Posted by gillispie1 on 3/1/2016 12:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kmfloyd on 3/1/2016 11:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by possumfiend on 2/27/2016 8:03:00 PM (view original):
"We're always looking for ways to market the games, but we're very limited on budget." - developer's chat 9/17/2015

It's difficult to advertise if they don't get much of a budget and they won't get much of a budget if they don't start bringing in more users to increase their revenues and operating income. It's a vicious never ending cycle.

That excuse simply doesn't fly. They have television stations. All they'd need to do is have there talking heads talk about the game from time to time. Maybe even play them to interact with the WIS community. How much could that really cost?

this was already explained very nicely earlier in the thread, i forget by who, but it really hit the nail on the head.

in short, big businesses have divisions. those divisions are responsible to track their own financial information, and to be financially viable on their own. big companies don't just give free stuff from one division to the other - there may be a discount - but generally, the divisions "pay" each other for services. otherwise, you can't track the true cost and profit of different initiatives within the company.

more importantly, you are forgetting about opportunity cost. advertising is the #1 form of revenue for the TV division of Fox. those slots are basically filled. if they use a filled slot, for WIS, they lose money - and tv is big business compared to little old WIS. the open slots they fill by advertising their own stuff, there might be something there... but they have a TON of products and services that are WAY bigger than WIS, to fill those slots.

anyway, there are a number of other reasons explained better than i would explain them, so i'll leave it at that.

Fox televises baseball games, why couldn't they have Joe Buck talk about this site. Bring the baseball players in and pretty soon they will start trying other sports. All that costs is a few seconds of each game telecast. Maybe bring up the simulation results in the first few games of the year "Our award winning What if Sports engine predicts..."

I was brought to this site by reading an old Bill Simmons article about it. He talked about the baseball game and how much fun it was. That brought me on to here, and I ended up bringing seven other guys here. We mostly played the football sim, but I looked around and have been here for years now.

First Bill Simmons wrote about it on his own volition. He was not paid to do so and that was his prerogative. Sportswriter, Aaron Gleeman of the Minneapolis Star Tribune is also a huge fan of HBD and still has a league today, but again these are their choices. How much do you think the WIS would have to pay Joe Buck to advertise for them on a national baseball telecast? It certainly wouldn't be free ... anyway since you missed it earlier in the thread I'll re-post my earlier comments for you because the reason this isn't and hasn't been done is not because no one at WIS has ever thought of this before ... it's that it's NOT free:

WIS is a part of Fox Sports Digital Media ("FSDM") which is a subsidiary of Fox Entertainment Group ("FEG"). Fox Sports Networks ("FSN") is a separate division of FEG. It's easiest to probably think of them as separate businesses even though they operate under the same corporate umbrella. So while no actual check would be cut, or physical cash would be exchanged if WIS started "advertising" on FSN it would still impact both of their operating budgets. FOX accounting would most likely charge the advertising costs against the WIS budget and show it as advertising revenue earned by FSN.

It would seem intuitive that WIS could get a free or cheap plugs on the network, but what is the Network's incentive to do so? FSN makes their money from advertising so if they suddenly start giving away air time for free to other Fox related entities they become a shill for everything Fox owned and where will they ever make their money? And if WIS is given free air time, won't Fox owned Nat Geo, or upcoming FOX feature films like Independence Day, Ice Age, or Planet of the Apes also then want free advertising? Wouldn't the consumer products division start asking for the anchors and broadcasters to display merchandise on the sports desks? And if the network does nothing more than shamelessly plug FOX owned products and give away their advertising space and air time for free, how will they ever set competitive rates and encourage outsiders to advertise with them?

There would also be issues with the sportscasters and announcers themselves. How much do their contracts call for them to advertise everything Fox owned? If they had a good agent it's highly doubtful they are required to advertise everything Fox owned (which they may or may not support or use) without some form of additional compensation or speaking fee.

