Subject: Creating a think tank

I think Headhog wants to see the rough figures you posted on HFB.

hfboards.hockeysfuture.co...

Certainly keeps it simple and attempts to make the gap closer, I like it. Especially since it would correct the salary inequalities from staying in a League II vs bottom of league L.

Well, after talking to people it has been hit with a lot of resistance. "Why should I help my competition, I earned this" and even "I want to make it on my own and not have charity". Not to mention the rich teams are the teams that support the game more through ProPacks (typically) and pissing them off could hurt PPM's longevity dearly.

What? You know how boring it gets when its the same thing day after day? I started at the bottom and worked my way up and that was the best part of the game. Decisions are much more important, strategies, ideas.....it makes it a strategic game......just like being a manger of a pro team. Yes, I do feel I should have some advantage for where I have worked to get. But when a Manager gets penalized for moving up a division, there is something wrong. We don't have to re-write the entire game. It just needs to have some sort of structure that makes it fair for everyone. It can't hurt to talk about it? Maybe there is another avenue, some smaller ideas that could help. Quit thinking of yourself to make a better game for all, including yourself. I moved from a different hockey manager site because it was old and never changed. This game seems to listen and at least try to institute new things. Granted, they need the pro pack players to support the game, but it should not make it a distinct advantage in the actual rules of the game. It can make it more tedious, which it does not having a pack, but still allow joe blow, who puts his time in, to be able to rise to the top. Wanna bet he buys a pro pack? The more success a manger has, for work he has put in, means more pro packs in my mind. The more involved and spurred on by success, the more the manager will want to spend money on the game. Maybe I'm just a fool thinking this. Maybe I'm creating enemies from pro-pack owners, I don't know. Wouldn't a more competitive game work to everyone's advantage? The harder it is, the better the reward. I wont play a game long if is not rewarding. OK, done soapboxing for the week.

Hmm, those reactions may have something to do with the way the idea is presented. It's not charity, it's fixing a flawed system. Normal pro sports teams don't just worry about resigning their players, they continually have to improve facilities and occasionally replace their stadiums. Staff don't have maximum salaries. Yet in PPM, once you reach the top, all you worry about is resigning your players. There's no inflation. You never need to build a new stadium. Top teams have an endless (so-to-speak) supply of cash and only players to really spend it on.

The thing that gets me as a developing team is being punished for promoting and immediately demoting. I've done it twice and each time after demoting, I was making less in sponsorship offers than I was the season before I promoted. I want to play better teams instead of mostly bots. I just don't want to sacrifice my long-term development to do it. And then there's the fact that I've been playing since 2011 and if I want to develop players from 15, I won't see I.1 until 2017. Focusing almost entirely on arena and facilities, I won't have them complete until 2015 if I continue at my current pace. I don't want to start at the top and I don't want it to be easy, but DAMN. That is a long-term commitment in an age when people typically have short attention spans and want everything now.

Canucks, what data do you need? I think it's a pretty safe bet I'll be demoting again next season since II.3 is typically the toughest II division in the US. I'd be willing to provide financial information to show the penalty associated with promoting and immediately demoting. We need to get more managers to provide specific info. Without hard examples, we have nothing. And we shouldn't present it as "profit-sharing" or "redistributing wealth." This is about promoting competition and parity. That's the focus.

These were responses to "what do you think of revenue sharing?". I never showed them data nor explained the inner workings of how/why it would work.

I'm waiting on real sponsor data from PPM HQ to test it further. The goal is not to toss money from team to team but ensure outliers (poorest or riches) are adjusted (gain or loss) appropriately from baseline.

Right, but the point is terms like "revenue sharing" carry a very negative connotation with people. Even if that's ultimately what's going to happen, it's better to present it as a way to promote competition and parity, and fix issues like I outlined where you get punished for promoting and immediately demoting.

Competition bonds?

Now you're gettin' it!

Perhaps I'll write a PPM Mag and watch comments explode.

The more I think about it..........there should be no way a team that fails to move up should make more money than a team who moves up. That should be an easy fix and I think everyone would agree to the change. This would immediately create a more competitive USA leagues from top to bottom. Hard work pays off, good ideas, strategies, hard work on the market.....pays off. If the league is going to be revenue driven, there is really no excuse to not change this........Right? Is it fun for a manager to intentionally allow his better team to lose so he can take advantage of the present rules? Keep to the simple fix for now Canucks and lets see what happens. They wont change the game all at once. Lets get this money inequality fixed for where you finish for the year. I'll help in any way I can.

I would not agree with that.

I started hockey in season 11. Because of this, my facilities and arena were significantly behind the existing teams.

I choose to stay in division III because that's the best way for me to build my team's infrastructure up. Changing the financial structure from where it is now would force me to have to go to the market and buy players. How is that fair to me? Why should i be forced into a particular way of playing?

If I can be (and want to be) patient... slowly building my team, thats my perogative as a manager. I'm not hurting you or anyone else by doing that. And I'm quite frankly annoyed that you've targeted that area of the game for reform.

If you want to reform something, make it easier for late starters like me to catch up. Because the sooner I catch up, the sooner I can be competitive.

I'm with Headhog. It is financially better for me to dominate the regular season in D2, but not promote, than it would be to promote to D1 and finish 9th.

How does that make any sense? What would be the point of ever promoting?

The same motivation for playing anything at the highest level... challenging yourself against the best competition there is.

It is (and should remain) a personal choice. If someone wants to play a more leisurely style of game in a lower division, they aren't hurting anyone else. Let them play the game how they want.

Sponsors want the best. Who wants to give tons of endorsments to a below average pro team that doesnt make the playoffs? Theyd rather reward the college team that won the national title or march madness.

Just because youre in a higher league level doesn't mean you should make more money. I'd bet that there's several college programs that outearn many pro teams on a regular basis.

How does Duke basketball compare to the Clippers? How does Notre Dame football compare to the Browns?