Self Editor

Forum: hoop
Page 12738
Subject: The future of TSN Ultimate?

Posted by: deejay - Sustainer [501182710] Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 10:21

This just caught my eye on the tsn forum... posted by a admin...

We're at a decision point with Hoops - there are serious questions about whether this game, and Ultimate should continue next year, or are we better off spending our programming resources elsewhere. Draft and Trade Hoops may have a better chance as a growth opportunity.

So this be the last year, ouch.

Farn
Leader
ID: 451044109
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 10:22

Draft and Trade? Yeah, let me go ahead and pay for the same service that Yahoo provides for free.

weykool
Leader
ID: 41750315
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 10:45

But Farn, they will only charge you $20 for a 1 in 20 chance to win $50.
Isnt the word "growth" used when refering to a tumor?
It will be sad to see it go but obviously they are clueless at running the game.

Dave R
SuperDude
ID: 3010361110
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 10:49

deejay, which thread did you see that in?

Pica
Sustainer
ID: 161141312
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 10:54

That'd really be a shame. Halve the prizes and I'd still play the game.

I'm sure getting rid of the game would probably do wonders for my career..

deejay
Sustainer
ID: 501182710
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 11:02

3

In two threads in fact...
Basic Season 2 Trade Buying Boycot.... is one of them

deejay
Sustainer
ID: 501182710
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 11:05

kings33 wrote:
Hey Guys:
I appreciate your concerns, and am willing to make some changes, within reason, to attempt to alleviate.

First off, I had to cut prizes, solely based on consistent declines we've seen in the last few years in regards to participation... The game's expected participation doesn't support the old prize levels.

Can I reduce Max Trades? Absolutely... if that's really what you want, I'll be more than happy to cut back the trades to last year's number, or lower. If trade buying maxes need to move in accordance with the prizes, then by all means, we can do that.

The trade buying market is a small (but incredibly loyal) group of managers like yourselves. The vast majority don't buy trades at all. We're at a decision point with Hoops - there are serious questions about whether this game, and Ultimate should continue next year, or are we better off spending our programming resources elsewhere. Draft and Trade Hoops may have a better chance as a growth opportunity.

You all are important to us - not just within the Hoops community, but across the board. You guys are fanatics about a number of our games, and I appreciate that. I want to try to make it right... but there are limits if we can't find a way to grow the game.

-David
GM, Fantasy Sports

C. Bird
ID: 579542815
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 11:22

If Ultimate goes away that would really suck. I have been playing this game for about 10 years since back in the smallworld days and I look forward to it every season, as basketball is my favorite sport. I say reduce the amount of money it costs to play the game and cut the prizes. I would play the game for free. if this game goes away it would leave a bad taste in my mouth for The SportingNews and would probably stop playing all of their games. Hopefully they find a way to make it work.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 11:51

Just curious - who is "David, GM Fantasy Sports".

The last Fantasy GM I had contact with was Jeff Gerttula, although I had heard through the grapevine that he was taking on either more or different responsibilities. Is "David" his replacement?

qwert
Donor
ID: 2910242819
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 12:20

that would be a real shame. i agree that i would rather see them eliminate prizes all together than get rid of the game.

i would still pay a nominal fee if they got rid of the division prizes and kept top 100 prizes...or vice versa.

ptrikv
ID: 13042189
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 12:46

i vote we go back to the smallworld days and make it free again... although prizes are great, but in my opinion, the game itself is more than enough for me. ...

Adam
ID: 124532213
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 12:57

People don't like to play because all the hard core players don't let them compete. It's a waste of life and time.

weykool
ID: 2842717
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 13:12

#11.
So the TSN strategy is to lower all the prizes to get the players who are good at math out of the game?
Perhaps they will rename Ultimate hoops......"I cant do math Hoops".
Are you saying you will play if all the good players quit?

Balrog
Dude
ID: 02856618
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 13:20

When TSN started messing with the golf format I wished for the Guru to deliver us, and he did. And it was good.

Once again, I humbly invoke the power of the Guru. Give us a hoops game with the purity and goodness that only the Guru, in his wisdom, can provide.

Senator Urine
ID: 141130310
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 15:25

I'd like the game to stay. That's an understatement.

I'd keep playing even if they raised the price to join and got rid of the prizes.

weykool
ID: 2842717
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 17:08

As a point of reference for all the ultimate players who would keep playing with or without prizes:
The whole discussion got started with TSN releasing the Basic game for season 2.
The cost of buying trades in the basic game is significantly higher than the $11-$20 we pay to play ultimate and recieve 6 months worth of entertainment.
For season 1 the price to play was $100.
For Season 2 the price is $80.
So obviously those who buy trades are doing so mainly for the prizes.
Here is the purposed payout for season 2:

Place ………. Prize
1 ………. 1000
2 ………. 750
3 ………. 500
4 ………. 300
5 ………. 200
6 ………. 100
7 ………. 90
8 ………. 80
9 ………. 70
10 ………. 60
11-50 ………. 50
51-75 ………. 45
76-100 ………. 40
101-150 ………. 3,500 Tokens
151-250 ………. 2,000 Tokens

As you can see the uproar from a large percentage of the better players is the fact that you can finish in the top 10 and still lose money.
There are probably between 200-300 players who buy trades.
There are probably a solid group of 20-30 who can be found at the top of the leader board.
Making top 50 is not all that big of an accomplishment but getting top 5 is probably about the same difficulty as a top 10 in ultimate.

How ultimate got into the mix was the response from TSN that DJ posted.
The prize structure for ultimate is not at issue at this point (althought that could change when and if they launch next year), but it looks like participation does seem to be an issue.

Headless Gunners
ID: 19282419
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 18:06

Is there another game out there that resembles TSN ultimate Hoops
None of the other TSN games matches up as far as I'm concerned.
I came to it to learn about the NBA since the other top pro leagues were much higher in my awareness and knowledge column.
Unless you win a top top prize, you're not going to win a lot of money and so I have used the small amounts I have won to feed the other PAY games I play.
It also led me here which led me to Rotohog, which has paid off nicely so far.
But it's the Ultimate Hoops game I like best.
The daily up and down of the salaries, limited trades and constant mind numbing check of schedules

G
Donor
ID: 5810561615
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 20:50

They should raise the price a little which will hopefully keep folks from having 15 teams and instead keep it to 3-5 teams

Yehosh
ID: 2910291321
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 20:58

G - I agree with that %100, excellent point

CJ
Leader
ID: 499271021
Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 22:14

Ha I never win prizes anyway.....but it is the ONLY game I play and if it goes then so do I. Someof you might like that though? The reason I am on the Guru boards has been because of this game. Are you saying Hockey is pullling in better than basketball. Lower the prizes and try it for another year.

16
The daily up and down of the salaries EXACTLY! The daily updates and salary/stock market style. Love it!
17 I agree some of us have 10-20 teams and that is what it is......?

Senator Urine
ID: 011502111
Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 10:53

As much as it drives me nuts I love how involved the game is. Moreso than any other type of fantasy game, it really feels like there's a season and an off-season. I'm 100% for keeping it how it is.

Kal Zakath
ID: 269581213
Sun, Jan 20, 2008, 19:50

8 - Guru, David is Darnott from TSN. I believe it's either him or Berger who has taken over Jeff Gertula's position when he was bumped up the ladder.

17 - G, I actually proposed the following to TSN as to the guys with a lot of teams:

If you have 5 teams or less, you have the option of which kind of league you put the teams into (the types follow).

Put the first 5 in what are called 'A' leagues for basic leagues. These would operate as normal (20 teams, $50 league prizes).

Any teams over 5 for a manager (or IP address), would be put into 'B' leagues. This would populate these leagues primarily with the better managers. However, because the competition will be tougher, the awards will be raised to $75 for winning the division.

This should allow for more diversity in the auto-leagues, which should lead to more retention of new players (they might be able to actually be in contention rather than out by 1500 points by New Year's, and every league they try to get to in the beginning has the same people in it).

Kal Zakath
ID: 269581213
Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 11:26

Edit: 8 -

Guru, through further investigation, 'David' is indeed David Berger, the new GM of the fantasy sports division.

If the way he dealt with the golf game is any indication, get ready for a really rough go.

Farn
Leader
ID: 451044109
Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 11:28

I'd like to second the thoughts in post #13. If the ship sinks I can only hope Guru has the energy to set one up himself. Who cares about league prizes? I just want the same game with all the best managers. And I'd still pay.

JCS
All-Star
ID: 020102934
Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 12:01

Ending the TSN Ultimate Hoops game would really be a shame, it's a great product. I must admit I'm puzzled as to why it seems it's costing them so much. I mean basically you can keep the exact same software year after year, have one guy reviewing the user feedback every morning and correct problems if needed (but with a non-changing software there shouldn't be too much problems), there's only the server location costs that remain no?

I feel like they're paying guys to change stuff in the software every year, and every year people wonder why exactly there was a need for such a change.

And raising the prices? The fact that you have to pay in the first place is what causes the player pool to shrink year after year. Can't they put up more advertising on the site and pay the servers this way? I mean Yahoo does it, ESPN does it, what in the TSN Ultimate game is so complicated that you'd need to charge the customers?

Soulman
Donor
ID: 016105313
Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 12:07

"I just want the same game with all the best managers. And I'd still pay."

Same here. For me Ultimate Hoops has always only been about the community and the game itself. Even if I was prize eligible I couldn't care less whether there are prizes or not. I don't want stress and money, I want good discussion and fun.

Kyle
Donor
ID: 052753312
Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 12:42

This is my first year back into fantasy basketball in about 4 years. I am in a Yahoo with my friends, but following the conversation on here has made me want to try out TSN Ultimate. Obviously it's too late to start, but I talked a friend into co-owning some teams next year. I hope it doesn't get shut down. That would be a major bummer.

Kal Zakath
ID: 269581213
Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 13:41

24:

JCS - the problem is the base system for all of their games and the changes made for the games over the past 'x' years (as far as I can understand, it has not been rewritten since inception) all kind of pile on. The program is old enough and patched enough so that there are now being some unexpected results from trying certain things.

There are a lot of costs that are associated with these games - there are everything from bandwidth costs to costs of programmers to licensing fees to stat feed fees. At some point the break-even point gets reached. I've had a hunch that the hoops and hockey games have been below that threshold for a couple of years now, and they most likely would be looking in another direction for a base fantasy hoops game. That said, nothing is definite.

I really wish that they would just buckle down and re-write the base program so that it would be more predictable and stable, and then put out a solid advertising campaign (if the sports allow it - last I knew the NFL (at least) restricted advertising of any fantasy football game other than the one they were running). I know that we are mostly sports nuts here, but have you ever seen a real ad, even in their own magazine, for the salary cap games?

Rex Davidson
ID: 230522313
Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 15:59

It seems they have responded by adjusting the prize structure: New Prizes

Max trades has been reduced to 84. If you buy them in 12s, that's $70. Under the new prize structure, the top 25 will break even ($75 or more) and 25 - 50 will be close ($60).

Rex Davidson
Leader
ID: 037492717
Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 17:53

Annual tweaking of prize structures isn't going to solve TSN's problems in the long run. I suggest there needs to be a serious examination of their business model.

In theory, Ultimate is paid for. I suspect they forecast how many teams will participate, budget the costs and develop a prize structure accordingly. If they don't meet their participation target, they won't make what they planned to make but that doesn't mean its a loss. Of the 2,600 Ultimate teams, some are already inactive but that doesn't matter as they are already paid for.

Basic/Pro is a different matter as there are more variables. How many teams will play Pro vs. Basic, how many teams will buy max trades in Pro, how many will "abandon" their teams part way through the season, what will the average investment have been when they stop, etc. Of the 76,982 teams TSN claims for Basic/Pro, I suspect no more than a third, and likely a lot less, started out in Pro. Of those, I suspect 20% at the most, will buy max trades.

I have 3 teams in Ultimate (at which I kinda suck) and 3 in Basic (at which I suck less). In Basic, there are 93 teams in the 3 leagues of which 34 currently have 9 or fewer trades. Using this arbitrary benchmark, 63% of the teams are inactive, in a league where you don't have to pay.

Although there are no prizes in basic, there are still resources required to run a game that doesn't generate direct revenue. Over the last 4 or 5 years, TSN has also increased the "community" aspect of their website. The five star system, the whole friends thingy and all the blogs and threads, etc all take up resources, increasing costs while generating zilch in direct revenue. (I have railed about this before but for different reasons.) Thus an active group of paying customers are generating revenue that in part, pays for resources used by non-paying customers.

The community stuff was probably designed to get more faces in front of their advertisers and/or generate more paying participants in the games. I suspect this has been less than a roaring success. The blogger-only members don't pay any attention to the ads and, for the most part, aren't real fantasy sports fans. A quick check of the "5 star" members and you'll find far too many who hardly play any of the games while earning most of their points from community participation and TSN's rather generous concept of "performance". Those they do play tend to be the free games.

Finally, some suggestions:

Separate "regular" sports fans from fantasy game players and find out ways for the blogger community to pay for itself.

Evaluate the fantasy games by themselves, excluding costs that are associated with the above group.

Eliminate the free Basic altogether or run it seperately. Maybe consider a sponsorship program for the basic game. Basic fantasy hoops brought to you by . . . I'm not generally in favor of it but if you don't want to pay, someone has to.

