|
Post by Commish_Ron on Feb 17, 2024 16:30:20 GMT -5
In OOTP 24 the developers modified how revenue is generated. As a result we have seen around a 10% drop to total revenues.
Here are the last 5 seasons team average for total revenue: 2065 - $175,701,740.00 2066 - $174,346,976.00 2067 - $175,729,093.00 2068 - $163,030,565.00 2069 - $162,128,727.00
Currently 2070 is projecting an additional drop to $159,565,055.00. projection is calculated as: ((current gate revenue/147)*15)+Last seasons playoff revenue + Current total revenue.
We were never able to get detailed responses from the developer team about the change. But they did acknowledge that they made it and it was related to market sizes. In my opinion, this appears to be an attempt to address issues in the solo player game and general immersion. I do not like a variable, artificial cap to how much revenue a team in an online league can generate.
I propose to offset this change we increase the ticket price baseline from $40 to $45.
This is a conservative number. The 10% drop is based on total revenue. Ticket baseline will not affect media and merch revenues. Also, we have been trending down for 3 seasons and are not sure we have hit the bottom yet.
If this poll passes the implementation will happen when the World Series concludes.
Proxy votes will be cast as Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Mac_Yankees GM on Feb 17, 2024 22:01:57 GMT -5
In OOTP 24 the developers modified how revenue is generated. As a result we have seen around a 10% drop to total revenues. Here are the last 5 seasons team average for total revenue: 2065 - $175,701,740.00 2066 - $174,346,976.00 2067 - $175,729,093.00 2068 - $163,030,565.00 2069 - $162,128,727.00 Currently 2070 is projecting an additional drop to $159,565,055.00. projection is calculated as: ((current gate revenue/147)*15)+Last seasons playoff revenue + Current total revenue.We were never able to get detailed responses from the developer team about the change. But they did acknowledge that they made it and it was related to market sizes. In my opinion, this appears to be an attempt to address issues in the solo player game and general immersion. I do not like a variable, artificial cap to how much revenue a team in an online league can generate. I propose to offset this change we increase the ticket price baseline from $40 to $45. This is a conservative number. The 10% drop is based on total revenue. Ticket baseline will not affect media and merch revenues. Also, we have been trending down for 3 seasons and are not sure we have hit the bottom yet. If this poll passes the implementation will happen when the World Series concludes. Proxy votes will be cast as Yes. Shouldn't that calculation be *16?
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Feb 18, 2024 11:31:35 GMT -5
Currently 2070 is projecting an additional drop to $159,565,055.00. projection is calculated as: ((current gate revenue/147)*15)+Last seasons playoff revenue + Current total revenue. Shouldn't that calculation be *16?162 games in the season. 147 games played at the time I wrote this. 162-147=15 yes?
|
|
|
Post by Mac_Yankees GM on Feb 18, 2024 15:14:10 GMT -5
The way I'm reading it is you already have the revenue per game for each team with the (current gate revenue/147 games at the time) then you are multiplying it by the amount of total games played which is 16 games per day with 32 teams.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Feb 18, 2024 17:26:58 GMT -5
The way I'm reading it is you already have the revenue per game for each team with the (current gate revenue/147 games at the time) then you are multiplying it by the amount of total games played which is 16 games per day with 32 teams. All numbers are league averages. So everything has already been inherently divided by 32. We have played 147 games. So current gate average revenue/147 is the league average revenue, per team, per game. Take that number and multiply it by 15 (remaining games) and it should ballpark the final gate total. That leaves you short media, merchandise, season ticket and playoff revenue. Media, Merchandise and Season tickets will not be growing any more this season and are included in the Current total revenue (along with gate revenue YTD). That just leaves playoff revenue which I pulled from last season. My calculation could certainly be off but it should be a reasonable ballpark figure.
|
|
|
Post by Mac_Yankees GM on Feb 18, 2024 18:43:43 GMT -5
Got it, thanks for taking me through it- makes sense now.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Feb 20, 2024 12:07:45 GMT -5
"I propose to offset this change we increase the ticket price baseline from $40 to $45."
How does an increase in the ticket price baseline translate into an increase in revenue? Each team's revenue is generated based on the ticket price they actually charge, which they may or may not not change.
I must be missing something.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Feb 20, 2024 20:46:22 GMT -5
"I propose to offset this change we increase the ticket price baseline from $40 to $45." How does an increase in the ticket price baseline translate into an increase in revenue? Each team's revenue is generated based on the ticket price they actually charge, which they may or may not not change. I must be missing something. Hi Tim,
So with the avg ticket price setting at $40, OOTP 24 has an approximate range of revenues generated for the league from $112 mil- $261.9 mil. The range goes up to $120 mil -$277 mil if we go with $45.
This is still lower than what our league traditionally has revenue wise prior to switching to OOTP 24. OOTP 24 also adjusted player demands and arbitration demands, which effectively raised expenses at the same time as lowering league wide revenues. A lot of OOTP players haven't noticed the difference, and in some cases have enjoyed the change because their own situation has slightly improved. The developers have effectively stated that teams like the real life St. Louis Cardinals shouldn't exist, shouldn't be a top revenue team. I would argue that tying market size to be more reflective of factors such as winning would've been the fix to the perceived issue, but what do I know?
The other aspect of this is that the calculation for ticket price range has drastically been reduced, and has been changed to be more heavily influenced by market size. Fan interest is still important, but market size ultimately is the most important factor. So a team like Milwaukee or Cincinnati will never have the highest budget in the league again under the current settings. Adjusting the avg ticket price won't change that, but as Ron has mentioned the bottom hasn't hit yet for the reduction of league revenues.
