Proposed NFBC Online Championship Prize Structure

[ReedBTLines]

The KJ Plan ... by far!

[Roy's Outlaws]

K.J got it Right, got my vote

[rockitsauce]

that KJ seems like a pretty sharp guy....I'd suggest putting him on the NFBC payroll but I know he likes to compete here too much

[Greg Ambrosius]

My opinion............

Overall Prizes:
1st - $60,000 - $5000 less
2nd - $15,000
3rd - $10,000 - $3000 more
4th - $5,000 - $1000 more
5th - $3,500 - $1000 more
6th - $1,250
7th - $1,000
8th - $500
9th - $400
10th - $350


I just think when your trying to beat out 863 teams a finish in the top 5 is very impressive. 60K is a 10K bump from original prize which is great, but I don't think another 5K will matter too much. But 5K disbursed 3-5 does go a long way IMO.

I appreciate all of the feedback on this thread. I have finalized the Main Event and the Slow Draft Championship overall revised prizes as posted and now I just need to finalize this one. I appreciate Nelson's suggestion above and KJ's and it's obvious from the responses that others like KJ's more spread-out payout as well. I understand the sentiment, but I also feel it's unfair to advertise a 1 in 600 shot at winning $50,000 and then later turn it into a 1 in 864 shot at winning $50,000. We always put it in our rules that the overall prizes will rise proportionately and I just don't feel comfortable suddenly spreading it out in other ways.

That being said, I agree, we all want to win the $50,000 and the big prize did create the buzz needed to reach our goals and even exceed them. It's big enough for some folks, even with the additional 264 teams. But to not add ANYTHING to the grand prize after we added 264 more teams just doesn't feel right.

I haven't finalized this prize pool yet, but we obviously need to do that soon. I think Nelson's example above is better than mine and it was a route I was thinking of going originally. In comparison to KJ's, we're taking $10,000 from the 4th through 10th teams and giving it to the top team. Again, I understand why people want 7 more teams making more money rather than 1 team getting it all, but it seems to not be true to what we advertised as a contest that could grow beyond 600 teams.

I'll gladly wait for opposing arguments and maybe in the future we can spell this out better, but I do favor Nelson's prize payout plan best. Proportionately to our original structure, it is more true and it still increases our other top finishers. Thoughts?

[CALI CARTEL]

If you are dead set on giving the top guy $60k, just eliminate the 8th-10th place "throwaway" prizes and spread those to 6th/7th. You then have $1250 extra for those two slots, make them $2250 and $1500.

The whole key to any payout structure is a consistent/fair jumps in prizes from place to place. Going from $350 to $400 to $500 is meaningless in two ways, 1) the prizes are too small in general and 2) the jumps are irrelevant, $150 for getting 8th over 10th, who cares? If you aren't going to give 10th at least $1000, just eliminate those prizes and make the bottom end overall prizes worthwhile for getting 7th or better, those prizes are akin to getting 5 out of 6 in the lottery only to get your $1 back, thanks but no thanks.

[Motorboat Jones]

Here is what I would see as a equitable compromise between all three ideas:

1st - $60,000
2nd - $15,000
3rd - $7,500
4th - $5,000
5th - $3,000
6th - $2,000
7th - $1,500
8th - $1,000
9th - $1,000
10th - $1,000

Still allows $60,000 to Greg's point, makes 8-10 worthwhile.
Thoughts ??

[CALI CARTEL]

Here is what I would see as a equitable compromise between all three ideas:

1st - $60,000
2nd - $15,000
3rd - $7,500
4th - $5,000
5th - $3,000
6th - $2,000
7th - $1,500
8th - $1,000
9th - $1,000
10th - $1,000

Still allows $60,000 to Greg's point, makes 8-10 worthwhile.
Thoughts ??

Pretty solid, might rather the bottom 3 went $1250/$1000/$750 though, at least you still get 2 free entries for 10th (plus a tank of gas). Anything is better than only getting back $350 for 10th.