I guess my point, in a long winded fashion, is I don't think advertising is as simple or free as it might appear on the surface.

Posted by grillmaster on 3/7/2016 12:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 3/1/2016 12:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kmfloyd on 3/1/2016 11:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by possumfiend on 2/27/2016 8:03:00 PM (view original):
"We're always looking for ways to market the games, but we're very limited on budget." - developer's chat 9/17/2015

It's difficult to advertise if they don't get much of a budget and they won't get much of a budget if they don't start bringing in more users to increase their revenues and operating income. It's a vicious never ending cycle.

That excuse simply doesn't fly. They have television stations. All they'd need to do is have there talking heads talk about the game from time to time. Maybe even play them to interact with the WIS community. How much could that really cost?

this was already explained very nicely earlier in the thread, i forget by who, but it really hit the nail on the head.

in short, big businesses have divisions. those divisions are responsible to track their own financial information, and to be financially viable on their own. big companies don't just give free stuff from one division to the other - there may be a discount - but generally, the divisions "pay" each other for services. otherwise, you can't track the true cost and profit of different initiatives within the company.

more importantly, you are forgetting about opportunity cost. advertising is the #1 form of revenue for the TV division of Fox. those slots are basically filled. if they use a filled slot, for WIS, they lose money - and tv is big business compared to little old WIS. the open slots they fill by advertising their own stuff, there might be something there... but they have a TON of products and services that are WAY bigger than WIS, to fill those slots.

anyway, there are a number of other reasons explained better than i would explain them, so i'll leave it at that.

Fox televises baseball games, why couldn't they have Joe Buck talk about this site. Bring the baseball players in and pretty soon they will start trying other sports. All that costs is a few seconds of each game telecast. Maybe bring up the simulation results in the first few games of the year "Our award winning What if Sports engine predicts..."

I was brought to this site by reading an old Bill Simmons article about it. He talked about the baseball game and how much fun it was. That brought me on to here, and I ended up bringing seven other guys here. We mostly played the football sim, but I looked around and have been here for years now.

someone else explained it's because while all owned by the parent corporation each are separate entities, and that Fox Sports makes money whenever Joe Buck endorses something, so to give it away is to lose revenue.

It's just like the casinos here in Vegas. When the mob ran them the casinos would practically give away the food and rooms to get people in the doors to gamble. Now that the corporations have taken over, every single division is accountable for making a profit. My wife is the assistant pastry chef at one of the strip casinos, and they have to struggle to hook up the conventions with more cookies and things like that.

If Fox wants this to be profitable, they can spare a few seconds of Buck's time to promote the game. I love baseball, it's always been my number one sport, but I know I have a hard time getting my wife to watch any non Dodgers game because of all the dead time.

Or I guess we can all join together to buy the site from Fox since they don't want to support it and hire other programmers to fix it.

"If Fox wants this to be profitable, they can spare a few seconds of Buck's time to promote the game."

Probably true but WIS is such a minor, minuscule part of the Fox umbrella that they probably don't even give WIS a second thought ... they may not even realize they own it. If you want an idea of how important this is to their operations go read one of their 10-Q's or 10-K's ... even better go back and read one from the quarter or year when they purchased WIS ... guess how many times WIS got mentioned in those shareholder reports? If you said ZERO you'd be correct.

And as to Joe Buck's time ... they can't just force him to advertise for them ... he'd not only need to be compensated but he'd probably have to agree to it as well.

I seriously doubt that Fox really cares about this miniscule game (as far their revenues go) to promote it. That said, Joe Buck is under a contract (ie: is paid by FOX already..He endorses other FOX programs on air and I seriously doubt as an Employee he has to be paid extra for any FOX advertising).

