In GD (and HD I think), the various worlds are on a set timetable and simply have AI controlled teams to maintain this timetable-regardless of how many human owners are in the world. For HBD-this is not the case and creates issues for many worlds rolling over.

So-what if WIS gave each commish the option to give a small number of free teams in their open world to experienced owners.

Now-it would not be an unlimited number of teams. It would be say 3 or 4 teams each season. Many worlds have lesser teams that have been poorly managed and therefore are not appealing to prospective owners to take over. They may have a couple years left of bad contracts. Or they may have virtually no young talent in the minors. Or subject to past bad trades.

So the commish would be able to let an experienced owner run/guide a team-running out bad contracts, acquiring talented prospects etc. The idea being that in 2 or 3 seasons-the team would be a lot more tempting for new owners.

The commish could get owners from other worlds and possibly get long term owners out of it.

OR the commish could allow talented veteran owners in that world to create a second account and manage a second team properly. Of course limits would have to be put in place for that to happen (no trades between etc). And there are conflicts of interest that could arise. But the plus side would be knowing that the owner has had a long term interest in the world and would run the second team knowing it would make the world more competitive.

Positives-worlds roll over quicke. 1-happier clients/owners. 2-should be more profitable for WIS with worlds running with very little downtime(they already give away rebates on other sites to try to attract new owners). They have done the same thing in WIS itself-giving a free team to any owner. This way a commish can be selective in who gets a free team. 3-Maintaining worlds (not having to break up worlds to eliminate openings. 4-Stronger worlds as poor teams are rebuilt properly by talented/vet owners.

Probably needs more institutional control.    What you suggest leads to cronyism and "gaming the system". 

I'd tweak it quite a bit but it's a start.

WifS takes volunteers for 3 season committments.  Commissioners submit their reclamation projects.  The volunteers must purchase the first season with WifS footing the bill for the next 2.  Then the commissioner/volunteers are somehow matched.  Maybe WifS gives the commissioners a list of 10.  After the commish picks one, the next world gets the list(with one name added).   If the commish doesn't want any on his list, his world moves to the back of the list. 

The reason I suggest the owner buys the first season is because giveaways don't work.   Otherwise, this thread isn't started because WifS gave away a bunch of credits a few years ago. 

I would think the free team would have to come at the end of the three-season commitment, because an owner's real-life circumstances can change over nine months (for example, babies). Volunteers could get their reclamation teams discounted (with limits on the number of these teams in a given world) for three seasons and a credit for another season that can be used in any world once they fulfill their commitment.

Commissioners who pull the lever on reclamation teams should give up their commish discount to help make up for the volunteer's discount. If you're in a world where the commissioner won't do that, even when asked, you have clear evidence that you're in a poorly run world.

Without doubt.  If there is a commish out there who wouldn't give up a $5 credit to fill his struggling world, he's the commish for the wrong reasons.

What if one of these teams wins a world series?  Does the owner get the reward points?  Do they still get 4 bucks for finishing 4th in the division. I should hope not.

Well, the 4 bucks for finishing last should be done away with, oh, I don't know, before HBD was created. 

I agree. But my question is do people get rewards for a team that they paid nothing for? I would think not, and that represents a further savings for WiS.  I'm still not 100% sold on this though.

Like you, I have no trouble filling my worlds.   But there are worlds out there that need help.   Turning a bad team over to a poor/new owner gets the world rolling but probably makes it even worse as the new owner, who is a bit less than successful, just makes a bigger mess.  So the problem just continues to snowball downhill.  Adding a quality owner to "rehab" the team for 3 seasons should put it back on the right path and make the world more viable.

It was just an idea. Certainly not a finished thought.

And I assume "suggestions" is here for those at WIS to read and either say-good idea, bad idea or lets examine it a bit more.

If you look at the openings now-12 worlds with 4 or less openings. They could all get started.

There is obviously not an issue if there are 10 or 20 openings total-but now that it has surpassed the 100 mark-may need a little more creativity.

Definitely a potential problem with cronyism.

But it can also be used as a tool to bring in other users that have yet to try HBD. There are still a number of great owners that stayed with simbaseball and not ventured into HBD. I assume the same exists in GD, HD and simhockey/football/basketball.

Bringing new owners in could still work with my "unfleshed out" plan.  They'd be on the list until someone picked them which, presumably, would be the world that recruited them.   Of course, if someone really wants to play HBD, I don't think $25 over 3 months is much of a deterrent.   

I think an incentive program is more efficient if it convinces current owners to take another team.   After all, the teams will likely suck in unbalanced worlds.  A new owner is just as likely to get gang-raped as the one that gave up the team. 

I may be going off on a slight tangent, but it seems to be related to the question at hand:

It seems that in general there are two impediments for experienced owners taking on more teams: (1) time, and (2) money.

I know for myself, time is my issue.  I can fit three full-time teams into my discretionary "play" time.  Don't think I'd be able to handle a fourth, not without scaling back somewhat on the effort I put into each of my teams.  Which is not something I'm willing to do, because I get my enjoyment from the effort.

But I imagine that cost is a limit effort for a number of other owners.  We occasionally throw out numbers like $0.08 per day to run a team, but others look at it as spending $24.95 at a time.  If you're running three teams, that comes out to $24.95 a month.  I can imagine that some might find that a hardship.

I also know that there is an optimal price-point in which the cost of a product can maximize both volume and profit.  Go above that optimal price-point, and you risk driving some customers away because the product is "too expensive".  Go below that optimal price-point and you risk not making as much profit as you could.

So I wonder: is $24.95 for an HBD season the optimal price-point for this product?  Would dropping the price to $20.95 or even $14.95 bring in new people into the customer base, or entice a portion of the current customer base to but more product, i.e. run more teams?

Just a thought.

On that note, there's also the level of committment per dollar spent(which is why "free" never works).

The cost has to be high enough so that the owners will remain interested.    I've said this before but if I buy a $2 hamburger and it tastes "funny", I'll just throw it in the garbage.   If it's a $30 steak, I'll be taking more than one bite to determine if it tastes "funny". 

If the cost becomes too low, new owners will be far more likely to say "Too much time for not enough enjoyment" and dump the game or simply halfass it before they even understand it.  And, when that happens, the other 31 owners suffer if they're seeking a competitive world. 

That's one factor, out of a number of factors, that would help focus into the optimal price.

Well, in truth, price point is WifS' job.    I only bothered to comment because I feared too many would jump on the "Yeah, make it cheaper" bandwagon without thinking about the consequences.   I'd rather they increase rewards than decrease price if cost of the game is a problem.   That way owners have to return to get the discount.

I agree. 

I actually wasn't trying to make a case for lowering the price.  It was more questioning "have the number crunchers at WIS ever thought about this?" in terms of maximizing their profits, and then wondering if that would have a positive side effect of customers taking on more teams (which would address the perceived problem of worlds not filling).