked good players. It's a little lean - I think 23 total players. I kept waffling on the head of a lion/tail of a mouse dilemma. 
Click to expand...
I've changed my lineup more than 6 times today.

Starting to like it--26 guys and still some who should be big scorers (but none of the top 4 at any position).

 
apalmer said:
I've changed my lineup more than 6 times today.

Starting to like it--26 guys and still some who should be big scorers (but none of the top 4 at any position).
Click to expand...
I went top 4 at only one position, but there are  quite a few guys I liked in the $20-25 range.  It's a challenging contest for sure, and I've taken a significantly different approach from last season. I was way too thin at way too many positions and kind of top-heavy - which was great if I had a good week by a few guys and no-so-great if I didn't. 

While I'm still a little light at 23, and may try to re-work it so I'm at 24 or 25, I do think I'm getting close to my final. It'll be such a relief when the season starts and lineups lock so I can finally stop tinkering. :lol:  

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
I went top 4 at only one position, but there are  quite a few guys I liked in the $20-25 range.  It's a challenging contest for sure, and I've taken a significantly different approach from last season. I was way too thin at way too many positions and kind of top-heavy - which was great if I had a good week by a few guys and no-so-great if I didn't. 

While I'm still a little light at 23, and may try to re-work it so I'm at 24 or 25, I do think I'm getting close to my final. It'll be such a relief when the season starts and lineups lock so I can finally stop tinkering. :lol:  
Click to expand...
Business must be slow

 
2015 was a fun year for D's in this contest.  It was the only year in the 2010's that the staff decided to have D's over $10.  And yes, many people fell for it.  The Seahawks were a whopping $12, while the Bills were $11 and the Rams were $10.  There were no $2 D's, but there were 7 D's for $3 each.  The lowest $12 combo made up of 4 D's for $3 each would've gotten you 26 points more than SEA, while the best combo scores you 60 more.

SEA + BUF + STL = $33 = 169 points
CLE + NYG + WAS = $11 = 185 points
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2014 saw SEA as the highest priced at $9, along with 13 D's for $3 each.  If you do the math, you will find that there were 286 possible combos of $3 D's to add up to $9.  And yes, you guessed it - all 286 combos outscored Seattle.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2013 was the only year in the decade where you could not purchase 3 or 4 D's for the price of 1. 
$3 = 11 D's
$4 = 11 D's
$5 = 8 D's
$6 = 2 D's
Even though the 2 expensive D's did well (4th & 11th), there were still tons of $6 combos to outscore them. 
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I still have to input the data from 2010 thru 2012 into my spreadsheet, but I've already seen it, and the results will be the same.  Sure, a top priced D may finish first, but it doesn't mean they are worth it.  This year there are 2 D's for $7 each, 1 D for $6, and 9 D's for $2 each.  I haven't figured out the exact teams I will be selecting yet, but I do know which teams I won't be selecting.   

 
TheWinz said:
2015 was a fun year for D's in this contest.  It was the only year in the 2010's that the staff decided to have D's over $10.  And yes, many people fell for it.  The Seahawks were a whopping $12, while the Bills were $11 and the Rams were $10.  There were no $2 D's, but there were 7 D's for $3 each.  The lowest $12 combo made up of 4 D's for $3 each would've gotten you 26 points more than SEA, while the best combo scores you 60 more.

SEA + BUF + STL = $33 = 169 points
CLE + NYG + WAS = $11 = 185 points
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2014 saw SEA as the highest priced at $9, along with 13 D's for $3 each.  If you do the math, you will find that there were 286 possible combos of $3 D's to add up to $9.  And yes, you guessed it - all 286 combos outscored Seattle.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2013 was the only year in the decade where you could not purchase 3 or 4 D's for the price of 1. 
$3 = 11 D's
$4 = 11 D's
$5 = 8 D's
$6 = 2 D's
Even though the 2 expensive D's did well (4th & 11th), there were still tons of $6 combos to outscore them. 
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I still have to input the data from 2010 thru 2012 into my spreadsheet, but I've already seen it, and the results will be the same.  Sure, a top priced D may finish first, but it doesn't mean they are worth it.  This year there are 2 D's for $7 each, 1 D for $6, and 9 D's for $2 each.  I haven't figured out the exact teams I will be selecting yet, but I do know which teams I won't be selecting.   
Click to expand...
Your content today had me change my entry twice. 

