Lock Market Size

[ShaneCarson]

Can we PLEASE have a way to lock market size so it does not move? I still do not understand how a team's market grows in size. In a recent test, I set a teams market at 10 to start the game at the inaugural draft in January. By opening day, their market size was 15. Their local media contract was larger than every teams budget but their own.

[DrSatan]

I agree. Market size should change slowly over a period of many years (if at all). Of course there is the possibility of expansion/relocated teams affecting a teams market share.

[craftdr]

This is something I haven't really seen. For example, my team in the last five years has finished 1st four times and 2nd once. The championship was won once. Attendence has been near the top of the league each year but my team has stayed at 5 with no increase in market size.

So pretty much, I have been experiencing just the opposite as I keep waiting for it to increase. So far though, I don't have a problem with it because like the good Dr says, I feel it should increase slowly over time.

I wonder if it has something to do with the size of the league, whether it's fictional, etc. because it seems that different issues affect us differently.

[Le Grande Orange]

It really depends on what one thinks is meant by the term "market size".

[DrSatan]

I consider market size the geographic area in which my team would be considered "home team", as well as the population of that area. Geographic area would play a role in the amount of local tv contracts. Population would directly relate to ticket sales, merchandise, etc. I would even go as far as saying interest in the sport should factor into market size. Dropping an expansion team in a highly populated area doesn't matter as much if its a football town.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by DrSatan

I consider market size the geographic area in which my team would be considered "home team", as well as the population of that area.

As would I. But from my understanding that is not the way the term is used in OOTP. In it, market size is perhaps best thought of as an adjunct to fan interest, meaning it does not have any direct connection to city population or geographic area. This is easily seen since any city hosting a team in OOTP, regardless of the actual population of the city, can have a huge or tiny market size.

[DrSatan]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

As would I. But from my understanding that is not the way the term is used in OOTP. In it, market size is perhaps best thought of as an adjunct to fan interest, meaning it does not have any direct connection to city population or geographic area. This is easily seen since any city hosting a team in OOTP, regardless of the actual population of the city, can have a huge or tiny market size.

That's always baffled me with this game. You would think a team created in New York, Boston, or LA would have a large market. It seems the game assigns the market size ranking at random. Usually I just manually change the market size to what I think it should be, but it would be cool if the game factored real life demographics into the process.

[t-bone shuffle]

Originally Posted by ShaneCarson

Can we PLEASE have a way to lock market size so it does not move? I still do not understand how a team's market grows in size. In a recent test, I set a teams market at 10 to start the game at the inaugural draft in January. By opening day, their market size was 15. Their local media contract was larger than every teams budget but their own.

I'm about certain that the culprit is the inaugural draft. If you set it so that all teams have the same budget, the game will, after the draft, reset the various Market Sizes to reflect the size of the payroll/budget of the players drafted.

I'm all but certain of this.

Try the inaugural draft where each team's initial draft budget is determined by market size.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by DrSatan

That's always baffled me with this game. You would think a team created in New York, Boston, or LA would have a large market. It seems the game assigns the market size ranking at random. Usually I just manually change the market size to what I think it should be, but it would be cool if the game factored real life demographics into the process.

After initally being flummoxed by OOTP's use of "market size" I've actually come to appreciate it. It basically refers to the total market "capacity" for that team. So you can have a team with a large market size (maybe they are the only team in Chicago, for example), but a consistently terrible record and so they have poor fan interest and loyalty and, consequently, a low budget (but if they start winning they could become a juggernaut). Or maybe they are one of several teams in the New York media market and, as a result of the competition, their capacity within that market is actually fairly small (in an NHL context, the example would be the New York Islanders). Or maybe they are located in a relatively small city but have successfully promoted a "regional" brand that results in significant actual market share (consider the St. Louis Cardinals or the Buffalo Bills).

Rather than a system where market size is simply a direct representation of city population, I think the current formulation provides some much needed flexibility.

[shawa666]

Originally Posted by DrSatan

That's always baffled me with this game. You would think a team created in New York, Boston, or LA would have a large market. It seems the game assigns the market size ranking at random. Usually I just manually change the market size to what I think it should be, but it would be cool if the game factored real life demographics into the process.

See: See Green Bay Packers, for a big market in a small city, and New York Islanders, LA Clippers for a small market in a big city

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by shawa666

See: See Green Bay Packers, for a big market in a small city, and New York Islanders, LA Clippers for a small market in a big city

Green Bay isn't really a good example, because it is the financial structure of the NFL which greatly helps the club to exist. In 2010, for example, of the club's $257 million in revenue, nearly $142 million—55%—came from national sources which all NFL clubs share in equally. Another $16 million came from gate sharing. The club's player costs that season were $160 million. So it's pretty clear that were it not for the large percentage of national revenue the club would not be able to afford anywhere near the player salaries it actually had.

A better example, from baseball, might be Seattle (if one uses player payroll as a proxy for effective market size). In 1987 it had the lowest opening day payroll in MLB, and remained in the bottom four for several years. By 1996 it had moved into the top ten in terms of opening day player payroll (though last season it was in the middle of the pack). Another candidate: Baltimore. It had a payroll within the top three from 1996-99. Last season it ranked 18th. Yet another possibility: Philadelphia. 21st in opening day payroll in 1989 and 27th in 1990. In 2010 the club ranked 4th, and 2nd in 2011.

[OakDragon]

Originally Posted by DrSatan

That's always baffled me with this game. You would think a team created in New York, Boston, or LA would have a large market. It seems the game assigns the market size ranking at random. Usually I just manually change the market size to what I think it should be, but it would be cool if the game factored real life demographics into the process.

I presume the logic (debatable or not) is that in fictional baseball, cities have evolved differently and may have different market sizes.

[OutS|der]

i would think market size would change over time, i think of it as say the Yankees when they weren't very good compared to the market they have now and you would say the market size increased as the market for fans is worldwide now. It should relate to fan interest, tv contracts and local area population, and the revenue all that generates

[1998 Yankees]

Good thoughts all around, but I would like to re-emphasize OP's request that it be made an OPTION to lock market size, perhaps in Dynamic League Settings. Market size can be interpreted in more than one way; I subscribe to the theory that it goes along with general demographics of a region. Kansas City will always be a small-market while Chicago will be huge in my leagues. I would like the option of locking down what I set in this regard.

[OutS|der]

yes there should be an option to lock it per team, same with media contracts and revenue

[ShaneCarson]

Any chance this could make a patch?

[Mister_G]

My opinion on market size has always been that it should represent the area's population/media size. However, when you guys cite examples such as the Islanders it makes sense. But still, for the most part, I feel like teams in large cities or large media markets will make more money and have a bigger 'market size'.

[olivertheorem]

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

Market size can be interpreted in more than one way;

I don't have any problem with wanting the ability to lock market size (why not fan interest/loyalty too, while we're at it), but the problem with this part of the post is that while it can be interpreted in more than one way, Markus has one specific thing that it is supposed to represent in-game.

[ShaneCarson]

Yeah, don't care how it's interpreted. Don't want my media contracts getting all wacky, so I want to lock the market size.

[native son]

I requested locking market size and other financial factors in a thread earlier this year. To my disappointment, Markus replied that this isn't so easy to do.

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...or-change.html