PS Before someone accuses me of hypocrisy for playing the basic game, I do play Pro for Season 2 and Playoffs as well as golf. I suck far less at those.

Dunkenstein
Leader
ID: 039541913
Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 18:48

My guess is that at this point Ultimate Hoops may pay for itself, but there's unlikely any money left over to cover overhead, salaries and all the other costs Kal delineated in #27. More importantly, there's no profit for TSN in the game. And they sponsor the game to make a profit. They're not humanitarians like Guru.

They point out that the number of teams have not drastically in the past couple of years. But I bet the number of managers have. With top managers like Bandwagon, Blooki and Maxthedog (to just three) having increased their number of teams each year in order to win multiple league prizes, average player are discouraged from returning. But if TSN put a limit on the number of teams a manager could own, the overall number of teams bought would crash. A Catch-22.

I've complained to both Kal and coutram that the price change algorithm needs to be changed. It's only in the last couple of years that we've been seeing players gain or lose $200K in a night. I believe that this leads to managers selling players they would like to keep out of fear that their RV will take big hits because increasingly all managers are selling highly-owned players early. To my mind this makes a less satisfying game. I remember in the old days players could gain or lose no more than $100K in a night. I suggested they institute some kind of limit like that. It fell on deaf ears.

With the proliferation of free fantasy games on ESPN, Yahoo and NBA.com, in addition to TSN, there is no real reason for newbys to play Ultimate Hoops. So as long-time managers grow tired of playing Ultimate, there's nobody to replace them.

I don't have an answer to TSN's problem. I suspect that just about everybody on this board would play a salary cap game along the lines of Ultimate Hoops with a $20 entry fee and no prizes, because we like the unique strategy of playing this game. But I doubt that there would be enough teams to cover the costs.

So we'll keep playing, hope that TSN can come up with a business model that will let them continue next year, and thank our stars that we've been able to play the game for as long as we have.

weykool
ID: 2842717
Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 11:51

Dunk:
Excellent post.
I have to agree with just about everything.
My guess is the underlying costs that Kal outlined are much more than the average manager considers.
It is also very probable that hoops uses most of the some platform as the other sports so eliminating it wont save all that much.
As for advertising what is stopping TSN from running a generic add that touts "all major sports are offered" with the tag line "Best fantasy sports game on the net"?
You can run the same add all year and not mention the NFL, NBA, and MLB (my guess is the NHL would help to subsidise after their stike fiasco).
Offering D&T is fine, but I just cant see that many people choosing TSN if all they offer is D&T.
They need to focus on making their best game the best that it can be and then advertise to bring in more players.

bibA
ID: 1210320
Sat, Mar 08, 2008, 12:57

It would seem to me that TSN recently giving us player news via Rotoworld is not only a good thing, but a positive sign for the future. I can't see them going to this trouble unless they are confident about the future.

Weykool
Leader
ID: 41750315
Sat, Mar 08, 2008, 14:10

Biba.....dont count on it.
It seems the sentiment at TSN is that the problem is the people who support the games.
This was a PM form a TSN employee:

My personal belief is that growth is near impossible for the salary cap Pro games. The barrier to entry is too high. That barrier is your knowledge - you guys are SO GOOD at the trade buying game, that it's become an exclusive club, and in a daily game like hoops or hockey that's so schedule dependent, it's a ton of work to stay on top of it. It turns a lot of people off when they can't get the concept quick enough and have some level of success.

We are committed to hoops, but we'll be putting more effort to reviving/improving Draft & Trade. I expect Salary Cap games to continue, but they have real business issues for us.

While it was sent in referrence to trade buying basic, it seems that the same line of reasoning could be applied to the declining numbers for ultimate.

Maineac
ID: 581149517
Sat, Mar 08, 2008, 17:28

I agree that the core players have become too good for the game to continue as is. They need to retool for a smaller game that costs more and pays out more. Fifteen bucks for six months of daily entertainment is silly in my opinion. I would like to see an improved game with live scoring with the cost set at least double that with increased payouts that would bring back TSN dropouts and converts from other Ultimate TSN games and other fantasy sites.

Maineac

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Mar 08, 2008, 18:20

I may be way off base, but my understanding is that the "pay for trade" basic game was traditionally much more profitable for TSN than the Ultimate game. Post 33 suggests that this might no longer be the case.

I'm not sure if raising the price for Ultimate would necessarily increase the total revenue. I know that a lot of the elite managers currently have 10-15 teams (or even more). Raising the price might simply result in fewer duplicate teams, which could keep the total pool of revenue essentially the same, since some of the more casual entrants would also drop out.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Mar 08, 2008, 18:22

...and I really don't understand the emphasis on developing the draft & trade format. With Yahoo (and ESPN?) offering a draft & trade format for free, it's hard to imagine how TSN would be able to compete effectively.

The Bandwagon
Sustainer
ID: 479521116
Sat, Mar 08, 2008, 19:23

#36 is exactly what I was thinking. No way TSN will ever compete with Yahoo and ESPN in draft and trade.

TSN has a unique game. I really think if they would work on mid to lower tier player pricing so that the casual fan could build a team without doing hours of homework, more teams would stay in.

Chances are, the casual fan probably never heard of the Ronnie Brewer's, Jamario Moon's, and Beno Udrih's of the world. If they would price the Andre Miller's a little cheaper, maybe the casual fan would stay interested. We really don't want to buy Andre Miller now at 5.8 million, why would we want to at the beginning of the season?

As far as playing the game based on schedule, I remember when small world just had weekly price updates. If I recall correctly as long as you sold a player who's schedule was fixing to turn bad before the next price update, you were ok. As of now, if you hold a player with two days off, you get hammered financially with the daily price changes.

G
Donor
ID: 5810561615
Sat, Mar 08, 2008, 21:54

Yeah if they change their pricing changes it would improve the game dramatically for the average player.

They could start by putting an average pts/game cap in. After all, why shouldn't a guy be able to own R. Artest for $7 mil when he is averaging 36 pts per game during a 3 game week without losing -40 k per day to gravity.

Gravity should happen on players who are having a bad year or players TSN overpriced. Gravity should not happen on players who are producing but people are afraid to buy because "others" did not buy.

If this change is implemented it has the potential to shake up the daily price movers because maybe everyone wont buy a guy just because the next person is going to buy them.

CJ
Leader
ID: 499271021
Sun, Mar 09, 2008, 23:41

38 G You said it right here" players TSN overpriced"....exactly TSN Prices the players way too high. For rookies and unknowns they should not be so tuff on the high prices. Leave some of the field a little weak on prices and it would be easier to have rookies TSN players make up a team. Also so many have to go after the same HOT cheappies.
AND..
37 The Bandwagon
Chances are, the casual fan probably never heard of the Ronnie Brewer's, Jamario Moon's, and Beno Udrih's of the world. If they would price the Andre Miller's a little cheaper, maybe the casual fan would stay interested. We really don't want to buy Andre Miller now at 5.8 million, why would we want to at the beginning of the season?

The Bandwagon
Sustainer
ID: 479521116
Mon, Mar 10, 2008, 12:10

Another idea would be having upward gravity for players that are undervalued. Once they hit 4 to 4.5 points per million, the upward momentum stops. I think this would encourage managers to hold under valued players such as Beno through the bumps in the schedules. You would still have managers that played the schedule, but atleast the managers that choose to hold a undervalued player wouldn't be hit with the $$ losses during a 1 in 4 etc.

I really think if they lowered the prices for the mid and low tier players, there would be a larger player pool to choose from, and more managers would stay active. I would vote for the mid and low tier players to be priced at 6 to 12 TSNP's per million range. Your 12 TSNP's per million players would of course be your low tier players that averaged under 23 TSNP's per game the previous year. Mid tier would consist of players 24-35 TSNP's per game the previous season.

G
Donor
ID: 5810561615
Thu, Mar 13, 2008, 16:40

IMO, the guru golf cap system is the most logical. Guru has a formula that adjusts after each tournament based on performance. If a guy doesn't play you don't lose $ (a guy not playing is penalty enough isn't it?)

The TSN salary cap system has never made much sense to me. The theory is it is similar to the stock market with the buy/sell set up but the reality is stocks can be purchased and sold in multiple numbers. You can only buy 1 Beno Udrih so the system fails there.

Using Beno vs a stock as comparison, if I have a stock that falls in price, I may actually see that as a good thing because I can buy more shares at a lower price anticipating it will go up later. If it does indeed go up, in the end I am better off it dropped short term.

However, in TSN, if you choose to hold a good stock like Beno during an off period, you can't buy more of him at the lower price. So unlike the stock market when you can be rewarded for going against the crowd, in TSN the only reward is to move like the masses.

The Gurugolf system addresses this basing $ gains and losses on performance. If TSN does drop hoops, perhaps Guru would create a pay for play ultimate option using the golf pricing system.

The Bandwagon
ID: 42171011
Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 12:23

G, that's basicly what I'm saying also. They need a upward gravity for all under valued players. I think once they hit 5 TSNP's per million, the upward gravity stops. The mass selling would still happen when schedule's run out, but after the selling pressure is gone, the upward gravity kicks back in. So if anyone held a player through a 1 in 5, they wouldn't get hurt as bad $$ wise as they do currently.

dpr
ID: 1733917
Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 12:30

One problem with upward gravity is that it would make cheap players even more of a must have. if you know the player is going to be making an extra 30k a day or watever in addition to already large gains from movement then you pretty much need the player. Also maybe I am not understanding what you are saying but wouldnt that mean that any player worthwhile would be 4-5M (20-25 TSNP)? After a few months there really wouldnt be any cheapies?

I think gravity is something that needs to be dealt with. There should be a productivity part of the equation so that a player producing suitably for his price doesnt drop. Also injured players should be excluded

Chuck L.
Leader
ID: 02722619
Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 13:05

Re: 30
Dunk: Just noticed this thread so I'm a little late posting, but I agree that limiting the daily changes in players' prices would help (and TSN should drop the prizes for top roster values because it just makes the obsession worse). It seems to me that the disparity in roster values is much greater than it used to be. I suppose the better owners (I used to be one) will argue that the current emphasis on roster value makes the game more challenging, but I think it has contributed to the relative lack of competitiveness in the divisions, with most people getting left way behind with no chance at winning anything. These folks are not likely to continue to participate.

The Bandwagon
ID: 42171011
Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 13:07

I'd have to set down and figure it out, I was just throwing out an idea.

For the low and mid tier players, maybe have the upward gravity stop after they reach 7-8 pts per million or something close. Very few cheapies that are priced at 4-5 points per million are attractive.

I don't think that the cheapies will be more of a must have. Managers are still going to trade based on schedule. The upward gravity will benefit the manager thats low on trades, or chooses a different strategy and holds a under valued player during the players bad schedule stretch. He may decide to hold the cheapie through a 3 in 9, and use his trades to rotate Kobe/Lebron/Paul etc.

Maybe it is a crazy idea, but TSN does need to revamp the prices for the mid and low tier players IMO. We need a larger player pool to choose from.

dpr
ID: 1733917
Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 13:16

RE: 44

The idea that the RV prizes have an impact on price movers is one that i hate. There just arent enough managers going for these prizes for it to have an effect. i am currently in line to get a prize (5th) and am going solely for points. This means that there are only a handful of managers playing for the RV prizes. Surely a couple dozen extra trades over a week (say 2 trades a day) doesnt have an impact on price movement

Chuck L.
Leader
ID: 02722619
Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 13:30

DPR
Generally agree. I was thinking that there could be a small cadre of owners who might have some shot at it during the first couple of months, so there could be some effect but certainly a relatively minor one. It's not my main point. (Good luck!)

twolves
ID: 2991339
Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 14:21

The RV Prize has never quite made sense to me since you are playing for TNSP total. It usually follows that the top players have higher RV and they are going to win a prize anyway, so leave that money in the prize pool. I agree, the RV players at this stage of the season probably do not effect prices much.

This year there seem to be some big price swings. I have alsways thought those managers with 10-15+ teams could probably influence player price swings by themselves in their favor. I wonder for any given player sold or bought multiple times on the same day by one manager should be considered as one sell or buy making all managers theorectically more equal. It would be good to see price swings not be as drastic and the big divergences in RV. It would make for holding players differently.

The game does need to grow and new players need to have some sense of success early for that to happen. As mentioned previously, I also wonder if a two tiered system by maybe allowing newcomers and non-winners to play in leagues. They could play "up" if so desired with any prior winner of league, top 100, who would be required to play in separate leagues. Prior winners and top 100 for all prior years would be required to play "up"

I also wonder if limiting players to one league prize would cut down on the number of players with large number of teams who seem to dominate leagues and win multiple prizes. Larger leagues or prizes could be considered as well as multiple places given prizes.

As far as player prices go, I think gravity does work for overpriced players. It could be that if one was willing to buy a player in gravity that his value would remain stable as long as he remained on your team but only go up if it passed your original buy point. You would ba allowed to sell at your buy price if remains in gravity or below buy point. The other thoughts on value would be to dampen the effect on selling of both undervalued and "cheap" players so ther value would rise over the season-a TNSP/$ factor and allow a manager to hold them through a poor schedule.

weykool
ID: 2842717
Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 14:23

As one of the teams competing for an RV prize I only see 3 teams actually competing for that prize.

