NFBC Message Boards

An interesting idea that never took off. Kudos to Ron for taking the honest and open approach here.

===============================================================

http://www.shandlerpark.com/the-end-again

The End, Again

It's been one of those years...

It is with very deep regret that I share the news that I will be closing the gates at Shandler Park. We have made a valiant effort to create a new gaming experience, but as much as many of you have enjoyed these games, it has simply not been a viable commercial enterprise.

Wait, what? You're closing down? What about the leagues I'm in now? What about my prizes? What about the big cash championship game? Was this a scam? You walking off with my money?

No, none of that. I'll explain in detail below. But nobody is losing anything. In fact, this unfortunate turn of events will make it easier for some of you to qualify for prizes.

Okay, so what's going on? Why did this happen?

We were unable to carve out a market between the established full-season gamers and the exploding daily fantasy (DFS) crowd. Most full-season players who were looking for a shorter-term experience were jumping right into DFS and the cash, not scaling down to preserve the roster management aspect of fantasy as we had hoped. Pretty much no DFS players were interested in waiting more than a day to cash in. And the cash - well, there was no way I could compete with the minuscule rakes offered by the major DFS companies. Game, set, match.

There is a small core of you who really, really, really like the 4-week format but there were simply not enough of you. Basically, my timing on this project was bad and the entire concept has been pretty much rendered moot by DFS.

Okay, but why now? Why not wait until the end of this season?

Well, the writing has been pretty much on the wall since early May. After signing up 30 leagues on Opening Day, that number dropped to eight with the May 4 leagues. This week, we could not even get enough entries for three leagues. There were not enough teams to create even one $39 league. It's the second time that's happened since I launched those higher stakes leagues last month. That's unacceptable.

But the bottom line is that this entity is diving deeper and deeper into the red every week. Even though I am still on the hook for a lot, it was time to cut the losses.

So what about the leagues going on now, the prizes and $5000 championship league?


I am obligated to fulfill these commitments and fully intend to do so. We're just going to compress the schedule a bit.

1. I will start one more set of leagues to begin next Monday, June 22. Those will be the last set of 4-week leagues, ending on July 19. All current leagues will run their course. So if you still want to participate in the 4-week experience, THIS SUNDAY WILL BE YOUR LAST CHANCE.

2. At the conclusion of the final league on July 19, there will be a one week hiatus during which I will be promoting entries to the final $5000 championship. In addition to all of you who earn a free entry, anyone can buy into that league for $99. That championship league will begin on July 27 and end on August 23. This will all be wrapped up with a bow just before fantasy football drafts.

3. All points thresholds for qualification for prizes and free entry into the $5K league will be pro-rated based on the shortened season:

1st tier prizes: 80 points (formerly 150)
2nd tier prizes: 105 points (formerly 200)
3rd tier prizes: 130 points (formerly 250)
4th tier prizes: 160 points (formerly 300)
5th tier prizes: 185 points (formerly 350)

Complete prize details here.

Qualification for the $5000 Championship League will be 200 points (formerly 300 points). Note that this conversion yields a slightly higher threshold than the other 300-point prizes above because qualification for this league was to cut off early - originally after week 18 - so a greater percentage of qualification games have already been played.

There are 17 of you who have already qualified for this final league, with 5 weeks of competitions still to be played out. Three of you have already qualified for TWO entries in the final competition. I plan to run this league with no fewer than 50 participants; I will take the top teams from just below the 200-point threshold if we fall short of that number.

What if the last leagues don't fill up this Sunday?

Man, that's been frustrating for some of you, hasn't it. Me too. After filling as many 10-team leagues as we can, there will undoubtedly be a handful of extra entries. In the past, they'd be rescheduled for the following week's leagues. For the final leagues, any excess entries will be refunded. Best to enter as early as possible (though that didn't help some of you this past week).

How can I claim the prizes I've won?

It's all explained in the Official Rules. That much won't change.

I can't believe you couldn't make this work with the huge profit you were keeping in each league. How much are you walking away with, really?

This point is incredibly frustrating because I have been constantly hounded about not giving back enough in prizes. Let's do the math.

A 10-team $10 league brought in $100, of which I'd give back $30 in prizes, keeping $70. The $39 leagues would bring in $390, give back $300, keeping $90.

So far this season, we've run 64 $10 leagues and eight $39 leagues. That means my total take, net of prizes, has been $5200. That's total for the entire year so far.

My overhead to run the site, pay the writers, customer service, tech support, etc. is about $2000 per month. This still does not include funding the $5000 championship league or all the merchandise prizes which about a third of you have already qualified for.

That's $5,200 in, more than $11,000 out, so far.

Certainly, an argument could be made that had I increased the payouts, more people would have entered. Odds are it would have taken at least five times as many entries to break even and that was just not realistic.