"And as to Joe Buck's time ... they can't just force him to advertise for them ... he'd not only need to be compensated but he'd probably have to agree to it as well. "

Posted by oldresorter on 2/28/2016 7:03:00 AM (view original):
it seems with near every major change, the game loses a rather significant portion of the players. The data strikes fear that after the next change, if recruiting is not really 'fixed', the game might drop to unacceptable levels. My main area's of concern:

1 - how much extra time will the new game take?
1a - does the time required 'have' to be a 2-3 hr window on one day when important milestones happen, or are the important window(s) over a longer time frame, say like 8-12 hrs
2 - will recruits get spread out more equally, or simply redistributed due to a new flaw in the game that enough coaches plainly see that more than normal levels of coaches leave?
3 - recruiting always has been the most important part of this game, if it becomes even more important, that is bad

Of all the changes to the engine ever made, the one thing (to me) that really hurt the game was when practice planning changed so a coach's ability to 'shape' the type of player he recruited was decreased, and the computer controlled more of the shape or arc of the player. Under the guise of -potential', which in itself is a good idea, the game really got less interesting, as post potential the recruit's destiny being etched in stone thru the computer generated model, rather than thru the coach's vision for what a recruit 'could be'.

Of all the idea's presented here, the one that I would now support (I used to hate the idea, but more and more I find myself listening) is I would make the game a 50 year game, which would resemble a real life coach's lifetime, starting as a head guy at d3 around age 30 and weaving one's way thru to around age 80. Once done, I'd wipe the slate clean, make coach's like me start over, the computer would add a suffix to show it is the second coming of a coach. IMO one of the reasons d3 and d2 were so healthy was the competition to rise to the top. This would restore that. And this would seem perfectly fair to all the other players, the ones who do not have 50 plus years in the game.

3 other things about the 50 yr idea, in most worlds, 50 years is 7 yrs real life, that is a pretty long time. Second, I would not make this happen all at once for coaches with over 50 years as this would create a mass exodus out of d1, but probably use some sort of random number generator to make it happen for over a 1-3 year real life span, which in game life would give some a 10-20 or so season extra stay, while others could get the boot quick. And 3rd, I have no idea if the game could do it, but some sort of incentive for these graduate coaches to stay playing could be introduced, some sort of gift pack (3 free seasons maybe?).

But this 50 yr idea would free up a few spots in major conferences, re-distubte minor d1 conferences and d2/d3 divisions with some of the best coaches making this game more vibrant and challenging.

I predict the game would suffer a significant number of drops initially. But something is wrong with the game, as the player count continues to slowly slide. I'd guess this issue has the highest odds of long term fixing the game, even though it surely will cause short term losses.

I can not express how much I agree with the paragraph about potential - both how it has hurt the game and made it less interesting. I just posted a few days ago in a Coach's Corner how I longed for the days before potential was implemented.

Posted by gillispie1 on 2/27/2016 2:28:00 AM (view original):
wow, what a ghost town! this is brutal. we've been saying the game is dying for ages, since the potential hit (but then things stabilized), and then continuously since the new engine update. d1 is just too screwed up. but when d1 got wrecked - it lost a full THIRD (or at least more than a quarter) of its population, shortly after seble's new engine update. people just hated it, worlds dropping from 180 to 120, it was brutal. things had half recovered, i thought - up to like 150 - but now, only two d1 worlds are over 130! and none over 150! horrible! no wonder the most dominant d1 programs of all time are happening right now - they are competing against way fewer coaches!

the thing was, when d1 got destroyed, it did benefit d2/d3 some. d2/d3 was the bright spot. but WOW!! not anymore. this is terrible. world 3 has ******* 75 people. are you kidding? wooden is strong at 128, but world 2 has 86, world 3 has 75, world 4... has 102, but had 72 last season, so who knows what happened there, thats weird, was there a push to fill world 3 d3 for some reason? anyway, world 5 has 89, world 6 99, world 7 84, world 8 81 - 81!! d3 tark, one of the traditionally strong d3s, the real d3 of the new worlds - 81! good grief. world 9 89, and world 10, 96.

