OnRoto is great

[The Dane]

EDIT -- you must not be using CBS' FAAB system, and must be using 'By Commissioner Approval' bidding. So that's not so much a CBS thing then.

Yes, but you have to do that so that the tie-breaking rules, or Vickrey bidding, are usable.

[revo]

Yes, but you have to do that so that the tie-breaking rules, or Vickrey bidding, are usable.

Yeah, I hear you, I just thought that you had meant that bids are visible under the CBS FAAB format.

[TopChuckie]

Being able to see everyone's bids, including the losing bids, after the deadline, is a big deal for me as commish as well.

The other problem with CBS's FAAB is that you can't prioritize your bids in any way other than how much FAAB you bid. For example, last week I wanted to bid $0 (we allow zero bids) for Scott Sizemore because I assumed no one else would be bidding on him while still in the minors, but I knew he would get called up soon. If I didn't get Sizemore, then I wanted Jordan Danks, but since Danks was already in the majors, I expected more competition for him, so I bid $3. I only had one player to waive and waived the same guy in both cases. CBS would have awarded me Danks first, Sizemore second, even though that's not what I wanted.

That is a deal breaker for me and our league, and it's why I have to still process our FAAB manually by email and then input at the website. It is ridiculous that CBS can't enable to you set a hierarchy for your bids, particularly when they do enable it for their football leagues. I, and others, have been emailing them for years about this issue. Even an option to provide a note to the commish with each bid where the owners can say #1, #2, etc. and I would know their preferences when I processed the bids manually at the website would make life a lot easier as commish.

[revo]

Being able to see everyone's bids, including the losing bids, after the deadline, is a big deal for me as commish as well.

The other problem with CBS's FAAB is that you can't prioritize your bids in any way other than how much FAAB you bid. For example, last week I wanted to bid $0 (we allow zero bids) for Scott Sizemore because I assumed no one else would be bidding on him while still in the minors, but I knew he would get called up soon. If I didn't get Sizemore, then I wanted Jordan Danks, but since Danks was already in the majors, I expected more competition for him, so I bid $3. I only had one player to waive and waived the same guy in both cases. CBS would have awarded me Danks first, Sizemore second, even though that's not what I wanted.

That is a deal breaker for me and our league, and it's why I have to still process our FAAB manually by email and then input at the website. It is ridiculous that CBS can't enable to you set a hierarchy for your bids, particularly when they do enable it for their football leagues. I, and others, have been emailing them for years about this issue. Even an option to provide a note to the commish with each bid where the owners can say #1, #2, etc. and I would know their preferences when I processed the bids manually at the website would make life a lot easier as commish.

As commish of my league at CBS, if given a choice between CBS and a site like OnRoto because of something like this, I would take CBS and it's not even close. I guess I just don't see how often, and I know we've had this debate before, something like this would actually come up. It certainly hasn't been brought to my attention by any of my other 15 leaguemates before in the 10 years we've had FAAB bidding. I guess to each his own and that's what makes the world go round, but I would not subject 15 other owners to an inferior product to CBS because of a seemingly minor nuisance like this.

From this post, it sounds like you still use CBS. If so, why?

[Hammer]

As commish of my league at CBS, if given a choice between CBS and a site like OnRoto because of something like this, I would take CBS and it's not even close. I guess I just don't see how often, and I know we've had this debate before, something like this would actually come up. It certainly hasn't been brought to my attention by any of my other 15 leaguemates before in the 10 years we've had FAAB bidding. I guess to each his own and that's what makes the world go round, but I would not subject 15 other owners to an inferior product to CBS because of a seemingly minor nuisance like this.

From this post, it sounds like you still use CBS. If so, why?

you probably don't get the complaint because owners are resigned to this being the way CBS works.

I still much prefer CBS myself but I can see TC and others points. To me, its just not a big enough deal.

[The Dane]

I MUCH preferred the old TQStats to CBS, way back when, but some things happened to change that:

1) TQStats died... then returned as OnRoto.
2) CBS actually improved. They got more stable and dependable. They added a pretty good draft room. They still have lame FAAB procedures, but there are workarounds. Their customer service, still not good, improved. The CBS product did get a lot better.

I guess I stay with CBS now, just out of inertia. I'm in five leagues and they all use CBS.

[TopChuckie]

As commish of my league at CBS, if given a choice between CBS and a site like OnRoto because of something like this, I would take CBS and it's not even close. I guess I just don't see how often, and I know we've had this debate before, something like this would actually come up. It certainly hasn't been brought to my attention by any of my other 15 leaguemates before in the 10 years we've had FAAB bidding. I guess to each his own and that's what makes the world go round, but I would not subject 15 other owners to an inferior product to CBS because of a seemingly minor nuisance like this.

From this post, it sounds like you still use CBS. If so, why?

Yes we still do use CBS because I do prefer the appearance and all other functionality of CBS to OnRoto, and it's what we have been using for 13 years, so we are all used to it. The biggest reason for my complaining is because it is such an easy problem to fix, leaving me with nothing to complain about CBS, yet after years and years of requesting such a simple little change, they still refuse to accommodate me, and I believe many others, including those of you who don't realize how it would also make your system better. It's the principle, and the arrogance of CBS, that annoys me as much as the lack of functionality and additional effort it requires of me.

