What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Why no Dynasty forum ? (1 Viewer)

Dez

Dez

Footballguy
Just curious with so many people here that play in dynasty leagues why not have a dynasty only forum ?

I think it would actually be one of the most visited forums on the site as it seems everyone is playing in dynasty leagues plus in the offseason it would continue all year long.

 
I agree, I would love a separate forum for dynasty. Since they don't have one I use dynastyleaguefootball.com.

 
That is a great idea. Once August/September gets here there is a huge shift and things become geared 99% towards redraft. A dynasty forum would be freaking awesome. Maybe that could be a place for College Football topics to land also!

 
I am talking about a forum here at FBG for dynasty not a forum on another site.

 
'rude classless thugs said:
'ready5 said:
'Dez said:
I am talking about a forum here at FBG for dynasty not a forum on another site.
Click to expand...
dynastyguys is footballguys, but sure.
Click to expand...
Is it reallly? I always got the impression it was not owned by this site, but i could be mistaken (similar to draftguys - a side project by some staffers).
Click to expand...
that's what i meant. it was pasquino, bramel, cecil, tefertiller, etc... my point wasn't about which site owned which, but rather that it's the same group of people. maybe i should've said dynastyguys is FBGs.and yes, a dynasty subforum here would be great, and it's been mentioned many times before. either that or we need to resurrect that crown emoticon.

 
'ready5 said:
'rude classless thugs said:
'ready5 said:
'Dez said:
I am talking about a forum here at FBG for dynasty not a forum on another site.
Click to expand...
dynastyguys is footballguys, but sure.
Click to expand...
Is it reallly? I always got the impression it was not owned by this site, but i could be mistaken (similar to draftguys - a side project by some staffers).
Click to expand...
that's what i meant. it was pasquino, bramel, cecil, tefertiller, etc... my point wasn't about which site owned which, but rather that it's the same group of people. maybe i should've said dynastyguys is FBGs.and yes, a dynasty subforum here would be great, and it's been mentioned many times before. either that or we need to resurrect that crown emoticon.
Click to expand...
This thread is all sorts of win. I'm pretty sure dynastyguys has been given up on. I'd love to see a dynasty subforum because you see a lot of argument over value and the only reason is league format.

 
Time to change the name of this thread to ***Official Dynasty Sub-Forum Petition***

Off topic: How's the FPC going Henry?

 
I used to think this would be a good idea. Used to thionk a Commish forum woould be a good idea.

Now, I waffle.

I've seen, been on and used a few message boards over the past couple years that had just way, way too many sub-boards. It can factionalize the user base and result in a poorer experience for many.

Then, of course, there will be all new territorial fights about "this belongs in that forum" and "that belongs in the other forum".

Then, there will be the folks fighting over "what is dynasty?" The question has never been satisfactorily answered. To my mind, a dynasty league should never be shallower than 200 players at it's shallowest point (in most dynasty leagues, this is just prior to rookie draft). Many others have far different definitions. To some a 12-team league with six keepers per team is a dynasty league. To me, that's just a keeper league. That argument will never be settled. best to leave it along. But, if you have a dynasty forum, that argument is likely to become a rhetorical fixture.

To my way of thinking, the need for such sub-forums isn't great enough to justify the possible downside.

