CBB FORUM

Comments

  • zachj

    Anybody else notice that there is only 4 players available from Notre Dame on DK? Looks like just Grant, Vasturia, Connaughton, and Auguste are in the player pool

  • Markness

    DraftKings Team

    Hey Guys,

    We will definitely be taking feedback into consideration for next year… player pool policies, expanding coverage, salary-related feedback, and scoring rules. In general, I think DraftKings has proven to be excellent at responding to feedback over the years, and it is much easier to do so over the offseason than to make significant changes mid-season.

    I agree with stewburtx that adding a player this far in advance along with an email notification would be unlikely to create many unfair advantages, but we choose to stick by the current policy. Obviously the goal would be to avoid these rare scenarios in the first place, but perhaps we should consider an addition to the rule allowing for corrections a certain amount of time in advance… it’s just tough to define which scenarios would qualify.

    -Mark

  • easternmh

    • x3

      Blogger of the Month

    @Stewburtx8 said...

    I don’t agree with not making the change in this circumstance, but I guess it is what is it. No change can be made. As others have said, it seems pretty ridiculous that a starting player (and several bench players on the same team) could be missing on a 4 game slate. It pretty much means you guys have no one even quickly spot check for mistakes before the contests are posted. It makes me just want to pull my Blue Chip entries from the contest but it likely the last big CBB contest of the season.

    As I mentioned above, I hope you guys reach out to some of your higher volume CBB players (Varncass, CBassXU, Deez, etc.) for feedback before next season.

    With you on the blue chip, this situation just means there is going to be more player overlap

  • Stewburtx8

    • 2012 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    @Markness said...

    Hey Guys,

    We will definitely be taking feedback into consideration for next year… player pool policies, expanding coverage, salary-related feedback, and scoring rules. In general, I think DraftKings has proven to be excellent at responding to feedback over the years, and it is much easier to do so over the offseason than to make significant changes mid-season.

    I agree with stewburtx that adding a player this far in advance along with an email notification would be unlikely to create many unfair advantages, but we choose to stick by the current policy. Obviously the goal would be to avoid these rare scenarios in the first place, but perhaps we should consider an addition to the rule allowing for corrections a certain amount of time in advance… it’s just tough to define which scenarios would qualify.

    -Mark

    Thanks for the response Mark. Glad to hear at least.

  • hpharri1994

    I agree that you can’t add a player after contests have been posted. It may not impact a single person but you just can’t do it. However, the way that CBB has been handled is troubling. Last time I checked DFS is a game of skill. It being classified as such is the reason that DK gets to make millions and millions of dollars. As far as I can tell, DK has gone out of their way to take as much skill out of CBB DFS as they possibly can. In an attempt to attract new users to the sport, they have dumbed it down to an almost unplayable joke. It’s a real shame. There is absolutely no question that FD has a far superior CBB product. We just need a FD flex spot. I hope that DK got a ton of new CBB users this season, because unless they make some serious changes in the way they handle the sport, they’ve lost at least one.

  • db730

    RotoGrinders Media Director

    • 2016 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    • 2016 DraftKings FBBWC Finalist

    @hpharri1994 said...

    I agree that you can’t add a player after contests have been posted. It may not impact a single person but you just can’t do it. However, the way that CBB has been handled is troubling. Last time I checked DFS is a game of skill. It being classified as such is the reason that DK gets to make millions and millions of dollars. As far as I can tell, DK has gone out of their way to take as much skill out of CBB DFS as they possibly can. In an attempt to attract new users to the sport, they have dumbed it down to an almost unplayable joke. It’s a real shame. There is absolutely no question that FD has a far superior CBB product. We just need a FD flex spot. I hope that DK got a ton of new CBB users this season, because unless they make some serious changes in the way they handle the sport, they’ve lost at least one.

    Mark @ DraftKings gave his personal email address in this thread….Rather than just blasting about how bad it is, I hope you spend sometime and levy some constructive feedback as to WHY you think that. He has major input on their game play/setup and I know for a fact he will read any and all feedback people have about their games…..good or bad.