back in the day, it was one thing, to have the new worlds (9/10) in the low 100s. it was laughed at - but back then, a decent d3 might have been in the high 100s. now - there is only one world that has had more than 100 people for the last two seasons! wooden! holy ****! that is horrible guys. that is the death of the game there, spelled out for us. wow. only one d3 world in triple digits... that's where the new coaches come from! i really thought d2/d3 would be looking better, than d1 took the hit, but i guess coaches who wanted to play d1 and quit temporarily, for d2/d3, eventually quit for good when d1 didn't get fixed. this is really pretty sad =(

d2 is not much better - 102, 117, 88, 93, 103, 87, 82, 100, 93, 87. wow. i can't even believe how bad that is. stunned. i was out here ******** about population data being terrible, the sad state of the game, in the mid 100s. now d2/d3 are like, ******* 90 people per world! jesus christ. WIS really needs to get off their *** and fix some stuff - a total overhaul of recruiting may actually be needed. but come on, stop the bleeding first. just insane.

you guys can see the trend, you newer folks, who don't realize just from being around, how dead things are and how alive they once were. the pop data is there from the entire history of HD. you can see how strong things once were... and then you can see the 5 years (or more) of decline. really a shame. this game deserves better than this.

I'd say cost is a huge factor.

It's wildly expensive considering what it is.

If you think this is bad, watch world population drop like a rock once the new recruiting system is in place.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 3/7/2016 4:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by oldresorter on 2/28/2016 7:03:00 AM (view original):
it seems with near every major change, the game loses a rather significant portion of the players. The data strikes fear that after the next change, if recruiting is not really 'fixed', the game might drop to unacceptable levels. My main area's of concern:

1 - how much extra time will the new game take?
1a - does the time required 'have' to be a 2-3 hr window on one day when important milestones happen, or are the important window(s) over a longer time frame, say like 8-12 hrs
2 - will recruits get spread out more equally, or simply redistributed due to a new flaw in the game that enough coaches plainly see that more than normal levels of coaches leave?
3 - recruiting always has been the most important part of this game, if it becomes even more important, that is bad

Of all the changes to the engine ever made, the one thing (to me) that really hurt the game was when practice planning changed so a coach's ability to 'shape' the type of player he recruited was decreased, and the computer controlled more of the shape or arc of the player. Under the guise of -potential', which in itself is a good idea, the game really got less interesting, as post potential the recruit's destiny being etched in stone thru the computer generated model, rather than thru the coach's vision for what a recruit 'could be'.

Of all the idea's presented here, the one that I would now support (I used to hate the idea, but more and more I find myself listening) is I would make the game a 50 year game, which would resemble a real life coach's lifetime, starting as a head guy at d3 around age 30 and weaving one's way thru to around age 80. Once done, I'd wipe the slate clean, make coach's like me start over, the computer would add a suffix to show it is the second coming of a coach. IMO one of the reasons d3 and d2 were so healthy was the competition to rise to the top. This would restore that. And this would seem perfectly fair to all the other players, the ones who do not have 50 plus years in the game.

3 other things about the 50 yr idea, in most worlds, 50 years is 7 yrs real life, that is a pretty long time. Second, I would not make this happen all at once for coaches with over 50 years as this would create a mass exodus out of d1, but probably use some sort of random number generator to make it happen for over a 1-3 year real life span, which in game life would give some a 10-20 or so season extra stay, while others could get the boot quick. And 3rd, I have no idea if the game could do it, but some sort of incentive for these graduate coaches to stay playing could be introduced, some sort of gift pack (3 free seasons maybe?).

But this 50 yr idea would free up a few spots in major conferences, re-distubte minor d1 conferences and d2/d3 divisions with some of the best coaches making this game more vibrant and challenging.

I predict the game would suffer a significant number of drops initially. But something is wrong with the game, as the player count continues to slowly slide. I'd guess this issue has the highest odds of long term fixing the game, even though it surely will cause short term losses.

