“This player is better in best ball formats” is a common refrain among college fantasy analysts trying to differentiate their opinions given volatility, but what does that phrase really mean?
The difference between traditional season-long formats and best ball is how scoring works. In traditional leagues, rosters are set before kickoff and the points scored in that week determine wins or losses in head-to-head formats. On the other hand, with best ball, weekly roster management is non-existent, and weekly scoring does not impact the bottom line, only the total number of points scored, regardless of the week. Knowing why these differences occur is important, and targeting the teams/situations is more relevant for each format.
1. Good Player, Bad Team
Often, a special player will be on an offense that outside said player is pedestrian. The poster child for this in 2024 was Tet McMillan and Arizona. When playing weak competition, Noah Fifita and McMillan connected for monster games, including his 300-yard output to kick off the season against New Mexico. Playing the Lobos’ defense helped EVERYONE in 2024, but production faltered when Arizona took even small steps up in competition.
After his 10-304-4 game, he had five games under 70 yards in his final 11, and on the season, 50% of his yardage came in only three contests. That doesn’t get the job done. However, his massive week one performance likely won contests for those who rostered him. The sub-70-yard performances, on the other hand, likely cost managers as he had been a top-five pick.
Best ball made McMillan’s lackluster following 11 weeks palatable because nearly 70 points build a significant bankable performance, and those poor games don’t cost weekly performances. Best ball managers weren’t quite as angry. Now, Tet is a unique case, and there are others like him, but the point is that the risk lies with players on bad offenses. Arizona scoring under 20 points multiple times made it nearly impossible to find consistency with McMillan.
In weekly formats, I propose the idea that consistency is more important than raw point total. To a significant extent, no, but in a world where you’re avoiding zeros or single-digit fantasy weeks from high-end players, probably. The massive blowup potential is excellent, but you don’t accrue those points weekly. A 70-point game followed by a 3-point game may average 36.5 points, but that 3 sure stings the week after.
Using McMillan is somewhat hyperbolic, but that doesn’t make his case entirely unique either. How many managers were happy with him as a top-three selection? I would wager that number is lower than a 1,300-yard season would indicate.
Who does this apply to in 2025? The name going in the top 30 of way-too-early drafts that stand out is Stanford’s Emmett Mosley. I like the player, but Troy Taylor’s Cardinal offense has shown a complete inability to produce on a week-to-week basis. Mosley is talented enough to finish the season well, and Taylor is creative enough to scheme up good performances, but finding that level of consistency feels like a monumental ask.
2. Inconsistent Usage Relying on Explosives
A player averaging a non-workhorse or alpha receiver role is less likely to provide consistency week to week. That’s not groundbreaking, but it is masked when looking at season-end numbers.
Two returning players immediately come to mind here.
Let’s start with Notre Dame’s Jeremiyah Love. Love averaged 10.2 rush attempts per game and 1.8 receptions. Twelve touch games lend themselves to high variability when explosives aren’t there, or touchdown variance doesn’t track. For Love, he scored a touchdown in every regular season game despite having one game with 17 touches. That scares me weekly because replicating that level of efficiency is an incredibly tough ask. There’s little doubting Love’s talents, but his usage might lend itself to best ball in 2025, where his aggregate total outperforms a multitude of sub-double-digit touch weeks.
Jamal Haynes from Georgia Tech has a very similar profile. Although he had slightly more usage (15 touches per game), he still relied heavily on explosive plays to find production. Unlike Love, Haynes’ sub-10 touch games often sunk your lineups without the insane touchdown variance. The receiving work helps in PPR leagues, but again, compared to his peers in similar draft ranges, he’s averaging 7-8 fewer touches. Scheme and talent help bridge the gap in these cases on aggregate, but every week, the increased volatility makes him a riskier pick in H2H seasonal leagues.
Identifying these types of players is a twofold challenge. First, does the staff traditionally use (in these cases) their running back as a true workhorse? If not, then the player needs to be highly efficient and talented. Second, is the offense a top-scoring team? The lack of touches can be masked by strong touchdown opportunities where a player can over-perform expectations.
A few other names I find fit this bucket include Rutgers’ CJ Campbell, Pittsburgh’s Des Reid, Kansas State’s Dylan Edwards, and Penn State’s Nicholas Singleton. All these backs are currently top-24 selections that bring high variance in weekly formats but ultimately even out in best ball.
3. The Out of Conference Corollary
This is a new one and something I believe we will continue to iterate as conference schedules continue to change.
Some teams, depending on their league, thrive in out-of-conference games (cough, SEC, cough), while others, like the MAC, struggle mightily. The out-of-conference schedule is largely the easiest way to determine start / sit questions. Extreme matchups on both great and terrible sides reduce the risk in weekly H2H leagues and give the possibility of a zero or blowup potential a relatively more certain outcome (as much as there can be.)
There’s even variance among conference games played in some cases. The Big 12 and Big Ten schools play nine conference games, while the ACC and SEC schools play eight. Most G5 schools have an eight-game conference schedule as well. The implication, at the lower end of the school rankings, is that non-conference matchups are likely games to sit your players. However, contrary to PPG and seasonal finish data, these matchups still matter in lineup setting and in avoiding potential landmines.
In the grand scheme of things, schedule variability matters little but on the margins, it does provide a slight increase in certainty of outcome. Without going too far into conference strength and opponents (which is highly variable year over year), the general takeaway here is that one more (or fewer) game may help push a player into weekly viability versus best ball viability. Schedule certainty is an untapped edge in seasonal leagues.
