Viva Murillo!
A few days ago I had a conversation with a friend who is commissioner for a league. He was worried because three owners had dropped out and the draft was fast approaching. He didn't know what the league was gong to do in order to remain viable. He felt like he could replace one owner, but three would be nearly impossible on such short notice.
(Try the Fantasy Index Matchmaker -- Ed.)
Now, I had a few opportunities here. I could have asked why he didn't read my column about targeting good ownership prospects before you need them. I also could have asked why he didn't read my column about making the draft as late as possible, which would have bought him more time. But I didn't do any of that.
Instead, I did something much, much worse. I said, "If you can find one owner, why not just play with 10?" The look I received made me think I had insulted several generations of his family. It was the kind of look you give someone who pops your son's balloon at a birthday party. It was a mix of disgust, shame and a tinge of hurt.
"Ten? No, we need 12," he said. And that was the end of that conversation. I didn't bother to ask why he wants 12; I know that's a magic number in fantasy football circles. I didn't even ask why he felt he really needed 12, because it was clear he did, and the "why" didn't matter.
But I do wonder why people feel the need to have a dozen owners when it's clear that a dozen good owners aren't available. The desire to reach that number seems to be more important than the quality of the owners. I think you should play based on how many really good owners you haveā¦even if that number is less than 12. It's better to play with 10 awesome owners than 10 awesome owners and two guys who don't really care about what's going on.
But that's not how it is in fantasy football circles. If you play in a 10-team league, you're almost looked upon with a degree of pity. And if you play with eight teams ... well, that's not even a real league. It's a sad charade with training wheels. You have to play with 12 (or more) teams for it to be a "real" league. And that's a funny position to take when we're talking about imaginary teams with imaginary rosters playing in imaginary divisions of an imaginary league. There's nothing real about fantasy football except the fun you get out of playing (and some money if you win). The first word is "fantasy," after all. So if it's something you create, why can't you have a good time playing with 10 teams? Or even eight?
I'll admit you'll earn less money if you win, because fewer people are paying into the league. But it's not that big of a difference, and winning is winning. Some people think it's not as impressive when you brag to your friends about winning a league if it only has 10 (or fewer) teams. But you know what? That's not true. It's equally impressive -- as in, not impressive at all. The people who aren't in your league don't care who wins it. Your co-workers don't care. Your friends don't care. Your family doesn't even care, except to the extent that they want to see you happy (or don't want to see you pout all weekend). The only people who care are the other owners in your league. And if the owners are trying to win and having a good time, does it really matter if there are less than 12 of them?
I'm not trying to convince you that 10 is better than 12. It's not. But I am trying to convince you that a league with 10 good owners is much better than a league of 12 where you have a mix of good owners and indifferent scrubs who agreed to fill a spot. Even a league with eight devoted owners is better than a league where a third of the owners are just last-minute replacements. Your fellow players make your league fun or dull; ordinary or extraordinary. In this case (like so many others) quality is more important than quantity. I hope you find plenty of both as the season approaches.
You can reach Michael Murillo at vivamurillo@hotmail.com.
- Comments [3]
Readers' Comments
Add a Comment
Already a registered user? Please sign in to add comments.
To add comments, you must become a registered user of our site. To register, please click here.



Posted by DON PAVELKA | Aug. 03 at 07:55 AM
Winning an eight team league is just as satisifying as winning a bigger league. Chances are that some (or most) of the guys you beat in a bigger league are not guys you are as close to and therefore the satisfaction factor is a little smaller.
Posted by Russell Hudspeth | Aug. 03 at 12:11 PM
I agree completely. There's nothing less desirable than an owner who doesn't participate - doesn't come prepared to the draft, doesn't try to improve their roster throughout the season, etc. I'd rather drop a few owners than deal with that.
Posted by PAUL KUCHAR | Aug. 04 at 12:29 AM
I run three keepers leagues and a re-draft league and only one of the leagues has ten owners, the others have twelve. But, our ten team league is the most prestigious by far! The others are random draw, reverse-order draft with 1qb,2rb,3wr,1te,1k,1def, but the ten team league has bigger rosters and expanded starting line-ups 2qb,3rb,4wr,1te,1k,1def and an auction style draft, which leads to a more quality win, in our opinions anyway! Just make rosters bigger and start more players and you can create more scarcity in a ten team league than a standard twelve team league.