I can not express how much I agree with the paragraph about potential - both how it has hurt the game and made it less interesting. I just posted a few days ago in a Coach's Corner how I longed for the days before potential was implemented.

For me if you went back to non potential I would lose all interest full stop.

Posted by a_in_the_b on 3/7/2016 2:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 3/7/2016 4:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by oldresorter on 2/28/2016 7:03:00 AM (view original):
it seems with near every major change, the game loses a rather significant portion of the players. The data strikes fear that after the next change, if recruiting is not really 'fixed', the game might drop to unacceptable levels. My main area's of concern:

1 - how much extra time will the new game take?
1a - does the time required 'have' to be a 2-3 hr window on one day when important milestones happen, or are the important window(s) over a longer time frame, say like 8-12 hrs
2 - will recruits get spread out more equally, or simply redistributed due to a new flaw in the game that enough coaches plainly see that more than normal levels of coaches leave?
3 - recruiting always has been the most important part of this game, if it becomes even more important, that is bad

Of all the changes to the engine ever made, the one thing (to me) that really hurt the game was when practice planning changed so a coach's ability to 'shape' the type of player he recruited was decreased, and the computer controlled more of the shape or arc of the player. Under the guise of -potential', which in itself is a good idea, the game really got less interesting, as post potential the recruit's destiny being etched in stone thru the computer generated model, rather than thru the coach's vision for what a recruit 'could be'.

Of all the idea's presented here, the one that I would now support (I used to hate the idea, but more and more I find myself listening) is I would make the game a 50 year game, which would resemble a real life coach's lifetime, starting as a head guy at d3 around age 30 and weaving one's way thru to around age 80. Once done, I'd wipe the slate clean, make coach's like me start over, the computer would add a suffix to show it is the second coming of a coach. IMO one of the reasons d3 and d2 were so healthy was the competition to rise to the top. This would restore that. And this would seem perfectly fair to all the other players, the ones who do not have 50 plus years in the game.

3 other things about the 50 yr idea, in most worlds, 50 years is 7 yrs real life, that is a pretty long time. Second, I would not make this happen all at once for coaches with over 50 years as this would create a mass exodus out of d1, but probably use some sort of random number generator to make it happen for over a 1-3 year real life span, which in game life would give some a 10-20 or so season extra stay, while others could get the boot quick. And 3rd, I have no idea if the game could do it, but some sort of incentive for these graduate coaches to stay playing could be introduced, some sort of gift pack (3 free seasons maybe?).

But this 50 yr idea would free up a few spots in major conferences, re-distubte minor d1 conferences and d2/d3 divisions with some of the best coaches making this game more vibrant and challenging.

I predict the game would suffer a significant number of drops initially. But something is wrong with the game, as the player count continues to slowly slide. I'd guess this issue has the highest odds of long term fixing the game, even though it surely will cause short term losses.

I can not express how much I agree with the paragraph about potential - both how it has hurt the game and made it less interesting. I just posted a few days ago in a Coach's Corner how I longed for the days before potential was implemented.

For me if you went back to non potential I would lose all interest full stop.

What's up a?

We'll just disagree on this one. Especially for DII and DIII, I believe potential was a drastic mistake.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 3/7/2016 4:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by oldresorter on 2/28/2016 7:03:00 AM (view original):
it seems with near every major change, the game loses a rather significant portion of the players. The data strikes fear that after the next change, if recruiting is not really 'fixed', the game might drop to unacceptable levels. My main area's of concern:

1 - how much extra time will the new game take?
1a - does the time required 'have' to be a 2-3 hr window on one day when important milestones happen, or are the important window(s) over a longer time frame, say like 8-12 hrs
2 - will recruits get spread out more equally, or simply redistributed due to a new flaw in the game that enough coaches plainly see that more than normal levels of coaches leave?
3 - recruiting always has been the most important part of this game, if it becomes even more important, that is bad

Of all the changes to the engine ever made, the one thing (to me) that really hurt the game was when practice planning changed so a coach's ability to 'shape' the type of player he recruited was decreased, and the computer controlled more of the shape or arc of the player. Under the guise of -potential', which in itself is a good idea, the game really got less interesting, as post potential the recruit's destiny being etched in stone thru the computer generated model, rather than thru the coach's vision for what a recruit 'could be'.