All this talk of how we tweak the game is quite frankly pointless.
The ship is sinking and we are worried about how the deck chairs are being arranged.
When I made that same comment to a TSN ee his response was the Titanic had more passengers than we have.

The problem is two-fold.
#1 is advertising.
Simply put......there isnt any.
They have a magazine and doesnt advertise their own games in the mag.
If you Google Fantasy Sports you can find them on page 8.
Page 8 will get you less than a 1% hit rate.

#2.
Once they get new players they do nothing to help those players learn the game.
DJ and I were looking at the other teams in one of our auto leagues.
14 teams have more than 10 trades.
15 teams have less than 50 million in RV.
One team is about to go under 20 mil.
These are ultimate teams that people paid money for.
As we all know there is a very steep learning curve.
There is also a huge time commitment to this game.
The choices are to totally dumb down the game to attract the casual player and lose every one of us.
Or.....come up with ways to attract and retain more hardcore players.
They cant do both....they need to decide one way or the other.
TSN needs to enlist the help of the better managers to help make the game better.
They ask us for our help and then only come up with excuses why they cant implement any of our suggestions.
Has TSN ever asked any of us for a testimonial they could use in advertising?
What have the done to compile some sort of tutorial that would give people the basic tools they need to learn and compete.
I suggested a mentoring program where managers could help newbies with the basics as far as where the chat boards are....where the scedule analyzer is.
It doesnt have to be anything elaborate....just something to help them undersand the game with some basic principles...like playing the schedule.

The bad news for TSN and us is that hoops isnt the only game with declining numbers.
I dont know if it is too late to save any of the games or not.....but I do know that immediate and drastic actions need to be taken if TSN is to survive.

Yehosh
Sustainer
ID: 181082023
Sun, Mar 16, 2008, 01:47

I think some ideas here have a lot of merit. WK makes a good point with TSN not doing enough to help players learn the game. But you have to admit, being in a division with one of Bandwagons 14 teams pretty much takes the wind out of your sails.

And while I'm on that topic, I find the hypocrisy of managers such as Bandwagon hilarious. BW has 14 teams winning 14 divisions, will probably take home prizes 2-4 with his multiple accounts and is sitting here saying that TSN needs to revamp their prices to improve the game. I think rookies not having a chance to stay competitive past november contributes more to disatisfaction than Ronnie Brewer. And with guys like you having 14 teams, the chances of a rookie being in such a division is very high.

You actually have the nerve to make suggestions for improving the game when in reality, you're probably hurting it more than anybody else

I'm probably part of the problem cuz I am still holding 4 teams going for points. But I think there is a difference between 4 teams and 14 teams with different accounts.

CJ
Leader
ID: 499271021
Sun, Mar 16, 2008, 11:34

50
So maybe have a tier of levels and payouts to consider. For example you have basic (FREE), and then the Ultimate....but break the Ultimate down into Beginner Ult, Advanced, and Pro. Cost is more to enter Pro, but payoff is better and I know TSN has stats on members to know that Bandwagon should not be placing 14 teams in the beginner brackets...plus I suspect he would not do that anyway and this is only using Bandwagon as an example and not to bash his awesome talent.............but the payoff would not be suited for him anyways as the Beginner would not have high payoffs. Just a thought.
Guys right now are the high rollers of TSN in the Ultimate game and should sit at the high stakes poker table and not the nickle slots.
I guess I would go into the advanced as each year I finish around WWR 400-500.

Addicted
Dude
ID: 4611592518
Sun, Mar 16, 2008, 12:32

CJ,
I like that idea. And to add on to what others were saying about beginners needing a helping hand.
Maybe have a player from the Advanced / Pro levels be the coach for the beginner leagues to which TSN would reduce the entry fee for one of the coaches teams in the Advanced / Pro levels.

--Addicted--

The Bandwagon
ID: 42171011
Sun, Mar 16, 2008, 13:52

#50 I would appreciate it if you used me as an example that you please state the facts instead of your opinion.

Thank you

Kal Zakath
ID: 55111287
Sun, Mar 16, 2008, 14:06

Yehosh (50) -

That's been my point pretty much from the start on this.

I've had people PMing me and talking to me off line that I brought into the game that they could not find an autodivision out there without the same guys in it over and over and over again.

You have top managers with tons of teams (or influence over tons of teams).

Yes, I tried shopping around for leagues when I started this year because I know that there are many top managers who run identical teams - I don't mind competing in a league against one team from a manager, but it really is silly to have more than that in different divisions going against that identical team. As it was, I had to switch leagues for several days before I was able to get one against Blooki (Great Wall), one against Blooki (Lesser Wall), and one against KI (not sure how I lucked into not having bandwagon or one of the others in a league).

I can't tell you how many people have tried it this year (on my urging) and are not coming back next year because they see it as a no-win situation - there's no way they can even be competitive. They tried for days like me to find a league where their 3 teams could be against different people at least, or would have had at least a shot at playing against people their own level, rather than one of the top 50-100 managers in the world.

Think about it - you have about 2600 total teams. There are about 6-7 top managers with about 10-20 teams each, and they seem to avoid playing each other as much as possible. Thats probably about 100 total teams between those top managers - put those all in autoleagues, and you're talking 2000 of the total 2600 teams are in autoleagues set to be obliterated by those 6-7 managers. Subtract from those remaining teams those which are in private leagues, and you probably don't have much left over, even if the estimate is a little high.

Really, the problem is that several managers have started to look at this game as a second source of income, rather than something for fun. They look at it as an investment (the questions of 'how can I get the most money back' need to stop being the root of why you play.

This game is supposed to be fun, not a way to supplement your income. If you are one of those who is in the basketball investment business, please look at your motives in this - this is really supposed to be fun. I know I play just to break even - that lets me continue to play due to the agreement I have had with my wife.

I'm still trying to push for tiered leagues - though it is highly unlikely that it would ever happen. The problem with having the voluntary tiers is that I think you wind up with top managers playing more lower-tier games to support the higher costs and increased competition (hence lower percentage winnings) of the higher tier games. In football, they used to have 'masters' leagues - instead of the $50 payout for first, they paid out $1200 for first and I think like $300 for second - and they were smaller leagues. The price per team was $200, and there were 10-team leagues, and you were still eligible for the WWR prizes (lumped in with the 'regular' game.) This option died because of lack of participation - they couldn't fill leagues. Something is going to have to happen where it's mandatory. No, experts should not have to put all of their teams against each other, but they should be limited in the number of teams they put into the easiest leagues.

If you are wondering why the price changes have been bigger this year - try this:

The price changes are based on a 'percentage of all trades made that day' formula, with some other factors thrown in. As the experienced/expert players start having a greater and greater percentage of the teams, a greater and greater percentage of the trades made in a day will be going to the same players - thus driving the overall gain for those players up. There really is not a hard cap on the gains, so the price changes do go up.

The problem with muting the price gains because of that is it puts the rookie manager at even more of a disadvantage in making cash, as the moves they make will be muted more as well, just because of the several days where the vets will see a move as a must do where a rookie won't.

The RV prizes have virtually no impact on the pricing - after about a week of the season, rookies and others will know that they have no chance for that title, or one of the 5 prizes that are there for it - if it were more like 100 top prizes, then you might have a case. But to have to finish in the top 5 eliminates virtually everyone really early in the season.

Yehosh
Sustainer
ID: 181082023
Sun, Mar 16, 2008, 19:14

#54, which opinions are you refering to? do you not have 14 teams under 3 accounts? Are you not going to take home prizes 2,3 and most likely 4?

I don't expect you to admit it, obviously you can't, but everyone here knows who those accounts belong to. That is not my opinion, that is a FACT.

As to my opinion that your 14 teams destroying their divisions being one of the main reasons new players don't stick with the game, then yes, that is my opinion. I'd love to hear a counter arguement. But fact remains, if a new manager is in a division as BigDogV, then they'll know they have no chance to win by the end of November. I think that will bother them more than who Ronnie Brewer or Beno Udirh are how players are priced. Again, that is my opinion.

It's not your fault that you're a top player in this game. That is great. That is why 1st and 2nd place pay well. Do you have to turn this game into your source of income?

Well if the answer is yes, then complaining about the pricing system in a thread that discusses how the future of the game is at stake is hypocrisy.

The Bandwagon
ID: 42171011
Sun, Mar 16, 2008, 21:41

*Hypocrisy? I have 6 teams winning a division and you have atleast 4, interesting. Do you need some cheese to go with that whine of yours?

*TSN investigated and posted the FACTS.
As long as TSN and I know the truth, that's all I care about. It wouldn't matter what I posted on here, you guys are going to beleive what you want to, so knock yourself out, have fun.

*I seriously doubt anyone looked at our teams in Novemeber, and saw the 215 and 600+ power ranks and said hmm, I have no chance of winning against those guys, so I guess I'll quit.

*My solution to post 55 is, start your own private division and invite your friends. TSN provides password protected leagues.

*TSN encourages managers to buy multiple teams. Since I'm the poster boy for the 100+ managers that buy multiple teams I'll say this, "Don't hate the player, hate the game".

*Limiting the amount of teams a manager can have will not stop newbies from getting destroyed and quiting. Just look at the yahoo public leagues, they are free, yet half the league doesn't play. You're going to have this in all fantasy sports, no way around it. The world is full of quitters.

*Even if TSN did away with the $50 league prizes, I'd still buy multiple teams. I played this game back in the small world days when it was free and no prize money was involved. I play it for the competition against managers I've competed against for years, and the prestige. There are several here that can vouch for that.

yesno
ID: 34241515
Mon, Mar 17, 2008, 08:58

Maybe we can have a congressional hearing on this subject? Did Bandwagon cheat? Is TSN doing enough to monitor it's players? Maybe there should be a more thorough attempt by TSN to investigate this matter?

I can hear it now.

Henry Waxman - "Mr. Bandwagon, would you have us believe that two of your friends also play TSN and it's just a coincidence that all three of you are having career years and you seem to always have almost the exact same roster?"

Mr Bandwagon - "Thank you Mr. Congressman for the question. TSN has done a thorough job of investigating this matter and they have found that I am innocent. I think this speaks for itself."

In all seriousness, Bandwagon, why don't you (and your friends) pledge to give a quarter or half of your winnings to Guru? I think a number of people on these boards would accept that as a fair place for the money to land.

CJ
Leader
ID: 499271021
Mon, Mar 17, 2008, 10:12

Would it be beneficial to limit members to 5 teams, and then only 10 teams in a league all while decreasing league winner payouts. More less than awesome players could benefit from someday winning a league. I try each year to get into a league I might have a chance but always one of the top dogs in there. I am not complaining just as I see it and I play more for the fun or at least that was it until I though I can at least win a league. No doubt IMO that new people will try and not return you have to keep them interested past X-mas and coming back next year. The lower the count of teams each year no doubt the likelihood of no game.

The Bandwagon
Sustainer
ID: 479521116
Mon, Mar 17, 2008, 12:27

#58, Good idea, but the people here would probably think it was cool if you would donate atleast $25 to Guru as well.

Seriously, I don't care if you guys bash me, but I have made a thread just for that. You may have to go back a page or two to find it.

This thread is about the future of TSN, not how many teams you think I run. So if you want to bad mouth me, do it in the correct thread. If you want to offer legit game idea's for TSN, post here.

Ron
ID: 492491713
Mon, Mar 17, 2008, 15:49

Wow.

I have seen arrogance and gall in my life but The Bandwagon takes it to a new level.

His mantra is "Are you going to believe me or your own lying eyes?"

Until a few weeks ago three Accounts with the Manager names "BigDogV", "The Bandwagon", and "airc22" had made exactly the SAME trades every single week on the SAME exact days. How dare you insult our intelligence and not admitting you are the same person. The evidence strongly points that you are a liar, a cheat and a disgrace to the game.

Yehosh
Sustainer
ID: 181082023
Mon, Mar 17, 2008, 16:11

#60 I think we'd rather do it here cuz people having lots of teams or having multiple accounts hurts the game as Kal explained very well in his lengthy post.

Not sure what made you think people would believe those 3 identical accounts where 3 different people. You seem like an intelligent guy, so I'll ask you this, what would you think more likely? one guy using 3 accounts and a ton fo teams for cash making purposes or 3 friends each having a different account 5 teams (not for cash making purposes obviously). Discussing moves night after night, agreeing on every one them. I don't even agree with myself that much.

Left Coaster
ID: 3411372615
Mon, Mar 17, 2008, 16:30

#61, I'm currently sitting in 2nd place in league SN_1046 to airc2.

Bandwagon, I'll admit that you are having a great year and you are obviously an awesome talent! However, I don't for one minute believe that airc2 is one of your "friends." I'll lose a $50 dollar league prize to one of your "friends,"

You've been cleared through TSN, but we as a community know that you are cleverly taking advantage of a TSN loophole. I'm currently in 30th according to the Prize Standings. I'd hate to be one of those guys who end up WWR Prize Standings 101 and 102! That won't be fair to them. I'll blame this one on TSN!

Jet
ID: 352211715
Mon, Mar 17, 2008, 17:21

#61

I'd hate to be one of those guys who end up WWR Prize Standings 101 and 102! That won't be fair to them.

