NFBC Online Championship Proposal

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:32 am

I guess 5 seconds online is a heartbeat.

Side note...is going to a doubleheader like going to a doublefeature...are your seats good for both games...or do they sweep people out in between games?

~Lance

bucks66 · Post by **bucks66** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:38 am

The time constraints may be why it may not be as big as I'd like to see it. For a $500 entrance fee, it's too easy for someone to blame computer problems on a bad pick or being timed out. It offers an undue advantage to the one who massages it. I can understand it happening one time but 5-6 times in one draft is unacceptable. It just creates too much of an advantage to those who would choose to take advantage of the situation. I sure hope something can be done to find a remedy to that because as I said, I'd love to partake in it. Of course, at $500 entrance fee, you kind of weed out the casual players.

baggler · Post by **baggler** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:32 pm

Greg, love the idea of the NOBC/NOFC...by the way guys my name is Eddy. I have a team in the NFBC main event Frozen Ropes NY6, a $250 satelitte auction team and a $100 satellite team.I also participate in the NFBC, former partner of Diesel, I currently go under Bagglers

on the NFFC message board.

The reason I joined the baseball satellites was to get a taste of the auction draft which I will join the NFBC in 2008,it's a much cheaper learning experience at $250 and the $100 satellite was a way to get a gauge on NFBC main event for less than a tenth of the cost prior to that draft.

I know everyone has different lifestyles so their spending capabilties vary , for me I rather get some bang for the buck.But I still believe you gotta spend money to make money and everyone wants the title of best fantasy player so if you can afford WCOFF or NFBC/NFFC you can achieve that.

I just want to say that I prefer the NFBC format. To join a 10-12 team league with a drop in roster spots for $500 would make me hesitate. The fact is with the smaller rosters, there are free agents falling in your lap week after week luck is much more of a factor, I always found dl spot annoying and unneccessary. Just make the bench size large enough to carry dl'd players.

I guess what I'm saying is in order for me to join the NOBC I would want no less than 12 owners in a league and a 30 man roster. That would mean that another 90 players would be available compared to the NFBC , a total of 360 players would be drafted in the NOBC. It would allow enough owners to have shot at competing all year long and picking up players to help in categories.

Also a two or three team payout for each league is fine.I think two would be better with more of the money going to a bigger payout for the best overall teams.

I wish you luck Greg and I am a great supporter. I'm sure you'll come up with a happy medium.

baggler · Post by **baggler** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:39 pm

Also as far as the time between picks I agree that if a clock elapses that the owner gets no pick and goes on the clock after the next owner picks. Both of the online drafts I did this year went smoothly ,you always get one owner with a glitch but with the moderator and tech support from MCD it always works out. And if anyone can figure out how to have a faster online auction draft please let me know. It was a blast on Auctioneer.com but was way too long maybe a two night auction draft?

Anyhow love the bantering and everyone good luck. Hey Jersey Paul we miss you in the NFFC NY Auction we promise not to gang up on you again if you play in 2007 if you teach us some of your world renown bridge playing secrets.

Walla Walla · Post by **Walla Walla** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:46 pm

I think the idea is good but I don't think the time is right. Just too many things that can go wrong on a online draft. Maybe in the future a contest of this size could be run but as it stands today I see alot bad things happening. I'd hate to see the NFBC get smeared after all the good will that has been built on the live drafts.

The old saying is it takes 27 attaboys to make up for one awsh*t!

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:17 am

I haven't read each post thoroughly, but my only thoughts are the following:

I think you do need to differentiate this new format relative to the Main event as much as possible without creating some crazy product (ie 11x11). This should reduce the amount of cannibalism from the Main Event. In using someone else's car analogy with a slight twist, don't make another Mercedes at a reduced cost. With that said, I think the 12 team, 9/10 batters, 7 pitchers, 2 DL makes the most sense. And of course 5x5. I'm not sure what bench size would make the most sense: perhaps 21-23.

Another point is that this competition should not be set up to accomodate current Main Eventer's format interests. It should be created to attract a different 'niche' not already participating through the NFBC. I am sure the final format will still suffice those diehards in the Main Eevnt to enter this one as well. The ultimate goal is to attract a new group of people, whom then may graduate to the Main Event. It should be an incubator, which is kinda what the Satellite's are with out the grand prize. This should be somewhere in between.

