Dynasty League Football Forum

Our partner, the FFPC has opened registration for their dynasty leagues. These are, without question, the best leagues in the business, especially if you like higher stakes options. Here's the link:

http://myffpc.com/Dynasty.aspx?affid=DLF

DLF'ers represent well in these leagues. Let us know how you do if you join!

I find that hard to believe for one simple reason

" During the offseason, each team will protect 16 players (including at least 1 Kicker and 1 Defense/ST) and release any 4 players. Each off-season, following the NFL draft, there will be a 7 round rookie/free agent draft, in which any player (or defense) not currently owned may be drafted. Prior to the start of the season, each team must cut its roster down to 20 players."

I am trying not to sound like an elitist but I dont think many people would seriously consider a 14 player and a kicker/team d requirement to be the epitomy of dynasty.

Best Keeper league in the business maybe. But calling FFPC to be the best dynasty leagues in the business is like saying Kenny Britt or DeSean Jackson are the best WRs in dynasty - something that hurts ones credibility more than it helps.

Just my unwanted 2 cents. I do thank you for the headsup though.

ArrylT wrote: ↑Tue Mar 07, 2017 9:54 pm I find that hard to believe for one simple reason

" During the offseason, each team will protect 16 players (including at least 1 Kicker and 1 Defense/ST) and release any 4 players. Each off-season, following the NFL draft, there will be a 7 round rookie/free agent draft, in which any player (or defense) not currently owned may be drafted. Prior to the start of the season, each team must cut its roster down to 20 players."

I am trying not to sound like an elitist but I dont think many people would seriously consider a 14 player and a kicker/team d requirement to be the epitomy of dynasty.

Best Keeper league in the business maybe. But calling FFPC to be the best dynasty leagues in the business is like saying Kenny Britt or DeSean Jackson are the best WRs in dynasty - something that hurts ones credibility more than it helps.

Just my unwanted 2 cents. I do thank you for the headsup though.

Preface: I have no affiliation with FFPC, and have no financial ties with DLF either.

Yeah, it just depends on what your preferences are. FFPC leagues in general are very solid, they are a reputable and reliable host, and if you player higher stakes dynasty leagues they are absolutely the number one place to look to for reliable high stakes options.

That said, I've never cared for their roster sizes as I to me I consider them shallow. I also don't like the off-season keeper aspect of their roster setup either. To each their own though, everyone likes different things in dynasty leagues. I'll probably be joining one this year because I'm starting to venture into higher buy-in leagues, but their roster format will deter me from every joining a large quantity of their leagues.

BuckeyeNation wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2017 4:14 am Preface: I have no affiliation with FFPC, and have no financial ties with DLF either.

Yeah, it just depends on what your preferences are. FFPC leagues in general are very solid, they are a reputable and reliable host, and if you player higher stakes dynasty leagues they are absolutely the number one place to look to for reliable high stakes options.

That said, I've never cared for their roster sizes as I to me I consider them shallow. I also don't like the off-season keeper aspect of their roster setup either. To each their own though, everyone likes different things in dynasty leagues. I'll probably be joining one this year because I'm starting to venture into higher buy-in leagues, but their roster format will deter me from every joining a large quantity of their leagues.

I actually have financial ties - at least in the sense that I am one of those willing to spend on the subscription.

I will say though that DLFs connection to DFS soured me, and all that DFS is the perfect companion to dynasty argument made it a little harder for me to push that "make payment" decision. Now we have FFPC being billed as the end all and be all of dynasty.

And like yourself I have played in FFPC leagues & I like FFPC. And I would certainly agree that they could be a top option for owners looking for reliable high stakes options. And I agree with you that to each their own. Everyone has their own preference.

But "These are, without question, the best leagues in the business," is not worded as an opinion it is worded as a fact. If a DLF writer wrote an article that argued that "without question" Latavius Murray or Thomas Rawls were the best RBs to own in dynasty could we take them seriously?

And that is the key point I am making. It just seems very odd to call a site whose dynasty leagues are shallow roster at best - and require teams to carry positions in the off-season that many people are getting away from (Kicker & TD) the unquestioned best of the best in the business of dynasty leagues.

I actually feel a little sorry for DLF in this instance because I believe FFPC and DFS are sort of on opposite sides of the same fight (ie that law in Virginia that pretty much makes it impossible except for the big boys like Draft Kings & Fan Duel to operate) - and DLF is partnered with both of them ...

ArrylT wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:16 am

BuckeyeNation wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2017 4:14 am Preface: I have no affiliation with FFPC, and have no financial ties with DLF either.

Yeah, it just depends on what your preferences are. FFPC leagues in general are very solid, they are a reputable and reliable host, and if you player higher stakes dynasty leagues they are absolutely the number one place to look to for reliable high stakes options.

