Talk:Fantasy football (American)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If anyone has the requisite knowledge, I'd say this article seriously needs much more than one line about fantasy football based on soccer. After all, the phrase here in Britain pretty much always refers to the round-ball game, yet the article is written as though "football" meant the same thing to everyone. Loganberry 22:06, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Above now unnecessary given the retitling of the article. Loganberry 01:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

An overview of VBD in the article would be worthwhile.

Contents

[edit] Origins

There should be mention of the original location for Fantasy football events: "The Kings X" on Piedmont Ave in Oakland. There is mention of this history in the January/February 2007 edition of Oakland Magazine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.142.101.168 (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

I've removed the bit on the Asgard Fantasy Football whatever, because it doesn't seem to fit into a general overview on the origins of Fantasy Football. --128.227.131.206 01:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

These external links are out of control. Perhaps we can vote on a few links we feel worthy?--Blahblah44 18:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

They are all equal, however, it is difficult to find the best. Maybe link to none at all? Zorgon 00:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As long as the site's are valid, I don't have a problem with it. It's the sites that lead to broken or "under construction" pages that irritate. Also, the marketing terms "best" "coolest", etc should be left out in my opinion.


The category "Applications To Assist Managing You Fantasy Football Team" is of highly questionable value. I like and respect the sites there, but really, such subdividing of services can really get out of control. Keep it simple, Commissioner Service/Hosting sites and Information sites. Thats all thats really needed. And lets stop going back and forth on the descriptive text following the links. Either we have it or we dont. --Kenmoody 22:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest just linking to ffbookmarks.com? It's a good portal to many different sites and would get rid of the clutter? 24.254.237.138 03:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Z

I'd be very against linking to ffbookmarks as it's not in any way an impartial source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.229.218.141 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

ffbookmarks may not be impartial, but DMOZ is. 46 links is beyond excessive. --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There are many quality sites out there that can be broken into many categories (free contests, league managers, information sites, etc.) however players in this industry (even just the major players) are now in the dozens so whatever the decision ends up being regarding whether or not to have external links, I think it should remain consistent. For example: Why is there currently only one company (footballdiehards) being linked to? 70.183.19.205 23:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC) fantasy football enthusiast

In my mind, the current format is inconsistent. Why list league sites, but not list information sites? If it's too much, then just list the major players so people get an idea and have places to go, but throwing out the entire baby with the bathwater isn't the way to go imho. --stefan 80.109.88.200 11:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this can be done but can an Admin or Moderator lock down the External Links section. In reveiwing the history over the last 8 months, there is a CONSTANT edit/change process relating to people putting in links, others taking them out, then people deciding some sites aren't "popular enough", then deciding that no external links other than DMOZ should be allowed, only to have people start adding links once more and starting the process all over again. Can we please put an end to this? Any thoughts? Contenteditor 22:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There is not nearly enough linkspam to warrant semiprotecting the page. I guess I don't agree that we have a problem, especially now that there isn't a huge linkfarm there anymore to entice spammers. One spam revert every few days is not a big deal. n6c 23:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. It is a nuisance to deal with, but I guarantee an admin would not grant a semi-protect. They only act on much more serious cases. SubSeven 00:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There are certain sites that are demonstrably more steeped in the history of online fantasy football.. where are they: theHuddle? Gridiron Grumblings? KFFL? These sites were providing fantasy football news and information since before the "boom" of fantasy sports, and they are still publishing quality work. Why are they being removed in favor of souless late-comers and corporate megasites that have displayed ZERO innovation and/or insight into the game?

DMOZ keeps deleting all the people on here. Not really fair. Everyone should be able to post their sites here if they are not for profit and trying to get info out there. Why DMOZ do you keep deleting everyone elses sites????

I recently published an article, for my syndicated column which appears in a few Chicago area newspapers, about Fantasy Football. I have submitted it here for your consideration for the External Links section. I have submitted other published articles via discussion in the past to various Wikipedia topics. If you feel the intent is not really warranted, no harm, that's why I posted it here first. Fantasy Football and Google Docs --Dkaufman1 16:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


Ijust posted an entry on Fantasy Football on the web that I thought was pretty good and didn't have links in it, but upon wandering in here (which I guess Ishould have done first) it seems you guys have already been back and forth on the subject of discussing sites that are involved. I would like to say I think there should be SOME discussion of Fantasy Football on the web - it's insane not too - I do understand the danger in mentioning one site and not another. I tried to be specific by mentioning the big corporate sites, as well as small sites that did stuff specific and when it came to audio either rated well on Itunes or were doing video blogging which while not novel, is new in terms of how it's being produced with money behind it now.

