Personally I like 10 and 12, both with deep rosters (I play in a 20 player 10 team league, and an 18 player 12 team league).
I like deep leagues with deep benches/drafts because as long as you draft well then all you have to do is prepare well for the draft then pay "minimal" (my wife would say it isn't minimal) time doing research during the season. If you have a bye week or an injury you can just plug in someone off your bench. In leagues with shallow rosters you have to go looking on the WW each and every week once the bye weeks start up.
8 teams and lower are just too easy to have a stud team, and if you aren't playing with idiots then everyone has a stud team and it comes down to luck.
14+ just gets crazy and would sink too much of my time away from work and my family (wife and 3 kids) because I would have to search the WW and pay twice as much attention to breaking news as I do now.
I already spent probably an hr+ a day (lunch at work plus a little at night) on FF, I don't need to spend more than that.
Anything less than 18 is good for me. It's nice to have deep teams and make WW searching a skill, but we don't want to surn Furrey into a hot commodity. One this is that very large leagues should have few bench players allowed, 4 or less in my opinion.
8 team leagues require less skill? You obviously have never played in a competitive one. Sure if you play with a bunch of idiots you get some incredibally stacked teams, but same thing happens in all league sizes. The only difference in 8 team leagues are there are no completely garbage teams that really have no chance of winning.
Here is the worst roster in our league this week:
QB C. Pennington
WR Ro. Williams
WR L. Coles
WR T. Houshmandzadeh
RB E. James
RB W. Parker
TE B. Watson
K D. Akers
DEF Pittsburgh
He also has Steve Smith and Delhomme so injuries still kill your team. On his bench he also has Chester Taylor, Jamal Lewis
You can see that even though he has solid players at ever position, without super stars he has no chance of winning
I don't like anything bigger than 10. Last year I was in a 12 man league, and by week 4, two guys had quit. For the rest of the year, every team that played them pretty much had a "bye week".
LS2throwed wrote:i just really dont like the 8 man leagues, doesnt take much skill or knowledge when your top 4 backs are LT, portis, mcgahee and parker along with manning, fitz, chambers and TO....
ummmmm, to get a team like that you would need to be in a 4 man league.
This year I am in a 6 man, 10 man (x2), and a 12 man. Even in our 6 man we dont have teams like that and it does take skill, just a different kind of skill. I have fun in all my leagues, but this is probably because they are all for money and very competitive.
BigMusky wrote:8 team leagues require less skill? You obviously have never played in a competitive one. Sure if you play with a bunch of idiots you get some incredibally stacked teams, but same thing happens in all league sizes. The only difference in 8 team leagues are there are no completely garbage teams that really have no chance of winning.
Here is the worst roster in our league this week:
QB C. Pennington WR Ro. Williams WR L. Coles WR T. Houshmandzadeh RB E. James RB W. Parker TE B. Watson K D. Akers DEF Pittsburgh
He also has Steve Smith and Delhomme so injuries still kill your team. On his bench he also has Chester Taylor, Jamal Lewis
You can see that even though he has solid players at ever position, without super stars he has no chance of winning
right, but honestly, what skill does it take to decide who u want to start at rb willie parker or chester taylor?
try 14 teams, and when you only have 2 backs on your team, lets say rudi johnson and maroney, and you have to prepare for a bye week or injury, you have to search for players like gado, rayne, or work some kind of trade or draft really well...
its not like u cant have a superstar team in 14 man leagues, u just have to draft well and always be a step ahead on trades and sleepers...
but i guess it may be me, but personally i dont want 4 rb's on my team who all will make the probowl, give me 2 strong backs, and 2 backups like marion barber and tatum bell, guys who split or backup themselves in case something happens, you win a larger league that has 12-14 teams, shows you dont just know pro bowlers and get lucky, im sure its not hard picking a rb between portis, mcgahee, LJ, and westbrook every week, my little sister could pick the names she likes the best and end up winning, i want the league where you do your homework when you find out davis is hurt all year, or grab jennings and hold him because he is the starter, not just have a bunch of #1's and get lucky
LS2throwed wrote:i just really dont like the 8 man leagues, doesnt take much skill or knowledge when your top 4 backs are LT, portis, mcgahee and parker along with manning, fitz, chambers and TO....
ummmmm, to get a team like that you would need to be in a 4 man league.
your roster in your sig isnt too far from the made up one i posted, with your wr's and qb, and also who u have at RB it wasnt too far stretched...
nothing wrong with either, but i dont want to start three #1 wr's every week...mine are chambers, terry glenn, and antonio bryant, and my only backups to them are chad jackson and travis taylor, so for majority you stick with your money players and just have insurance for them or for bye weeks...
10 or 12 for me. Anything less than 10 and there is very little roster management required which takes some of the fun out of it. In fantasy baseball leagues, the bigger the better because it requires more skill and effort. In fantasy football this is true to a degree but it's totally wiped out by the luck factor introduced because the replacement level is so low.
I like 14 teams, simply because we can play a 13-week regular season (one game against each other), and the playoffs (8 teams) in weeks, 14, 15 and 16 (thus avoiding the dreaded week 17.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by King Dubya » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:01 am 