  • mrspree15

    I get the feeling that these are the kinds of mistakes that happen when DK constantly messes with the player pool, e.g. removing bench/questionable players.
    I think they accidentally removed Will Davis (UC-Irvine) when they played Louisville last week, and he put up 25 pts. IMO they shouldn’t be removing any players in the first place, and that point is hammered home when it leads to removing actually relevant players.
    also #FreeRotneiClarke

  • jfendler

    @mrspree15 said...

    I get the feeling that these are the kinds of mistakes that happen when DK constantly messes with the player pool, e.g. removing bench/questionable players.
    I think they accidentally removed Will Davis (UC-Irvine) when they played Louisville last week, and he put up 25 pts. IMO they shouldn’t be removing any players in the first place, and that point is hammered home when it leads to removing actually relevant players.

    While this is indeed infuriating, it’s pretty obvious why they do it.

    Just like Turner/CBS are scraping the bottom of the barrel bringing in the NBA goofs to do college analysis during the Tournament, DraftKings’ primary interest is in attracting the greatest possible volume. It’s pretty awful for hardcore CBB fans and DFS players, but they’re doing whatever is necessary to bring in the “casual” crowd. While serious CBB fans know a crapton more than those NBA guys, the average viewer wants to hear from (ill-informed) familiar voices.

    Similarly, the sheer level of interest in the Tournament creates tons of new CBB DFS players. If these newbies get crushed because they neglected to check Twitter for injury updates, it’s unlikely they return to play again.

    Really dumb, but certainly not unexpected.

  • Gsulaw16

    “The difference in that case is that players were added to the contest from our testbed with broken salaries (odd numbers like $3729) that essentially “broke” those contests, requiring us to make a fix”

    Point of clarification: How would having odd numbers for salaries “break” a contest assuming everyone still had to come in under 50k?

  • winsome

    Regardless of the “how” or “why” it happened, the fact that DK doesn’t see that removing players from the pool negatively affects the product (not to mention the outcome) is mind blowing.

    Jackson is an integral player on one of the fastest paced teams in the slate which means he could potentially end up with the most FP’s of any player and none of those points will be available. His unavailability also drives up the ownership %‘s of other players so the argument can be made that DK is, in a sense, manipulating the outcome of the contests.

    The excuses given sometimes about how they they cannot change a contest after it’s been posted are so contradictory it’s almost funny. Except it’s not.

    RG members make up a vast majority of DK’s CBB player pool and no doubt every one of us would be fine with them getting it right rather than sticking to their sliding scale of justification. Cancel and repost and they wouldn’t lose a single entry. The beat goes on…

  • nawmsayin

    • 248

      RG Overall Ranking

    @winsome said...

    Regardless of the “how” or “why” it happened, the fact that DK doesn’t see that removing players from the pool negatively affects the product (not to mention the outcome) is mind blowing.

    Jackson is an integral player on one of the fastest paced teams in the slate which means he could potentially end up with the most FP’s of any player and none of those points will be available. His unavailability also drives up the ownership %‘s of other players so the argument can be made that DK is, in a sense, manipulating the outcome of the contests.

    The excuses given sometimes about how they they cannot change a contest after it’s been posted are so contradictory it’s almost funny. Except it’s not.

    RG members make up a vast majority of DK’s CBB player pool and no doubt every one of us would be fine with them getting it right rather than sticking to their sliding scale of justification. Cancel and repost and they wouldn’t lose a single entry. The beat goes on…

    I’m fine with not adjusting the player pool once posted. I’m not fine with removing players. Seriously it is utterly baffling to think removing even min priced players that don’t play is at all beneficial to the product. Trying to shrink the player pool in NO way will increase the amount of DFS guys playing the slate, sorry WILL NOT HAPPEN. Utterly laughable that this is something they think. I can’t even begin to describe why without going off on some stupid rampage so I’ll just say, please rethink your policy of removing players DK, it is NOT helping grow your product and certainly not helping keep the players you already have

  • bowens1984

    • 2014 StarStreet MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    • RG Season Champion: NBA

    This error was pointed out so far in advance anyone who wanted to play these contests would have been happy to have them cancelled, then fixed with correct player pool, then reposted. Makes no sense why they wouldn’t have done that in the first place. At least pretend to care about your cbb product.