Anyway, I think the section should stand, but others may feel the need to trim it, given the earlier discussion. But I strongly feel there needs to be an entry here on the impact of fantasy on the web.Raltorn 22:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion

Shouldn't there be mention of keeper leagues and dynasty leagues as well?

DMOZ.Org please stop deleting posts. Thank you. Jordanb4prez 19:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Link sites with thousands of links, 25% of them being dead, are useless. Newer ones such as www.allfantasyfootballlinks.com which emphasize less sites but ones with quality need to be promoted.

[edit] Demographics

It would be fun to have info about demographics, such as : how many people now play the game ? What is the average profile of a player (age, sex, race) ?

I fail to see the usefulness of such information. As well, it would be difficult to obtain accurate information. It seems to me that profiling an average player would be subjective. Besides, if people from all ages and races enjoy the game, why exclude them? Maybe an accurate number of users on a popular site like Yahoo Fantasy Sports would be useful. Lincoln187 07:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo

Is it just me, or is the Yahoo section of the article a little out of control? I mean, mentioning popular websites such as cbs, espn, and yahoo is fine, but why do we need a screen capture?

[edit] cleaning up

Ive spent some time cleaning up this article, correcting errors, rewriting and adding sections. It still needs an organizational overhaul, though; the sections must follow a logical order and nest correctly -- currently they do not. any takers? 68.36.197.244 08:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] types of games -- clarification

the article is very unclear on types of games. Here is some information that should be worked into the article:

==Types of games==

There are three major types of fantasy games: regular, salary cap, or one-timer.

===Regular leagues===
In regular leagues, owners keep their players from week-to-week (unless dropped or traded), and no player may be owned by more than one team.  Initial methods of player allocation are serpentine drafts or auctions.  The leagues may be also categorized by how the transition between years is handled: teams may completely re-draft or re-auction, keep a limited number of players (keepers), or keep as many players as liked (dynasty).

===Salary cap leagues===
In salary cap leagues, owners may arrange their teams however they like as long as they are under-budget.  Players may be owned by multiple teams simultaneously.

===One timer leagues===
Owners may select their rosters each week however they like, with the stipulation that one can only own a player for one week each year.  Players may be owned by multiple teams simultaneously.

[edit] Competition format

All three types of league may use one of two competition formats: Head-to-head, with weekly matchups and seeded playoffs, or rotisserie, where only cumulative points matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.36.197.244 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Effects on Spectatorship section

I'm inclined to remove this altogether unless somebody provides a published source. It's a somewhat obvious synthesis of factual information, but it's a synthesis nonetheless. N6 03:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punter?

Which fantasy football league has punters available? I've never seen one.--RaiderFan 01:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of QBs

I had changes the number of QBs used on a regular roster from 1, to 1 or 2 and it was changed back. Maybe it's just me, but half the leagues I've played in have used one, the other half 2. And I've also never seen a league with 1 QB and 3 WRs. on 1 with 2 or 2 with 3. DevelopmentArrested 00:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It is just you. I have never played in a league with two QB's, nor has anyone I know who plays fantasy football, nor have any of us ever been invited to such a league. There's also the fact that the default settings on Yahoo, CBS Sportsline, ESPN, and every fantasy-info site I've ever used or seen all have one QB as the default (they usually allow more, but the default is always one). Two QB's is exceedingly rare, except if you happen to play with people who use that format, in which case it would appear common without actually being so. It would make sense to pick one "default" roster that can be agreed upon, and then mention that each position can have more or fewer slots than the default. I suggest we use the Yahoo default roster, which uses one QB, three WR's, two RB's, one TE, one K, one DST, and no Flex. eae 18:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
(I deletd the message that was below me bc it was a blatant ad) Well then if we're only going on default rosters, then it should be lables 3 WRs not "2 or 3" DevelopmentArrested 01:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You're right, i fixed it. eae 18:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial material

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/363585/is_fantasy_football_good_or_bad_for.html

I'll be randomly pulling out some editorial material related to fantasy football. Some of which may or may not be useful. KyuuA4 23:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link Nomination

The lack of external links in this article are ridiculous. The links in the fantasy basketball and fantasy baseball articles seem to be much more appropriate.


In addition to links to the big media sites like yahoo, cbs and espn, I'd also recommend a link to RotoHog.


This isn't an advertising platform, not for Yahoo, not for CBS and not for Rotohog. There is too much linkspam at WP anyway.Montco (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)