Salary Cap vs Revenue Sharring

skkrrt · 11-20-2003, 04:22 PM

Hello,

Im wondering which you prefer and why, a salary cap or a heavy revenue sharring, as well as experiences with both.

Personally I hate caps, OOTP players demand far too much for a salary cap under 110 million too work properly IMO and generally too many teams ruin teams with the cap and then leave.

I prefer a revenue sharing model that works something like this: There is a hard cap at 120 mil (but that really is a lot), but at 90 mil (or 100 mil) you take double the cash you are over that thresh hold and distribute it between the 10 lowest revenue teams

EX: If you use it as 90 mil, if a teams payroll is 100 mil they take 20 mil cash and give 2 mil each to the teams with the 10 lowest revenues.

Also, any player making over 20 mil on your roster is 2 million in cash.

just wondering about your experiences with each.

kq76 · 11-20-2003, 06:20 PM

Well OOTP does not have a decent revenue sharing model (teams often contribute, but very rarely do teams receive anything and if they do it's always the same). However, the cash max (for those that don't know, the cash max is supposed to lead to revenue sharing, but as I said above, it doesn't quite work) alone helps keep teams from getting too far ahead, but that is also what the salary cap tries to do. The point is, there's a system in place to keep the best teams from getting too far ahead, but there is no, imo, adequate system in OOTP for trying to help prop up the struggling teams. And unless you set both the cash max and the salary cap low enough, which I see with too few leagues, you're not even helping keep the best teams in reach. I'm currently doing some testing to try and see where the best levels might be (you don't want them too high, nor too low), but of course that will depend on the league and its settings and current finances.

If we're just looking at the concepts outside of OOTP, right now I prefer the salary cap because it is extremely difficult, if possible at all, to come up with a revenue sharing model which encourages the worst teams to try their best. It's kind of like welfare when some people are better off not working and getting that paycheque than trying their best and not getting the government paycheque. If you read about MLB's system, I think you will agree that it is just ridiculous, which is shocking considering how much real money is being thrown around. It's not surprising at all that Steinbrenner flips over minor things after considering what MLB does with its finances, I would too if others were unfairly distributing what money my organization earned. Then of course you've got the argument that with a salary cap you're probably holding down what the players may deserve in increased salary. If someone can come up with a great revenue sharing system, then I believe I would greatly prefer it though.

EDIT: Here's a short article discussing MLB's revenue sharing system. You can find more in depth articles on the subject, but this is a very good short one. I believe the author, Doug Pappas, is often regarded as one of the best business minds on baseball.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ne...204pappas.html

11-20-2003, 04:22 PM	#1
skkrrt Major Leagues Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 410	Salary Cap vs Revenue Sharring Hello, Im wondering which you prefer and why, a salary cap or a heavy revenue sharring, as well as experiences with both. Personally I hate caps, OOTP players demand far too much for a salary cap under 110 million too work properly IMO and generally too many teams ruin teams with the cap and then leave. I prefer a revenue sharing model that works something like this: There is a hard cap at 120 mil (but that really is a lot), but at 90 mil (or 100 mil) you take double the cash you are over that thresh hold and distribute it between the 10 lowest revenue teams EX: If you use it as 90 mil, if a teams payroll is 100 mil they take 20 mil cash and give 2 mil each to the teams with the 10 lowest revenues. Also, any player making over 20 mil on your roster is 2 million in cash. just wondering about your experiences with each.

11-20-2003, 06:20 PM	#2
kq76 Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 12,062	Well OOTP does not have a decent revenue sharing model (teams often contribute, but very rarely do teams receive anything and if they do it's always the same). However, the cash max (for those that don't know, the cash max is supposed to lead to revenue sharing, but as I said above, it doesn't quite work) alone helps keep teams from getting too far ahead, but that is also what the salary cap tries to do. The point is, there's a system in place to keep the best teams from getting too far ahead, but there is no, imo, adequate system in OOTP for trying to help prop up the struggling teams. And unless you set both the cash max and the salary cap low enough, which I see with too few leagues, you're not even helping keep the best teams in reach. I'm currently doing some testing to try and see where the best levels might be (you don't want them too high, nor too low), but of course that will depend on the league and its settings and current finances. If we're just looking at the concepts outside of OOTP, right now I prefer the salary cap because it is extremely difficult, if possible at all, to come up with a revenue sharing model which encourages the worst teams to try their best. It's kind of like welfare when some people are better off not working and getting that paycheque than trying their best and not getting the government paycheque. If you read about MLB's system, I think you will agree that it is just ridiculous, which is shocking considering how much real money is being thrown around. It's not surprising at all that Steinbrenner flips over minor things after considering what MLB does with its finances, I would too if others were unfairly distributing what money my organization earned. Then of course you've got the argument that with a salary cap you're probably holding down what the players may deserve in increased salary. If someone can come up with a great revenue sharing system, then I believe I would greatly prefer it though. EDIT: Here's a short article discussing MLB's revenue sharing system. You can find more in depth articles on the subject, but this is a very good short one. I believe the author, Doug Pappas, is often regarded as one of the best business minds on baseball. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ne...204pappas.html __________________ My OOTP Wishlist \| My FAQ List OOTP Wiki \| Your Recommended Team Nicknames, By City (A Crowdsourced Project) For Beta/Devs: Full screen (1920x1080) Last edited by kq76; 11-20-2003 at 07:18 PM.