kevinashcraft wrote:Yahoo is for people who like fantasy football to be more fantasy like. I mean I hate dthe fact that every time I won a title i had to give the players back the next year.
Yahoo has their niche though...people who like football and are fantasy beginners who dont want to pay.
I haven't really had a problem with yahoo at all. Also, you can do keeper/dynasty lgs with them, you just have to be creative about it. Create a Groups Page with Yahoo and store team rosters there. Its a great way to communicate through the offseason. Or you could always do it like the old days and <gasp> have your commish write things down. I wouldn't say Yahoo is for the beginners. For people who don't feel the need to pay to play, sure....but not for beginners.
I agree, what's everybodys problem with Yahoo?
You can do a keeper or dynasty leagues very easy in Yahoo. If you have a four player keeper league, just tell everyone that for the first four rounds of the draft they have to select a player that was on their team the previous year......easy.
The only bad thing is that you can't set the draft order or trade draft spots......but if you really want to get around this, just choose to do an offline draft and have the commish set everyone's roster according to that.
The Fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our format, but in our company, that makes us underlings.
- Julius Caesar
Sorry for the Shakespear ripoff fellas, but thats the answer here. People disgruntled with Yahoo usually have had bad experiences with them, and the vast majority of the issues are competition related. Any sort of free, anonymous, public system will attract an element of carelessness. Thats why the best leagues are ones where the owners are personally vested - whether its a bunch of guys who know each other and play for bragging rights, or for the cold, hard cash. The Yahoo format is as good as any, its just the competition is weak in public leagues.
Cornbread Maxwell wrote:The Fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our format, but in our company, that makes us underlings. - Julius Caesar
Sorry for the Shakespear ripoff fellas, but thats the answer here. People disgruntled with Yahoo usually have had bad experiences with them, and the vast majority of the issues are competition related. Any sort of free, anonymous, public system will attract an element of carelessness. Thats why the best leagues are ones where the owners are personally vested - whether its a bunch of guys who know each other and play for bragging rights, or for the cold, hard cash. The Yahoo format is as good as any, its just the competition is weak in public leagues.
Good point......I've only played with people I know, vs the anonymous, public system.
I used ESPN this year, and I sorely missed cbs. ESPN was not ready to host fantasy leagues yet, they didn't have all the features set up until halfway through the year. It got a little better, but it's way too expensive for a site that has no advantage over yahoo. I did like cbs alot though.
We used tundraball.com this year for the first time. I am impressed with how quick the live scoring is. It is fairly reasonable at $50, and it is easy to use. The only problem is with the play-offs. They don't let you customize your play-offs. You have to do it the way they have it set up. We played head to head all year, and then instead of a play-off format, they want us to switch to total score(playoff team with the highest total score in the plaoffs wins). Other than that, we really liked the site.
WFor all you who lkike to use Yaho for keeper/dynasty leagues...and do it the hard way, I say "Why?"
Have you ever commished a dynasty league that goes year round? It is so much easier to do via a commissioner service than to do with paper/offline
WIth Yahoo, even with our private league we had there, I still hated it. It would have been too hard to do via a groups page etc. as a commissioner, I am looking for the best, and most convenient way to run a league, even if it costs a lil bit...convenience costs money sometimes!.
Whats better than having a dynasty legaue with player contracts salary caps, offseason trading, and not having to do it offline? And we did it this year for $3 a team.
Shoot I would pay #20 per team to have those conveniences!
I really like rtsports.com. The programmers are responsive to all your needs. It keeps track of all your finances for all teams in the league all year (ex. charging for pickups etc...). It has a weekly NFL picks feature which we do at ten bucks a week in our league. It lets you manually adjust the waiver wire setup on a weekly basis. It retains rosters over the offseason for keeper purposes. There are many more useful features I cant come up with instantaneously, but as a commish I have found it is the most convenient website to use. I would recommend checking it out. The service costs $80 a year so at $8 a person in a ten-team league I thought it is more than reasonable.
Alot of differing opinions. Different strokes for different folks I guess is what it amounts too. I am about as diehard as a Fantasy Football manager can get....and I have no problems with Yahoo (we also have a keeper league on Yahoo). If and when the time comes when Yahoo begins being a pay site...I will still continue too play...I love the game too much not too. I still say it all boils down to the results on gameday.....and weather or not you pay too play or not...the results are the same.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Buckychudd » Thu Dec 11, 2003 8:40 am ![:-]](./images/smilies/smirk.gif "Scottie")