Add Managers #103 and 104 to that list as well.

The Bandwagon has no credibility any more but Managers "trigs" and "maxthedog90210" have pulled the same thing. On the prize standings they are in line to collect prizes for being ranked #31 and #37. They are the same manager and all their teams were identical until recently.

weykool
ID: 2842717
Mon, Mar 17, 2008, 17:22

Lefty:
For the league prize it would make no difference if BW had 15 teams or if he had 5 and two of his "friends" had 5 each.
There is no limit as to how many league prizes you can win.

*Even if TSN did away with the $50 league prizes, I'd still buy multiple teams. I played this game back in the small world days when it was free and no prize money was involved. I play it for the competition against managers I've competed against for years, and the prestige. There are several here that can vouch for that.

Judging by this statement it seems that Bandwagon feels the same way about the TSN game that most of us do.....we enjoy playing and competing.
The question that needs to be asked is does having a bunch of teams a make the game better and more enjoyable for all people concerned or the opposite?
I think this question needs to be directed at everyone who has multiple teams including myself.
I have 20 teams this year but because I am not doing all that well...nobody cares.
You could argue that I am doing my part to keep the participation level up.
However, If all my teams were in the top 25 would that be good for the game?
My argument is NO.
Assuming TSN has not already made plans to pull the plug we need to as a community figure out what is in the best interest of the game and ultimatly our own best interest.
When new players are not able to compete even for a league prize it means one less manager who will not return the next year.

I dont know what the viable solution would be in order to fix this as any rules implemented by TSN could be circumvented.
Im sure if we all wanted to we could have our own group of "Friends" playing.

Senator Urine
ID: 141130310
Mon, Mar 17, 2008, 17:25

As I've said in a past thread on this topic (well, not really the topic of the thread, but where the thread has gone), I've done this before myself and it had nothing to do with "cheating the system" or "making the game a source of income." I had played Smallworld / TSN for years, and one of my high school friends (Y2JS, he used to post on here a lot before he got sent to Iraq) asked me to help him learn the system. So at the start of the next season we each had identical teams, and nightly discussion about what moves we were going to make and why. By doing this I feel we both learned a lot more about the game and helped get both of us hooked on it for life (if the game's still here in 50 years, I'll definitely still be playing it). Nobody complained about what we did because we didn't finish at the very top that year and prizes were less. And I don't think anyone would be complaining about Bandwagon and his friends if the were in the lower half of the top 100 or out of it completely.

The funny thing is, this does have to do with this thread - one of the complaints that's been made in this thread is that TSN doesn't do enough to teach newcomers the game. But isn't this a perfect example of teaching newcomers the game? Now next year we'll have a few more managers who will understand the nuances of the game and be competitive and stay motivated, which is the issue we're all aiming to solve in this thread, right?

Also, I don't think back in September / October when teams were purchased, Bandwagon had the foresight to think, "Hmm, I'm going to come in 1st or 2nd this year, so I might as well make a bunch of accounts to rake in the money." Nobody can predict the type of year they're going to have. Last year I predicted an off year for myself, and I ended up finishing 2nd. This year I said to myself that anything less than 1st or 2nd would be a huge disappointment. And now I'm farting around in the 60s, with the feeling that everyone on my team except for Deron Williams is playing rock-paper-scissors for the grand prize of taking a proverbial dump on my proverbial face. There's absolutely no way to tell how well you're going to do ahead of time.

Jet
ID: 22341715
Mon, Mar 17, 2008, 17:34

I think what is being lost here is the fact The Bandwagon has created teams for the SAME GAME using 3 different accounts. Why not just make up 14-15 teams under the same account? The fact that he used 3 different accounts looks really bad on the surface. If he kept them all on the same account he would only be listed for one Top 100 prize instead of three. It looks really shady on the surface that someone would use 3 different accounts for the same game.

weykool
ID: 2842717
Mon, Mar 17, 2008, 17:48

Senator:
I agree with much of what you are saying.
Nobody would care if his teams were 100+ on the WWR.
What I dont agree with is that your "friend" needs 5 teams in in order to "learn" the game.
You would have a hard time convincing me that a newbie manager is running 5 identical teams.
If they are truly learning the game wouldnt they learn more by having teams using different strategies to see what works and what doesnt work?
Also....are you learning anything by copying what someone else is doing?
Of course we can learn by following the examples of others....but most of us do the majority of learning by making our own decisions and learning from our own mistakes.

Headless Gunners
ID: 1711421013
Mon, Mar 17, 2008, 18:27

I love this game.
I started as a purely a baseball guy and wanted to learn about the NBA.
I was always a baseball,hockey football guy.
That has all changed.
I started with one team, went to 3 last year and 5 this year...This is the best game there is.
How many of us that have placed more than one team in money positions haven't actually thought of multiple accounts ?
I also suspect that the names that have been mentioned aren't the only ones.
No doubt it is frustrting sometimes to at times have a top 100 team and still be 5th in your own league and sadly that's what you run up against when some folks have more than just a few teams.
Imagine what it's like for the ones who pay and find out in early November that they don't have a chance.
They stop playing and never come back, that's why the numbers are dwindling.
Sadly they don't stick around to learn how to compete with those others.
This site I hate to tell you is a big factor.
There are many here who might not have any idea what to do if it weren't for the expert advice they get here.
STill like so many.
I would play this game for no prizes, and in essence I do,
taking the winnings and turning them into more teams the following year.

An Old Hippie
Sustainer
ID: 02106243
Mon, Mar 17, 2008, 18:43

Limit the number of league prizes that each manager can win. 1 to 5 teams you can win 1 league prize. 6-10 teams you can win 2 leagues. Pay off temas that finish behind in the other leagues. The manager might have to designate which team would be the primary one in each group of 5.

If helping someone learn the game you would both have to be in the same league and only one of you be eligible for a prize. As the mentor that shouldn't really bother you.

Make a payoff for all players. I'm from MN and I can't collect a dime in prize money or tokens. I just like the game so I continue to play. But it also creates a problem for me cause if I win no one collects that league prize. Last year I quit playing on September 1st so I couldn't win those leagues.

This year some friends were going to give me 5 teams under thier name so I could compete for some money. It was a birthday gift as they don't play at TSN (and have no wish to). After reading this thread I am going to tell them not to buy the teams for me.

But honestly the number of teams a manager can have should be limited. Using DLYoung as an example he won 21 out of 25 leagues last year(Baseball). Figure in those 21 leagues how many of the approximate 399 managers came back to play this year?

Headless Gunners
ID: 19282419
Mon, Mar 17, 2008, 19:16

Sorry Old Hippie
but that would just lead those intent on winning prizes to find even more ways of dividing up their teams to maximize their winnings

Dunkenstein
Leader
ID: 039541913
Mon, Mar 17, 2008, 19:37

While personally I have a problem with top managers having multiple teams, multiple accounts and winning multiple league and overall prizes, let's not forget TSN's problem. If you limited the number of teams a person can own, this will greatly reduce the number of teams that are bought from TSN.

And considering that the number of participants in Ultimate Hoops is decreasing each year, limiting the number of teams an individual can buy would be cutting their own throats. My guess is that it costs them very little more to run a game with 3000 teams than it does a game with 1500 teams (and half the income).

My feeling is that Ultimate Hoops is in its last gasps. Decreased participation, domination by a few top owners with multiple teams who are driving away the new and/or casual players, and price changes which make the game less fun that it used to be will ultimately lead to the game's demise. And while some of the ideas expressed above might slightly improve the game, they are mere bandaids when either major surgery or "pulling the plug" may be the only realistic solutions.

Prime Time
ID: 511081818
Mon, Mar 17, 2008, 19:50

They could make it so that the first three teams can go into any league and all additional teams could be placed in leagues that are comprised of managers that have more than three teams.

They could also have expert leagues that cost a little more to play, but offer higher prizes. The better players would have more enjoyment playing against other good players instead of winning a division by 2000 points.

reebbertxx
Leader
ID: 561124720
Mon, Mar 17, 2008, 21:54

I'd like to hear from airc22 and bigdogv. Such good managers must at least check these boards if they are making moves on their own.

Left Coaster
Leader
ID: 121102021
Mon, Mar 17, 2008, 22:27

74,

Excellent point..

CJ
Leader
ID: 499271021
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 00:05

66 and 67
Guys it really does not matter how many teams B-Wagon has....because he is doing what TSN will ALLOW anyone to do. No More blaming any manager in here for success! STOP!
He is doing what TSN allows him to do and he has every right as all of us do..... to buy as many teams as he wants.........................THE PROBLEM is TSN wants to scratch the game and what we need to focus on how to keep new people involved in their teams past the new year, allow their skill sets to be competitive in leagues with managers at their skill level, and build popularity among those new managers.

I mean I can remember just 3 years ago there were 5000 teams and I suspect not everyone was buying near as many teams as they are now. The Blookie wall was just being built then and was not near as long and wide as it is now.
How to structure this game to allow the skills of the manager to compete against comparable managers?

Pacers Rule
Sustainer
ID: 910311210
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 00:25

FWIW, the comment about the core of players from this site being too good at these games in post #33 is a real issue. The time involved in a game with daily roster moves is unreal. Adam's point in #11 was a real one. Too bad he was ridiculed. People that play TSN ultimate and play to win tend to be somewhat obsessed with the game. (At least I was in my second year of ultimate when I cracked top 100.) The constant combing of injury reports and review of who's hot/who's not to have success at this game against other managers who not only know how but put in the substantial work is a huge turn-off to newbies. That does make the pool of potential players rather small. It's really a 'niche' game and while it has a certain elegance, you have to admit that the amount of time people put into that game can be exorbitant.

The idea of a weekly transaction league with a similar salary cap structure is the no brainer solution in my mind. That only requires the potential hours of research once a week instead of nightly. I played in such a game, years ago, when it might have been called 'Sandbox' or something. It was a cap league with weekly changes and price adjustments, and you only had a 5 or 6 man roster, I believe. It was fun, competitive, and NOT all time demanding for a measure of success. Those seeking to eek out small margins of success probabilities could put in the additional hours of research and it still hinges on if your player stays healthy all week.

Ideally, TSN introduces this type of game as an added option to help with revenues.

As many of you know from my griping before, I stopped playing because TSN never paid me either league winner prizes or top 100 prizes I had legitimately won with lots of sweat. Their notification system and claim system was very disorganized and seemed to reveal a company which was more interested in pocketing unclaimed or unawarded monies (short term gains) than in rewarding managers for their diligence and keeping them coming back (long term). TSN could do a lot better by just running their game better.

Also, this site does have a lot to do with the success of the managers. IF you have not donated to the Guru but you have been 'lurking' on the boards, or even posting but never paying, it may be time to start.

I'd be all for Guru running a small game like this but I guess it would take a LOT of time for who knows what kind of return. The tools available on this site that go with that game should probably be sold to TSN so that Guru can finally get rewarded for his OUTSTANDING work, and that newbies who do not know about this site can use some of the sorting tools and whatnot that Guru has created to enjoy some measures of success.
Trying to win without these tools is like taking a bow and arrow up against gunpowder. It's a no win situation. By putting these tools in ALL managers hands, more will play and more who do will stay and recruit their friends. The other ideas about limiting players number of teams is a good one.

Even though those players DO buy more teams, by sucking off a disproportionate amount of winnings, in the long run they hurt TSN because of all the new players that are turned off b/c they can't compete.

If TSN recognizes that the players who use this site are so good, why doesn't TSN direct players here to level the playing field?

Just my .02

Weykool
Leader
ID: 41750315
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 00:30

He is doing what TSN allows him to do and he has every right as all of us do..... to buy as many teams as he wants.........................THE PROBLEM is TSN wants to scratch the game and what we need to focus on how to keep new people involved in their teams past the new year, allow their skill sets to be competitive in leagues with managers at their skill level, and build popularity among those new managers.

The fact that TSN "allows" us to be shortsighted and go for the immediate dollar at the expense of maintaining a viable game for the long term is not a defense.
TSN operates thier business the same way and look where they are now.
We need to be better than them.

My point is that what BW and others are doing (myself included) are adding to the demise of the game.
It is time for anyone who enjoys the game and wants to see it continue to recognize this and do what is right.
If the better managers want to squeeze every last dime they can out of the game then that is their choice.
But dont pay lip service and say you would play if there were no prizes when your actions are going to lead to no prizes or GAME for anyone.
Whether or not it can be proven that BW is operating all the teams himself or he has "friends" following his every command is skirting the spirit of the rules and sucking the TSN teet dry.
Bottom line it just plain looks bad.
And if it looks bad....it is bad.
The bottom line is the two extra WWR prizes he will earn is pocket change compared to the value in terms of entertainment dollars that we all get from playing this game.

I cant answer how many teams there were 5 years ago but in the last 4 years the most we have had is 3200 teams.
3200, 2800, 3000, 2600 (this year) are the approximate counts on the number of teams.

TJ
ID: 422191723
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 01:19

#78

Guys it really does not matter how many teams B-Wagon has....because he is doing what TSN will ALLOW anyone to do.

Hello...McFly..Hellooooo

Have you even read any of the posts before you made this inane comment?

