Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateAverageGuy
Do you think its really for baseballs benefit? Do you think it works for fictioal leagues as well? Just curious on opinions.
|
A good simulation should emulate reality. Options present should be exercised to improve the situation not degrade it. So an improved situation in a fictional league is a good thing.
As I pointed out in another post regarding a comment on not sharing ticket revenue, the visiting team provides value to the event. Without it there would be no event. So it should be paid for the value it brings to the event.
Beyond that, competition is good for an industry. If an industry provides a poor product consumers will go elsewhere.Skill is not the sole thing determining financial success. Its often right place right time, luck, or unforeseeable events. Mechanisms must be in place to maintain competition despite these factors.
OOTP assigns market size randomly. And there's a non-skill feature real life too. In the 50s the Dodgers made a reasonable decision that being the only team in LA was better than being one of three teams in NY. But I doubt at the time anyone could predict the population growth in the LA area from the 50s to today.
Why would the Cubs and Giants end up with 2/3 of the fans in two team markets? And the As were very successful within a few years of going to the West Coast. Is the result skill or luck?
If an industry doesn't have competition the overall product will suffer. Consumers may spend their money elsewhere. There are alternatives for them.
And so for the good of the simulation and real life baseball, revenue sharing is necessary.