[Motorboat Jones]

Here is what I would see as a equitable compromise between all three ideas:

1st - $60,000
2nd - $15,000
3rd - $7,500
4th - $5,000
5th - $3,000
6th - $2,000
7th - $1,500
8th - $1,000
9th - $1,000
10th - $1,000

Still allows $60,000 to Greg's point, makes 8-10 worthwhile.
Thoughts ??

Pretty solid, might rather the bottom 3 went $1250/$1000/$750 though, at least you still get 2 free entries for 10th (plus a tank of gas). Anything is better than only getting back $350 for 10th.

Actually, I thought about that as well...would look like this:

1st - $60,000
2nd - $15,000
3rd - $7,500
4th - $5,000
5th - $3,000
6th - $2,000
7th - $1,500
8th - $1,250
9th - $1,000
10th - $750

That gives the $250 tiering from 10th to 7th, followed by $500 tiering from 7th to 6th...I like it !

Other thoughts ?

Regards,
Jonathan

[HOB]

Another vote for KJ

[HOB]

For those of us that do not know peeps by their first names...which example is Nelsons?

My opinion............

Overall Prizes:
1st - $60,000 - $5000 less
2nd - $15,000
3rd - $10,000 - $3000 more
4th - $5,000 - $1000 more
5th - $3,500 - $1000 more
6th - $1,250
7th - $1,000
8th - $500
9th - $400
10th - $350


I just think when your trying to beat out 863 teams a finish in the top 5 is very impressive. 60K is a 10K bump from original prize which is great, but I don't think another 5K will matter too much. But 5K disbursed 3-5 does go a long way IMO.

I appreciate all of the feedback on this thread. I have finalized the Main Event and the Slow Draft Championship overall revised prizes as posted and now I just need to finalize this one. I appreciate Nelson's suggestion above and KJ's and it's obvious from the responses that others like KJ's more spread-out payout as well. I understand the sentiment, but I also feel it's unfair to advertise a 1 in 600 shot at winning $50,000 and then later turn it into a 1 in 864 shot at winning $50,000. We always put it in our rules that the overall prizes will rise proportionately and I just don't feel comfortable suddenly spreading it out in other ways.

That being said, I agree, we all want to win the $50,000 and the big prize did create the buzz needed to reach our goals and even exceed them. It's big enough for some folks, even with the additional 264 teams. But to not add ANYTHING to the grand prize after we added 264 more teams just doesn't feel right.

I haven't finalized this prize pool yet, but we obviously need to do that soon. I think Nelson's example above is better than mine and it was a route I was thinking of going originally. In comparison to KJ's, we're taking $10,000 from the 4th through 10th teams and giving it to the top team. Again, I understand why people want 7 more teams making more money rather than 1 team getting it all, but it seems to not be true to what we advertised as a contest that could grow beyond 600 teams.

I'll gladly wait for opposing arguments and maybe in the future we can spell this out better, but I do favor Nelson's prize payout plan best. Proportionately to our original structure, it is more true and it still increases our other top finishers. Thoughts?

[rockitsauce]

Nelson is the Franchise.......and he's also known as Sizzle Chest to some

[The Franchise]

Nelson is the Franchise.......and he's also known as Sizzle Chest to some

Better than liver lips

[joshguy]

I personally think the NFBC really needs to clear up the prize structure on the contest entry form. It clearly states that the total number of leagues is 50 and the total number of teams is 600. Even if its in some fine print somewhere, how many people signed up thinking they were competing for $50k versus 599 others? Not much of a chance but now its against 30% more people?

If you say its going to be 600 teams, it needs to be 600 teams! If you get more, thats awesome but the last 264 teams entered should be in their own separate competition. They should be competing for around a $25k overall prize.

At 600 teams, one can think, "I have at least a little bit of a chance". At 864 teams, one has to think they no chance at all.

[The Franchise]

I personally think the NFBC really needs to clear up the prize structure on the contest entry form. It clearly states that the total number of leagues is 50 and the total number of teams is 600. Even if its in some fine print somewhere, how many people signed up thinking they were competing for $50k versus 599 others? Not much of a chance but now its against 30% more people?