Excellent stuff - thank you for your efforts. 👍

 
I have revised to be a bit less week 8 heavy, but missing Johnson and Hopkins hurts

QB - Matthew Stafford - DET/5 - $14
QB - Ben Roethlisberger - PIT/8 - $11
RB - Nick Chubb - CLE/9 - $26
RB - Aaron Jones - GB/5 - $25
RB - James Conner - PIT/8 - $23
RB - J.K. Dobbins - BAL/8 - $16
RB - Ryquell Armstead - JAX/7 - $8
WR - Odell Beckham - CLE/9 - $22
WR - Julian Edelman - NE/6 - $15
WR - Jamison Crowder - NYJ/11 - $13
WR - Diontae Johnson - PIT/8 - $13
WR - Sterling Shepard - NYG/11 - $11
WR - Bryan Edwards - LV/6 - $3
TE - Mike Gesicki - MIA/11 - $12
TE - Noah Fant - DEN/8 - $10
TE - Chris Herndon - NYJ/11 - $7
PK - Chase McLaughlin - IND/7 - $3
PK - Austin Seibert - CLE/9 - $3
PK - Chris Boswell - PIT/8 - $3
TD - Minnesota Vikings - MIN/7 - $4
TD - Kansas City Chiefs - KC/10 - $4
TD - Los Angeles Rams - LAR/9 - $4

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SeniorVBDStudent said:
Is QB/RB stacking bad in best ball from a game theory perspective?
Click to expand...
I don't think it's necessarily bad in any format. From what I've read it's pretty neutral. 

The QB/WR stacking is what can be boom or bust. All the eggs in one basket kinda thing.  Granted, the same can happen with QB/RB, but it seems to happen less, from what I've seen from the expert analysis of it. 

Stacking in general seems to be more relevant to DFS. 

 
79th version of my team.

QB - Kyler Murray - ARI/8 - $18
QB - Matthew Stafford - DET/5 - $14
QB - Tua Tagovailoa - MIA/11 - $5
RB - Josh Jacobs - LV/6 - $26
RB - Aaron Jones - GB/5 - $25
RB - Cam Akers - LAR/9 - $18
RB - Tarik Cohen - CHI/11 - $14
RB - Chris Thompson - JAX/7 - $5
RB - Frank Gore - NYJ/11 - $3
WR - Tyler Lockett - SEA/6 - $18
WR - D.J. Chark - JAX/7 - $17
WR - Michael Gallup - DAL/10 - $16
WR - Anthony Miller - CHI/11 - $10
WR - Bryan Edwards - LV/6 - $3
TE - Evan Engram - NYG/11 - $16
TE - Mike Gesicki - MIA/11 - $12
TE - Dallas Goedert - PHI/9 - $11
PK - Jason Sanders - MIA/11 - $3
PK - Chandler Catanzaro - NYG/11 - $2
PK - Stephen Gostkowski - TEN/7 - $2
PK - Sam Sloman - LAR/9 - $2
TD - Indianapolis Colts - IND/7 - $3
TD - Seattle Seahawks - SEA/6 - $3
TD - New York Giants - NYG/11 - $2
TD - Jacksonville Jaguars - JAX/7 - $2

 
Deamon said:
79th version of my team.

