Main event - 2 weekends- fair or unfair

rockitsauce · Post by **rockitsauce** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 7:20 am

don't let a little dispute injure a great relationship.

I expect to see Greg & Lance having a few cold beverages next yr in Vegas baby, Vegas.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 7:31 am

Originally posted by rockitsauce:

don't let a little dispute injure a great relationship.

I expect to see Greg & Lance having a few cold beverages next yr in Vegas baby, Vegas.

No worries Lance. If you're going to a 50th birthday party, PLEASE DON'T POST HERE tonight!!!

Damn, that could be more damage than a tsunami!!

Nah, I drink cold beers and Lance has umbrella drinks. He's a mixer-type of guy!! But yes, of course, we'll still have drinks together. And then Ryan and I will beat him in that other league again like we did last year!!! We'll be back to defend our league title.

By the way, I think today is TOM's birthday. Lance, have a drink for him.

I'm your brother's age. My big 5-0 is arriving soon!!!

That's why I'll be drinking HARD in Las Vegas!!

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 7:56 am

Originally posted by Purple Helmets:

quote:Originally posted by Hells Satans:

honestly, who cares Not me...and if I somehow manage to have a very lucky season and finish on top of the pile, I'll feel the same amount of prestige (probably even a little more) than I would've had I pulled it off last year.

Sorry Lance... [/QUOTE]Prestige is overrated. Winning, having fun, overcoming challenges, and making money are much better goals.

Glenneration X · Post by **Glenneration X** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:16 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:

quote:Originally posted by Purple Helmets:

quote:Originally posted by Hells Satans:

honestly, who cares Not me...and if I somehow manage to have a very lucky season and finish on top of the pile, I'll feel the same amount of prestige (probably even a little more) than I would've had I pulled it off last year.

Sorry Lance... [/QUOTE]Prestige is overrated. Winning, having fun, overcoming challenges, and making money are much better goals. [/QUOTE]Spoken by someone who has more prestige than he knows what to do with.....and more prize winnings.

However, I happen to agree with everything you say here.

Glenn

rkulaski · Post by **rkulaski** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:49 am

Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

I know I have busted your balls a few times so I hope you do not take my response as antagonistic...

Why debate it now? It gets the people against it riled up and they can do absolutely nothing about it. It is going to happen and I would bet a large sum of money it happens every year.

I am on record as liking the idea. It allows more people to participate. I see it as competing against 434 other entries not 434 or 404 other people. The bottom line is IMO they have done a great job of marketing it this year- but would have stayed flat in the main event without it.

I can certainly see validity in the other side's opinion, but this one is here to stay.... Chest,

Bust my balls all you want, and I'll do the same to you if it calls for it. It's all good.

Why debate it now... I was somewhat mixed on the issue and wanted some other opinions now that the messageboards are busier. When I last remember this issue being discussed, it was the middle of winter and there weren't nearly as many people reading and posting on the messageboards as there are now.

After reading this thread, there's still no debating that owners who draft 2 teams double their chances to win, so not everyone is on equal footing in this contest as in years past. It's a small advantage, but it is an advantage. Ideally for this contest (not for any other), I'd like to see it a 2-weekend event and each owner pick 1 weekend to draft, but not both. Of course, from a business standpoint, that makes no sense and I accept and get that. Greg makes great points why the contest has changed to a 2-weekend event and I completely agree. I had just forgotten some of the reasons, and I likely wouldn't have raised this issue again had I remembered.

Greg, for the record, I didn't mean to stir the pot. I just wanted some opinions on the matter - pro and con. If I thought the changes were bad, then, like I said, I wouldn't be playing. I'm in more leagues than ever this year, so obviously, I love what you guys are doing and the direction the NFBC/fanball is heading.

Gekko · Post by **Gekko** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 12:05 pm

Originally posted by rkulaski:

After reading this thread, there's still no debating that owners who draft 2 teams double their chances to win, so not everyone is on equal footing in this contest as in years past. It's a small advantage, but it is an advantage. after reading this thread, it's still not clicking for you. must be a chicago thing

please tell us what TEAM (A, B or C) has an advantage over your main event team? specify why? thanks.

TEAM A: Joe Smith buys 1 main event TEAM

TEAM B: Joe Smith buys 1 more main event TEAM

TEAM C: Bill Smith buys 1 main event TEAM

rkulaski · Post by **rkulaski** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 12:46 pm

Originally posted by Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by rkulaski:

After reading this thread, there's still no debating that owners who draft 2 teams double their chances to win, so not everyone is on equal footing in this contest as in years past. It's a small advantage, but it is an advantage. after reading this thread, it's still not clicking for you. must be a chicago thing

please tell us what TEAM (A, B or C) has an advantage over your main event team? specify why? thanks.