    Why are players being removed in the first place?

  • CBassXU

    @bowens1984 said...

    Why are players being removed in the first place?

    This is honestly the main issue at hand (at least for me) and something that has been discussed at length multiple times. DraftKings has decided that to make the player pool “less intimidating” they will make decisions on who to randomly remove from the player pool whether it be due to injury or that player not being a part of the rotation. It is an absolute joke.

  • Markness

    DraftKings Team

    Hey Guys,

    We hear you all loud and clear on the topic of omitting players from the player pool. It will be revisited next season. To add some clarity…

    In both College Basketball and College Football, we decided to omit players that never played or were extremely far from being worthwhile at min salary. Throughout both seasons there were rare occasions where someone relevant was left out and those were due to technical mistakes; they were not intentionally left off. That is the case here with Demetrius Jackson.

    Our policy of intentionally omitting players was more intended/necessary for large slates. College sports have some very large slates, large rosters and the players are far less known in general. We wanted to attract new players to CBB and CFB, and we felt trimming down the player pool would make it less intimidating while not compromising the quality of the game (if executed properly). In hindsight, maybe it was unrealistic to execute 100% perfectly on this policy and the downside of omitting a relevant player wasn’t worth it.

    We did see extremely high growth in our CBB and CFB products this year. I’m not saying that this policy was the cause of that, but I am saying that we do put a lot of effort into these games and will continue to put even more in the future.

    The constructive feedback is much appreciated.

    -Mark

  • Stewburtx8

    • 2012 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    @Markness said...

    Hey Guys,

    We hear you all loud and clear on the topic of omitting players from the player pool. It will be revisited next season. To add some clarity…

    In both College Basketball and College Football, we decided to omit players that never played or were extremely far from being worthwhile at min salary. Throughout both seasons there were rare occasions where someone relevant was left out and those were due to technical mistakes; they were not intentionally left off. That is the case here with Demetrius Jackson.

    Our policy of intentionally omitting players was more intended/necessary for large slates. College sports have some very large slates, large rosters and the players are far less known in general. We wanted to attract new players to CBB and CFB, and we felt trimming down the player pool would make it less intimidating while not compromising the quality of the game (if executed properly). In hindsight, maybe it was unrealistic to execute 100% perfectly on this policy and the downside of omitting a relevant player wasn’t worth it.

    We did see extremely high growth in our CBB and CFB products this year. I’m not saying that this policy was the cause of that, but I am saying that we do put a lot of effort into these games and will continue to put even more in the future.

    The constructive feedback is much appreciated.

    -Mark

    Thanks for the response Mark. I definitely would agree with others that it is a policy to revisit.

    I think it would of made a lot more sense the previous season (2013-2014) when DK used to post 25 or even 30+ game all day slates on Saturdays for both CBB and even CFB. That was overwhelming for even veteran players in my opinion, let alone new users.

    But now that Saturday slates have been broken into 3 different game sets (this was a GREAT change by the way in my opinion), with usually a max of 12-15 games per slate, I do not think the player pool is as overwhelming, thus I do not think you need to remove players from the pool. Week nights usually max out around the same 15 game slates (similar size to an NFL Sunday or large NBA slate), with much smaller slates many nights.

  • Stewburtx8

    • 2012 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    One more point of feedback I’d like to point out, that was talked about earlier in the season: Please revisit your policy of not including games where you do not have live stat feeds early in the season (games outside the top 25). Those early season contests became unplayable when many nights would only have 2-3 games that were often blowouts, and may not even include players from both teams. I’d much rather have a playable slate where I can still often follow all the stats on ESPN or another stat provider. Just my opinion.

  • stunt101

    it shouldnt be hard to include the top 10 players sorted by mpg for every college basketball team in on the slate

    i have no idea how you could possibly omit jackson or last week with will davis

  • dwbuz

    Improvement. Read the list before posting it. But hey at least they didn’t post him for 4 dollars.

  • dwbuz

    Another thought would be to hire Stew. He has a clue.