And another idea, which could also apply to the Main Event, is how to handle dropped players. If perhaps Stats.Inc could creat a webpage that allows either Krause or team managers to vote on which players should be UNDROPPABLE, whereby the Top 150 (or some other number), ranked by percentage of overall votes, are the designated UNDROPPABLES, then this becomes a cut and dry issue. You can either make it a one time vote at the beginning of the season or something that can be updated at any time during the season. (I would also ensure this capability allows short cuts like top 150 rated players, or top 90 batters and top 60 pitchers. Just somethign that reducing one's time to ensure as much partipaction as possible.) Another component of this idea is to create polls on team Main Page's - for example "It is porposed that player John Doe be added to the Top 150 UNDROPPABLE list by replacing Jane Doe who sits at #150".

[ July 23, 2007, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: nydownunder ]

la Jolla · Post by **la Jolla** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:12 am

I think anything that offers more options to players is a great idea. It's ironic because after years of playing several leagues per season I am seriously considering playing only one team next year because of one thing: free agent bidding. For me personally, I am getting tired of spending my Sunday afternoons scouring through multiple free agent lists and then placing all the bids, contingent bids, and trying to guess how much it takes to land them. So the timing of this new idea gives me hope that it may be possible to have leagues with different sets of rules to play in. I would love to see a league with free agents set up like yahoo, espn, etc. via a waiver wire. Or any other system that would not require me to bid blindly on players every weekend. I love the drafts, like everyone else, and would play in endless leagues if it weren't for the current free agency bidding, so my suggestion in trying to grow this business model would be to offer alternatives for everyones time committment levels. I would envision lots of current players taking more teams on if it meant just drafting and setting line-ups each Monday, plus it would attract the casual players as well. I know several friends of mine that would love to play, but because of family restrictions on the weekends they could never allocate the time for free agent bidding and thus pass on playing. Something to think about, but I hope whatever new rules are set up in these leagues, that this will be considered.

Walla Walla · Post by **Walla Walla** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:29 pm

Another input from me. I wouldn't spend more than 100 for any internet draft. Just too many pitfalls! I've done both NFBC and NFFC drafts on the internet but never more than 100 for the most part. Greg don't do it!!!!

Dak · Post by **Dak** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 1:29 am

You've been successful with the current format, and I have joined sats because of it! Leave it the same .....14 team leagues, 30 man roster, payout to third!!!! You will get the teams.... IF you leave it the same!

Crazy Like a Fox · Post by **Crazy Like a Fox** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 1:56 am

I think this is a great idea as most average people could never in their lifetime fork over $1250 to play in a fantasy baseball league when you have to finish in the top 3 to atleast come out even. My personal take is it's a bad investment, I'm sure Main Event members will disagree.

I think 12 team leagues, $500 entry - $2,500 for winner, $1,500 for 2nd - $750 for 3rd.

What would be more appealing to me than an a bigger overall grand prize would be to introduce divisional prizes into play (20 leagues per division) if the amount of entries grows into the thousands. Imagine, $2500 for the winner of the league, $5,000 for the divisional winner per(20 leagues)

$500-$600 I think will definitely raise the amount of members in the league, and having it online will only help as having the live draft in Vegas means an extra $600-$1,000 for most people (airfare/hotel/stripclub)

I myself would never pay $1250 to enter the Main (I'd rather get in via satellite), but $500 is much more reasonable especially taking out the Vegas cost.

I'm all for it. I think if you advertise the hell out of it, you might get 500-800 entries in the first year. Great idea.

Kevin D · Post by **Kevin D** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:21 am

With all the Sharks, Snakes, Money Men, and Sharpsters in these fantasy games I'm surprised someone hasn't bought a $100 Sat League then sold the teams @ $5,100 each, put the Cake in CD's, and paid out 103% of the stake money less 41 cents and nominal office supply expense for each prize awarded. The winner would get the free NFBC entry. No ego gratification that goes with winning the Minor League Title of the NFBC but a nice payout!!

[ July 25, 2007, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: Kevin D ]

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:42 am

Originally posted by Kevin D:

With all the Sharks, Snakes, Money Men, and Sharpsters in these fantasy games I'm surprised someone hasn't bought a $100 Sat League then sold the teams @ $5,100 each, put the Cake in CD's, and paid out 103% of the stake money less 41 cents and nominal office supply expense for each prize awarded. The winner would get the free NFBC entry. No ego gratification that goes with winning the Minor League Title of the NFBC but a nice payout!! Sounds like a lot of work to lose money-

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:45 am

Thanks for all the feedback so far and keep the posts coming on this subject. I actually haven't even pitched this plan to management yet as I want to get everything in place first, so it's all still a pipedream on my part. But I'm convinced that the combination of live NFBC drafts, NFBC satellite leagues and an overall Online Championship makes perfect sense for us going forward.

Would we lose signups to the NFBC? Anything is possible, so sure we might. But we also could lose those teams to Sportsline.com's $500 leagues or CDM's salary cap games. To do nothing while competitors are doing more doesn't seem to make good business sense. Could we gain more NFBC main event signups in the future? Of course we can. It seems like people who win money in our events tend to come back more often than those who don't and thus first place Online Championship teams may want to "reinvest" that money with us the next year, don't you think?

The formats must be different as we're appealing to different players, although I trust several of our NFBC guys will add this competition to their list of events in 2008. In fact, we'll hold the drafts on multiple nights, so some of our savvy owners may even take more than one team.

I'm still wrestling with a few things, so maybe everyone can help me here. The idea of whether I should do this or not is mine to make, although I'll continue to read your opinions!

Finding the right format is where you can help me the most.

Here's what I've gained from your input:

Teams: 12 makes the most sense, not 10 and definitely not 15

Rosters: 21-23, maybe one less hitter and one less pitcher or keep it at 23

Reserves: Fewer than NFBC but possibly with DL lists

Payouts: Top 3 within league, worthy grand prize.

Cost: $500 per team

Okay, at $500 per team and an 80 percent payout, I'd shoot for 300 teams the first year. That's $120,000 in prize money. In the NFBC, we pay 4x entry for first and 2x for second, money back for third (or in that range). So I'm thinking of

1st - $2,000

2nd - $1,000

3rd - $500

That would leave us with $20,000 for first, $5,000 for second, $2,500 for third, $1,500 for fourth, $1,000 for fifth through seventh place and $500 for eighth place.

Obviously if we were to shoot for more than 300 teams, you could increase first place league money to $2,500 and the overall to $25,000 and beyond. If we were able to shoot for 348 teams, we could offer $25,000 as the grand prize. But to guarantee the prize money, I'll shoot conservatively the first year and build from there.

With the back-end costs involved in doing this, the profits aren't huge and Walla Walla is correct that we need to make sure that the technology can handle all of this. Online drafts can be touchy and we don't want the NFBC to be tarnished by a bad online experience. But we've obviously figured out how to do the NFBC and NFFC satellite league drafts, so there's no reason why we can't get this done. But drafting just before Opening Day and with multiple drafts at once, it's not error-proof, that's for sure. I'll agree with that assessment.

Again, it's all in the planning stages, but it has potential from my viewpoint. Keep the opinions and suggestions coming and we'll see where it takes us.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:04 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

Payouts: Top 3 within league, worthy grand prize.

Cost: $500 per team

Okay, at $500 per team and an 80 percent payout, I'd shoot for 300 teams the first year. That's $120,000 in prize money. In the NFBC, we pay 4x entry for first and 2x for second, money back for third (or in that range). So I'm thinking of

1st - $2,000

2nd - $1,000

3rd - $500

That would leave us with $20,000 for first, $5,000 for second, $2,500 for third, $1,500 for fourth, $1,000 for fifth through seventh place and $500 for eighth place.

Obviously if we were to shoot for more than 300 teams, you could increase first place league money to $2,500 and the overall to $25,000 and beyond. If we were able to shoot for 348 teams, we could offer $25,000 as the grand prize. But to guarantee the prize money, I'll shoot conservatively the first year and build from there.

Greg, with only 12 teams I see no reason to pay 3rd place, it creates tax paperwork for all without even winning anything. Take that extra $12,500 and make the top 10 overall more attractive.

The draw here is the overall prize, and beating 290 teams out of 300 should be worth something extra, much more so than beating 8 teams in a 12-team league. The numbers could work something like this ...

1st $20,000

2nd $10,000

3rd $5,000

4th $3,000

5th $2,000

6th $1,000

7th $1,000

8th $1,000

9th $1,000

10th $1,000

Also, not sure I'd want to do a 21-lineup league. All my other lges are 23, local, keeper, high-stakes, low-stakes ... don't see a reason to bust the standard there.

[ July 25, 2007, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:34 am

Good thoughts KJ. $500 for third place would require a signed W-9, but wouldn't be taxable unless you accumulated more than $600 in earnings through our events during the year. Some will argue that returning money for third place keeps everyone active all year long, while others feel it's not a worthy goal. I'll have to make that final call, obviously.