TEAM A: Joe Smith buys 1 main event TEAM

TEAM B: Joe Smith buys 1 more main event TEAM

TEAM C: Bill Smith buys 1 main event TEAM [/QUOTE]Gek,

Short answer: Joe Smith has 2 chances to win. Bill has one. Do you not think that's an advantage?

Long answer: Team a,b,and c will all start the season with an equal chance to win, so, in that regard, no advantage to either team.

But... In April, injuries to some high draft picks befall Teams a and c ruining their season. Joe still has a shot in the overall with an injury free Team B. Who do you think has the advantage in this scenario by drafting 2 teams?

Again, it's not that much of an issue to me. If it was, I wouldn't have entered my 1 team in the online championships last yr. I like my one team's chances to beat both of yours or anyone else's. But to say/believe there aren't ANY advantages to having 2 teams versus one in the main event is not true.

I can always see both sides of an issue, so if it's still not clicking, tell me why.

rkulaski · Post by **rkulaski** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 12:55 pm

Originally posted by Gekko:

lance is only seeing one side of this.

Too win the 100K, I now have to beat TWO childs, TWO Jupinkas, etc...

if anything the "prestige" factor has gone UP. Any advantage to Childs or Jupinka having 2 teams?

eddiejag · Post by **eddiejag** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:36 pm

Originally posted by rkulaski:

quote:Originally posted by Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by rkulaski:

After reading this thread, there's still no debating that owners who draft 2 teams double their chances to win, so not everyone is on equal footing in this contest as in years past. It's a small advantage, but it is an advantage. after reading this thread, it's still not clicking for you. must be a chicago thing

please tell us what TEAM (A, B or C) has an advantage over your main event team? specify why? thanks.

TEAM A: Joe Smith buys 1 main event TEAM

TEAM B: Joe Smith buys 1 more main event TEAM

TEAM C: Bill Smith buys 1 main event TEAM [/QUOTE]Gek,

Short answer: Joe Smith has 2 chances to win. Bill has one. Do you not think that's an advantage?

Long answer: Team a,b,and c will all start the season with an equal chance to win, so, in that regard, no advantage to either team.

But... In April, injuries to some high draft picks befall Teams a and c ruining their season. Joe still has a shot in the overall with an injury free Team B. Who do you think has the advantage in this scenario by drafting 2 teams?

Again, it's not that much of an issue to me. If it was, I wouldn't have entered my 1 team in the online championships last yr. I like my one team's chances to beat both of yours or anyone else's. But to say/believe there aren't ANY advantages to having 2 teams versus one in the main event is not true.

I can always see both sides of an issue, so if it's still not clicking, tell me why. [/QUOTE]Agree with this and maybe Lance didnt use the right word but the nfbc is now different.It was like the ncaa tournament with one shot at winning but now elite teams or teams with more money can play two. It's different folks and from here on out its a new history.Wcoff started this in football this year and it brings in more teams which = money.Nothing wrong with this as everyone is going with the times.It also helps with some folks who can only make one week.

rkulaski · Post by **rkulaski** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 4:42 pm

Agree with this and maybe Lance didnt use the right word but the nfbc is now different.It was like the ncaa tournament with one shot at winning but now elite teams or teams with more money can play two. It's different folks and from here on out its a new history.Wcoff started this in football this year and it brings in more teams which = money.Nothing wrong with this as everyone is going with the times.It also helps with some folks who can only make one week.You got it.

TOXIC ASSETS · Post by **TOXIC ASSETS** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 12:55 am

I'll jump in here. If you have two teams, you may have double the chances to win the big prize, but you you also have an excellent chance of losing twice as much money as someone who only enters one team. The overall expected profit is LESS if you enter two teams.

Interesting, that some of the posts on this topic show exactly the same thinking as our corporate geniuses, looking only at potential gains but ignoring the risk of loss. Ask the appropriately named Dick Fuld at Lehman Brothers about that one.

Gekko · Post by **Gekko** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:30 am

Originally posted by rkulaski:

quote:Originally posted by Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by rkulaski:

After reading this thread, there's still no debating that owners who draft 2 teams double their chances to win, so not everyone is on equal footing in this contest as in years past. It's a small advantage, but it is an advantage. after reading this thread, it's still not clicking for you. must be a chicago thing

please tell us what TEAM (A, B or C) has an advantage over your main event team? specify why? thanks.

TEAM A: Joe Smith buys 1 main event TEAM

TEAM B: Joe Smith buys 1 more main event TEAM

TEAM C: Bill Smith buys 1 main event TEAM [/QUOTE]Gek,

Short answer: Joe Smith has 2 chances to win. Bill has one. Do you not think that's an advantage?

