|
Post by David_ExposGM on Feb 27, 2024 13:11:04 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.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Feb 27, 2024 14:58:49 GMT -5
And if you care to test these numbers, my suggestion (having run some) would be:
NAT $45,000,000 (Same for every Mkt) LOC $22,500,000 (Which will fluctuate in the game based on Market Size, slow as that movement is)
This should result in a top budget of $100M and low budget of roughly $57M, with every team in between benefiting to various degrees. However, other factors, your owner being probably the largest, will always impact your bottom line. But this would tighten the media numbers and inject some revenue into the league.
Is the National media budget is still as suggested in the settings graphic ($18.75M), one can see there is way too much riding (in my opinion) on market size, which is mainly a remnant of when the MLB template at the time was used to create PBL.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 2, 2024 15:58:07 GMT -5
On an initial read through this makes a lot of sense to me. I'll carve out some time soon to do a bit of sandboxing and see if I can provide more details for a poll soon.
|
|
|
Post by Will - Cubs on Mar 2, 2024 16:06:14 GMT -5
I like this proposal!
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Mar 2, 2024 17:34:00 GMT -5
I'll play devil's advocate here, but what other impacts will this have to the league? With no team losing money, and every team gaining money what does that actually accomplish? Free agents will costs more, international players will cost more, etc. I don't believe this will provide the desired outcome and ultimately teams will still be in the same situation they are currently in.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 2, 2024 18:35:56 GMT -5
I'll play devil's advocate here, but what other impacts will this have to the league? With no team losing money, and every team gaining money what does that actually accomplish? Free agents will costs more, international players will cost more, etc. I don't believe this will provide the desired outcome and ultimately teams will still be in the same situation they are currently in.
Because I suggested this, a little more detail, and some responses to your concerns.
Ron, through the poll on increasing ticket baseline (and by extension team revenue), identified the downward trend in league revenues and suggested that as his answer. This proposal is another way to increase revenue to the entire league.
The "no team loses money" statement is specific to this re-working of the media budgets. Asking anyone to sacrifice media dollars would obviously not be as appealing to those GM's. The better way to position the concept is that it narrows the ratio between the highest and lowest media revenue numbers, by making one of them universal. It does leave the local media budget to still fluctuate based on market size to there will always be a difference between the top and bottom media budgets, just less of one.
Team's can and will still "lose money" annually, as they do now, based on the GM's tactics and strategy, and the owner's (+/-) budget line.
Will the top free agents may indeed cost a bit more? Probably a given only because a couple of additional high budget teams might be able to make an offer. I might argue Ron's poll will also do that because the teams most likely to have the biggest benefit will be the already good, winning, high fan interest and full stadium teams. Both may make a few more teams that much more competitive, which I think is a good thing? Where this may make more of a difference to those currently budget challenged, possibly to be in a better position to extend some of their homegrown talent and make themselves better that way too, without even dipping into free agency (likely how many manage things now, and those are not likely to be bidding on the top FA's anyway).
These numbers are settings. Currently both are based on the quite artificial (at least initially) market size. And market size movement is glacial, so there's no way to easily affect positive change to those budgets.
Again, this simply narrows the playing field on that one specific media budget line going forward. And is a different way to answer the Commissioner's league revenue concern by effectively helping every team.
Hope we can make this happen?
|
|
|
Post by detroitcarl on Mar 2, 2024 18:43:53 GMT -5
The main purpose should ideally be to allow some teams to retain existing players they might not currently have the means to keep. That would likely be a good thing. That could drive up some FA amounts, if this results in a smaller number of them hitting the market. Although I am not sure if that the case as I would assume teams that have players entering FA after arb would attempt first to trade the player to a team that could sign the player.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Mar 2, 2024 20:21:59 GMT -5
I'll play devil's advocate here, but what other impacts will this have to the league? With no team losing money, and every team gaining money what does that actually accomplish? Free agents will costs more, international players will cost more, etc. I don't believe this will provide the desired outcome and ultimately teams will still be in the same situation they are currently in.
Because I suggested this, a little more detail, and some responses to your concerns.
Ron, through the poll on increasing ticket baseline (and by extension team revenue), identified the downward trend in league revenues and suggested that as his answer. This proposal is another way to increase revenue to the entire league.
