|
Post by christiankmikk on Feb 1, 2012 19:36:32 GMT -5
Please please please make it ESPN
|
|
|
Post by tcengel on Feb 1, 2012 19:41:12 GMT -5
No.
|
|
|
Post by dbacksfaninga on Feb 1, 2012 20:13:24 GMT -5
espn or boycott
|
|
|
Post by pooptallica on Feb 1, 2012 23:13:15 GMT -5
I'm curious what people like about ESPN as a fantasy host site. Is this a young v. old thing? Because ESPN has the worst user interface I've ever used, the least useful coverage/analysis, and formatting that seems designed for pageviews rather than actual navigation. Seriously, what are the pros of ESPN as a fantasy site?
|
|
|
Post by fartballs on Feb 1, 2012 23:27:23 GMT -5
For once, Wes and I agree on something....ESPN blows
|
|
|
Post by Commissioner (Athletics GM) on Feb 1, 2012 23:54:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hylianhero on Feb 2, 2012 0:42:54 GMT -5
I'd like for someone, who knows more about all three than I (as I've just been a casual, with friends player before this league) to post a pros and cons list for all three of the big sites, if that's not too hard.
|
|
|
Post by tcengel on Feb 2, 2012 0:45:49 GMT -5
For once, Wes and I agree on something....ESPN blows WORD
|
|
|
Post by pooptallica on Feb 2, 2012 4:54:46 GMT -5
I'd like for someone, who knows more about all three than I (as I've just been a casual, with friends player before this league) to post a pros and cons list for all three of the big sites, if that's not too hard. OK, well, I've played only free leagues on ESPN, and, as a seasoned fantasy player, I've always had to ask some very basic questions in regards to site navigation, and I've found that the user interface is less designed to inform as it is to encourage you to click through as many times as possible. I'm not stupid, in general, but ESPN makes me feel stupid, and I'm pretty sure it's because they are the stupid ones. Player comparisons, schedules in re roster setting, and just everything you would actually find useful for fantasy baseball are all either non-existent or damned near impossible to find. Yahoo seems to be the best free site for fantasy, but I'm still very much willing to pay what would amount to less than $11 per owner for CBS, which allows an insane amount of scoring customization and a very user-friendly interface that navigates like a fantasy site should, plus they seem to have the largest player pool of all 3. I know, ideally, our player pool is infinite already, but it really is nice when the in-season host site has a player page for every prospect already owned, plus nearly every prospect you might be considering. Count me in for willing to toss ten bucks plus tip towards having the best host site possible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2012 4:59:09 GMT -5
I love CBS, but Yahoo is free, lets do that
|
|
|
Post by pooptallica on Feb 2, 2012 5:03:42 GMT -5
At risk of overextending myself, I'm almost willing to cover whomever is unable (and I do mean 'unable') to pay the $11/per team fee for CBS, if that means we can have the best possible host site. I mean, it's asinine for us to attempt to have a dynasty league of this caliber (and I think we should think of it as a high-caliber league, being that FakeTeams is rapidly becoming a high-caliber fantasy site) and bicker over paying a nominal fee for the best available host.
ETA: that said, I do understand the general desire to keep filthy luchre, as it were, out of this enterprise altogether, especially as we are, at best, complete strangers. However, if we can't trust one another to kick down ELEVEN BUCKS for this league, then why is it worth it? I play in a keeper league where we each drop $250/year just for our site manager, with zero monetary payouts (Al is in this league, as well). I don't see why we should be trepidacious about involving a nominal fee for what should be one of the better dynasty leagues around.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2012 5:32:29 GMT -5
I would be fine with paying, that is if I had money... im only 16, and dont have a job, so I cant really pay at this point
|
|
|
Post by fartballs on Feb 2, 2012 7:59:07 GMT -5
If needed, I'll gladly pay $44 to cover me and 3 guys that can't afford to pay. That's how much I believe CBS is better than the other options
|
|
|
Post by pooptallica on Feb 2, 2012 8:54:36 GMT -5
When I was 16 I tended to manage scrounging up at least enough for gas and smokes every week. Granted, this was long, long ago, in an Alabama far, far away, but I just can't see $11 as a prohibitive sum for anyone with a computer and regular internet access. Especially considering that you could have at least a month to find it. But I can see the value in keeping it free, so I still vote against ESPN and for Yahoo, as free host site, but more for CBS as a tiny amount to pay host.
I will stand by my earlier statement of helping out, but I also just realized that it might set an unfortunate precedent of owners not feeling the need to pay their share if and when they can.
basically:
paid: CBS > Yahoo > ESPN
free: Yahoo > CBS > ESPN
with ESPN a barely-mentionable also-ran in both votes.
|
|
|
Post by dbacksfaninga on Feb 2, 2012 17:13:38 GMT -5
espn. haha. i have never used cbs though.
|
|