Long answer: Team a,b,and c will all start the season with an equal chance to win, so, in that regard, no advantage to either team.

But... In April, injuries to some high draft picks befall Teams a and c ruining their season. Joe still has a shot in the overall with an injury free Team B. Who do you think has the advantage in this scenario by drafting 2 teams?

Again, it's not that much of an issue to me. If it was, I wouldn't have entered my 1 team in the online championships last yr. I like my one team's chances to beat both of yours or anyone else's. But to say/believe there aren't ANY advantages to having 2 teams versus one in the main event is not true.

I can always see both sides of an issue, so if it's still not clicking, tell me why. [/QUOTE]We are making progress Rich.

1. There is no advantage between individual teams.

2. Owner Joe Smith can win more money than Bill Smith

3. Owner Joe Smith can lose more money than Bill Smith

This includes our Sunday school lesson

Gekko · Post by **Gekko** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 am

Originally posted by rkulaski:

quote:Originally posted by Gekko:

lance is only seeing one side of this.

Too win the 100K, I now have to beat TWO childs, TWO Jupinkas, etc...

if anything the "prestige" factor has gone UP. Any advantage to Childs or Jupinka having 2 teams? [/QUOTE]TWO Gekkos > TWO Childs (Jupinka)

WOODERSON · Post by **WOODERSON** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:35 am

a different view kinda: its NCAA tournament time and most everybody fan or not will fill out a bracket whether it's espn, local, pay event or wherever and I definitely like the "pickers" who fill out 2 brackets over any 1 bracket "picker". If I was posting odds for this event my highest odds would be on the double participants. more chances = better chance probability. "It's all good!" may it be a great season & may the best Drafter win! Good luck to all!

Potter · Post by **Potter** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:40 am

Rehashing a tired subject that won't result in any change, that does nothing but give folks a forum to "tell" Greg/Ryan/Charlie/etc. something that could easily be done privately (and in many cases already have), seems selfserving, redundant, useless and disrespectful.

Having said that, I guess I'll comment as well. Feel free to put this one in whatever category feels right.

Last year there were 390 teams. Under the heading of "If you're not growing, you're dying", 405 at a minimum would be a requirement. 435 seems like the number NFBC will make this year.

I believe I read there are approx 30 owners with two teams. So without them, the total for this year would be the required 405. However, there are then 90 owners of only one team drafting week one. How many of them are drafting then because they couldn't do week two due to schedule conflict or location? I would guess it's at least half, but pretending it's one-third shouldn't lead to arguement. So that would put it at 375. I doubt anyone would conclude a decrease in entrants in any year increases the chances of long term viabilty of this contest.

I would think whatever concerns one has regarding a perceived advantage an owner might have by double dipping, or whatever your opinion on how much less chest thumping the 2010 winner gets to do, should be dwarfed in the knowledge that keeping this status quo would have given everyone reason to be less certain of the future of NFBC.

So says me.

[ March 14, 2010, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: Potter ]

Gekko · Post by **Gekko** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:56 am

Potter & GG agree on this. This should be reason enough for others to get on board as well.

rkulaski · Post by **rkulaski** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:07 am

1. There is no advantage between individual teams.

2. Owner Joe Smith can win more money than Bill Smith

3. Owner Joe Smith can lose more money than Bill Smith

This includes our Sunday school lesson [/QB]That's right, there's no advantage between individual teams. But there is an advantage to having multiple teams. You should know, otherwise, why have a second team? Maybe it's a New York thing. Good thing your sunday school lessons are free.

rkulaski · Post by **rkulaski** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:20 am

Originally posted by WOODERSON:

a different view kinda: its NCAA tournament time and most everybody fan or not will fill out a bracket whether it's espn, local, pay event or wherever and I definitely like the "pickers" who fill out 2 brackets over any 1 bracket "picker". If I was posting odds for this event my highest odds would be on the double participants. more chances = better chance probability. "It's all good!" may it be a great season & may the best Drafter win! Good luck to all! Guys of similar success/skill- jupinka and childs. If childs has 2 teams and jupinka has 1, i'd put my money on childs because of the extra team if I had to pick one of those 2 guys winning the overall. If I had more disposable income, I'd have 2 teams in the main to give myself a second chance at the 100k. Again, not a big deal in the grand scheme of things but worth pointing out.

Glenneration X · Post by **Glenneration X** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:27 am

Originally posted by Gekko:

TWO Gekkos > TWO Childs (Jupinka) Easily my favorite post of this thread....Mark, you are one funny Dude.

