Subject: Creating a think tank

Sweet Jesus this blew up. :O

1)
Completely true. It was a generalization. But it's just funny to me when I see teams shoot ahead of me into division II. And then a season later they're back in my division III with a "+" next to their name lol.

It's happened with 3 of the teams I've seen promote since I started playing.

2)
There are quite possibly minor league hockey teams in canada that make a great deal of money. it all depends on situation.

I think we're in agreement that PPM's current system encourages people to take their time and stay in lower leagues longer. I guess I just have little patience for people that don't utilize the current mechanics to their best advantage, and instead cry for changes that benefit them and their strategy.

3)
I don't agree with you on this one. If you DON'T give money to the higher teams in each division, then sure, more teams will try to promote into higher leagues. But what's the motivation to try to push your team yet again? What's the motivation to try to do well in the regular season?

Instead of "camping" in division III. Teams will just "camp" in the bottom half of division II.

Trust me, I studied behavioral economics in college. People respond to incentives. They'll do whatever benefits them most.

4)
LOL at the Sharks comment. I would sort of agree with you... but yet, if you look at my team rating(s), I'm not QUITE there yet. If I'm still loafing around in division III in season 21 or 22, then there's an issue.

Seriously. My oldest player is 21. What pro hockey team do you know of that competes for the stanley cup with a team full of 21 year olds lol?

Even outside of that, because of the league redistribution in the off-season, I actually have probably 5-6 teams that I actually have to worry about this season. I also had a significantly better team come down to my division from II this season, so I likely won't be winning the regular season and/or playoffs even if I tried (unless I went to the market).

So I think my sponsors will be patient with the building plans for at least a few more seasons.

I still say that my idea at the end of page 4 needs some serious attention.

As far as I'm concerned, that would have a chain reaction effect, and would fix the vast majority of issues hockey has (now that it's in it's 18th season).

The depreciation of facilities was a good idea. Any money sink that targets the more established teams (like free agency) might help.

All I know is that I will play to the highest league once I get a sound financial income. In Europe many teams push for a top 6 finish but make sure they do not go up a division. They get the revenue from a good following, sold out games, top 6 means they get tv coverage and they attract good talent to play. But at the same time they know if they go up to the top division that they will lose the majority of games , so they hang back until they know they can field a team that keeps them up. Look at the Swans as a classic example of this.


Lanky I like your idea as well. Can you write it out in detail how you would like it posted and I will post it on the admin forums.

So basically we need to punish the top teams just because they have better teams?

Do you know how hard it is to compete and stay here? Everyone of your players that go to free agency are targeted by the teams of the entire world.

There is nothing like losing a player, like all the young ones you have developed from pennies, just because of money. How many top world teams target your players......
None, because of their age. So the top teams are already under financial strain to try and keep their players that got them to the top. That is a very large financial hardship on top teams already in place to keep us in check.

At any rate, without creating more consternation, all I was trying to say was that a team who promotes should not be penalized and make less money than a lower league team.

I apologize if I have created negative conversation. I was the one who resurrected this forum to create some conversation. To make the game more interactive and talk about ideas. I really thought it would create a positive atmosphere for ideas. Again, sorry for stirring up hard feelings.

As a point of reference for my thoughts on beginning this thread again, I argued for the lower teams to receive incentive, even though it would cut my own throat. I just wanted an intelligent discussion on how to make the game better.

I have already learned a lot more about the game from these discussions. The thread is about creating a think tank, not a place to argue. I know I got off my ivory tower once or twice and I am doing it now to try and get things back on an even keel.

Another money sink for the higher teams is the upkeep and salaries of staff and players. I pay just under 6 million a day and I am not even maxed out yet.

If you look at the top managers for money, they are st. L. And Psychos. Why are they holding that cash? Because they have some great players that they put many seasons into that are coming up in free agency. That really stifles your growth when you have no idea what they will bring in the free market.

I guarantee it will be in the hundreds of millions for each and some even go into the billion.

This is the reason why irresistible force left. He paid close to a billion to keep 3 players and he could see the writing on the wall that his team was about to be decimated. This still is a huge money sink for the upper teams, and does help even things out financially.

So what I am saying is, there are some devices in place to bring down the top teams. Is it enough, maybe not?

As I stated at the beginning of this thread, let's chat about what we see from our situations as needing adjustment to make the game more fair for everyone. I want everyone to succeed. There are solutions and ideas to help all of us. Let's try to remember we are all on the same side.

I came from another online hockey manager site and it suckered because nothing ever changed. I really enjoy this one and only want to make it better and to establish some dialogue within the game to add another interesting portion for the game. In my previous manager game, the top teams never talked to the lower teams. There are not many that do that here either. I am trying to change that. I had no intention of creating animosity here. I just wanted to add a voice from a different perspective.

The portion of Lanky's id a that seems to have been overlooked is that it would take money from what is available for free agents, driving the prices down. If you're paying upkeep, so is everyone else.

The downside is that it could easily stifle some teams trying to catch up, even if they built the arena first.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your point but that is what a person has to manage as a team. Do I stay down and develop my facilities/arena? Then the upkeep costs need to be accounted for in your strategy. Maybe I don't understand, can level 3 team afford maxed out facilities/arena? Should they be able to?

A team in Division III in the US can. Look at my team. I spent most of my time in III. I'm not necessarily for Lanky's strategy as written right now. Simply saying if it were employed, top teams would have funds diverted from buying/keeping FAs to maintenance. This would drive down the price of top tier players.

Ok, I can see that as an idea. What about teams, which I did myself, who train players with the maxed out facilities and make a fortune selling them. Would this create another Avenue for revenue inequality? The lower teams would not be able to do this. Would that be considered unfair by lower level teams?

IMO no. Trust me, I know how long and how much money it takes to build the facilities to do that. Add in the time it takes to train the players, and daily fees if you have more than 40 on the roster and it's not something I see as unfair. Is allowing 10 players per season to be sold at only a 5% penalty too much? Are the penalties too small? Maybe. They did modify them significantly for basketball. But in general no, it's an acceptable form of income you've earned that is not guaranteed as it is dictated entirely by the market.

For the purpose of making the game more even so that newer players can catch up sooner than in 20-30 seasons, a money sink that primarily affects the better teams would be effective. An equivalent alternative would be to prop up newer teams - another game that I have played gives a handicap to newer teams for a few seasons in an aspect of the game fundamental to being able to increase income.

Whether this should be done, is another question. Balancing the quality of a manager game between older managers and newer managers seems to be a fundamental difficulty with all sports manager games.

Another alternative to decreasing the amount of seasons it takes to catch up would be to speed up the seasons, so that 20-30 seasons isn't so long. In another game I played, all players eventually retired, so that every manager basically had to start over after every period

One thing about losing a player to free agency - if you are forced to sell the 2 players at 26, then you will have enough money to buy (or save) another equivalent player, and all teams of the same caliber are affected equally.

Free agency at least adds some realism and a challenge (so that the best teams have something to do after becoming one of the best teams). For instance, in the NHL, if a team like the Edmonton Oilers actually lives up to its potential at some point, it will be very unlikely to be able to keep its team together for the duration of the careers of all of its players.