[Hammer]

Yes we still do use CBS because I do prefer the appearance and all other functionality of CBS to OnRoto, and it's what we have been using for 13 years, so we are all used to it. The biggest reason for my complaining is because it is such an easy problem to fix, leaving me with nothing to complain about CBS, yet after years and years of requesting such a simple little change, they still refuse to accommodate me, and I believe many others, including those of you who don't realize how it would also make your system better. It's the principle, and the arrogance of CBS, that annoys me as much as the lack of functionality and additional effort it requires of me.

it may be the arrogance of CBS. It seems that way but it may also be a much bigger project on their end that they feel isn't worth the effort, especially if it caters to 2% of those using their product.

[TopChuckie]

it may be the arrogance of CBS. It seems that way but it may also be a much bigger project on their end that they feel isn't worth the effort, especially if it caters to 2% of those using their product.

I would be satisfied with a simple comment window, like when you propose a trade, where each of my owners can simply rank their FAAB submissions. Then when I review all the submissions I can simply toggle the ones to process based on these ranks. Then all bids, the winners and the losers, can be posted to the transaction report for all to review and see why they lost, or who else was interested in who they won for future trade consideration.

I don't need CBS to be able to automatically process all the contingent bids, I can do that, I already do that. I just simply want them to make it easier for me to do it and for my owners to submit their bids correctly and adding that comment box is simple coding technology they already have.

[wannabegriffey]

it may be the arrogance of CBS. It seems that way but it may also be a much bigger project on their end that they feel isn't worth the effort, especially if it caters to 2% of those using their product.

When ever I read this, I laugh. I do not care what % cbs lists, any league with bidding...and that is going to be MORE than 2% of the leagues using cbs...deserves the opportunity to review bids...to give contingency bids...to just receive better customer service.

[Hammer]

When ever I read this, I laugh. I do not care what % cbs lists, any league with bidding...and that is going to be MORE than 2% of the leagues using cbs...deserves the opportunity to review bids...to give contingency bids...to just receive better customer service.

If you don't think a company weighs the man hours and other factors, you aren't thinking clearly. Its their business. They've made it clear they aren't doing it so use the more customizable and clunky option.

[BuckyBuckner]

Either everyone should be able to see all FAABs or no one should. The commissioner should not have a competitive advantage that's not shared by others in the league, unless he is solely a commissioner and not a team owner.

(By the way what you're talking about, TC, is contingent bidding. That's normally the point that TQ Stats believers bitch about. Surprised it took this long to come up.)

I'm not sure if you think this is the case with OnRoto, but everyone sees the bids after the deadline has passed. There is no advantage to the commissioner. I completely agree with you that the commissioner should not get to see additional information.

The catch with conditional bidding is that even on OnRoto you can't bid a higher dollar amount on a player that is lower in your priority. But I do believe their FAAB system is still superior to CBS.

[wannabegriffey]

Totally! Toyota keeps ignoring my requests to make cars with horns that make that awesome AWOOGA sound instead of that wussy beep they normally have. Surely I'm not the only one who needs this? They're FORCING ME to use their crappy product!


I mean, AWOOGA awesomeness should at least be an option, right? RIGHT?

Am I asking them to FIX bells and whistles or something that every faab bidding league would and should want? Horn? Yeah, nice try.

Have I said their product is crappy? Have I said they are forcing me to use their product? I said that, in the past, their customer service is brutal. Frankly, and I am not sure why...maybe a bad day...but your comment makes me think you are a total douch. I wonder if you would speak that way to anyone in person?

And I won't read this thread again because the end result would be me telling you to g.f.y. And why would I want to get a holiday because of you?

[Hornsby]

Am I asking them to FIX bells and whistles or something that every faab bidding league would and should want? Horn? Yeah, nice try.

Have I said their product is crappy? Have I said they are forcing me to use their product? I said that, in the past, their customer service is brutal. Frankly, and I am not sure why...maybe a bad day...but your comment makes me think you are a total douch. I wonder if you would speak that way to anyone in person?

And I won't read this thread again because the end result would be me telling you to g.f.y. And why would I want to get a holiday because of you?

Actually, the customer service at CBS is quite good. Every time that the RJEL has had an issue, they respond within a few hours. They're very polite and as helpful as the can be, they fix any issue that they can, no matter if it was our fault or theirs, and they do so quickly.

You say that have "brutal" customer service because they won't code programming to your specifications? Then as Hammer has said, you don't really understand how business works...

[The Dane]

You say that have "brutal" customer service because they won't code programming to your specifications? Then as Hammer has said, you don't really understand how business works...

Well, when this debate was hot and heavy, say... 10 years ago, their customer service WAS brutal and even with their bells and whistles and slick look, there were REAL reasons to prefer TQStats. Since then, TQ fizzled, lost their customer base, and became reborn, but with a smaller market share and CBS upped their game, taking advantage of a real growth opportunity, and made it so the debate became almost moot.

I am disappointed that they never really even tried to hook the hardcore guys like us. How must they feel when they realize that none of the experts leagues use them? None of the touts tout their product? None of the "real" fantasy gurus work for them? They probably don't care much because they are making money hand-over-fist putting out a mediocre product. There is little incentive for them to be great when they have a near-monopoly. I think this is what looks like arrogance to us. It's not arrogance: it's bottom-line-watching and is a pretty sound business strategy for them. I understand it, but I'm just a little disappointed that CBS isn't truly great. (Except the draft room... that's great, in my opinion.)