[jazzrack]

hey all, again sorry for popping in and out, crazy schedule and all that. But I want to make sure my appreciation for the discussion is expressed.

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

In game theoretic terms, what you're describing is a Prisoner's Dilemma. If a player can gain an advantage by maxing his ticket prices, then he'll do it, even though everyone might be better off if nobody maxed their ticket prices. Given that payoff structure, we should expect that everyone will eventually max their prices, even if they'd prefer that nobody did it.

The way to change a game like this is to change the payoff matrix. You've done that already, to some extent, by creating an award that recognizes players for their cost-effectiveness, as well as by instituting a luxury tax. Another way is (as already discussed) is to institute a house rule regarding maximum ticket prices. You could also change the home-visitor split to 30-70 or 20-80, so that the majority of the home team's increased revenues would go to the visiting team (although that might lead to a "race to the bottom," which would be equally undesirable).

the reward is more than just bragging rights and our little statue we send around. it also sets the 3rd round draft order, so there is a real incentive to try and balance. in theory I have no problem trying to maximize revenue, but the risk/reward should balance.

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

If you look at 1954's financial report, you will see that there is no way to match revenue with a team that maxed their ticket price. Even the team that led the league in attendance still fell $1 Million short in gate revenue.

I don't think that increasing revenue sharing is the answer because half of 2,500,000 is still more than half of 1,500,000. Only if we increase revenue sharing to 100% would it make max ticket prices a non factor. If we did that then we'd have to find a different way to distribute revenue to the high performers.

if you split the gate revenue 50/50 you are essentially pulling money from one pocket and putting it in the other. and creating an even revenue stream has never been a goal. the A's will never be able to match the Yankees revenue stream, but they compete just fine on the field by playing a different type of strategy.

Originally Posted by RchW

Require a minimum attendance or % capacity average that if not met results in a fine that brings total gate receipts down to the same as the worst team in the league. If that is too binary make a graduated scale that varies by the amount off target. That provides a risk/reward analysis that if improperly done will hurt financially. For a league based on corporate personas it seems fitting.

Owners who wish to take the risk of maximizing gate receipts via max pricing must balance that against an honest appraisal of fan response. You must be able to project what a worse than expected team performance will do to attendance.

this led me to a thought, what effect does fan loyalty play into this strategy? so I checked our fan loyalty spread, and it is not very realistic. 15 teams have very good or great, 1 (shell $5) has pathetic, 1 average and 3 good. I am not sure that is a viable spread.

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

Well, that's another house rule, isn't it?

Unless you're saying that a team would need to meet a minimum attendance percentage based on the team's final won-loss record, I don't think you'll get the results you want. If you just impose a minimum attendance mark, you'll penalize genuinely bad teams that can't draw fans, regardless of their ticket prices. Instead, you would need to penalize a team that fails to reach an attendance mark commensurate with its record.

we are a simple bunch. we try to live by KISS as much as possible. even our owner score formula is simplistic, but still accurate. so while we are averse we are not opposed to external rules. we just need to keep them easy to comply and police. that's why I prefer to find a way through game settings.

In this case I am wondering how big a role fan loyalty can play? if we set everybody to the same, say normal & adjust the gate share to 50, thus creating a more solid floor while still allowing for attempted maximization of profit, but with a more realistic risk?

in theory