The "no team loses money" statement is specific to this re-working of the media budgets. Asking anyone to sacrifice media dollars would obviously not be as appealing to those GM's. The better way to position the concept is that it narrows the ratio between the highest and lowest media revenue numbers, by making one of them universal. It does leave the local media budget to still fluctuate based on market size to there will always be a difference between the top and bottom media budgets, just less of one.
Team's can and will still "lose money" annually, as they do now, based on the GM's tactics and strategy, and the owner's (+/-) budget line.
Will the top free agents may indeed cost a bit more? Probably a given only because a couple of additional high budget teams might be able to make an offer. I might argue Ron's poll will also do that because the teams most likely to have the biggest benefit will be the already good, winning, high fan interest and full stadium teams. Both may make a few more teams that much more competitive, which I think is a good thing? Where this may make more of a difference to those currently budget challenged, possibly to be in a better position to extend some of their homegrown talent and make themselves better that way too, without even dipping into free agency (likely how many manage things now, and those are not likely to be bidding on the top FA's anyway).
These numbers are settings. Currently both are based on the quite artificial (at least initially) market size. And market size movement is glacial, so there's no way to easily affect positive change to those budgets.
Again, this simply narrows the playing field on that one specific media budget line going forward. And is a different way to answer the Commissioner's league revenue concern by effectively helping every team.
Hope we can make this happen?
To be clear, Ron's poll was to bring league wide revenue levels back to what our league traditionally has experienced before OOTP 24 started lowering them league wide.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 4, 2024 7:54:03 GMT -5
Sean was kind enough to do some sandboxing this weekend. He provided a mountain of data that I have just not had enough time to analyze yet. It has been a busy weekend getting settled back in. There may be some evidence that the change as recommended does not generate the desired results (like so many things in the OOTP engine). Stay tuned. More to come.
The other issue is that in order to sandbox you really have to let the game take over all of the teams. The game has wildly different ideas on ticket prices than many of our human GMs. As a result it is virtually impossible to forecast revenue changes based on settings. I think it might be wise to let the ticket range change marinate for a season before making additional changes to the financial model.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 8, 2024 9:50:27 GMT -5
Update to my previous comment. Further research revealed that this proposal does in fact shrink the gap in media revenues. In the proposed settings the Yankees did gain revenue but not as much as the lower teams. This off season we'll gather data around the possible impacts of this change, potentially in tandem with or compared to removing owners and adjusting market sizes.
|
|
|
Post by NickP_Marlins GM on Mar 9, 2024 19:40:58 GMT -5
Update to my previous comment. Further research revealed that this proposal does in fact shrink the gap in media revenues. In the proposed settings the Yankees did gain revenue but not as much as the lower teams. This off season we'll gather data around the possible impacts of this change, potentially in tandem with or compared to removing owners and adjusting market sizes. Are we looking into raising everyone’s revenues or just the bottom teams? If everyone’s then I guess the question is why?
|
|
|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Mar 9, 2024 20:05:22 GMT -5
David, I read through your proposal and the following comments. The proposal discusses changes to several in-game settings, seems complicated, and may produce unintended outcomes. I have several questions: - What is the objective?
- What is the problem the proposal is attempting to address?
- The proposal mentions league revenue. Why, then, does it focus only on media revenue?
- What is the benefit to the league?