So who messed up here?

I'll admit to some mistakes but it was mostly a good idea launched at a bad time. I really thought that offering new leagues every week in 2015 would help increase the base, but only 7% of you have been fielding teams more than once per month. I was particularly disheartened by the number of folks who fared very well in their first try or two yet never came back. Combine all that with the reduction in entry fees this year and the balance sheet in 2015 is even worse than it was in 2014.

What is going to happen to the Shandler Park website after this is all played out?

I plan to keep the site open during the remainder of the 2015 season. Some of my writers might want an outlet for their works and I will be contributing some occasional pieces as well. The site will shut down permanently this fall and I will move back to RonShandler.com, which I hope to have renovated by then. My Rotisserie Hall of Fame pet project will move over with me as well.

And what's next on your drawing board, Ron?

I will be continuing to write for ESPN.com during the summer and will be involved in the 30th anniversary edition of the Baseball Forecaster this fall.

I have early plans for another book project this winter, tentatively titled "Ron Shandler's Other Book." That might well be the permanent title too.

I will continue to send out an email each Friday just to keep in touch. It will include information about my ongoing eBay activity and anything else worth mentioning.

You will also find me on Facebook and on Twitter as always.

From the beginning, my goal was to create a shorter-term fantasy experience with a game model that could stand on its own, without the necessity for an excessive external motivator (read: cash). I've always asked the question, "Would this be fun and challenging enough to play for bragging rights alone?" I think that these 4-week competitions, especially if we had gotten to the point of offering snake draft leagues, would have fulfilled that vision. DFS would not exist without the CASH; I was looking to create something more intrinsically focussed on the GAME.

My sincerest thank you to everyone who has taken this ride with me over the past two years, from the early test leagues until now. Those early results were so encouraging and the feedback so positive that I could not imagine this failing. For good or bad, we were steamrolled by DFS which, for all its faults, still happens to be incredibly engaging.

Tomorrow, a new adventure. Always...

Ron

I agree Glenn, kudos to Ron for being upfront and honest. We'd expect nothing less from Ron.

His vision is correct as I do think fantasy players want more options beyond season-long and daily, but the marketplace is more competitive than ever before and it's very tough to introduce a niche game and succeed. It can be done, but not easily.

I'm glad Ron is now writing for ESPN.com and I hope his role expands there. He can offer a lot of insight to their site and to their magazine. I have a feeling that we'll be hearing a lot more from Ron, not less. Keep up the good work Ron.

I've always asked the question, "Would this be fun and challenging enough to play for bragging rights alone?"

Ummmm, NO.

DFS would not exist without the CASH; I was looking to create something more intrinsically focussed on the GAME.

Your motivation for playing is not my motivation. I love the game, but more so I love having some significant money on the line because that enhances my enjoyment, enhances my pain, and makes me more invested in the outcome. I think this premise, more so than anything else, led to its demise.

Good idea. Bad execution. You're overhead is not my overhead. Pay $10 to compete against nine other people for $30. Game operator keeps 70%? Yeah, give me some of that action (rolls eyes). I checked it out last year, and I don't remember exactly what the prize structure was but for the highest entry fee game the payout for first place was a joke. I looked at it and never bothered to play because of the socialist prize structure, the quirky stats, not to mention the difficulty navigating the excel-formatted salaries, specifically not having salaries listed by position and all in all it was about a 15 minute review of the whole site and game and it was a simple "Not interested" decision and one I never re-visited again. The whole thing looked like it was designed just for fun, as a fun diversion for the hardcore BaseballHQ guys like the numerous other fantasy baseball spin-offs he attempted. I never even thought it was designed as a serious endeavor to compete against DFS. To think he actually hoped to make a profit, to me, is funny as he clearly misjudged people's motivations for playing as well as the necessity for a more user-friendly game interface.

COZ

COZ wrote:

I've always asked the question, "Would this be fun and challenging enough to play for bragging rights alone?"

Ummmm, NO.

DFS would not exist without the CASH; I was looking to create something more intrinsically focussed on the GAME.

Your motivation for playing is not my motivation. I love the game, but more so I love having some significant money on the line because that enhances my enjoyment, enhances my pain, and makes me more invested in the outcome. I think this premise, more so than anything else, led to its demise.

Good idea. Bad execution. You're overhead is not my overhead. Pay $10 to compete against nine other people for $30. Game operator keeps 70%? Yeah, give me some of that action (rolls eyes). I checked it out last year, and I don't remember exactly what the prize structure was but for the highest entry fee game the payout for first place was a joke. I looked at it and never bothered to play because of the socialist prize structure, the quirky stats, not to mention the difficulty navigating the excel-formatted salaries, specifically not having salaries listed by position and all in all it was about a 15 minute review of the whole site and game and it was a simple "Not interested" decision and one I never re-visited again. The whole thing looked like it was designed just for fun, as a fun diversion for the hardcore BaseballHQ guys like the numerous other fantasy baseball spin-offs he attempted. I never even thought it was designed as a serious endeavor to compete against DFS. To think he actually hoped to make a profit, to me, is funny as he clearly misjudged people's motivations for playing as well as the necessity for a more user-friendly game interface.

