Ok, this is one that probably has 0 chance of making it but I've had the thought for a while.
Might as well see if it flies.
Numbers displayed are for illustration purposes only. Debate the thought first.

Set up a version of this that uses the funds you pay for a team to generate the available budget to run your team.

ie. $1 = $10 million of budget, to a minimum of $5 paid (for a minimum $50M budget) and, say, max of $50 (for a maximum $500M budget).

You have no idea what anyone has spent, and thus has for a budget, until the league rollover is complete (ie. 32 full spots).
First season, all players are assigned by simmy based on capability of the team to handle the payroll.

Everything else about the HBD set up stays the same; distribution of budget, FA, coach hiring, draft, etc.

End of season rewards are based on a percentage of what you paid; ie. if you win the league, 100% of what you paid in credits. WS loser, 50%. And so on, with a sliding scale down.

Next season rollover, previous season's owner has the chance to re-up for any amount.
If you/the next owner pays less and are unable to retain all of the players signed after budget distribution is set, they become FAs, starting with highest priced down to lowest until 80% of payroll budget is met (allowing 20% for the team to resign/promote players to make the full roster).

Last thing would be that this is not a newb league. Admittance is for experienced HBD owners only (define "experienced" as you will)

Fire away.

Other than that, what do you think of it?

I think it's silliness personified.

Naw.

It lets those that want to be small market TRULY be small market.
It lets those that want to try to buy a championship do that.
It lets the kid that has to hound his parents for $25 play for much less.

It's gawdamn brilliant. In theory. .

It really is something these guys would dream up.




Is that you in the back on the left?

There are no bad suggestions, just unimaginative fat bastards.

You tell me the idea of trying to win with less than $185M hasn't crossed your mind. I know that someone with an ego as huge as you has thought "I can do that".

Also tell me there isn't the guy who wouldn't pay to pad the # of championships. So that the hot chick will go home with him that night.

Look, I know you put a lot of thought(on the dumb canuck scale) into it.   But it's just a bad idea.  

Posted by deathinahole on 7/20/2010 1:32:00 PM (view original):
There are no bad suggestions, just unimaginative fat bastards.

You tell me the idea of trying to win with less than $185M hasn't crossed your mind. I know that someone with an ego as huge as you has thought "I can do that".

Also tell me there isn't the guy who wouldn't pay to pad the # of championships. So that the hot chick will go home with him that night.

"Hey, baby.  Let's go back to my place.  We'll power up the laptop and I'll let you see my HBD trophy case."

Thanks for the analysis, Mr Input.

I'd pay for it. And there are thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands who would too. With proper advertising, maybe millions.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/20/2010 1:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 7/20/2010 1:32:00 PM (view original):
There are no bad suggestions, just unimaginative fat bastards.

You tell me the idea of trying to win with less than $185M hasn't crossed your mind. I know that someone with an ego as huge as you has thought "I can do that".

Also tell me there isn't the guy who wouldn't pay to pad the # of championships. So that the hot chick will go home with him that night.

"Hey, baby.  Let's go back to my place.  We'll power up the laptop and I'll let you see my HBD trophy case."

YOU GOT IT!!!

I'm turgid just thinking about it!

"Oh, how cute.  Look how small it is!"

There's really nowhere to go with it as far as input.    If you want to prove you can win with a 50m budget, you can do that now.  No reason for WifS to give you a game for $5.    On the other hand, I imagine there are some owners who'd pay $50 for 500m.   But finding owners who are fine with 185m to play with them would be the trick. 

You can't do that now.
Everyone has $185M. Your payroll might be $50M, or $10M, or $125M, but everyone has $185M.

The overall net per league WIFS gets would probably be similar to $25 a head if priced right. Maybe $5 isn't the bottom, $50 isnt the top, but the idea would have to have the budget tied to amount paid and the bottom would have to be affordable to the young uns.

If you want actual numbers of revenue difference top to bottom in MLB, it's about 3 1/2 to 1 (ie. Yankees bring in 3 1/2 times more than the Nationals do). You could have the model be 4-1 instead of 10-1.

You don't have to use 185m.  You can use less than 20m if you really want to prove your point.