OnRoto is great

[Hammer]

wbg said in the past custer service was brutal and it was. you are correct that it has greatly improved.

[Hornsby]

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.)

Just how is it a "mediocre product" when they dominate the market to the extent that they do? They have a rock solid Auction room, a fairly flexible scoring system accommodation, and they get back to you ASAP if you have an issue. And it's not like they're lacking in competition from other vendors big and small...ESPN, Yahoo!, and all of the smaller ones all are trying the same game, and lacking the success that CBS has. Is it perfect, no, but again, they cater to the masses...and the masses say that a good looking, very functional, versatile interface is what they want.

It's funny that almost all of the issue with CBS seems to focus on the micro issue of different variations of FAAB bidding. If it's that important to your league, go to a different vendor that WILL cater to you, or do it by hand. It's really not all that difficult. In our AL only league, we switched over from "blind" email bids to CBS FAAB two years ago...not a glitch or an issue, people adapted just fine.

[The Dane]

Just how is it a "mediocre product" when they dominate the market to the extent that they do? They have a rock solid Auction room, a fairly flexible scoring system accommodation, and they get back to you ASAP if you have an issue. And it's not like they're lacking in competition from other vendors big and small...ESPN, Yahoo!, and all of the smaller ones all are trying the same game, and lacking the success that CBS has. Is it perfect, no, but again, they cater to the masses...and the masses say that a good looking, very functional, versatile interface is what they want.

Just because your town only has McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, Taco Bell and Sizzler, does not make Sizzler a great restaurant.

I'm no programming expert, but if were making a fantasy baseball league software I would hope it would be considerably better than CBS. I'd have better FAAB, of course. I have the ability to print various types of customizable rosters, even ones as simple as all the teams with salaries. I'd like to be able to look at three or more teams side by side for comparison. I'd like rosters that were easier to enter for offline drafts. I'd like to be able to use MY rules, not just the ones they think are important. I'd like to be able to find FA players to add to rosters who don't have teams, like adding Morales/Drew to AL or NL only rosters. Give me some time, and I could come up with 100 more small things that I wish CBS did differently.

I'm not complaining about CBS, that ship has sailed, but if you think CBS is anything better than simply mediocre and the best of a poor lot, you are really settling.

[Hornsby]

Just because your town only has McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, Taco Bell and Sizzler, does not make Sizzler a great restaurant.

I'm no programming expert, but if were making a fantasy baseball league software I would hope it would be considerably better than CBS. I'd have better FAAB, of course. I have the ability to print various types of customizable rosters, even ones as simple as all the teams with salaries. I'd like to be able to look at three or more teams side by side for comparison. I'd like rosters that were easier to enter for offline drafts. I'd like to be able to use MY rules, not just the ones they think are important. I'd like to be able to find FA players to add to rosters who don't have teams, like adding Morales/Drew to AL or NL only rosters. Give me some time, and I could come up with 100 more small things that I wish CBS did differently.

I'm not complaining about CBS, that ship has sailed, but if you think CBS is anything better than simply mediocre and the best of a poor lot, you are really settling.

No, but CBS is no Sizzler, it's more of a Ruth's Chris...a very good steakhouse, but not a gourmet restaurant.

Then it's simple...someone come up with something better, that's pretty much the whole thing in a nutshell, isn't it? And so far nobody has. Get together with someone with programming skills and make what you want...if it's that easy to do, it's your million dollar idea. Like they say, build it and they will come.

And I guess that I'm comfortable settling for the best overall product on the market, and apparently so are hundreds of thousands of other folks, including you...

[The Dane]

And I guess that I'm comfortable settling for the best overall product on the market, and apparently so are hundreds of thousands of other folks, including you...

Yep, that's it. It's the best we have, a workable mediocrity. Million-dollar idea? Likely, no. It probably takes more resources to design it and run it than you could make running it.

[TopChuckie]

I got an email from CBS today asking for feedback so I thought I'd try again for the umpteenth time to get them to improve their FAAB submittal system. (The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.) I'm especially not optimistic because the email address in their email wasn't even a link, I had to actually cut and paste it into the TO: field to reply to them. Not exactly cutting edge user friendliness.

Anyway, here's what I sent them, with the bold blurb coming from this thread:

Hi Guys,

For years, I, and based on multiple message board discussions, I know many others have been asking CBS for a more robust free agent acquisition system which allows for a more detailed, hierarchy based FAAB (Free Agent Acquisition Budget) bid input. I know it can be done because your competitors TQStats/OnRoto have been doing it for years, and even your football free agent system allows it.

I just want my owners to be able to rank the priority of their FAAB bids in their own customizable order, not simply by the dollar amount of their bid. I'll give you an example from a message board during the 2014 season to illustrate the problem, the player names are irrelevant:

The 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.

In this example, if I could have simply submitted the order of my bids with the Sizemore bid first, and the Danks bid second, and process them in that order, it should work.

Just let my owners move their bids up and down in order of priority like you do for football. As I said, it can't be that difficult. If a tiny little company like TQStats/OnRoto have been doing it for well over a decade, CBS certainly ought to be able to accommodate it.

Thanks