Aaron Sauceda
My feedback
-
48th rankedGathering feedback · 16 comments · Fantasy Football » Waivers · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →Aaron Sauceda
supported this idea
·
-
71st rankedGathering feedback · 11 comments · Fantasy Football » Scoring · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →Aaron Sauceda
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment -
108th rankedGathering feedback · 10 comments · Fantasy Football » Scoring · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
An error occurred while saving the comment Aaron Sauceda
commented
@Tom Kirk, nothing about this idea prohibits you from continuing to run your league that way. This is just giving the OPTION to add TE premium, for instance –– what's wrong with the option?
Aaron Sauceda
supported this idea
·
-
25th rankedGathering feedback · 34 comments · Fantasy Football » Scoring · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
An error occurred while saving the comment Aaron Sauceda
commented
Hi Yahoo -- any update on this? It's been in the "Gathering Feedback" stage for ~three-plus years.
An error occurred while saving the comment Aaron Sauceda
commented
This still shows as "Gathering Feedback" -- is there any movement here?
Apex Fantasy Leagues does this and more serious players will start moving there if Y! doesn't take some of these bigger feedback items seriously!
Why can't this two-game week idea be implemented as an OPTION for commissioners to add?
An error occurred while saving the comment Aaron Sauceda
commented
This was posted before the 2016-2017 season -- we're now in the 2018-2019 season. It really been 3 seasons of gathering feedback!?
Come on! Let's get this enabled for next year's 2019-2020 season!
An error occurred while saving the comment Aaron Sauceda
commented
Why is this still gathering feedback? Shouldn't be particularly difficult to enable the *option* right? Go check Apex Leagues and maybe you can figure out how they enabled it.
Remember, it's an *option* for gamers. You're creating more value for users and attracting more serious users as well; doesn't change any kind of default settings...
An error occurred while saving the comment Aaron Sauceda
commented
Is this going to be here next year, Yahoo?
If not, we're moving to a different platform.
We've been asking for the ability to do two-game weeks and "all-play" for three years now...
More serious players want it, but if you'd prefer to stay on more "amateur" end of market, then don't take action
An error occurred while saving the comment Aaron Sauceda
commented
To be clear, you'd have these two-game weeks through the regular season, and then just the normal one H2H matchup per week for the playoffs.
Can we get this through for this year? We've been talking about it for years now, let's move it through!
An error occurred while saving the comment Aaron Sauceda
commented
Let's push this through, Yahoo! Come on!
Aaron Sauceda
shared this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Aaron Sauceda
commented
OR, do two games this way:
Game 1: You play your normal single H2H opponent
Game 2: You play everyone in your league; top 50% get a win and bottom 50% get a loss.
For example, if you scored 130 points one week (2nd most in league that week) but played someone that scored 140 points (most that week), you'd be 1-1. A loss for your H2H loss, but a win for being in the top 50% in points that week.
An error occurred while saving the comment Aaron Sauceda
commented
Add an option to allow for two-game weeks, which is comprised of:
(1) Game against your normal H2H opponent
(2) "Game" where top half scoring teams get a win, bottom half scoring teams get a loss (ex. in 12-team league, top 6 scoring teams that week get a win, and bottom 6 scoring teams get a loss)The intention of this is to allow leagues the option to reduce luck's influence on standings.
For example, in week 1 team X scores the 2nd most points, but plays team Y who scored the 1st most points. Instead of getting frustratingly saddled with being 0-1, they'd at least be 1-1 in this setup.
Conversely, in the same week 1, team A scored the 2nd fewest points, but team B scored the fewest. Instead of team A getting a "cheap" win and sitting atop the standings, they would be 1-1 and team B would 0-2 for their horrific week.
I think this would be an easy implementation and would be a great option, particularly for the more serious / higher-stakes leagues.
Please considering adding for next season!
An error occurred while saving the comment Aaron Sauceda
commented
Would median work better, instead of average? I think this format is a solid compromise between all-play and normal H2H.
An error occurred while saving the comment Aaron Sauceda
commented
Add an option to allow for two-game weeks, which is comprised of:
(1) Game against your normal H2H opponent
(2) Game against the league average points that weekThe intention of this is to allow leagues the option to reduce luck's influence on standings.
For example, in week 1 team X scores the 2nd most points, but plays team Y who scored the 1st most points. Instead of getting frustratingly saddled with being 0-1, they'd at least be 1-1 in this setup.
Conversely, in the same week 1, team A scored the 2nd fewest points, but team B scored the fewest. Instead of team A getting a "cheap" win and sitting atop the standings, they would be 1-1 and team B would 0-2 for their horrific week.
I think this would be an easy implementation and would be a great option, particularly for the more serious / higher-stakes leagues.
Please considering adding for next season!
-
146th rankedGathering feedback · 6 comments · Fantasy Football » Playoffs · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →Aaron Sauceda
supported this idea
·
-
36th rankedGathering feedback · 8 comments · Fantasy Football » Scoring · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →Aaron Sauceda
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Aaron Sauceda
commented
Would be great to have best ball optimal lineups option. Still allows teams to do adds, drops, trades, etc like normal, but lineup setting is based on each week's optimal lineup, automatically set by Yahoo.
Come on Y! When's the last time you introduced a truly new feature requested by this community. For a market leader, these shouldn't be difficult features to add...
-
8th rankedGathering feedback · 263 comments · Fantasy Football » Playoffs · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
An error occurred while saving the comment Aaron Sauceda
commented
I'm all in for this too -- by doubleheader, we mean you play a normal H2H opponent and then also play the entire league.
The first game is just who scores more points. The second game is where you rank within the league. For example, in a 12-team league, if you rank top 6 in a week in your league, you get a win that week. So you could be 1-1, 2-0 or 0-2 after a week, but either way the OPTION to do this will enhance the H2H format for those that want it!
Aaron Sauceda
supported this idea
·
-
4th ranked
An error occurred while saving the comment Aaron Sauceda
commented
YES.
Seriously, why has this not been added yet? You'd think it's such an easy (and obvious) fix, but it still doesn't exist. Please add for by 2017!
-
29th ranked
An error occurred while saving the comment Aaron Sauceda
commented
Agreed 100% with this suggestion. Understanding you can expand via DL and NA, why limit the "active" roster to 30?
It seems like Yahoo uses this 30 number for all sports -- football, basketball, hockey and baseball. But it makes little sense to apply this "one size fits all" limitation to baseball, as many leagues enjoy expanding active rosters beyond 30, often times to 35-40 roster spots.
Please expand the active roster limit to something much greater, say, 50! At the very least, this gives each league the option to decide how deep they'd like to go. Should be an easy fix, and it's really holding Y back from being a "deep" and "expert" league competitor with the likes of CBS, Fantrax, etc.
Please increase the limit ASAP!
Aaron Sauceda
supported this idea
·
-
2nd ranked
An error occurred while saving the comment Aaron Sauceda
commented
This is an awesome idea! It may not happen very often, but the option should at least be available.
Aaron Sauceda
supported this idea
·
100% agreed! Even if we could just do one point per PI drawn, at least that's SOMETHING