It is not a question of how many teams he owns. He can own 1000 teams and it wouldn't matter as long as it was all under the same account. It is the fact he has created 3 DIFFERENT accounts and is trying to win 3 Top 100 prizes when he is only entitled to one. If you are going to add any constructive comments please at least read the previous posts because you just made a ridiculous irrelevant statement.

dpr
ID: 1733917
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 01:21

Actually both claims are being made

Chuck L.
Leader
ID: 02722619
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 02:02

To summarize, the goal is to make the game more competitive for more people. One group of suggestions has to do with creating tiers, based on past performance. I think the "higher" tiers could have higher prizes without necessarily increasing entry fees (which might help prevent circumvention through creating accounts under "new" names). The second group of suggestions has to do with re-structuring the game so it's easier for relative newcomers to succeed. We haven't come up with anything too radical here. We want to keep it challenging, but something has to give. I don't know if limiting the daily price changes will be sufficient, but this seems to be the most difficult concept to master, because you have to become adept at predicting the behavior of the masses (or predict what the "leaders" will do because the masses will surely follow). I have always had a tough time giving up points -- sometimes an entire game's worth of points -- in order to increase my RV; and for whatever reason, these daily price changes seem to be more signficant than in the past. The suggestion to move to weekly price changes may also have some merit, but it tends to make the game less interesting. I have also suggested, at some point in the past, moving the trade deadline to an earlier point in the day so those who have the luxury of hanging around their computers at game time, when injuries are often announced, will not have an advantage.
This has been a good thread on a difficult issue -- how to make the game competitive while keeping it challenging.

dpr
ID: 1733917
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 02:11

I thought the earlier idea to decrease the number of teams per division and also the prizes was a fair one. This means that there will be more people winning or close to winning and hopefully sticking around longer at no cost to TSN. Also it would discourage people from creating multiple teams for profit as paying ten dollars to win 25 is less enticing than paying 10 to win 50. And for an experienced player by cutting the number of competitors we are arent really increasing the odd of winning by cutting the teams but you are for an inexperienced player.

A downside is I am not sure if saying pay 10 to win 25 has a much merit when advertising as paying 10 to win 50. Then again TSN doesnt advertise. Although I guess paying for one team at $20 to win 25 is silly. But i do think there is some merit to more winners altho not thru the WWR prizes

Kal Zakath
ID: 55111287
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 08:40

I would like to ask this question...

If it is not for the cash, why do players with multiple teams, who run them identically, put those teams in auto-leagues?

I can understand running identical teams in the private leagues - the ones where you are there and everyone knows you're there and who you are - and the super-leagues. I have absolutely no problem with that. You're competing against the best, so you want to give your best.

What I can't understand is why you would do it for an autoleague.... Why even have those teams unless it's to rake in some cash? I can understand one or 2 to get your investment back, but not to the extent that I see people doing it.

jedman
ID: 59012312
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 10:25

FWIW, I would pay $50 for a team with the chance to win my $50 back through winning a division or winning a top team prize. To me, it's entertainment and a diversion, a way to stay connected to the NBA and interact with some friends I've made over the years. I only made one team this year and I'm having as much fun and less headaches. I almost didn't play this year, but changed my mind at the last minute and am glad I did. I like the game the way it is. My experience is anytime you try to cater to those who don't want to take the time necessary to get the most benefit out of whatever it is you are offering, dumb it down it you will, it won't succeed. The game is what it is, it takes a certain amount of time to be successful at it and I don't think changing the game to help the rookies will make a difference. If you can't make it go with your hardcore players, it's not going to go. I would be all for pointing new players to Guru's site, but they do offer a ton more information about schedules and such than they used to and it still is the hardcore players that benefit and do well.
If you don't want to take a chance on being in an autoleague with a good player, find some friends and make a private league.
Only BW knows the truth about who is running those teams and that's all I'll say on that subject. I couldn't care less because if I win nothing, I'm still enjoying the experience.

kdl212
ID: 131121914
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 10:39

For what it's worth:

Last year was my first year playing ultimate baseball. I played 3 different teams. I loved the game, had some success, and am back again this year. To my surprise, I even won a couple auto leagues and a top 100 prize.

Because I'm a sports geek, I signed up for ultimate hoops. I played 3 different teams (though they often had 6-8 identical players because of the nature of the game). 2 of my 3 teams have top 100 point totals, yet I am nearly 2000 points (2000!) behind the league leader in those leagues, and I'm not even in 2nd or 3rd place.

I understand it's my first year, and I'm learning--and I don't play with the intention of racking up $50 division wins--but I've got 2 top 100 scores and I can't even smell my auto-league leaders. That is contributing to my decision not to play the game next year (if it exists). I can only imagine that folks who weren't as successful in their first try are even more frustrated, and won't be back.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 11:00

I don't know to what extent prizes influence peoples' interest in the game, be they repeat managers or first-timers.

And I don't know what influences first-timers to try the Ultimate game, vs. simply trying the free game.

But it would probably be a good idea for TSN to limit the ability of repeat managers - particularly those who have won a prize in the past - to participate in a purely random auto-league.

Perhaps, when assigning a team to an auto league, some should be reserved only for people who have never won a prize in that particular game (Ultimate Hoops, in this case.)

I suppose some might try to circumvent that limitation by simply registering under a new name each year. However, with the new token structure, you couldn't use tokens to pay for new teams under a new registration, so at least those people would be bringing fresh cash into the game.

I think that the biggest problem is that there are plenty of alternative fantasy hoops games in many formats, and it's not difficult to find a free game to participate in. Some of those game sites have different economic motivations for offering a game - such as Yahoo, ESPN, or NBA.com. They are using the games to drive traffic to their domain. So an enterprise like TSN, which doesn't seem to have a similar motivation (how many of you ever visit other parts of the tsn.com site?), is going to be struggling to produce a game that has to stand on its own economic feet. And advertising is not going to make much difference. Again, how many of you have ever clicked on an ad at the TSN site? I suspect that fantasy game sites are very poor advertising publishers, because visitors tend to be a closed group of people over the course of the season, and they tend to tune out the advertisements when they are at the site.

bd
ID: 11162323
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 11:13

A couple of random thoughts....

How about a small prize (TSN hat or something) for high score of the day.
Tickets to games for best score each week or month.

How about unlimited trades and no prices on players. Each person could have a roster of 10 every night. Still keep the 4G 4F 2C configuration.
OR
Have TSN create three categories of players studs/ average joes / cheapies... your roster must be comprised of 3 from each category.

Create a super league...only players in the top 50 (or 100) can enter. Each year the bottom 10 are relegated and replaced by top 10 from regular or basic game.

My initial thought is to limit the number of league prizes you can win, but that would lead to creation of many single entries I fear.

Incidentally we (me and another) have 10 teams normally and we can't compete with the big guys... nobody complains about us. I wish I was good enough to be worthy of a complaint.

Twarpy
Leader
ID: 386242821
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 11:14

I don't play TSN Hoops anymore, but play the Hockey and Baseball versions. To be quite honest and I think most will agree that have won division prizes, it is a pain in the ass to claim $50 worth of prizes, with all the faxes and the relative worth of the $50.

I have had upto 10 teams in some sports and do place them in autodivisions because I simply do not have enough friends to place them all in private divisions. Is it a money making scheme? With the amount of time I spend on these games, I think my return on investment per hour spent would be measured in tens of cents. I've always thought that TSN should do away with the $50 prize, and just give out tokens equivalent, give the equivalent of a free team to first, half a team to second, and maybe a quarter of a team for third. Have cash prizes for the top teams overall and to lure people to come to the game, but work on retention, I honestly don't think any Gurupie would stop playing if the division prizes were eliminated completley (no tokens or cash), but think TSN could attract a lot more people by promoting higher top prizes which would appease the managers who are better at the game, and spreadout the division prizes, where if you're 2nd to a top manager you at least get a free team every two years.

Chuck L.
Leader
ID: 02722619
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 12:21

A warning regarding the tokens: I converted a $50 division win to $50 worth of tokens. However, TSN does not allow you to use the $50 of tokens as a credit against buying a 5-team $55 package. In other words, it doesn't work like a typical gift card. (I used some of the tokens to buy a 3-team package in Ultimate Baseball, but I will have a difficult time using them all up.) I suspect TSN did this purposely, knowing that it would be difficult to redeem all of your tokens. But creating ill will is not a good way to make money. TSN should change this policy.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 12:27

So you have to pay with all tokens, or all cash, but not some of each? I didn't realize that - although I have had ample tokens available to pay all of my frieght since that system was introduced.

weykool
ID: 21532811
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 12:49

I had no problem redeeming my tokens for 5 packs in hoops.
The only caveat is you cant get the early bird special pricing.
It was $60 worth of tokens so the price per team was the same as the EB special for a 3 pack.
But redeeming the tokens is immediate once they send out the announcements.
I buy trades for Basic hoops so redeeming all my tokens was not a problem.

Chuck L.
Leader
ID: 02722619
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 13:17

Weykool: Perhaps the tokens had not been posted to your account prior to expiration of the early bird pricing. If you had at least $55 worth of tokens when the early bird pricing was in effect, you should have been able to buy the early bird package of five teams. The problem occurs when you have less than $55 in tokens. You can't use your tokens and pay the balance by credit card.

Yehosh
Sustainer
ID: 181082023
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 13:36

"With the amount of time I spend on these games, I think my return on investment per hour spent would be measured in tens of cents."

Twarpy, nobody is denying that managing 10+ teams is a lot of work. I have 4 right now and its a huge pain, I even had an invalid roster one night by accident. But we don't treat it like "I put in X hours, I deserve a return on investment" just like I don't demand a return on investment when spend 2 hours at the movies. You're paying for entertainment. The prizes are just the incentive of winning the game.

You're right, no gurupie would stop playing this game if the division prizes were eliminated or if we were only allowed to win one division.I like that idea the most, capping the amount of divisions a manager may win. We will still see people creating multiple accounts, but it'll be such a headache for them, it won't be very popular.

Twarpy
Leader
ID: 386242821
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 13:41

Yehosh Im agreeing with you, I was only making the point that the accusations that a lot of people do this for money I think are simply not true. I was just pointing out the ROI is incredibly low, and I really do not care about any ROI, it is purely just an entertainment factor, with any prizes being a purely bonus.

kdl212
ID: 131121914
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 14:50

Twarpy:

your last point just leads us in a circle back to the question: if the ROI is so low, and IF people don't play for money, why do they have multiple identical teams in auto-leagues?

One team is just as much entertainment as 10 if they are identical (and in fact, it's less work and trouble). It would seem that the only reason to create multiple teams and put them in autoleagues is the goal of racking up $50 for each.

A quick count of the Top 100 universal shows about 40 different managers, and many have multiple teams all at the same RV, same points, same # of trades. That gotta be about prize money, no?

tothreeball
ID: 02141813
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 15:27

I've played Ultimate the last 5 years, and due to the shrinking number of managers, multiple teams, and heavy weighting on RV, the game has become less enjoyable for me each year. This year I bought multiple teams (3) for the first time. It has nothing to do with prizes, I joined GMD last year for the first time, and with one team at times felt torn by team oriented moves versus my own strategy. The extra teams allowed me to operate an independent GMD team if necessary. As it turns out, I haven't deviated on trades and all 3 teams are identical. If there is Ultimate again, and I play again, I may just go back to one team.

However, from the sounds of things here, sounds like there may not be Ultimate Hoops next year. If so I've enjoyed it, but I certainly see the difficulty for new managers trying to compete. From the time I joined, I have a few buddies who sign up together then go join the same league. Last year we brought in a new manager, and he got destroyed, basically quit his team in January. The ability to grow under the current situation seems impossible.

G
Donor
ID: 5810561615
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 21:19

and again, IMO, this all goes back to the TSN game format. If I have 15 teams and trade all teams the same I can influence the market and make $ gains even if my players perform poorly.

I look at the D Williams/Kobe Bryant trade a few days ago as an example. Many people traded D Williams to Kobe two days ago when that trade could have just have easily been made today (no games gained). Of course under the current system you are forced to trade early just to keep pace. Kobe played poorly but managers still got huge price swings. Doesn't anyone else see the idea that a manager is "forced" to trade a good value, high producing player or be negativley impacted beyond points earned to be a problem with the game?

Using a guru golf format, Kobe would have actually dropped a lot in price after his last game because it was so bad while Williams (who also had a poor game) may have dropped less. In this system, those who held would have been rewarded with more points and less $ loss which is a better reflection of performance.

Using a different price changing system would significantly change the impact of trading and would stop the question you see over and over each night in the TSN forum, "Can someone tell me why (fill in the blank) lost $200 K tonight?"

TSN has a good game but they have some glaring flaws that drive customers away. They should really consider asking a focus group of 5-10 players from this site and their stie to paticipate in an on-line discussion and see what comes of that.

Chuck L.
Leader
ID: 02722619
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 22:14

G
I like your point about feeling "forced to trade early." I made a similar point a couple of years ago -- got a few agreements and one disagreement from an accomplished manager who incorrectly thought I was suggesting getting rid of RV altogether. The mantra is "build roster value during the first half of the yea," and for good reason. A substantial number of very good managers (representing even a larger number of teams) "trade early," sometimes sacrificing sure points. The value of the traded player goes down, of course, and the acquired player goes up. A lot more managers, not quite as adept, see this in the daily price changes (I once even suggested getting rid of this feature to avoid this me-tooism) and the good managers are then doubly rewarded. It's kind of like a self-fulfilling prophecy. I give those who are the real experts at it their due, but it bothers me that the only way to compete is to figure out what the all the other good managers are going to do, and then do the exact same thing. Not much room for diversity. (P.S., my Power Ranking is 19, so my complaints do not stem from sour grapes. I don't even begrudge Bandwagon for kicking my butt in one of his (apparently several) divisions.)