Spyhunter · Post by **Spyhunter** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 1:12 pm

I have to split my support for kj's comments. I agree 23 is the way to go, while I think something for 3rd is very very valuable. To only pay out 1 in 6 is a bad stat imho... As for increasing the overall, most people don't enter things like this trying to get the big $, they want to win their league. Only a few like Shawn can realistically think of winning the overall.

Spy

mdz129 · Post by **mdz129** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:58 am

Greg,

Be careful with the tax advice -- according to the IRS ALL winnings are taxable(yes even $1 and $2 lottery winnings) however a 1099 reporting requirement is for $600 and above. There are several ways to address winnings to reduce net tax effect -- itemize losses, deduct cost of entry(ticket), schedule C, etc .. best to consult someone who knows what is best for you.

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:25 am

Originally posted by mdz129:

Greg,

Be careful with the tax advice -- according to the IRS ALL winnings are taxable(yes even $1 and $2 lottery winnings) however a 1099 reporting requirement is for $600 and above. There are several ways to address winnings to reduce net tax effect -- itemize losses, deduct cost of entry(ticket), schedule C, etc .. best to consult someone who knows what is best for you. As an accountant I would agree with the way Greg wrote it, keep on giving out the tax advice Greg. Wayne Edwards will let you know when it is wrong.

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 6:20 am

Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

quote:Originally posted by mdz129:

Greg,

Be careful with the tax advice -- according to the IRS ALL winnings are taxable(yes even $1 and $2 lottery winnings) however a 1099 reporting requirement is for $600 and above. There are several ways to address winnings to reduce net tax effect -- itemize losses, deduct cost of entry(ticket), schedule C, etc .. best to consult someone who knows what is best for you. As an accountant I would agree with the way Greg wrote it, keep on giving out the tax advice Greg. Wayne Edwards will let you know when it is wrong. [/QUOTE]Don't be too sure. I only made two "B's" in my accounting core...Tax I and Tax II!

mdz129 · Post by **mdz129** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:48 am

Chest,

Obviously you're not a CPA or if you are a CPA you don't value your license. The tax law is pretty clear on what is taxable income. I personally don't care if people report the income for their under $600 winnings, but I was just alerting Greg to be careful as a representative of the NFBC as to what he puts in writing regarding taxability of winnings. Things like this have a way of resurfacing down the road.

MDZ

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:58 am

Originally posted by mdz129:

Chest,

Obviously you're not a CPA or if you are a CPA you don't value your license. The tax law is pretty clear on what is taxable income. I personally don't care if people report the income for their under $600 winnings, but I was just alerting Greg to be careful as a representative of the NFBC as to what he puts in writing regarding taxability of winnings. Things like this have a way of resurfacing down the road.

MDZ You obviously have all the answers and Wayne and I both got B's in Federal Tax so we should defer all questions to you. I love the fact that someone I have never met can accuse me of not caring about my professional reputation.

mdz129 · Post by **mdz129** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:23 pm

First of all, my original post was addressed to Greg, you decided to be a know-little and make a statement which was incorrect information. Now you have the audacity to call me a know it all, because I provide some useful information--please let it go--you have dug yourself a hole you couldn't possibly resurface from.

MDZ

ps I never brought Wayne or yourself into this topic--You decided to make the sarcastic remark.

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:09 am

Lighten up a little everybody. It is not a big deal. Greg made one small semantic error (i.e. Greg said it wouldn't be "taxable" when he should have said "reportable" from his perspective).

We ALL know we ALL always report ALL sources of income, properly value ALL our charitable contributions, NEVER fudge a deduction, OBEY all speed limits, NEVER fibbed to our parents...

Don't get mad...just poking fun. Whenever it is 5:00 today, everybody have a beer on me. Send me the bill. I will deduct it as a business expense for my taxes!

Spyhunter · Post by **Spyhunter** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 3:21 am

Greg,

The recent stats issues underscore the risks of expanding the user base. As you move beyond the 'hard core' into more of a mass appeal product, the infrastructure must be rock solid. I am sure you are reinforcing that with Stats

Spy

freddiezee · Post by **freddiezee** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 3:39 am

A pretty interesting idea, but I agree with some of the other people that you shouldn't change the 15 team, 30 man roster format. That's part of what makes the NFBC the ultimate competition. In that format, I would probably join, in a smaller player pool league I wouldn't bother, since I can get that anywhere. With our current format we still have everyday players on our benches and waivers, so I don't think we should go less deep. Our current format really protects the level of competition.