COZ

Can I get your email address? I would like to email you whenever I fail in a business endeavor and just need one extra person to kick me when I am down.

Greg Ambrosius wrote:I agree Glenn, kudos to Ron for being upfront and honest. We'd expect nothing less from Ron.

Meh. What I read was what I've come to expect from Ron. It was DFS's fault. It was his customers' fault. It was greed's fault. Everything except Ron was at fault.

The closest he came to owning up was when he wrote, "I'll admit to some mistakes but it was mostly a good idea launched at a bad time."

A good idea? He offered a competition that paid a 3-to-1 return on a 10-to-1 risk. Below is where Ron Shandler's 70% rake business plan would rank on my Top-100 long-term business plans:

1 - Owning a Golden Goose
2 - Prostitution
.
20 - Government Contracts
.
72 - Pro-Bono
.
99 - Ron Shandler's 70% Rake (Requires For the Love of the Game Participants)
100 - Giving away pennies.

chest .rockwell wrote: Can I get your email address? I would like to email you whenever I fail in a business endeavor and just need one extra person to kick me when I am down.

Ron, is that you??? I'm sorry, I did not realize I had addressed this personally to Ron or sent it directly to him...for it to be even remotely construed as "kicking him while down." I thought I was addressing a Fantasy Baseball MB community and attacking thoughts & ideas, and doing so from the perspective of a player that may have had some interest in this game and in fact reviewed the game and stated the reasons why I decided to not play, which is completely relevant to the topic at hand and completely relevant to the purpose of these Message Boards.

While you may have taken this as a personal attack on Ron, it was not intended that way, nor do I understand why he is such a polarizing figure to people and engenders such attacks. So I do understand your defense of the man. I find his ideas and writing fascinating & thought-provoking and I owe much of my deeper understanding of fantasy baseball and baseball in general to him, so I am not one of those guys who look to attack him unnecessarily. Rather, I enjoy his outside-the-box ideas and contrarian opinions on "Fanalytics." I defended him on the whole Mike Trout thing and found his self-deprecating piece a year later in the Forecaster perfectly written. I was simply attacking some of his precepts & ideas for his monthly game, and why I, from the perspective of a player, disagreed with those and why, for me, I chose not play. Constructive criticism was the intention, not kicking while down.

No need for email, a simple PM to me will suffice, and I will gladly provide a verbal beatdown....free of charge. Any other consulting work or constructive criticism, will, however, result in a consulting fee. But I caution, again, reducing overhead and consulting fees is the key to a successful business start-up.

COZ

knuckleheads wrote:

Greg Ambrosius wrote:I agree Glenn, kudos to Ron for being upfront and honest. We'd expect nothing less from Ron.

Meh. What I read was what I've come to expect from Ron. It was DFS's fault. It was his customers' fault. It was greed's fault. Everything except Ron was at fault.

The closest he came to owning up was when he wrote, "I'll admit to some mistakes but it was mostly a good idea launched at a bad time."

A good idea? He offered a competition that paid a 3-to-1 return on a 10-to-1 risk. Below is where Ron Shandler's 70% rake business plan would rank on my Top-100 long-term business plans:

1 - Owning a Golden Goose
2 - Prostitution
.
20 - Government Contracts
.
72 - Pro-Bono
.
99 - Ron Shandler's 70% Rake (Requires For the Love of the Game Participants)
100 - Giving away pennies.

This is pretty close to my read of it too. I've been assured by people that know him better that my view is wrong, but everything I see from him has the same narcissistic overtone even when he attempts humility. Maybe it's just me, or maybe that's just how he writes, but trying to create a 30% payback game and being surprised when it fails would fall under the label of over-estimating yourself/brand and/or being quite out of touch with potential customers.

As a business your "cost" is irrelevant, all that matters is whether or not you are bringing value to the customer. In a world of mostly 80%-90% payback games, that should've been obvious upfront. I'll keep playing at "Ambrosius Park".

The "Golden Pimp" post still has me laughing.

I played the Park games and enjoyed the action. But, I agree the payouts and platform provided were - not good.

This morning I received a bulk email from Shandler that included the notification he has decided to change the liquidation of winnings rule. From 7 days to "beginning of August" , the dude won't even commit to a date.

I do not understand the thought process in making a decision to play a game that returns 30% of the entries. Jesus I thought horse racing was joke, this takes the cake.

Not knowing anything about Ron or his games, a 30% payout says all you need to know.