What is the optimum league size?

[mig28]

Until recently, I was a strict "12 team" owner, but with my first 10 team draft now 3/4 complete, I'm becoming more open minded about league size. On the flip side, I've got enough applicants to expand my own group of owners from 12 to 16, if I so choose; I'm guessing, however, that roster size would have to be pared down a bit if I do expand.

What is the optimum league size, and why?

[Free Bagel]

My favorite is definitely 12. With less than that, I've always felt teams are too full of big names. I like having to find players that aren't necessarily high on their teams depth charts (like for your #3 WR), but not to the point that each team has one or two big name players and a ton of scrubs (16 team).

[ajgnydc722]

I play in an 8 team league each year but that's only because not enough of my friends know about football or baseball. I like 10 teamers though.

[Mercer Boy]

My favorite is definitely 12. With less than that, I've always felt teams are too full of big names. I like having to find players that aren't necessarily high on their teams depth charts (like for your #3 WR), but not to the point that each team has one or two big name players and a ton of scrubs (16 team).

If you are in what we'd call a "competitive" league where all the owners are very knowledgable and no one "quits" halfway through the year, I'd say a 12 team league would really show who did their homework and make it extremely competitive. Everyone will have a decent number of stars, but those last few positions like #3 receiver or backup RB's may tip the edge in your favor if you have a good draft.

I played a 10 teamer last year, and everyone had good teams - including those people who never paid attention. It was also too easy to find backup RB's and #3 or even #2 receivers on the wire. It sort of sickened me knowing that a guy who did absolutely nothing got 5th place over people that changed teams and picked up FA's every week.

If you really want to show off your fantasy knowledge, I would say a 12 teamer gives you the best chance to show you can get those gems in the middle and end of a draft that may give you the edge in the end.

[Canacuna]

I like ten and twelve team leagues, particularly twelve teamers. Like what has already been mentioned, they require more skill than luck (although in the end, it all comes down to luck, I 'spose).

Ten teamers are fine too, but there's still plenty available on the waiver wire, something uncommon in twelve team leagues.

Eight team leagues are just crapshoots, IMO. I won't play in one. Unless you're a complete moron during the drafting process, every team will be just about equal - a lack of research doesn't even matter.

Sixteen team leagues are a little large for my tastes. There's a lot of research and effort required which is nice, but the talent is just too spread out for me - as all of it is gone by the third or fourth round.

[aussieboy]

I agree with Cuna on this one. I don't mind participating in either 10 or 12 team leagues. There is no "optimal" league size really it just depends how challenging you want the league to be. If your up for a bit more of a challenge then go for the 12 teamer, otherwise 10 teams is very suitbale. I drafted in a 8 teamer not to long ago and ended up with Culpepper, Priest, Harrison and Gonzales. As you can see it's a bit silly, and 16 teamers are very challenging and should only be ventured into if you really know your s**t.

[smackthefirst]

Well as far as optimum goes, everyone will have their personal preference I suppose.

My personal fav is a 10 teamer, with ten very involved owners. The thing is we start 2qb-2rb-3wr-1te-1rb/wr-2k-2d. It actually thins out the talent level (much like a normal 12 teamer I suppose).

I do agree with the thought though that 16 team leagues are a little too watered down for my taste, and an 8 teamer is a pure crapshoot because everyone will have stars.

[Pete123444]

my favorite league is a 16 team league that has a 42 man roster and a starting lineup that consists of 19 players.it's also a dynasty league. even with 672 players on rosters, the waiver wire was never dull....awesome league!!
it's real simple, the smaller the league the better chance less skilled owners have at winning. the bigger leagues takes more skill and more time. 16 team leagues are only for the serious.

[TheHeat24]

I play in an 8 team league each year but that's only because not enough of my friends know about football or baseball. I like 10 teamers though.

Ditto...

I think with bigger leagues you gotta definetly be on top of sleepers becasue the talent is thin at almost all 2nd slots...

[Azrael]

I think 12 is good if you have all experienced players. I think more than starts to create a real thinning of the talent pool. With 12 teams I think there are still enough quality players left to keep that one guy who finds one huge sleeper from running away with the league.

My one league had been 8 teams for the past 2 years but after the guy who drafted like a dumbass still won the league, most of us were convinced we wanted to bump it to 10 to make it a little more difficult.

I think with 8 it is still extremely difficult to have a bad team. 10 is good if you have relatively new players but you want them to have to use strategy to field a good team.