Broken Projections for Team Revenue/Profit

[silverwolf]

I've got an online league with three separate leagues in an association. It's promotion-relegation, but done manually, not with OOTP.

The top tier has higher reputation than the middle tier, and the lower tier is slightly lower.

I'm seeing issues where players in the top tier are asking for extensions far below what they would get on the open market, by many millions.

I've looked at everything I can to try and adjust it, but nothing seems to help. One thing I noticed when looking at the projected financials is that the top tier has some really whacked projections for average team revenue and profit, but the two other leagues do not.

Top tier looks like this:



Middle tier looks like this:



Nothing looks "off" about any particular team's revenue, or profit - see https://www.usba14.us/reports/league...al_report.html

To me, the numbers are so off it looks like some kind of overflow issue, otherwise it makes no sense that all the numbers in the millions turn into negative $2B.

I'm not sure this is causing the issues I'm seeing with players asking for low contracts, but it seems wrong nonetheless.

Happy to share any other information about the league setup if it would help get some suggestions on how to fix the projections.

[Matt Arnold]

Definitely looks like an overflow/underflow issue.

First off, you'll only get overflow when values are over 2B, so I would definitely suggest checking all your ticket prices/games per team/media contracts/etc... in the settings to see if any of them are missing a decimal point. It could be as simple as having the gate share accidentally be 120 instead of 20, which could put some stuff below 0.

What might be happening is something is going negative, which when it gets cast through various functions, can either end up very positive, or very negative. This could cause FA valuations to shift a lot.

[silverwolf]

Visiting gate is set to 40.

I've checked every team's ticket price, and went through every team in that league's finance screen and there are no numbers that look off.

Here's a screenshot of the full league finance settings. Also, the IFA cap is set to $0 (no cap).

If you can't tell from the screenshot, would you be willing to look at the league file if I upload it to the FTP server?

[Matt Arnold]

I don't see anything obviously off there. Yes, if you can post it to the FTP I will take a look.

[silverwolf]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

I don't see anything obviously off there. Yes, if you can post it to the FTP I will take a look.

Uploaded as USBA-finances.zip to the FTP support site. You can DM me if you need any of the passwords, or if the uploaded info isn't sufficient.

Thanks a lot!

[Matt Arnold]

Ah, I see - when projecting revenues, we are including potential playoff revenues, however due to the playoffs being disabled in the league, there's some junk there which is causing the overflow.

Thankfully, if you simply enable playoffs, disable custom playoffs, and then disable the playoffs again, that resets that info, and the numbers on the settings page should be closer (it may accidentally count a round of playoff revenues, but that shouldn't change the values too much).

As for why players are demanding less for extensions than for free agent deals, I'm not sure. If I had to guess, I would say it was due to teams having tons of excess cash, but negative projected budgets. When calculating how much money is available in the league (for how much we adjust contract demands), I'm guessing that's suppressing the extension demands. But free agents have all the teams bidding on them, so salaries will rise.

[silverwolf]

I'll try that, thanks for checking, Matt.

For extensions, it's still an issue, because once a team has a guy, they can keep him for far less than market, so we end up with this pretty unbalanced salary situation. Some guys are really cheap, and some are really expensive as free agents.