|
Post by NickP_Marlins GM on Mar 10, 2024 12:54:29 GMT -5
Again,
Why are we considering anything other than just simply raising the Markets for the “below market” teams?
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Mar 11, 2024 7:47:21 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). View AttachmentThen 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." View AttachmentWhen 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. You're correct that this would reduce the media revenue range, however there may be a bigger picture impact that negates that and I would like to try to illustrate why that is an issue.
The Yankees in your example actually went from $110 mil to $130 mil total media revenue, the Reds went up to $75 mil, the Rockies went up to $82.5 mil at the same time the Expos went up to $57 mil.
But Sean, everyone is getting money. Why is that a problem?
It's also true that most teams would get an increase, but here's the problem. The Expos media revenue would increase from $20.3 mil to $57 mil in this scenario, or a $36 mil increase.
But that's good, the Expos maybe can retain some home grown guys! That's also a true statement, but there are multiple ways to reach that goal.
The problem with this proposal is that the game doesn't hold the other teams down and bring the other teams up when you make the national media contract equal for all teams. It actually just adjusts other revenue to replace the missing national revenue, and in some cases as I mentioned above, other teams benefit greatly. I mentioned the Reds media revenue above increasing to $75 mil, which is an increase of $26.5 mil.
The Expos $36 mil increase on paper looks nice, but in reality it's only a $10.5 increase from what the Reds would also get. Once you factor in the inflation on free agents, IAFA, etc. that number shrinks even more. Then when you consider all of the other teams getting money, we're back where we started.
That's why I proposed if the desire was to help small market teams generate more revenue, that we as a league decide the smallest market would be above average or average, adjust all teams below that to that level, and then play the game. Since revenues and subsequently budgets are more derived based on market size in OOTP24, this would bring those teams up based on the in game range that is also based on market size on where you fall in that range. The early testing shows this indeed does bring those teams up, while keeping the other teams where they are at currently. Ron has said he needs more testing and data to confirm this, which is fine, but I am comfortable making this statement based on my opinion of the data. The reason why that proposal works is that it gives smaller market teams more revenue, it's directly to them and only them, and this action reduces inflation compared to the previous proposal.
Another idea that would achieve for $ for smaller market teams would be to increase revenue sharing numbers or have a luxury tax (we currently do not have).
Turning off owners determining budgets is something that needs more testing because the last time it was tested the results didn't come out as expected. In theory though, this would allow all teams access to all of their funds instead of the owner pocketing them.
There are other more labor intensive/manual ways we could adjust team revenues if that was desired.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 11, 2024 11:40:24 GMT -5
All data is helpful.
Not sure how long you simmed? But curious if over that same timeframe, from the same starting point, without changing anything as a control, does the NYY media revenue also change?
|
|