Glenn

[ March 14, 2010, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Glenneration X ]

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:46 am

Originally posted by Potter:

Rehashing a tired subject that won't result in any change, that does nothing but give folks a forum to "tell" Greg/Ryan/Charlie/etc. something that could easily be done privately (and in many cases already have), seems selfserving, redundant, useless and disrespectful.

Having said that, I guess I'll comment as well. Feel free to put this one in whatever category feels right.

Last year there were 390 teams. Under the heading of "If you're not growing, you're dying", 405 at a minimum would be a requirement. 435 seems like the number NFBC will make this year.

I believe I read there are approx 30 owners with two teams. So without them, the total for this year would be the required 405. However, there are then 90 owners of only one team drafting week one. How many of them are drafting then because they couldn't do week two due to schedule conflict or location? I would guess it's at least half, but pretending it's one-third shouldn't lead to arguement. So that would put it at 375. I doubt anyone would conclude a decrease in entrants in any year increases the chances of long term viabilty of this contest.

I would think whatever concerns one has regarding a perceived advantage an owner might have by double dipping, or whatever your opinion on how much less chest thumping the 2010 winner gets to do, should be dwarfed in the knowledge that keeping this status quo would have given everyone reason to be less certain of the future of NFBC.

So says me. Easily my favorite post of the thread...and the most accurate.

Remember folks, F+W Media sold us last year after we sold all 390 spots, the fifth straight year we sold out the NFBC main event. Yet they didn't see this as a legitimate business going forward. If that doesn't tell you the status quo wasn't working, I don't know what does.

Emmett is spot on and for that I owe him a Corona in Las Vegas!!

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:21 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Potter:

Rehashing a tired subject that won't result in any change, that does nothing but give folks a forum to "tell" Greg/Ryan/Charlie/etc. something that could easily be done privately (and in many cases already have), seems selfserving, redundant, useless and disrespectful.

Having said that, I guess I'll comment as well. Feel free to put this one in whatever category feels right.

Last year there were 390 teams. Under the heading of "If you're not growing, you're dying", 405 at a minimum would be a requirement. 435 seems like the number NFBC will make this year.

I believe I read there are approx 30 owners with two teams. So without them, the total for this year would be the required 405. However, there are then 90 owners of only one team drafting week one. How many of them are drafting then because they couldn't do week two due to schedule conflict or location? I would guess it's at least half, but pretending it's one-third shouldn't lead to arguement. So that would put it at 375. I doubt anyone would conclude a decrease in entrants in any year increases the chances of long term viabilty of this contest.

I would think whatever concerns one has regarding a perceived advantage an owner might have by double dipping, or whatever your opinion on how much less chest thumping the 2010 winner gets to do, should be dwarfed in the knowledge that keeping this status quo would have given everyone reason to be less certain of the future of NFBC.

So says me. Easily my favorite post of the thread...and the most accurate.

Remember folks, F+W Media sold us last year after we sold all 390 spots, the fifth straight year we sold out the NFBC main event. Yet they didn't see this as a legitimate business going forward. If that doesn't tell you the status quo wasn't working, I don't know what does.

Emmett is spot on and for that I owe him a Corona in Las Vegas!!

[/QUOTE]Please. I said the exact same thing in post 2 and you are trying to get out of buying me a beer.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:29 am

Main event - 2 weekends- fair or unfair ...

Not a good question. Has nothing to do with fairness. Fairness relates to equal opportunity, not equal outcome. So this thread boils down to personal preference and those on each side trying to sway the masses/management to their preference.

Setting aside personal preferences, if it helps grow the contest (which seems to be the case) it improves the contest ROI for both players and the NFBC. That's probably why both major contests have moved to this format, why the player pool keeps growing in spite of reduced disposable income, and why it's here to stay.

Head 2 Head · Post by **Head 2 Head** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:38 am

I think it is a great addition, as we all have other commitments and with two dates, the chance of being able to play increases.

rkulaski · Post by **rkulaski** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:51 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

[QB] Main event - 2 weekends- fair or unfair ...

Not a good question. Has nothing to do with fairness. Fairness relates to equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Good point, kj. Poor phrasing on my part. I really was looking at advantages/disadvantages of the whole issue and should have stuck with those words as opposed to fair/unfair.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 12:57 pm

Originally posted by rkulaski:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

Main event - 2 weekends- fair or unfair ...

Not a good question. Has nothing to do with fairness. Fairness relates to equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Good point, kj. Poor phrasing on my part. I really was looking at advantages/disadvantages of the whole issue and should have stuck with those words as opposed to fair/unfair. [/QUOTE]What it comes down to for me is that it squeezes two year's worth of fun into one season. And I like having the option of drafting on different weekends in case of a scheduling conflict which will happen one of these years.

I think all the other stuff is insignificant, but it makes for a lot of MB banter.

[ March 14, 2010, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]