Of all the idea's presented here, the one that I would now support (I used to hate the idea, but more and more I find myself listening) is I would make the game a 50 year game, which would resemble a real life coach's lifetime, starting as a head guy at d3 around age 30 and weaving one's way thru to around age 80. Once done, I'd wipe the slate clean, make coach's like me start over, the computer would add a suffix to show it is the second coming of a coach. IMO one of the reasons d3 and d2 were so healthy was the competition to rise to the top. This would restore that. And this would seem perfectly fair to all the other players, the ones who do not have 50 plus years in the game.

3 other things about the 50 yr idea, in most worlds, 50 years is 7 yrs real life, that is a pretty long time. Second, I would not make this happen all at once for coaches with over 50 years as this would create a mass exodus out of d1, but probably use some sort of random number generator to make it happen for over a 1-3 year real life span, which in game life would give some a 10-20 or so season extra stay, while others could get the boot quick. And 3rd, I have no idea if the game could do it, but some sort of incentive for these graduate coaches to stay playing could be introduced, some sort of gift pack (3 free seasons maybe?).

But this 50 yr idea would free up a few spots in major conferences, re-distubte minor d1 conferences and d2/d3 divisions with some of the best coaches making this game more vibrant and challenging.

I predict the game would suffer a significant number of drops initially. But something is wrong with the game, as the player count continues to slowly slide. I'd guess this issue has the highest odds of long term fixing the game, even though it surely will cause short term losses.

I can not express how much I agree with the paragraph about potential - both how it has hurt the game and made it less interesting. I just posted a few days ago in a Coach's Corner how I longed for the days before potential was implemented.

+1 billion.

I haven't posted in these forums in years. Probably a lot of you don't even remember me (srunstro or HalfAstros), but I was totally into this game (probably too into it) back in the day when they introduced Knight and we were all racing to D1 and to the big 6 conferences. I've scaled way back but almost always had at least one team chugging along.

It feels to me that just about every change that's been made to the game since about that time has been aimed at "leveling the playing field," so that coaches who don't know the game as well, or don't want to put in as much time, can more easily compete with the coaches that are really into the game, and go to great effort to analyze things and develop strategies to exploit them. Hell, I remember a group of us loading all the D1 ratings and stats into MATLAB, and running multi-variate regression analysis on the new worlds before any humans got to D1, to try to reverse-engineer the game engine. (I told you I was too into it.)

Anyway, I totally understand the logic behind wanting to move the game in this direction. It's supposed to be a basketball game, not a math problem. However, I feel like each of the changes has had the side-effect of making the game more RNG (luck) driven, and less skill-based. There's just less reward for figuring stuff out and exploiting it. I think that's alienated a lot of the people who were really into the game back then, who got a lot of entertainment out of that part of things.

It feels like the upcoming recruiting changes will be the final nail in that coffin. Not only will you will be limited in how you can develop players, you will be limited in which players you can find (RNG), and in which of those players you sign (RNG). At that point, what is it that I can really control in the game?

Bottom line, the games themselves are based on a bunch of coin-flips. Anything that gives me more influence in how the coins flip is good, anything that assigns more random chance is bad. I think that the loss of control has driven a lot of people away from HD, and I'm afraid the next set of changes will finish the job.

On the potential thing, I see both sides of the coin.

No potential means you can maximize the ratings you want and largely ignore the ones you don't - which is good.

Potential means limiting that, but it also means recruiting is more than just trying to get the highest rated high school player you can, but actually targeting players for their abilities instead of just high ratings and then you can boost what you want.