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 9, 2024 21:05:01 GMT -5
As Ron has just made his ticket baseline change, I am going to leave this alone for awhile as we'll all want to see what that does. He has promised to do test my proposal with PBL data and I would be happy to help in any way. I did run some approximation testing, using what numbers are readily available and compared that testing to a PBL-like control sim, but his will be far more valuable. Currently in PBL both the national and local media dollars are tied to market size. Market size moves extremely slowly and the lowest markets will NEVER, ever be the highest. Which is why the current PBL media budgets range from the highest (NYY) $110M to (TOR and MON) at $21 & 20M. And, strictly to minimize objections, my proposal does not contemplate any team losing money (though NYY exceeds even the second by a total higher than half the league ). To simplify, I NOW suggest the Yankees current (at whatever time Ron chooses) National Media Budget total, whatever that is, be used as the league total and that setting be changed to SAME for every team.To somewhat illustrate: Current NAT & LOC top to bottom = Total Media 10 + 10 = 20 9 + 9 = 18 8 + 8 = 16 7 + 7 = 14 6 + 6 = 12 5 + 5 = 10 4 + 4 = 8 3 + 3 = 6 2 + 2 = 4 1 + 1 = 2 Proposed Same NAT & Market LOC = New Total Media 10 + 10 = 20 * Same 10 + 9 = 19 10 + 8 = 18 10 + 7 = 17 10 + 6 = 16 10 + 5 = 15 10 + 4 = 14 10 + 3 = 13 10 + 2 = 12 10 + 1 = 11 The reasoning: This removes the market modifier from one of the media budgets The lowest teams benefit most from an influx of budget, but every team benefits relative to their current NAT budget The highest and lowest will still be separated by LOC budget tied to market But this narrows the media ratio and will give teams further down some more dollars with which to compete Obviously it's not quite this simple, hence the required testing. But this is my proposal to narrow this specific budget amount. Again, I will wait for more from the Commissioner, whenever time allows.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Mar 9, 2024 21:37:27 GMT -5
As Ron has just made his ticket baseline change, I am going to leave this alone for awhile as we'll all want to see what that does. He has promised to do test my proposal with PBL data and I would be happy to help in any way. I did run some approximation testing, using what numbers are readily available and compared that testing to a PBL-like control sim, but his will be far more valuable. Currently in PBL both the national and local media dollars are tied to market size. Market size moves extremely slowly and the lowest markets will NEVER, ever be the highest. Which is why the current PBL media budgets range from the highest (NYY) $110M to (TOR and MON) at $21 & 20M. And, strictly to minimize objections, my proposal does not contemplate any team losing money (though NYY exceeds even the second by a total higher than half the league ). To simplify, I NOW suggest the Yankees current (at whatever time Ron chooses) National Media Budget total, whatever that is, be used as the league total and that setting be changed to SAME for every team.To somewhat illustrate: Current NAT & LOC top to bottom = Total Media 10 + 10 = 20 9 + 9 = 18 8 + 8 = 16 7 + 7 = 14 6 + 6 = 12 5 + 5 = 10 4 + 4 = 8 3 + 3 = 6 2 + 2 = 4 1 + 1 = 2 Proposed Same NAT & Market LOC = New Total Media 10 + 10 = 20 * Same 10 + 9 = 19 10 + 8 = 18 10 + 7 = 17 10 + 6 = 16 10 + 5 = 15 10 + 4 = 14 10 + 3 = 13 10 + 2 = 12 10 + 1 = 11 The reasoning: This removes the market modifier from one of the media budgets The lowest teams benefit most from an influx of budget, but every team benefits relative to their current NAT budget The highest and lowest will still be separated by LOC budget tied to market But this narrows the media ratio and will give teams further down some more dollars with which to compete Obviously it's not quite this simple, hence the required testing. But this is my proposal to narrow this specific budget amount. Again, I will wait for more from the Commissioner, whenever time allows. Is there another setting you have selected? When I've sandboxed this, the Yankees national media goes down but their local media revenue skyrockets and their total media revenue goes from $110 mil to $130 mil.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 9, 2024 22:13:19 GMT -5
Is there another setting you have selected? When I've sandboxed this, the Yankees national media goes down but their local media revenue skyrockets and their total media revenue goes from $110 mil to $130 mil. The national media change needs to be made day prior to the off-season. At that point, let's assume NYY is highest, go to their team page (edit finances) and just NOTE the national media contract number (graphic from different league attached). Then go to the finance page in the settings and change the National media budget number to that number. AND same time, change the setting right below that to "Same for all teams." When you roll to the off-season, all teams will now have this number in the team finances National media line automatically. And that number, for all teams, will never ever change.When you hit the pre-season date, the new Total Media Budgets for all teams will be updated in the reports page. What happens with the local media contract is based on market size. In my non-PBL mock testing, the top Total Media Budget amount did not change over 50-years as the Yankees were Astronomical, as they are in PBL. Unless they can be "more" astronomical (the market size number has some room above top of scale 10) I am not sure how that happens? This is kind of a moot point at this time because Ron has already made his proposed change. Both changes would probably be a little much. When I proposed this it was more as an alternative to Ron's idea of putting more revenue into the league by narrowing the media dollars. Good Luck testing with the real file.
|
|