If you say its going to be 600 teams, it needs to be 600 teams! If you get more, thats awesome but the last 264 teams entered should be in their own separate competition. They should be competing for around a $25k overall prize.

At 600 teams, one can think, "I have at least a little bit of a chance". At 864 teams, one has to think they no chance at all.

It also clearly states that the contest capacity is "996".
Also the second sentence under Rules 1. Overview states: The NFBC Online Championship will consist of 50 leagues (with a max of 100 leagues), each comprised of 12 teams/managers drafting online.


If one takes the time to read the rules they would realize that the contest has the potential to grow past the goal of 600 teams.

[joshguy]

agreed, I see that, in the least there are two conflicting numbers. For the slow drafts, no such capacity was ever mentioned. I knew of what the prize structure was most likely going to be as I signed up, because I check out the message boards. But without doing that, one would be going under the assumption of whats on the sign up page. In a contest with money, the structures should be labeled correctly.

[Motorboat Jones]

Here is what I would see as a equitable compromise between all three ideas:

1st - $60,000
2nd - $15,000
3rd - $7,500
4th - $5,000
5th - $3,000
6th - $2,000
7th - $1,500
8th - $1,000
9th - $1,000
10th - $1,000

Still allows $60,000 to Greg's point, makes 8-10 worthwhile.
Thoughts ??

Pretty solid, might rather the bottom 3 went $1250/$1000/$750 though, at least you still get 2 free entries for 10th (plus a tank of gas). Anything is better than only getting back $350 for 10th.

Actually, I thought about that as well...would look like this:

1st - $60,000
2nd - $15,000
3rd - $7,500
4th - $5,000
5th - $3,000
6th - $2,000
7th - $1,500
8th - $1,250
9th - $1,000
10th - $750

That gives the $250 tiering from 10th to 7th, followed by $500 tiering from 7th to 6th...I like it !

Other thoughts ?

Regards,
Jonathan

When will a decision be made regarding the payout scheme ?

[Outlaw]

I personally think the NFBC really needs to clear up the prize structure on the contest entry form. It clearly states that the total number of leagues is 50 and the total number of teams is 600. Even if its in some fine print somewhere, how many people signed up thinking they were competing for $50k versus 599 others? Not much of a chance but now its against 30% more people?

If you say its going to be 600 teams, it needs to be 600 teams! If you get more, thats awesome but the last 264 teams entered should be in their own separate competition. They should be competing for around a $25k overall prize.

At 600 teams, one can think, "I have at least a little bit of a chance". At 864 teams, one has to think they no chance at all.

It also clearly states that the contest capacity is "996".
Also the second sentence under Rules 1. Overview states: The NFBC Online Championship will consist of 50 leagues (with a max of 100 leagues), each comprised of 12 teams/managers drafting online.


If one takes the time to read the rules they would realize that the contest has the potential to grow past the goal of 600 teams.

Agreed- but clearly articulate it up front, not buried in the "rules". I feel the same way, in as much it does matter if there is 600 vs 1000 or 390 vs 420. When someone signs up they want some certainty in what the odds are. These are not $1 or $5 dollar games of chance like lotto, but there is a direct correlation in ones chance to finish first vs how many entrants there are.

[CALI CARTEL]

Agreed- but clearly articulate it up front, not buried in the "rules". I feel the same way, in as much it does matter if there is 600 vs 1000 or 390 vs 420. When someone signs up they want some certainty in what the odds are. These are not $1 or $5 dollar games of chance like lotto, but there is a direct correlation in ones chance to finish first vs how many entrants there are.

What happens if there was less than 600? Would you be ok with them cutting down the posted prizes?

National leagues can't nail down a preset amount of entries, it's completely against their ability to grow the product. At least the NFBC puts more prizes into the overall with a higher number of entries -- try the CDM/Fantrax games, their prizes are set no matter if they have 5 or 1,000,000 entries.

[Greg Ambrosius]

I personally think the NFBC really needs to clear up the prize structure on the contest entry form. It clearly states that the total number of leagues is 50 and the total number of teams is 600. Even if its in some fine print somewhere, how many people signed up thinking they were competing for $50k versus 599 others? Not much of a chance but now its against 30% more people?