100

CJ
Leader
ID: 499271021
Wed, Mar 19, 2008, 16:02

96, 98, and 99
Would it be safe to say the implementation of prizes for season ending roster value has drastically changed the game?

98 Doesn't anyone else see the idea that a manager is "forced" to trade a good value, high producing player or be negativley impacted beyond points earned to be a problem with the game? YES I have had to change my strategy because my worst part of this game is the fact I only have a roster value of 65 Mil while guys have 20 Mil more than that right now. Of course I may just Suk, but still I have had to adjust when I buy and sell Or it would be worse for me.

A substantial number of very good managers (representing even a larger number of teams) "trade early," sometimes sacrificing sure points. The value of the traded player goes down, of course, and the acquired player goes up.
Do you feel that this is another reason why new managers woudl become frustrated trying to play the game and then become very confused as to why after they invested the time on schedules...only to realize they are wrong on when to sell time and time again?

101

weykool
ID: 21532811
Wed, Mar 19, 2008, 16:45

CJ:

Tring to blame the RV prize for any of the TSN woes is 100% misguided.
Do the math.
There are 4 teams (maybe 3) playing for the RV prize.
As one of the teams playing for an RV prize the strategy is to guess where the masses will be getting.
Setting any kind of trend with 12-16 trades per week compared to 10,000 trades total would truly be a monumantal feat.
Even if there are 60% dead teams then it is 4,000 vs 16.
Anyone who is making trades at this point in the season for RV is on the wrong track anyways.

If your point if from a philosophical point of view then maybe....but removing them to improve the game is focusing on the wrong scapegoat.

102

G
Donor
ID: 5810561615
Wed, Mar 19, 2008, 17:16

CJ,

No I don't think the RV prize has any impact.

What I do think is that managers can guarantee $ rewards by selling early even if it costs them points. This logic is completly messed up for anyone who hasn't been around the game for a while (and even messed up for those of us who have). Seriously, how can a new person understand that circumstances exist in this game where it is better to sell a player he/she owns on the day that player is scheduled to play and buy a player who is not playing that night? How do you explain to a new player they should give up 12-15 pts from a cheap guy they own in order to get 0 points from a train about to leave the station and not have them say forget this?

103

Yehosh
Sustainer
ID: 181082023
Wed, Mar 19, 2008, 17:29

To sum up what WK explained very nicely, if I bought a 5 team pack I could influence the game more than all of the teams going for the RV put together.

104

G
Donor
ID: 5810561615
Wed, Mar 19, 2008, 19:38

If there is an Ultimate/Basic game next year, I am curious to know what people think of this potential rule change.

A player cannot lose TSN value on a day his team is scheduled to play

In general, managers shouldn't trade players on a day they play anyway but if they do, it is usually driven by a TSN $ issue. It wouldn't take a lot of programming time to put a damper on the system to eliminate the loss from the players RV.

Advantages:
1) managers may not have to follow the crowd as often out of fear of a window closing
2) Dreaded game time decisions aren't as painful. I remember the Lebron injury earlier in the year. Many managers indicated they would trade him because he was heavily owned and didn't want to take the hit even if he did end up playing. I have always thought it is penalty enough to have a guy not play on you, why add insult to injury with TSN$ losses? When injury news comes out the scare factor drives the market. Many will justify trading a potentially injured guy even if he plays by seeing a $300K price swing. If you cut that swing potential in half by eliminating the loss factor it may reduce the urgency to make trades.

This rule and the elimination of gravity for players that are meeting a certain pts/million ratio would IMO, greatly improve the game and its potential to attract and retain players.

105

yesno
ID: 462231817
Wed, Mar 19, 2008, 21:55

104- Completely agree. This would solve several problems.

106

CJ
Leader
ID: 499271021
Thu, Mar 20, 2008, 08:57

102 G
Then this Roster Value race is geared for those experts in TSN.

104 G
Good idea...but would that just force people to sell the day-off before the game they normally would have sold. Everyone trying to get the edge or jump on a price change?

By the way I am not Blaming anyone. Just thoughts that I perceived as possible problems. It really looks like this game will not be around next year for sure. Early on I recall myself thinking NA...this game will survive....but after reading this whole post I can see why it will disappear. They need new fresh people.

107

G
Donor
ID: 5810561615
Thu, Mar 20, 2008, 11:29

CJ - I doubt it. Those that want to get the early jump are always goign to do it. What this may prevent is the copy cat moves when someone sees there guy lost $180K a week before they planned to sell them so to avoid losing more money they sell their guy on a day he plays to buy the popular guy from the day before.

108

Dunkenstein
Leader
ID: 039541913
Thu, Mar 20, 2008, 16:54

104 G, I like your idea. I have two other ideas that should impact early selling, which I believe hurts our enjoyment of the game as much as anything.

1) Reinstitute a limit on how much a player can gain or lose on a given day the way it is now. That's the way it was in the Smallworld days and maybe even the early TSN days.

2) Make price changes correspond directly to the number of buys or sells on a specific day, not on the percentage of sales that day. That way there won't be wild price swings on light trading days.

109

G
Donor
ID: 5810561615
Thu, Mar 20, 2008, 22:13

Dunk,

I like both of those. Maybe we should run TSN hoops! TSN I am not sure if you are watching but I know I am for hire (for a low price) and some others may be too!) :)

110

Kal Zakath
ID: 55111287
Fri, Mar 21, 2008, 11:31

108 Dunk -

I don't believe there ever has been an absolute limit on how much players could make. In talking with TSN guys, they have not changed the formula at all to increase price increases - it's just the trading pattern that is driving prices into heretofore uncharted territory.

As a greater and greater percentage of teams and trades made is from a more educated (in the game) player pool, the moves to the 'right' players will tend to increase, thus increasing the gains on those players on those correct days.

Conversely, it also magnifies the odd moves - as there are days where the vets wouldn't trade, there are fewer trades made on that day, thus increasing the impact in cash of those bad moves.

111

Dunkenstein
Leader
ID: 039541913
Fri, Mar 21, 2008, 19:55

Kal, There may not have been a limit on price moves under the TSN days, but there definitely was during the Smallworld days.

I agree with you that "As a greater and greater percentage of teams and trades made is from a more educated (in the game) player pool, the moves to the 'right' players will tend to increase, thus increasing the gains on those players on those correct days." What I'm suggesting is that by placing a limit on how much a player's salary can gain or lose in a day, we can curb what you call "the trading pattern that is driving prices into heretofore uncharted territory."

And by making price changes directly proportional to how many teams bought or sold a player that day (and do away with the price changes being based on the percentage of trades that were made that day), we will no longer be held captive to "days where the vets wouldn't trade, there are fewer trades made on that day, thus increasing the impact in cash of those bad moves."

None of like having to sell a productive player before his schedule or his production necessitates it. The three ideas proposed by G and myself are all aimed at curbing this onerous practice which I think we all agree is making the game less enjoyable.

Rather than trying to justify why the system is the way it is (it's broken), it's time for TSN to explore changes that can improve the system before it's too late.

I hope you're pointing your friends at TSN to this thread. I agree that it would be a good idea for TSN to assemble a group of owners interested in making the game better to discuss both perceived problems and ways to possibly correct those problems. Smart corporations do that all the time. And time is running out on Ultimate Hoops.

112

Weykool
Leader
ID: 41750315
Fri, Mar 21, 2008, 21:01

I'm have a real problem with all this talk abut reworking the pricing formula.
The patient is lying on the operating table needing a heart and liver transplant and you guys are discussing the best vitamins and excercise programs.
Reworking the pricing formula is #10 on the lsit of fixes for this game.

#1 TSN doesnt advertise. If we dont find ways to attract new players it is over.
#2 Once we get new players we need ways to bring them up to speed with how the game works and the various strategies.
#3 Better customer service from TSN resolving glitches to keep vets on these boards coming back.
#4 Limiting managers to 5 teams to allow new players to feel more competetive
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10 Reworking the pricing formula.

I dont have any specifics for 5-9 but I am sure there are things on most peoples adgendas that are more important than pricing.

I for one like the idea that managers sometimes have to make decisions about points vs RV.
I am not opposed to tweaking it but it is way down on the list.

Unless TSN decides to make a commitment to hoops and then do whatever they can to retain new players then everything from 3 thru 10 is a pointless and meaningless discussion.
We might as well discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

113

Kal Zakath
ID: 55111287
Fri, Mar 21, 2008, 21:42

Dunkenstein -

Under the Jeff Gerttula regime - I probably would have had him posting here.

One of the problems a lot of the vets in all of the sports are having is with the new regime there.

It seems as though they believe they know what is best for any of the games, make the changes, and do not listen to any input from the regulars. It's happened in just about any sport that's started since Thanksgiving (though season 2 hoops seemed to have been spared).

So I have asked them a lot about the future of the games, and have mentioned this thread and threads like it to them, but am really not sure that they even care (or at least have gotten no feedback on that).

I still have solid contacts on the day-to-day running of the games, but with Nico, Jeff, bry, and others like those no longer at TSN, it's getting more and more difficult to get answers on the global strategic problems - where Jeff would have told me straight out, I am having to dig and put lots of pieces of things together, or get things second hand.

114

G
Donor
ID: 5810561615
Fri, Mar 21, 2008, 21:54

When I run programs, those programs belong to the people. By that I mean their opinions count as much or more than mine. Based on 113, perhaps what is wrong with TSN is TSN. If they don't value their customers and their opinions (or at least the idea of participant input) then the games are already lost just like they are.

115

Dave R
SuperDude
ID: 3010361110
Fri, Mar 21, 2008, 22:53

The pricing formula, the fact that sometime there has to be a premature trading of players with good schedule, increase/ decrease prizes, limit teams.... I don't think any these are the answers. Quite honestly I'm not sure what is.

Why is football and baseball able to be a success and hoops can't cut it? I don't know.

The pricing, the RV moves, that's what makes the game unique and intriguing. You can play for points ( hopefully ) ,take the $ hit and stubbornly hold onto a player with a good schedule. Or trade and move on to the new flavor of the week. Managing trades is paramount. Seeing your team increase it's RV.... that's the game. Change it and TSN as we know it ceases. There is no other game where playing the schedule is the key to being successful. It doesn't matter in baseball or football.

As far as encouraging/teaching new players how to play, how to be competative, how to play the game, consider this. Unlike baseball and football, this community ( Rotoguru.com ) is the game of basketball. And this is in no way meant to be a knock on this site.

Check out the top 100, how many names do you recognize. Nearly all. You can 't say the same about baseball and football.

I'm sure Guru will acknowlege that Hoops is the most active of all his forums. We discuss trades/ strategy endlessly. We post injury threads. We post nightly action threads. We ask for opinions. Do I pick up Gay or Stephen Jackson? Amare or Duncan? We have GMD teams wich actually create competition within the game.

TSN Boards do that to a certain extent in baseball and much more in football. But for whatever reason hoops doesn't get the play of the other two. How many here would have any idea how to play this game well if it weren't for this basketball forum.

Basketball is by far and away the most time consuming and schedule sensitive of all the sports.. If you have a player miss a game or two, it hurts. In baseball, you may actually end up ahead of the game with the possibility of negative points.

Maybe therein lies the problem. You can't be successful with out spending time. Checking for for injuries. Playing the schedule. Maybe new players aren't looking to invest the time it takes to be successful, or haven't found the tools Guru provides us. Or just don't care to spend the time we all do.

The prizes to me are secondary. I'd still pay to play even of there weren't prizes. The game is just the best fantasy format out there.

116

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Mar 21, 2008, 23:13

[113] Ditto.

I can't remember the last time anyone at TSN asked for my feedback on anything. And the last time I asked for anything of them, I had to explain who I was.

117

Weykool
Leader
ID: 41750315
Sat, Mar 22, 2008, 00:08

#114.
I have had that same exact feeling.
Maybe it would be better if TSN shuts the game down and sold it to someone who knows what they are doing.
If you are a Jaguar dealer you do your best to attact Jaguar customers and keep them for life.
You dont come up with a line of cars to woo Toyota customers.
In the end you end up satisfying neither customer.
As Dave and others have pointed out this game takes a certain commitment level that will only appeal to people who are very hard core.
But those people like many who frequent these boards are extremly devoted customers.
The key is to find and educate more hard core/customer for life players.
Should TSN decide that D&T will save their fantasy games they are sadly mistaken and mismanaged.

118

Dunkenstein
Leader
ID: 039541913
Sat, Mar 22, 2008, 02:20

#112 Weykool
I agree that reworking the pricing formula is not the primary answer to the problems with Ultimate Hoops, it's just one area that can be easily implemented with no cost to TSN.

As I see it, based on the stagnant and minimal revenues of Ultimate Hoops, I'm not sure that TSN can afford to run an effective advertising campaign that will attract more customer dollars than they'll have to spend on the advertising.