That said, I've never cared for their roster sizes as I to me I consider them shallow. I also don't like the off-season keeper aspect of their roster setup either. To each their own though, everyone likes different things in dynasty leagues. I'll probably be joining one this year because I'm starting to venture into higher buy-in leagues, but their roster format will deter me from every joining a large quantity of their leagues.

I actually have financial ties - at least in the sense that I am one of those willing to spend on the subscription.

I will say though that DLFs connection to DFS soured me, and all that DFS is the perfect companion to dynasty argument made it a little harder for me to push that "make payment" decision. Now we have FFPC being billed as the end all and be all of dynasty.

And like yourself I have played in FFPC leagues & I like FFPC. And I would certainly agree that they could be a top option for owners looking for reliable high stakes options. And I agree with you that to each their own. Everyone has their own preference.

But "These are, without question, the best leagues in the business," is not worded as an opinion it is worded as a fact. If a DLF writer wrote an article that argued that "without question" Latavius Murray or Thomas Rawls were the best RBs to own in dynasty could we take them seriously?

And that is the key point I am making. It just seems very odd to call a site whose dynasty leagues are shallow roster at best - and require teams to carry positions in the off-season that many people are getting away from (Kicker & TD) the unquestioned best of the best in the business of dynasty leagues.

I actually feel a little sorry for DLF in this instance because I believe FFPC and DFS are sort of on opposite sides of the same fight (ie that law in Virginia that pretty much makes it impossible except for the big boys like Draft Kings & Fan Duel to operate) - and DLF is partnered with both of them ...

Perhaps he was talking about the level of competition in FFPC dynasty leagues as being the best, or the prestige associated with winning an FFPC league. Who knows, it could be a range of factors contributing to his opinion.

You are drawing your own conclusion that he was referring to the format as being the best, and then treating that conclusion as fact. Thus proceeding to ridicule him about your own assumption... You are sounding elitist.

thirtyseven wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2017 12:42 am

ArrylT wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:16 am

BuckeyeNation wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2017 4:14 am Preface: I have no affiliation with FFPC, and have no financial ties with DLF either.

Yeah, it just depends on what your preferences are. FFPC leagues in general are very solid, they are a reputable and reliable host, and if you player higher stakes dynasty leagues they are absolutely the number one place to look to for reliable high stakes options.

That said, I've never cared for their roster sizes as I to me I consider them shallow. I also don't like the off-season keeper aspect of their roster setup either. To each their own though, everyone likes different things in dynasty leagues. I'll probably be joining one this year because I'm starting to venture into higher buy-in leagues, but their roster format will deter me from every joining a large quantity of their leagues.

I actually have financial ties - at least in the sense that I am one of those willing to spend on the subscription.

I will say though that DLFs connection to DFS soured me, and all that DFS is the perfect companion to dynasty argument made it a little harder for me to push that "make payment" decision. Now we have FFPC being billed as the end all and be all of dynasty.

And like yourself I have played in FFPC leagues & I like FFPC. And I would certainly agree that they could be a top option for owners looking for reliable high stakes options. And I agree with you that to each their own. Everyone has their own preference.

But "These are, without question, the best leagues in the business," is not worded as an opinion it is worded as a fact. If a DLF writer wrote an article that argued that "without question" Latavius Murray or Thomas Rawls were the best RBs to own in dynasty could we take them seriously?

And that is the key point I am making. It just seems very odd to call a site whose dynasty leagues are shallow roster at best - and require teams to carry positions in the off-season that many people are getting away from (Kicker & TD) the unquestioned best of the best in the business of dynasty leagues.

I actually feel a little sorry for DLF in this instance because I believe FFPC and DFS are sort of on opposite sides of the same fight (ie that law in Virginia that pretty much makes it impossible except for the big boys like Draft Kings & Fan Duel to operate) - and DLF is partnered with both of them ...

Perhaps he was talking about the level of competition in FFPC dynasty leagues as being the best, or the prestige associated with winning an FFPC league. Who knows, it could be a range of factors contributing to his opinion.

You are drawing your own conclusion that he was referring to the format as being the best, and then treating that conclusion as fact. Thus proceeding to ridicule him about your own assumption... You are sounding elitist.

Totally agree with ThirtySeven. Arryl, without question, sounds like an elitist pig.

I'm actually intrigued by the FFPC format...I like shorter rosters as that makes waivers more competitive in season and alters value of players deemed roster-able from owner to owner. Lack of taxi squad will adjust approach to rookies, as well. Such thin benches certainly weeds out those kind of owners that simply have a team and do nothing with it

And, let's be honest, if a company has a financial stake in something, of course they're going to tout it as valuable

Generic Username wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2017 6:03 am I'm actually intrigued by the FFPC format...I like shorter rosters as that makes waivers more competitive in season and alters value of players deemed roster-able from owner to owner. Lack of taxi squad will adjust approach to rookies, as well. Such thin benches certainly weeds out those kind of owners that simply have a team and do nothing with it

And, let's be honest, if a company has a financial stake in something, of course they're going to tout it as valuable

I don't think super shallow rosters is necessarily a bad thing. It just changes some of the intricacies of how the game is approached. My main dynasty league has shallow rosters and a real cash blind bidding waivers system where all the bid money goes into the year end prize pool. Shallow rosters drives waiver activity and this increases the prize revenue. It's pretty fun. Yeah, you can't roster guys waiting for a breakout so it's different than you prototypical league but it's enjoyable nonetheless.