If you say its going to be 600 teams, it needs to be 600 teams! If you get more, thats awesome but the last 264 teams entered should be in their own separate competition. They should be competing for around a $25k overall prize.

At 600 teams, one can think, "I have at least a little bit of a chance". At 864 teams, one has to think they no chance at all.

Just to be clear Josh and anyone else on this subject, the listed number of teams on the prize grid is the basis for our guaranteed overall prize pool. As another owner stated, if we fall short of that total (like we did this year in the NFBC XII) we still pay on the stated prizes. We can't base those guarantees on the number of teams we get; we must set a guaranteed prize pool and stick to it. We took in $48,000 less in revenue than planned for the NFBC XII because we finished with 252 teams instead of 300 teams and I don't see anyone congratulating us for falling short and making the payout percentage higher.

As for the Online Championship, again our prizes were based on 600 teams and it clearly states what your maximum odds of winning would be if we increased the prize pool. There was no hiding that. We can't just guarantee the prizes based on one number and not go up if demand warrants. So we state the odds of winning if we increase and when an owner signs up they agree to those terms. Again, I think everyone benefits from the increased prize pool and each league champion is now getting $100 more than the previously announced prize payout. I hope that's not a bad thing and we did not exceed our stated maximum total within the rules.

The Slow Draft format far exceeded expectations and the whole concept of that contest is league driven. That being said, I never imagined the overall prize pool expanding the way it did and definitely should have put a max total of teams within the rules. Again, I do believe this contest is driven by the league prizes, but I'll admit this too should have been covered like I did with the Online Championship and all of our other national contests.

I hope we all enjoy the additional prizes we are now paying. Good luck everyone.

[Glenneration X]

We took in $48,000 less in revenue than planned for the NFBC XII because we finished with 252 teams instead of 300 teams and I don't see anyone congratulating us for falling short and making the payout percentage higher.

Congratulations.

Greg, I think you should just keep the Online Championships prize pool as is and add the excess prize money to the XII. Then everyone's happy. I believe this to be a solution that works best for all concerned.

[Lunatic]

The way this is going, we'll have 850 opinions. The original proposal put forth by Greg seemed just right. I think it was nice of him to ask input but is probably now wishing he hadn't.
Let me ask the people who want to continue to tweak this; is your glass half full or half empty? You won't like what I think.
We have a damn great game that attracted 250+ more owners than originally thought, be grateful and enjoy the extra OA prizes if you're fortunate enough to cash one of the slots!!

I can throw out a payment schedule also, but there is nothing wrong with the original proposal!!

[Fourslot40]

Greg,

Roll with it as is. Nobody signs up if they don't try to win the whole darn thing. Everyone signed up understanding the idea of winning 50K, leagues prizes, etc. Even after 600 teams, people wanted 50K. Anything else is gravy.

John

[Hells Satans]

Looks great. Don't change a thing

[Motorboat Jones]

The way this is going, we'll have 850 opinions. The original proposal put forth by Greg seemed just right. I think it was nice of him to ask input but is probably now wishing he hadn't.
Let me ask the people who want to continue to tweak this; is your glass half full or half empty? You won't like what I think.
We have a damn great game that attracted 250+ more owners than originally thought, be grateful and enjoy the extra OA prizes if you're fortunate enough to cash one of the slots!!

I can throw out a payment schedule also, but there is nothing wrong with the original proposal!!

Bro,

Greg asked for "Thoughts?"...so people provided input as requested. If he didn't want input, he would not have asked. My proposal was just that: my input. I am honestly happy with it however it ends up, but agree with Greg that the top prize should increase to at least $60,000. I only responded because I thought my input might prove useful.

[KJ Duke]

I understand Greg's position, and I'm ok with his $60k or $65k plan for this season.

But I hope he considers the 50%/40%/10% (winner/top5/top10) split as a target for overall payouts in future seasons. I think it strikes a better balance, and although a small sample size, getting more than a dozen straight supporting posts is probably a good indicator that a majority of players would respond favorably.