Number of Owners vs Quality of League question

[jonny2fngrs]

I have been running a 5x5 NL only roto league for several years. We have had anywhere from 10 - 12 owners. Recently I joined a 12 team mixed league and then got ridiculed to no end by a few of the owners. Of course an argument ensued and I was told that a 12 team mixed league is a joke and requires little to no skill to win while at the same time they were espousing the merits of a 13 team NL only league and how it is a truer judgement of an owners skills. I argued that even in a 12 team league, it seems as if you get hit with a couple injuries and you have no chance to recover. I also think that in a 12 team mixed that it still takes skill to put the best lineup on the field maybe moreso because the choices aren't so obvious. Also with our FAAB we have the guys who tweek their teams with what little quality that is available and those who do nothing, hoarding their money til someone gets traded over.

My question is, what makes a league tougher, the quality of the owners or the number of owners?

[bigmck]

I am going to go against you. A 12 team mixed league requires little skil. Even if you only know the names of players and little about their skill you can always pick a good team. A 12 team NL only is hard. You have to know the guys that only play once a week because you have to use them on your active roster, there are not enough to go around. == I did see a rather unusual league the other day on a message board. It was NL only with 20 Fantasy teams of 22 active players. That is 440 players chosen. There are only 400 in the NL. Now that is a hard league.

[jonny2fngrs]

I don't disagree with you but my thinking is that if everyone has a good team won't the league be more competitive? I have always played in a 11 or 12 team NL only leagues and it is frustrating that you can have 1 or 2 guys go down and essentially ruin your year. All our owners are better than average so there usually isn't anything worth picking up in the FA pool.

[shawngee03]

it depends on what your defintion of 'fun' is.

i play in a couple big leagues...and a couple small leagues.

the small ones are good for having guys on your team that you know. you feel good about having an allstar team. thats good for the leagues with people who are just in it for fun. if i dont know who is the backup SS for the braves...ok....i just want to have a team full of guys i know and can root for

if you want to be in a league where you have to spend more time researching and watching games and spending more time on it...then play the bigger leagues

both take skill...just different skills. smaller leagues its all about extracting as many studs as possible form other teams. you have to realize you can fill holes in your roster through FA

in bigger leagues its about getting production from every spot...and finding hidden gems

both different...both fun

[dmattingly23]

quality of the owners makes the league. But most of the time you are going to have better owners in the small 13 team nl owners league. Casual owners aren't getting into that. So it goes hand and hand.

My personal preference is somewhere in between, a 16-18 team mixed league is perfect for me. Not an all-star team, but not playing platoon players who play 2 a week either.

[Chaos151p]

I personally couldn't handle a NL or AL only league, I like baseball too much to discount one or the other - I do understand why people prefer those setups - just in my opinion, it's more fun with a mixed league 12 -16 teams. Either way you slice it there is skill involved and it all comes down to quality of owners... I'll take 12 solid "play to the end" owners over 16 owners where 4 or 5 drop out around July. Throw a few bucks in a losers bracket if it's H2H or come up with some bottom feeding prizes, it's all about having fun (and winning money of course)