Similarly, limiting managers to five teams is also going to have a negative impact on TSN's bottom line. As the number of managers have shrunk over the past several years, the only thing that has kept total ownership (and revenues) somewhat stable are managers who buy multiple teams. It's going to be hard to convince TSN to decrease their income stream.

I agree with you that customer retention, both of vets and newbies, needs to be Goal #1.

Improving customer service is always the stated goal of any service company, it's just not that easy to accomplish unless you have a dedicated staff. It's kinda like politicians who say they're going to decrease government spending by "cutting waste". It sounds great, but once they're in office, they have a hard time actually finding where that "waste" is.

I'm sure if asked by TSN, the vets on this board could put together a strategic manual to help rookie managers.

In a similar vein, we could set up something like GMD for newcomers, where a couple of vets in each group mentor the newcomers on moves and provide a forum to answer their questions. This could be done either here or on TSN's board.

Another suggestion to encourage rookies to join and enjoy their inaugural season might be to have TSN set up a prize structure open only to rookies. This would be structured in a fashion similar to the top 100 prizes, only with smaller dollar prizes and a lot of "token" prizes. I'm not even sure that the prizes themselves are as important as being recognized as the Rookie of the Year or one of the Top Ten Rookies.

119

Dilo
Donor
ID: 30912294
Sat, Mar 22, 2008, 04:57

I'm one of the many Europeans that play and pay without beeing able to gain any money back. I think that says all about how much prices mean for someone who loves the nature of this game. I think the Top 50 of all Managers would play even if there would be no prices (maybe then double and triple teams and identities would vanish). The game is good as it is. I think the price formula is ok, when you learn how to manage it, but with the Top 100 teams almost all reaching 90 Million this year the player prices should be lower at the beginning. I think when you have more players, that are able to put up 30+ at a cap of 5 to 6 millon at the start of the season, the urge to trade after one special player would be minimized. The other effect would be that you could stop earlier playing for money and concentrade on the schedule and effectiveness of a player.
This game frustrates me the same way it pleases me (I play only with one team, so some decisions ruin the whole season), but I hope me and my european friends of the fight-club are able to compete and exchange thoughts with all of you next year and the following.

120

Winston
Donor
ID: 119543011
Sat, Mar 22, 2008, 06:42

I can only offer my observations on why I believe TSN
UM losing out on international managers.
1) oversea managers are charge the same (e.g. via international credit card) but not eligible for prize. This sound very unfair for most oversea managers, I don't know if/how this can be solved but this is their job to find a way in my opinion.
2) The pay to play and possible play back in cash price make the site/game classified as "gamble" and
access to game site sometime block by firewall as "game" or "gamble" site. This will not helps to attract young/underage NBA fans to play this game.
3) Game time trading make it extra difficulties for managers outside US to compete in equal level as NBA games start in odd hours in Europe/Asia.

For me I play this game mainly for GMD and for the game unique format. Always one team in Ultimate and no team in free basic hoop for a few years already. Season is too short in free game and I very dislike the option to buy trades simply.

I hope they can still offer the game in coming season or simply sale the game to other operator that can run the game in other business model.

121

G
Donor
ID: 5810561615
Sat, Mar 22, 2008, 23:53

James, L.(F) CLE 55.5 -$50,000

Do I really need to say anything more?

The best fantasy player in hoops lost -50K tonight. Just in case you didn't know, the best player in hoops, the guy capable of scoring more points than any other player, played tonight.

If you are new to this game and have LBJ playing and you lost -50K on a night he played how can you not ask WTF? Even if you aren't new, you know some of the reasons but you still have to say WTF? There is no other logical way to respond.

A healthy LBJ simply can't lose 50K on a night he plays for any reason in any hoops game that hopes to survive in the long term. It flys in the face of all things good and right in fantasy land. End of story.

122

Dave R
SuperDude
ID: 3010361110
Sun, Mar 23, 2008, 03:41

Well actually G, it is a little bit understandable, and I'm not advocating the move.

Lebron does have to go now. Last night would have been his swan song.

Chris Paul, comes on board, arguable maybe a game early, but those planning on James => Paul could pull it off last night, instead of waiting until Lebron played.

Would I have done it, no. But it isn't totally irrational. Using 15 day averages Paul outpoints Lebron. Reality, Lebron 45.5, Paul 38.

Lebron => Amare could have been feasible as well.

123

yesno
ID: 242482220
Sun, Mar 23, 2008, 07:17

G-121-Agreed. The point is not figuring out why Lebron went down, everyone on this site knows why he went down. The point is that the casual manager doesn't want to spend their time trying to figure out who's price might go up or down on a given night. Your original idea (#104) of not having a player lose money on the night they play would eliminate this frustration for the average manager.

DaveR - 115 - "Why is football and baseball able to be a success and hoops can't cut it?"

I think there are two answers to this question.

1. The obvious answer - Baseball and football are more popular than basketball in real life.

2. There is much more luck involved in TSN baseball and football. In TSN basketball it is more like 90% skill and 10% luck, that's why the same managers are in the top 50 each year for hoops. I think the key to getting more people to play the TSN hoops game is for TSN to add a bigger element of luck. The easiest way to add more luck to the game is to make it more difficult for manager's to increase RV. If everyone had $50,000,000 all year then I'm sure luck would be a large part of the game. That's why I agree with G in post #104, but I also think TSN should take it one step further and limit gains or loses to $100K per night or do something to make RV gains smaller in general. The game needs to be more about picking players for points instead of picking players just to gain $.

For those of you that think TSN needs to advertise, or have better customer service, or mentor new player to make this work. Why do you think they don't need to do these things for baseball and football?

124

Weykool
Leader
ID: 41750315
Sun, Mar 23, 2008, 10:17

For those of you that think TSN needs to advertise, or have better customer service, or mentor new player to make this work. Why do you think they don't need to do these things for baseball and football?

The answer is very simple.
The numbers for baseball and football have been declining faster than the numbers for hoops.
While I agree with your assessment as to why hoops cant get the numbers that Bases and FB...the truth is not advertising is hurting all of the games.
Hoops will just be the first domino to fall.
Keep in mind there are plenty of players like myself who come to TSN for hoops and stay to play the other two.
When I am forced to find another site to play hoops I will not be back to play the other games at TSN.

On a side note I used TSN to set up my office poll for march madness and the site is terrible.
To see another manager's picks you have to click on each region seperately.
Just another example of TSN doing things half azzed.

125

Kal Zakath
ID: 55111287
Sun, Mar 23, 2008, 11:22

121 - G

Also remember that for most teams, it is becoming a choice of which of a couple of studs to have, rather than having the luxury of holding through schedules.

Most of the players on this board have 80+ million to spend on players - someone else with a lower priced must sell might need to sell LeBron to be able to afford the replacement they want for that player.

123 - yesno

Not sure that it's the luck factor so much as to the Baseball game. You just have a much larger manager pool there. The baseball game still requires several months (usually about 3-4) to really get a handle on it.

The football game, yes, will agree with you. With only 17 scoring periods, luck plays a huge factor.

I've always said that in all of these games, skill will get you within the top x%, luck will sort out what happens among those top % as far as WWR goes.

Here, even if that % is as high as 5%, you are talking about luck sorting out the top WWR 130.

126

reebbertxx
Leader
ID: 561124720
Sun, Mar 23, 2008, 11:42

Putting a cap on how much a player can make or lose on a given day will not help the problem. If anything putting a cap on price increases will make rv MORE important because it will be harder to gain.

I do like G's idea of a player not losing on a day he plays. This would help with injured players mostly. My guess is it would mess with TSN's pricing structure because of the buy/sells not counting towards price movement. Do they add them into the players next day off or do they not count at all.

I agree with weycool it's not just hoops that is down in participation it is just the most magnified. Customer service is pretty much non existent even in the baseball game which is just starting.

127

G
Donor
ID: 5810561615
Sun, Mar 23, 2008, 15:39

Kal,

I don't need an explanation on why Lebron went down 50K nor does anyone else participating in this thread. What I am suggesting is the avarage/new player sees what is in their mind an illogical loss happening and will not stick around long enough to learn why it would make sense for this to happen. If people play this game for fun but are frustrated more often than not they can go golfing instead. That is what that sport is for.

128

Yehosh
Sustainer
ID: 181082023
Sun, Mar 23, 2008, 16:30

Part of the reason James lost 50K and not, lets say, 20K is because it was a "slow" trading day. I think that is one thing in the pricing formula many of us have been advocating change for.

129

weykool
ID: 2842717
Thu, Mar 27, 2008, 15:16

Posted on the TSN baseball boards today:

kings33 wrote:
Let me sum up this thread in a word... no.

There is absolutely ZERO discussion of killing Ultimate baseball next year. I have every intention of bringing it back for 2009.

Enjoy the season!

-David
GM, Fantasy Sports

Weykool:
Does this mean the same thread in the hoops board that hoops will not be back would be answered with a YES?
Kings.....can you address the situation with the lack of advertising?
I know there are restictions that the various sports impose but it seems a generic "Best fantasy sports game on the net" could turn this sinking ship around.

Kings 33:
Hoops... it has been considered to cut Ultimate hoops, but right now, it's still on the board for 08-09. This is consistent with the comments I made on that board at the beginning of the hoops season.

Advertising - we're actually doing a fair bit of it, but agreed, not as much as we could do. We've been focused more these past few months on improving the games look & feel to the point where we'd feel better about marketing leading to retention.

What would help me, as we do more, is tell me what other sites do you frequent. If we can find the audience where "our kind of player" hangs out, we can be more efficient than overpriced buys on general sites.

-David

So it seems as of right now there is a stay of execution.

130

deejay
Sustainer
ID: 501182710
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 18:14

guys I wish I had better news... but an admin(coutram) just posted this on TSN forum...

It is in the air whether the Ultimate Hoops game will be brought back. It would be a business decision if it wasn't.

That doesnt sound good.
Maybe it is time to stick our heads together and put something together ourselves?
Guru? Dave?

131

Senator Urine
ID: 141130310
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 18:16

Hmm, well this has effectively ruined my night / summer.

132

deejay
Sustainer
ID: 501182710
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 18:18

Sorry about that Senator, it doesnt put a smile on my face either.

133

qwert
Donor
ID: 2910242819
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 19:42

I'll be sad to see the game go if it is in fact going, but hey...now I have 24 more hours a day during the winter to live my life.

In some ways, I'll be glad to have TSN pull the bandaid off for me rather than making me move on on my own volition.

134

Dunkenstein
Leader
ID: 039541913
Fri, Apr 18, 2008, 13:44

deejay, could you post a kink to coutram's post? Thanks.

135

rolf1001
Leader
ID: 038118220
Fri, Apr 18, 2008, 16:21

Here's the link:
http://forums.sportingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=3276879#3276879

136

deejay
Sustainer
ID: 501182710
Fri, Apr 18, 2008, 18:35

134

Sorry missed that post before, Dunk.
But Rolf already helped you I see.

137

weykool
ID: 2842717
Fri, Apr 18, 2008, 19:04

The approximate number of teams the last four years have been:
3200, 2800, 3000, and 2600.
From 3200 to 2600 is a loss 18.75%

From what I have been reading on the the baseball boards the number of teams for that game have dropped from 20,000 to 7,800 a 61% decrease.
I dont know the numbers but I know football has had huge declines as well.

The problem isnt hoops.....the problem is TSN.
They have basically driven their fantasy games into the ground.
No advertising, poor customer service, an endless rotation of executives.
The rumor is the new VP of fantasy sports at TSN was an editor for a fashion magazine.
I have no idea how true that is but it would not surprise me one bit.

My only hope is that TSN decides to sell the rights to TSN to a company who knows what they are doing and restore it to former glory.

138

The Bandwagon
Sustainer
ID: 479521116
Fri, Apr 18, 2008, 21:48

I signed up for baseball for the first time in atleast 5 years, and I struggled to field a team. I was taking players that didn't get drafted in a 12 team, 25 man roster in yahoo. It was very frustrating, and I consider myself an above average fantasy baseball manager. The deep sleepers I had for my yahoo drafts, were 5+ million in TSN. With 14 slots to fill, average price per player is 3.57 mill to fill your roster. I almost didn't play because it was super frustrating. If I felt this way, think of how the casual baseball fan, or rookie felt.

For most of the hardcore managers we think its like this every year, and cheapies will emerge, and they do, but for the casual fan, not being able to pick up one or two of your favorite players kills the game. That's why I think TSN's customers are going down year after year.

139

wolfer
ID: 24238210
Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 18:22

I also agree that TSN has issues over and above the pricing, but here is some food for thought. Of all the basketball games out there, I believe that the closest to TSN is Sandbox's starting 5 (daily price moves, trades added weekly, 10 players on a roster for both games). The manager who won Sandbox's game had a final roster worth 67.63 million. The same 10 players cost 82.18 million on TSN.

141

The Bandwagon
Sustainer
ID: 479521116
Mon, Apr 21, 2008, 15:05

Wow, thats a huge difference!

I felt like you had to be studied up like Peter Gammons before you could field a TSN baseball team this season.

If a casual rookie is looking for a fantasy baseball game to play and chooses TSN, he will be very discouraged. The way the pricing was set this season, you had to be a hardcore baseball fan to find the cheapies, or wait a few days to enter your team.