QB - Kyler Murray - ARI/8 - $18
QB - Matthew Stafford - DET/5 - $14
QB - Tua Tagovailoa - MIA/11 - $5
RB - Josh Jacobs - LV/6 - $26
RB - Aaron Jones - GB/5 - $25
RB - Cam Akers - LAR/9 - $18
RB - Tarik Cohen - CHI/11 - $14
RB - Chris Thompson - JAX/7 - $5
RB - Frank Gore - NYJ/11 - $3
WR - Tyler Lockett - SEA/6 - $18
WR - D.J. Chark - JAX/7 - $17
WR - Michael Gallup - DAL/10 - $16
WR - Anthony Miller - CHI/11 - $10
WR - Bryan Edwards - LV/6 - $3
TE - Evan Engram - NYG/11 - $16
TE - Mike Gesicki - MIA/11 - $12
TE - Dallas Goedert - PHI/9 - $11
PK - Jason Sanders - MIA/11 - $3
PK - Chandler Catanzaro - NYG/11 - $2
PK - Stephen Gostkowski - TEN/7 - $2
PK - Sam Sloman - LAR/9 - $2
TD - Indianapolis Colts - IND/7 - $3
TD - Seattle Seahawks - SEA/6 - $3
TD - New York Giants - NYG/11 - $2
TD - Jacksonville Jaguars - JAX/7 - $2
Click to expand...
Catanzaro?
Sloman?

 
TheWinz said:
continuing on with my fight against expensive D's...

2018 - The Jaguars were $10.  If you had used that $10 to purchase multiple D's, the number of options for $10 and below is a staggering 1054.  The reason for the big jump from 2019 is there were D's offered for $2, increasing the combos significantly.  Again, every single one of the 1054 combos scored higher than the Jaguars, who ended up scoring 81 points (coincidentally, again tied for 24th place).  Just soak that in for a moment - any combo, even only 2 D's for $2 each ($4), would still have outscored JAX.

In 2018, the second most expensive D was once again the Rams, but this year the Eagles were also $8.  The Rams did their job and scored 114 (4th overall), but the Eagles weren't so lucky at 71 points (30th).  Still, even with a 4th place finish by the Rams, the 4 D's for $2 would've cost you same, and scored 45 more points.  Four D's were offered for $7, but alas, none can compete with 3 D's for $2 each.

And for those keeping track of the highest priced D, in the last 2 years, the score is now 1337 to 0 in favor of multiple cheaper D's.
Click to expand...
Obviously the highest price D is due

:shark:

-QG

 
I'm curious about the merits of say, 2 defenses totaling $10 vs 3 defenses totaling $10.  Is there any true value to even the mid-priced entries?

-QG

 
I keep waffling back and forth between higher numbers of rostered players to back to lower (Prolly 7x iterations today alone), Right now I'm at 24 but have gone as high as 28. Every time I get to a point I feel I'm happy and content, then I get some brilliant idea that costs me at least 30 minutes mixing and matching....can the contest hurry up and lock to put me outta my misery....I think I may have a problem!  

 
QB - Russell Wilson - SEA/6 - $17
QB - Ben Roethlisberger - PIT/8 - $11
QB - Philip Rivers - IND/7 - $8
RB - Joe Mixon - CIN/9 - $28
RB - Clyde Edwards-Helaire - KC/10 - $27
RB - Chris Carson - SEA/6 - $21
RB - Boston Scott - PHI/9 - $11
RB - Zack Moss - BUF/11 - $10
RB - Antonio Gibson - WAS/8 - $9
RB - Benny Snell - PIT/8 - $4
WR - Tyler Lockett - SEA/6 - $18
WR - T.Y. Hilton - IND/7 - $17
WR - CeeDee Lamb - DAL/10 - $12
WR - Parris Campbell - IND/7 - $7
WR - Chase Claypool - PIT/8 - $4
WR - Bryan Edwards - LV/6 - $3
TE - Mike Gesicki - MIA/11 - $12
TE - Jonnu Smith - TEN/7 - $9
TE - O.J. Howard - TB/13 - $7
PK - Matt Prater - DET/5 - $4
PK - Brandon McManus - DEN/8 - $4
TD - Indianapolis Colts - IND/7 - $3
TD - Atlanta Falcons - ATL/10 - $2
TD - Arizona Cardinals - ARI/8 - $2

Still a few days to change my mind, but I like the makeup of this group...