It has good and bad to it, but this new recruiting doesn't sound very promising - there seem to be more flaws than good ideas.

+1 billion.

I haven't posted in these forums in years. Probably a lot of you don't even remember me (srunstro or HalfAstros), but I was totally into this game (probably too into it) back in the day when they introduced Knight and we were all racing to D1 and to the big 6 conferences. I've scaled way back but almost always had at least one team chugging along.

It feels to me that just about every change that's been made to the game since about that time has been aimed at "leveling the playing field," so that coaches who don't know the game as well, or don't want to put in as much time, can more easily compete with the coaches that are really into the game, and go to great effort to analyze things and develop strategies to exploit them. Hell, I remember a group of us loading all the D1 ratings and stats into MATLAB, and running multi-variate regression analysis on the new worlds before any humans got to D1, to try to reverse-engineer the game engine. (I told you I was too into it.)

Anyway, I totally understand the logic behind wanting to move the game in this direction. It's supposed to be a basketball game, not a math problem. However, I feel like each of the changes has had the side-effect of making the game more RNG (luck) driven, and less skill-based. There's just less reward for figuring stuff out and exploiting it. I think that's alienated a lot of the people who were really into the game back then, who got a lot of entertainment out of that part of things.

It feels like the upcoming recruiting changes will be the final nail in that coffin. Not only will you will be limited in how you can develop players, you will be limited in which players you can find (RNG), and in which of those players you sign (RNG). At that point, what is it that I can really control in the game?

Bottom line, the games themselves are based on a bunch of coin-flips. Anything that gives me more influence in how the coins flip is good, anything that assigns more random chance is bad. I think that the loss of control has driven a lot of people away from HD, and I'm afraid the next set of changes will finish the job.

Well said, if it becomes luck, which it isn't now, check Gil, Jsa Jsa D3, other coaches get success season after season, and they all have different stratégies, people will go away from the game. If It's luck, I am done.. I want to play a game where your success is measured by your talent. I think it's like this now except to some degree in recruiting and building a team in D1...

If it's the Learning curve the problem, if it takes too much time to understand and it can be expensive, give a huge incentive for the first ten seasons someone plays. Make it 40 $ ten seasons, which is 4 $... Call it the started aid-kit or whatever so that new owners learn the game. In ten seasons, you are not into D1... but coming close to it if you learn well. And if you stay at D3, you are competitive and have fun.

Posted by taniajane on 3/7/2016 4:19:00 AM (view original):
I seriously doubt that Fox really cares about this miniscule game (as far their revenues go) to promote it. That said, Joe Buck is under a contract (ie: is paid by FOX already..He endorses other FOX programs on air and I seriously doubt as an Employee he has to be paid extra for any FOX advertising).

"And as to Joe Buck's time ... they can't just force him to advertise for them ... he'd not only need to be compensated but he'd probably have to agree to it as well. "

I can't speak to the specifics of Joe Buck's contract but I can most certainly say that broadcasters like Buck get paid to endorse products on the air and off and if he has an agent that is worth a lick he negotiated extra compensation for any promotional announcements he makes. In fact, Joe Buck has, in the past told advertisers that he would "happily hawk their products during Fox baseball broadcasts" because "I have absolutely no pride." He did so during the 2003 World Series when he chatted with Robin Williams and then informed viewers that Williams was using a Sprint cellphone.

With respect to FOX forcing employees to advertise, the FTC has rules that "require endorsements to reflect the honest opinions, findings, beliefs, or experience of the endorser, and to disclose material connections between the endorser and the advertiser when the endorsement is not identifiable to consumers as advertising." So FOX could not require Joe Buck to advertise, endorse or promote their products on air just because he's an employee and he would have every right to refuse. I could be wrong but based on the statements he has made in the past he is probably enough of a corporate shill to say he likes anything if he's paid enough but he's also made it abundantly clear that his personal endorsements all come down to the amount of green he receives.