 
'Topes said:
I used to think this would be a good idea. Used to thionk a Commish forum woould be a good idea.Now, I waffle.I've seen, been on and used a few message boards over the past couple years that had just way, way too many sub-boards. It can factionalize the user base and result in a poorer experience for many.Then, of course, there will be all new territorial fights about "this belongs in that forum" and "that belongs in the other forum".Then, there will be the folks fighting over "what is dynasty?" The question has never been satisfactorily answered. To my mind, a dynasty league should never be shallower than 200 players at it's shallowest point (in most dynasty leagues, this is just prior to rookie draft). Many others have far different definitions. To some a 12-team league with six keepers per team is a dynasty league. To me, that's just a keeper league. That argument will never be settled. best to leave it along. But, if you have a dynasty forum, that argument is likely to become a rhetorical fixture.To my way of thinking, the need for such sub-forums isn't great enough to justify the possible downside.
Click to expand...
There some good arguments here and hope to add:1) Most of the guys that I play with in dynasty leagues are in at least one re-draft league. We want information about players and teams w/o having to do a double search. 2) The information that is important to an in-season dynasty league and redraft cross greatly. I going to say 80-85 percent is equally relevant, so no need to repeated thread on the subject.3) This is one of the reasons why the management here asks for threads to be as broad as possible and not so specifc to your team and your situation. Makes less posts for those wanting information and analysis to be able to figure out the relevance to their situation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'coolnerd said:
'Topes said:
I used to think this would be a good idea. Used to thionk a Commish forum woould be a good idea.Now, I waffle.I've seen, been on and used a few message boards over the past couple years that had just way, way too many sub-boards. It can factionalize the user base and result in a poorer experience for many.Then, of course, there will be all new territorial fights about "this belongs in that forum" and "that belongs in the other forum".Then, there will be the folks fighting over "what is dynasty?" The question has never been satisfactorily answered. To my mind, a dynasty league should never be shallower than 200 players at it's shallowest point (in most dynasty leagues, this is just prior to rookie draft). Many others have far different definitions. To some a 12-team league with six keepers per team is a dynasty league. To me, that's just a keeper league. That argument will never be settled. best to leave it along. But, if you have a dynasty forum, that argument is likely to become a rhetorical fixture.To my way of thinking, the need for such sub-forums isn't great enough to justify the possible downside.
Click to expand...
There some good arguments here and hope to add:1) Most of the guys that I play with in dynasty leagues are in at least one re-draft league. We want information about players and teams w/o having to do a double search. 2) The information that is important to an in-season dynasty league and redraft cross greatly. I going to say 80-85 percent is equally relevant, so no need to repeated thread on the subject.3) This is one of the reasons why the management here asks for threads to be as broad as possible and not so specifc to your team and your situation. Makes less posts for those wanting information and analysis to be able to figure out the relevance to their situation.
Click to expand...
Agreed these redraft noobs will be gone in Jan. In the meantime they add value by level setting with current performance and add to the in season news. One Shark Pool for all! Redrafters just get a half of a vote. :football:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'coolnerd said:
'Topes said:
I used to think this would be a good idea. Used to thionk a Commish forum woould be a good idea.Now, I waffle.I've seen, been on and used a few message boards over the past couple years that had just way, way too many sub-boards. It can factionalize the user base and result in a poorer experience for many.Then, of course, there will be all new territorial fights about "this belongs in that forum" and "that belongs in the other forum".Then, there will be the folks fighting over "what is dynasty?" The question has never been satisfactorily answered. To my mind, a dynasty league should never be shallower than 200 players at it's shallowest point (in most dynasty leagues, this is just prior to rookie draft). Many others have far different definitions. To some a 12-team league with six keepers per team is a dynasty league. To me, that's just a keeper league. That argument will never be settled. best to leave it along. But, if you have a dynasty forum, that argument is likely to become a rhetorical fixture.To my way of thinking, the need for such sub-forums isn't great enough to justify the possible downside.
Click to expand...
There some good arguments here and hope to add:1) Most of the guys that I play with in dynasty leagues are in at least one re-draft league. We want information about players and teams w/o having to do a double search. 2) The information that is important to an in-season dynasty league and redraft cross greatly. I going to say 80-85 percent is equally relevant, so no need to repeated thread on the subject.3) This is one of the reasons why the management here asks for threads to be as broad as possible and not so specifc to your team and your situation. Makes less posts for those wanting information and analysis to be able to figure out the relevance to their situation.
Click to expand...
If I can add also that folks who are speaking in terms of dynasty should just preface the post with something like...Dynasty POV: Blah Blah Blah...it's infuriating to get into a debate over a player and then realize the poster simply can't be objective because they either own that player or their back up and want to feel good about it. I will say though in the off season the dynasty chat in here is pretty solid and it's a good time because you can discuss matters, make necessary change to rosters, etc...I tend to stop talking dynasty until after the Super Bowl or end of season. If you are in rebuild mode you probably can't stop talking about it but in leagues where you own several of the perennial studs in the NFL, not much to discuss.
 
'Topes said:
I used to think this would be a good idea. Used to thionk a Commish forum woould be a good idea.Now, I waffle.I've seen, been on and used a few message boards over the past couple years that had just way, way too many sub-boards. It can factionalize the user base and result in a poorer experience for many.Then, of course, there will be all new territorial fights about "this belongs in that forum" and "that belongs in the other forum".Then, there will be the folks fighting over "what is dynasty?" The question has never been satisfactorily answered. To my mind, a dynasty league should never be shallower than 200 players at it's shallowest point (in most dynasty leagues, this is just prior to rookie draft). Many others have far different definitions. To some a 12-team league with six keepers per team is a dynasty league. To me, that's just a keeper league. That argument will never be settled. best to leave it along. But, if you have a dynasty forum, that argument is likely to become a rhetorical fixture.To my way of thinking, the need for such sub-forums isn't great enough to justify the possible downside.
Click to expand...
take this to the meta forum. this is the shark pool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joe Bryant
How Can The Forum Be Better? Your Thoughts?
Replies
35
Views
821
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
NE_REVIVAL
Taylor To Browns? Why Not?
Replies
7
Views
631
habsfan
habsfan
Jayded
What is your taxi squad strategy?
Replies
6
Views
863
Jayded
Jayded

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top