I'm hopeful $45 will help us get there, but further adjustments might be needed.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Feb 20, 2024 20:56:14 GMT -5
"I propose to offset this change we increase the ticket price baseline from $40 to $45." How does an increase in the ticket price baseline translate into an increase in revenue? Each team's revenue is generated based on the ticket price they actually charge, which they may or may not not change. I must be missing something. The increase would require teams to adjust their own ticket prices to bring in more revenue.
Based on the range approximation above, I can see quite a few teams currently that could be bringing in more even at the $40 avg ticket price.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Feb 21, 2024 11:44:35 GMT -5
Okay, so the "bridge" from the ticket price baseline to total league revenue is "under the hood" code within the game. The internal code was modified and that has changed the ticket price baseline to the resulting total revenue range projection. Thanks, Sean.
P.S. Where does one locate the total revenue ranges you cited?
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Feb 21, 2024 17:00:26 GMT -5
Okay, so the "bridge" from the ticket price baseline to total league revenue is "under the hood" code within the game. The internal code was modified and that has changed the ticket price baseline to the resulting total revenue range projection. Thanks, Sean. P.S. Where does one locate the total revenue ranges you cited? Yep, that's correct.
In the league settings, it's in the financial settings. I did not realize this was even a thing until I started asking questions on the OOTP forums about the drastic changes to the ticket price range/formula that OOTP changed in OOTP 24. They publicly didn't announce it, but I was able to get a response from one of the developers. I've added a link to this post, but it's the same one I've publicly posted in Slack a few times.
The developer said "It was determined that teams being able to double or more the average ticket price, without seeing a significant reduction in attendance, was unbalanced. If a mid-market team in real life raised their ticket prices to be significantly higher than the rest of the league, they would suffer some serious consequences.
If that's not fair in your online league, I would suggest discussing it with the rest of the league members, and trying to come to a solution. You could add more media revenue, or adjust team market sizes, or even just have the commish give teams a "loan" or something for a few years to bridge the finances."
In my opinion, there's a lot "wrong" with Matt Arnold's response, and the decision itself made by the developers but I'm trying to get past that because I can't change that aspect.
What we can do as a league is at least try to get the revenue range back to what we've historically experienced. StatsPlus allows us to go back and look at team budgets from 2037, in which our range was $95 mil -$278 mil with an avg of $174 mil. Total revenues from this same period ranged from $71.7 mil - $311 mil, with an avg of $175.7. I know that in Cincinnati, we were projected to have a 2038 budget in the $290's mil but OOTP lowered that to $260 mil.
People can debate whether or not the Reds or any mid market team should be able to ever increase their revenues to tops of the league, but one of the big aspects the developers have overlooked is the amount of revenue completely removed from leagues. It wasn't redistributed to teams they thought were more deserving, it was simply removed.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Feb 25, 2024 9:13:58 GMT -5
Since we are discussing "league revenue" and ways to increase it. I posted this in my annual media day, but seems timely to include in this kind of discussion as well. I really wish the media budgets (revenue for each team) could be revisited. In PBL the lowest $20M (oddly enough mine) is 18% of the highest $110+M. I am NOT proposing ANY money be taken from ANY team, just proposing we narrow the ratio between highest/lowest. Assuming the settings posted elsewhere remain the same (and included here), the national media budget portion is based on MARKET size and is actually lower than the local. That's a double-whammy because market size then dictates BOTH the national and the local mediate contracts. Without changing the highest current budget of $100,625,000 at all ( no team will lose any dollars), I would like to propose the following: The ratio top to bottom be tightened! How...
- The NAT media budget be increased
- The NAT budget setting be changed to SAME for all markets.
- The LOC media budget ratio end up roughly 30 or even 25% of the NAT
** The local budget within the game will continue to fluctuate based on market size but, unlike the current settings, there will be far less of an impact to the dollars and therefore ratio between highest and lowestTo arrive at the values for both the NAT and LOC budget numbers, one would have to know the current values for the highest team and use those as a rough template (trying to maintain the 70/30 or 75/25 ratio). So it would take a bit of (one-time) experimentation. But this would benefit 31 teams, presumably make them more competitive, and raise overall revenue (which was the goal for this poll). For your consideration.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Feb 27, 2024 12:48:03 GMT -5
Since we are discussing "league revenue" and ways to increase it. I posted this in my annual media day, but seems timely to include in this kind of discussion as well. I really wish the media budgets (revenue for each team) could be revisited. In PBL the lowest $20M (oddly enough mine) is 18% of the highest $110+M. I am NOT proposing ANY money be taken from ANY team, just proposing we narrow the ratio between highest/lowest. Assuming the settings posted elsewhere remain the same (and included here), the national media budget portion is based on MARKET size and is actually lower than the local. That's a double-whammy because market size then dictates BOTH the national and the local mediate contracts. Without changing the highest current budget of $100,625,000 at all ( no team will lose any dollars), I would like to propose the following: The ratio top to bottom be tightened! How...
- The NAT media budget be increased
- The NAT budget setting be changed to SAME for all markets.
- The LOC media budget ratio end up roughly 30 or even 25% of the NAT
** The local budget within the game will continue to fluctuate based on market size but, unlike the current settings, there will be far less of an impact to the dollars and therefore ratio between highest and lowestTo arrive at the values for both the NAT and LOC budget numbers, one would have to know the current values for the highest team and use those as a rough template (trying to maintain the 70/30 or 75/25 ratio). So it would take a bit of (one-time) experimentation. But this would benefit 31 teams, presumably make them more competitive, and raise overall revenue (which was the goal for this poll). For your consideration. View AttachmentNot ignoring this David, but could you move it over to the offseason discussion section so it doesn't get lost and people can see it?
I don't want to make any wholesale changes when Ron is away, but I do think this is something we can start discussing as a league.
|
|