Squish (268)
E-roc (127)
Shirley (66)
Jeff (53)
Tommy (53)
Mal (50)
Ken (44)
Amir (40)
TJ (29)
Couldn’t say I saw this one coming. AOL already runs its own fantasy sports leagues (which I’ve never tried), but they must not be attracting many users, or they must prefer Fleaflicker’s technology over their own. I can’t imagine Fleaflicker holding out for too much money, so it may have been a pretty painless way for AOL to reign in a competitor before they got too big. Now they’ve just got to worry about Yahoo, CBS Sportsline, Fox Sports, ESPN, NFL.com, FantasyPlayers.com, and about 100 other smaller sites. No biggie.
Brandon and I tried Fleaflicker in 2006, its inaugural season, and were generally unimpressed. We liked the deeply customizable scoring system, but the interface left much to be desired. We moved the league to Yahoo last season, but I kept the old one active just so I could keep an eye on Fleaflicker to see if they improved their interface, but aside from making a few of the buttons bigger, it didn’t appear to me that they had changed much. I frankly don’t know what Fleaflicker has to offer AOL in terms of technology. Maybe they’re still convinced that Techcrunch was right when they called Fleaflicker “the best fantasy football site out there.”
Squish 7:09 pm on 10/21/2009 Permalink |
I never even new that FF changed hands!
I agree that the Yahoo interface is quite a bit better but for standard leagues I still like flea flicker. This is mainly because flea flicker doesn’t limit the number of teams I can have.
If I were to run a league with my friends, I’d take Yahoo because it is better for activity due to it’s messaging format and such. Otherwise I’d play FF because the scoring system usually plays out more true to life.