  • Markness

    DraftKings Team

    Thanks for the constructive feedback Stewburtx.

    You make a good point. The decision to omit irrelevant players was made with those 20+ game sets in mind. We later started splitting into smaller sets as a result of user feedback.

    Another reason we chose to micro-manage the player pool was due to a lack of quality injury/news feeds for college sports. I do not see this being a problem next season.

    As for covering more games… that is definitely high priority for next year. Our plan is to
    A. look into any possible options to get live coverage of more games and
    B. potentially implement a quality user-experience for the inclusion of games that do not have real-time coverage.

    As I’ve mentioned before, if we include games without live-coverage then Standings in the GameCenter become misleading. I think we’d all prefer solution A, but with some small GameCenter adjustments, and some warnings in place on various pages (to make sure users know what they’re getting into) I think solution B is doable.

    Last thing, we will most likely add Blocks and Steals for next year now that they are covered live by our stats provider.

  • jfendler

    @Markness said...

    Hey Guys,

    We hear you all loud and clear on the topic of omitting players from the player pool. It will be revisited next season. To add some clarity…

    In both College Basketball and College Football, we decided to omit players that never played or were extremely far from being worthwhile at min salary. Throughout both seasons there were rare occasions where someone relevant was left out and those were due to technical mistakes; they were not intentionally left off. That is the case here with Demetrius Jackson.

    Our policy of intentionally omitting players was more intended/necessary for large slates. College sports have some very large slates, large rosters and the players are far less known in general. We wanted to attract new players to CBB and CFB, and we felt trimming down the player pool would make it less intimidating while not compromising the quality of the game (if executed properly). In hindsight, maybe it was unrealistic to execute 100% perfectly on this policy and the downside of omitting a relevant player wasn’t worth it.

    We did see extremely high growth in our CBB and CFB products this year. I’m not saying that this policy was the cause of that, but I am saying that we do put a lot of effort into these games and will continue to put even more in the future.

    The constructive feedback is much appreciated.

    -Mark

    Mark, thanks for your response. It is excellent knowing that you guys are, in fact, listening.

    My issue with picking and choosing “irrelevant” players is that DFS is (correctly) classified as a game of skill. As you know, DFS (albeit narrowly) skirts the statutes banning sports betting and similar wagering because its “best” players will inevitably win more money long-term than inferior players. While many of the outcomes are seemingly random, it is far more predicated than sports betting on its players’ actual abilities.

    With this in mind, why is it necessary to hold the hands of “new” players? DFS players must be 18 years old. All DFS players are adults. Doing much of the work for them is detrimental to those who put in the time required. and weakens the DFS community’s argument that it is indeed a game of skill. While I appreciate the necessity of “growing” the DFS community (and specifically the DraftKings brand), there is a middle ground here somewhere between scaring away the newbies and hurting the veterans.

    Your thoughts are much appreciated.

  • winsome

    @Markness said...

    we chose to micro-manage the player pool was due to a lack of quality injury/news feeds for college sports

    thanks for being present in the discussion but regarding the above statement why does DK care about players who are injured? Why can’t you be an impartial facilitator? Part of the skill is in the research

  • Stewburtx8

    • 2012 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    @Markness said...

    As for covering more games… that is definitely high priority for next year. Our plan is to
    A. look into any possible options to get live coverage of more games and
    B. potentially implement a quality user-experience for the inclusion of games that do not have real-time coverage.

    As I’ve mentioned before, if we include games without live-coverage then Standings in the GameCenter become misleading. I think we’d all prefer solution A, but with some small GameCenter adjustments, and some warnings in place on various pages (to make sure users know what they’re getting into) I think solution B is doable.

    Last thing, we will most likely add Blocks and Steals for next year now that they are covered live by our stats provider.

    Thanks again for the responses in this thread. Option A is obviously the preferred solution if possible. If not, I understand the concern. I guess I look at it more from my own point of view where I very rarely even look at the live scoring until later in the night anyways. I typically watch games and follow my guys and other guys who I know may be highly owned. For the most part, I know when I’m doing well or not, and then I typically just check the live scoring later to confirm that.