 
Titans_fan said:
QB - Russell Wilson - SEA/6 - $17
QB - Ben Roethlisberger - PIT/8 - $11
QB - Philip Rivers - IND/7 - $8
RB - Joe Mixon - CIN/9 - $28
RB - Clyde Edwards-Helaire - KC/10 - $27
RB - Chris Carson - SEA/6 - $21
RB - Boston Scott - PHI/9 - $11
RB - Zack Moss - BUF/11 - $10
RB - Antonio Gibson - WAS/8 - $9
RB - Benny Snell - PIT/8 - $4
WR - Tyler Lockett - SEA/6 - $18
WR - T.Y. Hilton - IND/7 - $17
WR - CeeDee Lamb - DAL/10 - $12
WR - Parris Campbell - IND/7 - $7
WR - Chase Claypool - PIT/8 - $4
WR - Bryan Edwards - LV/6 - $3
TE - Mike Gesicki - MIA/11 - $12
TE - Jonnu Smith - TEN/7 - $9
TE - O.J. Howard - TB/13 - $7
PK - Matt Prater - DET/5 - $4
PK - Brandon McManus - DEN/8 - $4
TD - Indianapolis Colts - IND/7 - $3
TD - Atlanta Falcons - ATL/10 - $2
TD - Arizona Cardinals - ARI/8 - $2

Still a few days to change my mind, but I like the makeup of this group...
Click to expand...
I like the QB/WR combos.  Well done and good luck.

 
QuizGuy66 said:
I'm curious about the merits of say, 2 defenses totaling $10 vs 3 defenses totaling $10.  Is there any true value to even the mid-priced entries?

-QG
Click to expand...
I want to backtrack on my answer a little bit.  Let's say you have $10 left and need defenses.  You already have 28 roster spots taken, and you really like your choices.  I wouldn't drop a player at another position, just so I can add more D's.  In this case I guess I would take 2 D's for $10. 

 
I’m done. barring any last-minute shenanigans with injury or release, I’m locked in at 26. That’s my team. I’m done

 
Is there a way to see past years rules?  There is something I would like to check on that I shant say out loud. 

 
Shaunz33 said:
I think yes put I shant say out loud :)

 when on the rules page you can try to change all the parts of web address that reference the year.  
Click to expand...
Thanks......  I thought lineup requirements were significantly changed from last year .......  I was mistaken.  Nothing to see here. 

 
Steeler said:
We have a problem and I might not be able to get Calcomatic running this year :kicksrock: The NFL apparently changed their live scoring API and I am unable to pull live data from their site*.  Without (free) live scoring Calcomatic is useless.  Also, even if I can find a new live scoring feed I'd have to change portions of the website to read this new format of the data.  Hopefully I have designed the system well enough that these changes are minimal, but the work still needs to be done.  Definitely don't make a donation at this time :lol:  

Does anyone know of a live scoring API that is free?

*You may be wondering how I know the live scoring data won't work since no games being played.  Well, the NFL had a couple different URLs that I used to determine when games were played, the team, and the stats for the game.  These URLs could be used for completed games as well which is how I discovered the issue.  I had some unit/integration testing setup for the application which used completed games from previous years to find specific scoring scenarios I wanted to test... and these tests blew up because those URLs are no longer valid.  Anyway, this is a reminder for developers to have robust unit/integration tests :)
Click to expand...
Posting this again to make sure people are aware of the issue and aren't disappointed on Thursday when Calcomatic doesn't work.  Yes, being disappointed right now is better than being disappointed on Tuesday.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dacomish
Official 2023-2024 Subscriber Post Season/Playoffs Contest
2 3 4
Replies
171
Views
5K
Puppies
Puppies
Joe Bryant
Important Note On Footballguys Championship Contest
Replies
7
Views
822
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
Dacomish
Official 2022-2023 Post Season FBG Subscriber Contest
8 9 10
Replies
462
Views
13K
joey
joey

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top