The stud players are priced right, its the mid to lower tier players that are flawed IMO. Lasting Milledge 5.2 mill, c'mon. That's 1.6 million over the average price per player (3.57 million) needed to fill 14 slots with 50 million. How many casual fans know who Lastings Milledge is?

142

weykool
ID: 2842717
Mon, Apr 21, 2008, 18:29

I think the bigger problem for baseball is that the price changes are out of wack.
On one of my teams I will be going over the 60 million mark this evening.
If the current rates continues I will have 80 million by the end of June.
By the ASB I will have 85 million. (I read somewhere that 85 million was the ideal amount of RV).
Because it is relatively easy to make RV if you know what you are doing the higher prices of players will have little or no impact on those managers.
This is also adding to the divide between the casual manager and the hard core manager.
TSN should have lowered the prices on the players and made it more difficult to make RV.

143

deejay
ID: 154481315
Tue, May 20, 2008, 17:51

from tsn board...

I'll make it official... We're not changing the ownership info for playoffs, but for next year's (the 08-09 season) Hoops games... Challenge and Ultimate... which will both exist... you will have full ownership and full roster view capabilities, like Baseball has now.

Draft & Trade Hoops is also on the drawing board, but at this stage, let's call that more tentative than guaranteed.

-David
GM, Fantasy Games

So game's on :)

144

Farn
Leader
ID: 451044109
Tue, May 20, 2008, 17:54

nice. I have a ton of credits to use. I may field 30 teams next year.

146

Pica
Sustainer
ID: 161141312
Fri, May 23, 2008, 10:54

Awesome. Can't wait.

147

hills
ID: 74281917
Sat, May 24, 2008, 18:36

Super news--I'd like to play D&T--never played D&T hoops before so I'd need some pointers from the experts

149

deejay
ID: 8443287
Wed, May 28, 2008, 18:48

from tsn board:

Ok guys, i know the playoffs season isn't even over yet, but I have a thought I want to float by you all.

There are issues in regards to price movers where game players with more than one team can have an undue influence on the market. This has occured to greater effect as the game has had less participation these last few years.

What I'm proposing is that we modify the formula so that an owner can only affect 1 trade on the market. each day.

that is, the owner with 30 teams, if he adds Kobe to all 30 teams, that's only going to register as 1 add in regards to market movement. If he only trades into Kobe on one of those 30 teams, that's also 1 add in the market.

This puts each owner on equal footing, and prevents any single owner from having too much effect on the overall market.

Thoughts? Feel free to post here or via PM

-David
GM, Fantasy Games
sportingnews.com

150

deejay
ID: 298251111
Thu, Sep 18, 2008, 10:08

Ultimate should be released today according to kings33 on the TSN forum...

151

Florian
ID: 272433110
Thu, Sep 18, 2008, 15:02

08-09 Ultimate Hoops released.

Early prices:
Player Team Next Game GP PPG RPG APG SPG BPG FG% TPG TD MPG Total /G Last Δ Buy For:
James, L. (F) CLE 10/28 BOS 75 30.0 7.9 7.2 1.8 1.1 48 3.4 7 40.4 4044 53.9 .00 $12.20M

Paul, C.
Paul, Chris
(G) NO 10/29 GS 80 21.1 4.0 11.6 2.7 0.1 49 2.5 1 37.6 4017.5 50.2 .00 $11.40M
To buy Chris Paul of New Orleans Hornets for $11.40M, please click the desired position below.
G cancel [x]
Howard, D.
(F,C) ORL 10/29 @ATL 82 20.7 14.2 1.3 0.9 2.1 60 3.2 0 37.7 3635.5 44.3 .00 $11.35M
To buy Dwight Howard of Orlando Magic for $11.35M, please click the desired position below.
F C cancel [x]
Bryant, K. (G) LAL 10/28 @POR 82 28.3 6.3 5.4 1.8 0.5 46 3.1 0 38.9 3684.5 44.9 .00 $10.67M
To buy Kobe Bryant of Los Angeles Lakers for $10.67M, please click the desired position below.
G cancel [x]
Wade, D. (G) MIA 10/29 NY 51 24.6 4.2 6.9 1.7 0.7 47 4.4 0 38.2 2065.5 40.5 .00 $10.25M
To buy Dwyane Wade of Miami Heat for $10.25M, please click the desired position below.
G cancel [x]
Duncan, T. (F,C) SA 10/29 @PHO 78 19.3 11.3 2.8 0.7 1.9 50 2.3 0 34.0 3246 41.6 .00 $10.20M
To buy Tim Duncan of San Antonio Spurs for $10.20M, please click the desired position below.
F C cancel [x]
Garnett, K. (F) BOS 10/28 @CLE 71 18.8 9.2 3.4 1.4 1.3 54 1.9 0 32.8 2889 40.7 .00 $10.20M
To buy Kevin Garnett of Boston Celtics for $10.20M, please click the desired position below.
F cancel [x]
Davis, B. (G) LAC 10/29 @LAL 82 21.8 4.7 7.6 2.3 0.5 43 2.8 3 39.0 3508.5 42.8 .00 $10.00M
To buy Baron Davis of Los Angeles Clippers for $10.00M, please click the desired position below.
G cancel [x]
Ming, Y. (C) HOU 10/29 @MEM 55 22.0 10.8 2.4 0.5 2.0 51 3.3 0 37.2 2274.5 41.4 .00 $10.00M
To buy Yao Ming of Houston Rockets for $10.00M, please click the desired position below.
C cancel [x]
Gasol, P. (F,C) LAL 10/28 @POR 66 18.9 8.4 3.2 0.5 1.5 53 1.9 0 35.6 2451 37.1 .00 $9.75M
To buy Pau Gasol of Los Angeles Lakers for $9.75M, please click the desired position below.
F C cancel [x]
Nowitzki, D. (F) DAL 10/30 @HOU 77 23.6 8.6 3.5 0.7 0.9 48 2.1 1 36.0 3117.5 40.5 .00 $9.75M
To buy Dirk Nowitzki of Dallas Mavericks for $9.75M, please click the desired position below.
F cancel [x]
Brand, E. (F,C) PHI 10/29 @TOR 8 17.6 8.0 2.0 0.4 1.9 45 2.1 0 34.3 260.5 32.6 .00 $9.70M
To buy Elton Brand of Philadelphia 76ers for $9.70M, please click the desired position below.
F C cancel [x]
Nash, S. (G) PHO 10/29 SA 81 16.9 3.5 11.1 0.7 0.1 50 3.6 0 34.3 3188 39.4 .00 $9.60M
To buy Steve Nash of Phoenix Suns for $9.60M, please click the desired position below.
G cancel [x]
Bosh, C. (F) TOR 10/29 PHI 67 22.3 8.7 2.6 0.9 1.0 49 2.3 0 36.2 2581 38.5 .00 $9.50M
To buy Chris Bosh of Toronto Raptors for $9.50M, please click the desired position below.
F cancel [x]
Smith, J. (G,F) ATL 10/29 ORL 81 17.2 8.2 3.4 1.5 2.8 46 3.0 1 35.5 3203 39.5 .00 $9.50M
To buy Josh Smith of Atlanta Hawks for $9.50M, please click the desired position below.
G F cancel [x]
Stoudemire, A. (F,C) PHO 10/29 SA 79 25.2 9.1 1.5 0.8 2.1 59 2.2 0 33.9 3381 42.8 .00 $9.50M
To buy Amare Stoudemire of Phoenix Suns for $9.50M, please click the desired position below.
F C cancel [x]
Jefferson, A.
(F,C) MIN 10/8 @SEA 82 21.1 11.1 1.4 0.9 1.5 50 2.0 0 35.6 3227 39.4 .00 $9.45M
To buy Al Jefferson of Minnesota Timberwolves for $9.45M, please click the desired position below.
F C cancel [x]
Anthony, C. (F) DEN 10/29 UTA 77 25.7 7.4 3.4 1.3 0.5 49 3.3 0 36.4 3003.5 39.0 .00 $9.30M
To buy Carmelo Anthony of Denver Nuggets for $9.30M, please click the desired position below.
F cancel [x]
Iverson, A. (G) DEN 10/29 UTA 82 26.4 3.0 7.2 2.0 0.2 46 3.0 0 41.8 3386.5 41.3 .00 $9.27M
To buy Allen Iverson of Denver Nuggets for $9.27M, please click the desired position below.
G cancel [x]
Boozer, C.
(F) UTA 10/29 @DEN 81 21.1 10.4 2.9 1.2 0.5 55 2.6 1 34.9 3246 40.1 .00 $9.20M
To buy Carlos Boozer of Utah Jazz for $9.20M, please click the desired position below.
F cancel [x]
Marion, S. (F) MIA 10/29 NY 62 15.7 10.4 2.2 2.0 1.4 51 1.4 0 37.3 2436 39.3 .00 $9.20M
To buy Shawn Marion of Miami Heat for $9.20M, please click the desired position below.
F cancel [x]
Williams, D. (G) UTA 10/29 @DEN 82 18.8 3.0 10.5 1.1 0.3 51 3.4 0 37.3 3323.5 40.5 .00 $9.15M
To buy Deron Williams of Utah Jazz for $9.15M, please click the desired position below.
G cancel [x]
Butler, C. (F) WAS 10/29 @NJ 58 20.3 6.7 4.9 2.2 0.4 47 2.6 3 40.0 2314 39.9 .00 $9.00M
To buy Caron Butler of Washington Wizards for $9.00M, please click the desired position below.
F cancel [x]
Camby, M. (C) LAC 10/29 @LAL 79 9.2 13.1 3.3 1.1 3.6 45 1.5 2 35.0 3419.5 43.3 .00 $9.00M
To buy Marcus Camby of Los Angeles Clippers for $9.00M, please click the desired position below.
C cancel [x]
Kidd, J. (G) DAL 10/30 @HOU 80 10.8 7.5 10.1 1.7 0.3 38 3.3 13 36.4 3387 42.3 .00 $9.00M

152

dpr
ID: 13443116
Thu, Sep 18, 2008, 15:08

i dont really remember but that seems higher?

153

Florian
ID: 272433110
Thu, Sep 18, 2008, 15:24

I think the prices are the same or possibly lower. Garnett was the most expensive player to start last year at 12.00 million and his average per game the previous year was 49.0. So the cost per point of TSN production for at least the top two players this year is lower than that.

154

dpr
ID: 13443116
Thu, Sep 18, 2008, 15:27

I am prob more remembering the end of the year prices. Didnt seem to be as many then at 9+ or 10+ but gravity was a large factor in that

155

deejay
Sustainer
ID: 501182710
Thu, Sep 18, 2008, 18:05

I havent looked very well, but nevertheless the prices seem a little too steep to me.

156

Pica
Sustainer
ID: 161141312
Fri, Sep 19, 2008, 09:00

The prices look alright to me.

157

WonderB
Sustainer
ID: 241053812
Sun, Sep 21, 2008, 23:39

nbc sports - sandbox.com seems to have a game very similar to ultimate from a quick read of the rules.

158

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Sep 22, 2008, 14:31

That sandbox game appears to be stale - the promo pages refer to the 2005 season.

159

WonderB
ID: 3289227
Mon, Sep 22, 2008, 16:06

hmm
not like i had an old bookmark. i started at cbs sports and quickly found that site.
you think they would take it down.

160

wolfer
ID: 25521311
Mon, Sep 22, 2008, 17:01

Re 157

Yes it does, but the price changes are not as wild. See my post at 139.

161

mark
ID: 3404529
Thu, Sep 25, 2008, 10:29

Is there anywhere where you can get the full list of players/prices
w/o signing up for TSN? I haven't decided if i'm playing yet this
year, but am going on a trip... plenty of time for pouring over
player lists :)

162

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Sep 25, 2008, 10:53

Sign up for the basic game (Fantasy Hoops Challenge: Season 1). It's free, and the draft prices are the same.

or

Wait until next week, and I should have the prices loaded up in the sortable stats. Hopefully by midweek.

163

Senator Urine
ID: 011502111
Sat, Sep 27, 2008, 14:34

Wow, there are a lot of great bargains this year. I bet there's going to be a lot of differentiation in initial rosters.

164

qwert
ID: 357281518
Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 23:34

sessions or ridnour? or both?

165

deejay
ID: 308122513
Mon, Sep 29, 2008, 06:05

or neither?
Their Coach is a fantasy nightmare I heard :)

166

qwert
ID: 357281518
Mon, Sep 29, 2008, 23:02

their schedule and price are not.

167

dpr
ID: 13443116
Wed, Oct 08, 2008, 13:10

where is the downloadable schedule for the whole season with the coloring?

168

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Oct 08, 2008, 13:39

Full Season schedule

Click on the link above the schedule for the spreadsheet version.

169

dpr
ID: 13443116
Wed, Oct 08, 2008, 13:51

thanks alot

170

Johnny Sue
ID: 27949718
Wed, Oct 08, 2008, 14:20

Looks like only Sacramento has a good schedule for the first full month. Anybody there worth drafting?

Forum: hoopPage 12738Subject: The future of TSN Ultimate?

Forum: hoop
Page 12738
Subject: The future of TSN Ultimate?