Not a fan of FFPC at all. Not only are their rosters very shallow in the offseason (14 positional players, a K and D/ST) but they take a huge rake! Almost 20% in $250 and $500 leagues. Way too much for my blood.

ImaRounder wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2017 7:04 am Not a fan of FFPC at all. Not only are their rosters very shallow in the offseason (14 positional players, a K and D/ST) but they take a huge rake! Almost 20% in $250 and $500 leagues. Way too much for my blood.

This is my issue. The rosters I can deal with but the fee they collect is way too much

thirtyseven wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2017 12:42 am
Perhaps he was talking about the level of competition in FFPC dynasty leagues as being the best, or the prestige associated with winning an FFPC league. Who knows, it could be a range of factors contributing to his opinion.

You are drawing your own conclusion that he was referring to the format as being the best, and then treating that conclusion as fact. Thus proceeding to ridicule him about your own assumption... You are sounding elitist.

Actually after reviewing my posts, and the definition of elitist, I am more confident than ever than I was not being elitist. After all it is hard to be elitist if you are disagreeing with the concept that something is the best (ie another word for elite). So I am at fault for using the wrong terminology.

I play in so many different sized leagues & variety of formats, that my experience has shown to me, that NONE of them are the BEST, but all have something to offer. And anyone who has read my posts throughout my time here would likely see that rarely if ever have I advocated one specific format or style of play as being the best / elite.

The term I should have used was snarky - I would agree my original post came off as more snarky than it was intended. The goal was to try and say that such a claim should be taken with a grain of salt.

Thanks for taking the time to read & reply to my response.

philsrule06 wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2017 5:42 am

thirtyseven wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2017 12:42 am
Perhaps he was talking about the level of competition in FFPC dynasty leagues as being the best, or the prestige associated with winning an FFPC league. Who knows, it could be a range of factors contributing to his opinion.

You are drawing your own conclusion that he was referring to the format as being the best, and then treating that conclusion as fact. Thus proceeding to ridicule him about your own assumption... You are sounding elitist.

Totally agree with ThirtySeven. Arryl, without question, sounds like an elitist pig.

I can only wonder if you get the irony of your statement.

I play FFPC as well and as with all things there are good and bad. The rake is big but I'm OK with it because the leagues are so reliable and well run. Where else can you go join a random league and have basically zero worry about the league folding in the next decade? Maybe Zealots?

One of the things they do is offer cash bonuses/discounts for people taking over bad orphan teams, so I'm sure part of the rake goes to that. To me, I'll take the higher rake for the security of the league rather than worrying about some dumb owner building a dud of a team and bailing on it and causing the whole league to crash down because it can't be filled.

Most of my dislikes are with settings, so those are all manageable. I agree it's more of a deep keeper than a dynasty with the small roster sizes. Also I'm not a huge fan of how the playoffs work and the victory points system. It's probably more "fair" (which I guess is a bigger deal in high stakes leagues) but it zaps a lot of the fun out of the playoffs with no H2H matchups.

Lastly, it can be a bit difficult for a really bad team to rebuild because of the way the draft order is determined (post season tournament for the non-playoff teams). It's great to prevent tanking but it also means the worst team very rarely ends up with the 1st pick in the rookie draft.

That also makes trading for future rookie picks tricky because it's not the bad teams that have valuable future firsts, but rather the borderline playoff teams that could just miss the playoffs and then roll through the draft tourney.

Most of my dislikes are with settings, so those are all manageable. I agree it's more of a deep keeper than a dynasty with the small roster sizes. Also I'm not a huge fan of how the playoffs work and the victory points system. It's probably more "fair" (which I guess is a bigger deal in high stakes leagues) but it zaps a lot of the fun out of the playoffs with no H2H matchups.

Lastly, it can be a bit difficult for a really bad team to rebuild because of the way the draft order is determined (post season tournament for the non-playoff teams). It's great to prevent tanking but it also means the worst team very rarely ends up with the 1st pick in the rookie draft.

That also makes trading for future rookie picks tricky because it's not the bad teams that have valuable future firsts, but rather the borderline playoff teams that could just miss the playoffs and then roll through the draft tourney.
[/quote]

I've been looking into joining one on FFPC but these are the same reasons, that you mentioned, that have held me back from doing so, I'm not sure that I would like the playoff settings. Nothing is really perfect in any leagues though, so I'm still thinking about it, just trying to read up on everything involving their dynasty leagues.