2016 Brewmaster's 1 SIM Complete - Next SIM Sun AM

[liquidcrash]

It's being shared at the same percentage but because of the higher playoff revenue the top teams are seeing an increased contribution. It's a weird system but basically every team contributes 30% of their revenue. That pot is then divided up evenly among all the teams. The financial reports show the difference between what each team contributed vs what they received.

Ok, thanks for the details. So, the system is the same it's been, just revenues are higher with the increased playoff money.

I would be a no until I see what it does in 10 years. I'm sure there would be at least 5 more. We'll need 20 now to pass a vote. I don't see getting anywhere near that. Not being difficult but that's a lot without seeing how things would pan out.

Do we start over the financials? Put a salary cap in? How do we make sure in 2025 Batavia doesn't have a $200m budget and someone else has $100m?

I'd put myself in a similar boat here. I guess I'm just not sure where anyone is being punished for being too successful. All of the top teams in the league have high budgets, a product of their success. Since budgets are based off revenue, I'm guessing that this increase in playoff revenue will translate into even more budget room for teams that can consistently make it that far. To me, that is an incentive to field a winning team, from a financial standpoint. Perhaps there's a way to lower the amount of revenue that's shared, but I guess I'm missing the punitive aspect of it. Teams that are consistently successful are positioned to continue that success under our current system.

I guess I worry with anything that would jeopardize competitive balance in the league. We had an unbalanced financial system in the earlier stages of the BLB, and that was always a cause of frustration. Very few people want to sign up to be the small market team.

I can see a frustration of paying teams that are intentionally bad, but the cash max keeps anyone from just hoarding that money at least.

[Sharkn20]

What about punishing teams that are intentionally tanking and have a letīs say -10 record, having predictions by OSA as a preference? Forfeiting the revenue sharing and giving it back spreaded between the profitable franchises? That would incentivate not only fielding a winning team but at least a competitive one... How that it sounds?

[BDub]

What about punishing teams that are intentionally tanking and have a letīs say -10 record, having predictions by OSA as a preference? Forfeiting the revenue sharing and giving it back spreaded between the profitable franchises? That would incentivate not only fielding a winning team but at least a competitive one... How that it sounds?

What if teams arent trying to tank and they have a -10 record?

[Carlos]

What about punishing teams that are intentionally tanking and have a letīs say -10 record, having predictions by OSA as a preference? Forfeiting the revenue sharing and giving it back spreaded between the profitable franchises? That would incentivate not only fielding a winning team but at least a competitive one... How that it sounds?

What is your definition of competitive?

[Z]

What about punishing teams that are intentionally tanking and have a letīs say -10 record, having predictions by OSA as a preference? Forfeiting the revenue sharing and giving it back spreaded between the profitable franchises? That would incentivate not only fielding a winning team but at least a competitive one... How that it sounds?

By "-10," you mean their final record compared to their predicted record in the preseason predictions?

Not sure that's what we're looking for.

Toronto, for example, was predicted to win 53 games and ended up winning 44 games.

They "tanked" as much as anyone ever has and wouldn't qualify by your standard.

[Sharkn20]

By "-10," you mean their final record compared to their predicted record in the preseason predictions?

Not sure that's what we're looking for.

Toronto, for example, was predicted to win 53 games and ended up winning 44 games.

They "tanked" as much as anyone ever has and wouldn't qualify by your standard.

I meant by competitive what you did this year Carlos, trying to compete (and bothering me all the year with your wins) not tanking intentionally.

Just guessing a number, if the league thinks that an inferior number is better then go ahead. The point is to avoid intentional tanking.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Delandis]

I am 100% against any punitive measures against how people want to run their teams. I'm only about incentives and raising the cash max is just that.

That being said, revenue sharing is 100% punitive towards revenue generation and encourages tanking, period. I'll have to disagree with Brad's assessment that it is difficult to get out of debt. When you cut 90MM of payroll in one year without having to skimp on talent with a strong minor league system, it isn't that hard.. I don't see Pitt running a deficit in 2017 and the debt will likely be completely erased in 2018.

As far as extra money in the system the money is already there and we are seeing it as extra revenue. Whether our year over year max is 10MM or 20MM, the game will see the total revenue generated at either point and adjust demands accordingly. Teams budgets are going to rise from this point forward anyway. I'm just not understanding the hesitation of upping the cash max while removing revenue share.

To me, it seems like if anything, the 10MM cap is a hindrance to small market teams as they are the teams more likely run a surplus. The game doesn't care whether Peter or Paul has the money. The way we are set now, there are multiple instances where we are just taking the extra revenue generation of being successful AND fiscally responsible and giving it to teams that aren't successful AND fiscally irresponsible and then taxing everyone for just being part of the system (10MM year over year cap).

[BDub]

I am 100% against any punitive measures against how people want to run their teams..

Agree 100%.

[Sharkn20]

Am giving up, do whatever you want guys. I will play and enjoy according to the rules. If you are in favor of people tanking, go ahead, if you want to punish the managers who look after the scores AND after the finances, go ahead. I don't think any of those things is realistic. A team who tanks or doesn't play at least acoordingly to the expectations, the GM or someone gets fired...

Anyway I love this league and how competitive and great managers you are guys.

Carry on! The expansion draft is coming!

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[BDub]

Am giving up, do whatever you want guys. I will play and enjoy according to the rules. If you are in favor of people tanking, go ahead, if you want to punish the managers who look after the scores AND after the finances, go ahead. I don't think any of those things is realistic. A team who tanks or doesn't play at least acoordingly to the expectations, the GM or someone gets fired...

Anyway I love this league and how competitive and great managers you are guys.

Carry on! The expansion draft is coming!

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

While im in favor of things that make this game realistic, I dont think a GM should be fired for not doing well. If that was the case, im pretty sure all of us would have been at some point or another because we had a stretch of crappy seasons. Guys play for the comradery of the league. They like to play the game with some (not all) of the GMs.

[mike]

Am giving up, do whatever you want guys. I will play and enjoy according to the rules. If you are in favor of people tanking, go ahead, if you want to punish the managers who look after the scores AND after the finances, go ahead. I don't think any of those things is realistic. A team who tanks or doesn't play at least acoordingly to the expectations, the GM or someone gets fired...

Anyway I love this league and how competitive and great managers you are guys.

Carry on! The expansion draft is coming!

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Don't hate tanking. Trust the process. #HinkieForever

[Sharkn20]

While im in favor of things that make this game realistic, I dont think a GM should be fired for not doing well. If that was the case, im pretty sure all of us would have been at some point or another because we had a stretch of crappy seasons. Guys play for the comradery of the league. They like to play the game with some (not all) of the GMs.

Am not saying to fire anyone, that's the last thing I would vote yes, was just an example of the real life.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[BDub]

Am not saying to fire anyone, that's the last thing I would vote yes, was just an example of the real life.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Fair enough

[Sharkn20]

Don't hate tanking. Trust the process. #HinkieForever

Am not in favor of tanking, but I don't hate it. I had to dismantle the whole Snappers when I took over in my first and second year to clean the financial mess... So I did use that strategy for 2 years, hopefully it won't happen again. I like how you and UMD and Bradz or Matt (among almost all of you guys) carry your teams. Trying to win it all every single year or at least try to kick some buts around like Maine or Denver this year...

That's what I like and that's how I always carry my teams online.

As I said whatever the veterans of the league decide I will be happy :) The BLB has been alive since forever and is a very dinamic league. We will get there eventually.

#Don'tMessWithMyFinances

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Sharkn20]

Rosema and Perkins are gonna get PAID this FA

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk