|Oli (C. Iceland) - Saturday 01-26-08 16:56|
|The amount of players on offer in the auction is too much. 72 for 24 teams = 3 per team. Add to that a 1 player as a freebie, and you have way too many players up for grabs.
The teams that should gain from this => the lower 2nd division do not take advantage of this fact as they should be buying good top17 players for 2 seasons at a middle high price.
The best top11 teams tend to coach/train their own players and do not go out on the market for other players as they can simply buy one cheaply at the auction.
Lets have more competition and have fewer auctions or fewer players up for grabs.
Or am I being unrealistic here ???
|Steve (Asteria) - Saturday 01-26-08 18:05|
|Three per team doesn't seem bad - we've bought three this season and some TP, and have cash for another. In MSWL buying apprentices is rare because they start at 0/2 in Division Two and there's only 34 TP per team so not much chance of training many players. You can't really have 2 of each age and keep adding 2 age 0 per season - even so that would need 2 age 7 to make 16 players. So I think we need to keep adding as many players as we do from auctions.|
|Robin (Ayers Rock) - Saturday 01-26-08 20:44|
|I take your point OLI , but on this occasion I would agree with STEVE.|
If you get players in the early auctions you are SORTED , now is the time for those teams with MORE cash to pick up bargains. AS you point out the best top11 teams tend to CP/TP their own players so now is the time for those who have missed out to pick up those 0/10 players CHEAP.:)
For me , as I have sorted out my team,there is nothing that really excites me in the current auction as I do not have the resources to CP/TP the players.
Those managers that do have resources should be going for it.
It makes it fairer on those managers who did NOT have the MONEY at the start of the season to buy players BUT still have resources to use up.
|Oli (C. Iceland) - Sunday 01-27-08 10:12|
|Well, my point is this. There should not be enough players for us all. What will happen is that you have 2 choices - buy a good player in the auction or buy an apprentice. As is now and you point out, you are set. Why should all managers be set ??? In business it is known that demand is equal to the price. High = High and Low = Low. Lets make the demand higher, let the bigger teams pay more for the best players and in the long run it is better for all. At the moment this is just a competition of who gets the lowest price as opposed to who gets the goods. If you all think that is normal, then dont change anything.|
|Allan (Memphis) - Sunday 01-27-08 12:03|
|I'd like to follow Oli's comments, but I'm not sure that I do. Oli, so you are suggesting fewer players in the auctions and/or less auctions overall? I don't know for sure, but my guess is that we'd see more apprentices purchased along with more competition and the first division teams with more money getting more resources? |
But that's just speculation. It has always seemed to me like Auctions have higher prices earlier in the season (such as for apprentices) rather than later, but that's a feeling and not necessarily fact. But that could mean the there is "less interest" in the late-season auctions than the earlier ones. That though is more of an opinion than fact (though I know that the match guys out there have those facts. :-)
I've retired 5 players this season (maybe will do a couple more) so in theory I need 5 to replace them.
So back to my initial question...I'm not sure what problem we need to fix?
In the past I did believe we had a problem of Auctions becoming a stock market resulting in an unfair advantage for teams that INTENTIONALLY purchased players they did not need only to see them immediately at a profit.
That sort of thing can't happen (although indirectly at times it may in terms of "speculation" in getting a player to then sell an existing one). But really I think that problem is solved. Its always been my belief that teams don't win titles unless they participate and do well in auctions. The first step is participate. There are often bargains out there but if managers don't get in bids, they don't get any players.
I think that if I were a 2nd division team, for example, I would be very conservative early, let the big teams make their purchases, and hold off until later in the season where again prices seem lower (as Mr. Dewar observes) and take advantage of that.
To sum up, if there is a problem here to solve I guess I just need more info as to what it is, how it is adversely affecting the game or providing an unfair and unrecoverable disadvantage, and then how it would be improved. Having fewer auctions/players seems to provide an advantage to the 1st division in my mind, so I'm not sure that is the way to go.
|Phil (Missouri) - Sunday 01-27-08 21:59|
|I kind of like the way it is currently working. I guess I don't see a problem that is screaming for resolution.|
|Andy (Barnsley) - Monday 01-28-08 11:44|
|Well, it seems to be working OK now. I must admit I didn't buy my quota of three this season, but as I may lose as many as seven to ageing, I'll need to buck my ideas up next season. Maybe one of these seasons I'll get round to planning things in a bit more depth than "I'll get by somehow."|
|Rob (Boston) - Tuesday 01-29-08 11:39|
|There's one person who always analyzes the numbers from the Auctions. Whether or not we all agree with his "guesstimates", one thing Tim always does is provide some statistical analysis for the auctions. If there's a way to get Tim's archived blogs from the past couple seasons, I'll volunteer to trend them to see if we have something that needs to be addressed. If we don't have access to that information, I wonder if Tim keeps it in a spreadsheet somewhere that he'd be willing to share.|
My running hypothesis is that we're going to see a justification for reducing the number of players available in the later auctions by 1 or 2 players.
|Tim (Zaragoza) - Tuesday 01-29-08 14:16|
Yes, and yes, Rob. I'll send you my Excel file.
I agree in part with Oli. The amount of SL available in the auctions has steadily increased for the past 5 seasons. I don't think that is necessary. The number of players, though, I think is probably okay.
The biggest issue for me is that nothing else comes close to the auctions for providing cheap SL. Auction players are bought for about half of what traded players go for, and in terms of what it would cost to create such a player, less again.
If I had my "druthers", I'd ruther see the SL ranges lowered to something like, age 0:5-8; 1:10-14; 2:12-16; 3:14-18; 4:15-19; 5:16-20. That would make the auction players start with star potential, age 1 only a few with star potential, and from age 2 on being B players.
In terms of encouraging spending, the addition of TP & CP to auctions has been the area that has actually increased the amount spent in auctions over the season. For the price of 3 B players you can pick up enough to have another star. I wasn't that keen on it to start with, but I'm warming to it.
|Mark (Scotland) - Wednesday 01-30-08 4:35|
|I recently posted this up on Journal page, so copied here for reference only.
Average auction prices paid so far this season.
|Mark (Scotland) - Wednesday 01-30-08 4:47|
|Furthermore, only 7 apprentices have been purchased all season (over the last 4 months), |
so perhaps apprentices need be made more attractive,
or auction offers could be reduced so apprentices become an option for more teams.
Personally, I would not buy an apprentice for even 1k,
To conclude, while the current auction system certainly suits us at SCO nicely,
|David (Stockholm) - Wednesday 01-30-08 9:06|
|Being still relatively a newcomer I have read the above posts with interest.
On starting in MSWL I was horrified to see apprentices starting at 0/0 - by the start of next season a 1/10 hardly creates chances - finishing at 2/19 - it's during the 3rd season before he can be termed a good player - needing the initial 50k, 20TPs and then 10CPs for all that to happen.|
No surprise then that teams want to buy their players and not go down a youth road.
This will be the reason the average age of a player here in MSWL is far older than in SESL or The Manager. Apprentices start at 0/5 but the lad starts season 2 at 1/17 so will be 2/24 to start season 3.
Why not encourage some more apprentices into the League by:
1 Starting them at 0/5 but charging 200k and 150k (1st and 2nd division).
2 Awarding 1 TP for each player retired regardless of age - if a player is retired at the same time as an apprentice is purchased it would have the effect of either being 1 TP towards training OR cut the price for purchasing down to 150k and 100k.
3 I like the bands that Tim suggests (I'd ruther see the SL ranges lowered to something like, age 0:5-8; 1:10-14; 2:12-16; 3:14-18; 4:15-19; 5:16-20), so nobody can transform their team overnight with a couple of cracking low price players.
Right, I will away now.
|Steve (Asteria) - Wednesday 01-30-08 16:47|
|My 3/32 GK started life as a 0/2 apprentice.|
I did join after all the auctions had run and my then 2nd GK was something like a 5/7 so I needed a GK anyway.
|David (Stockholm) - Sunday 02-03-08 5:52|
|Steve, I agree you can get a cracking player such as your GK 3/32 but you would only get him to that figure about half way (at least) through his 4th season, and around 20Tps and about 20CPs and the original 50k later (trying to include the various aging processes.|
This is too expensive and too long for a lot of teams to wait and bear in mind a 1st division team gets him at 0/0 so it'll take him another 2 sessions to get to a 32, if ever.
Buying in is cheaper, quicker, as there is no incentive to spend all that time and resources for a lad to then be at a peak till the end of that 4th season, and then fall back to obscurity quickly.
|Rob (Boston) - Monday 02-11-08 12:06|
|Now that the last auction of the season is complete, I've got all the data I need. The results are a bit interesting - not what I was expecting. I have a lot of statistics to present - I'm currently working with Al on how to best present them. Once we've figured that out, I'll post a summary of my findings.|
|Phil (Missouri) - Wednesday 02-13-08 23:46|
|All pause while Rob manipulates his statistics.....|
|Oli (C. Iceland) - Thursday 02-21-08 6:24|
|My point seems to have been looked at and I am happy for that. Thx for the discussion guys and we are all waiting for that statistical presentation from Rob and Al.|