    As for steals and blocks, I was always pretty impartial on that. I didn’t mind if DK was different in that regard, but certainly don’t mind them being added either. From what I’ve seen, most of the user base would prefer them being added. In which case, it makes sense to make the switch.

  • sethayates

    I’m not a CBB guy so I have mostly avoided chyming in on this thread for various reasons. I did have a discussion on Twitter with someone who is a heavy CBB Grinder and he challenged me to name a time when starters were left off the roster in other sports. I would like to point out this was very common last year in MLB. Just take a look at this thread from 10 months ago.

    https://rotogrinders.com/threads/chris-davis-missing-from-dk-281533

    At the time, DK was removing players from the pool who went on short term IR. One such instance was removing Chris Davis from the pool when he went on IR for 3 days yet leaving Weiters in the pool even though he was out for the year (same with Fielder).

    There was a seperate thread where we finally got DK (and FD) to expand their player lists. That was done through constructive criticsm like we are seeing from some people here. I have no doubt Mark and FatalError will take into considertaion all of the criticsm in this thread.

    Lastly, my two cents on removing players in order to help the casual player. If you look at my results you can see I don’t play much CBB or CFB (I don’t have a single CBB win). I have played a few times this year and I didn’t find the player pool daunting. Even as a CBB and CFB newb I would rather see every player listed even if that means I accidentally select someone who isn’t playing.

  • tomac

    I think the frustrating thing here is the lack of consistency.

    Some injured players left in, others taken out. Some games left to run with salary mistakes, others taken off the board.

    When you are consistent in handling issues, it becomes much easier to point at the policy and say this is how it works, for better or for worse. When you are inconsistent, it looks amateurish.

  • sethayates

    @sethayates said...

    I’m not a CBB guy so I have mostly avoided chyming in on this thread for various reasons. I did have a discussion on Twitter with someone who is a heavy CBB Grinder and he challenged me to name a time when starters were left off the roster in other sports. I would like to point out this was very common last year in MLB. Just take a look at this thread from 10 months ago.

    https://rotogrinders.com/threads/chris-davis-missing-from-dk-281533

    At the time, DK was removing players from the pool who went on short term IR. One such instance was removing Chris Davis from the pool when he went on IR for 3 days yet leaving Weiters in the pool even though he was out for the year (same with Fielder).

    There was a seperate thread where we finally got DK (and FD) to expand their player lists. That was done through constructive criticsm like we are seeing from some people here. I have no doubt Mark and FatalError will take into considertaion all of the criticsm in this thread.

    Lastly, my two cents on removing players in order to help the casual player. If you look at my results you can see I don’t play much CBB or CFB (I don’t have a single CBB win). I have played a few times this year and I didn’t find the player pool daunting. Even as a CBB and CFB newb I would rather see every player listed even if that means I accidentally select someone who isn’t playing.

    Also, to give the other side of this argument (DK point of view) check out this thread.

    https://rotogrinders.com/threads/why-have-injured-or-suspended-players-available-403728?page=1

    This guy was upset that FanDuel left Jay Jones in the player pool.

    There is no doubt the sites get hundreds of emails everyday from people who feel cheated because they selected a guy out for the year. It seems like the DK strategy has been to try and remove these “traps” even if it means a legit player was removed. Markness even admitted above this strategy hasn’t been enacted perfectly.

    I would personally rather DK air on the side of too many players as opposed to not all possible players. That’s a business decision though and both sides of the conversation have merit.

  • X Unread Thread
  • X Thread with New Replies*
  • *Jumps to your first unread reply

Subforum Index

RotoGrinders.com is the home of the daily fantasy sports community. Our content, rankings, member blogs, promotions and forum discussion all cater to the players that like to create a new fantasy team every day of the week.

If you or someone you know has a gambling problem, crisis counseling and referral services can be accessed by calling 1-800-GAMBLER (1-800-426-2537) (IL). Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER (NJ/WV/PA/MI), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (CO), 1-800-BETS OFF (IA), 1-888-532-3500 (VA) or call/text TN REDLINE 1-800-889-9789 (TN).