Do you believe that the number of high level teams using "short rosters" is a problem?
Do you believe that the ability to cheaply train players to high levels of stamina contribute to the use of short rosters?
1. No, I don't. Short roster is a risk, especially because of injuries. Plus you need to spend at least 10 weeks of stamina training in order to reach a proper level. In a game where time is essential that's actually a lot.
2. The way I see it, it is essential to spend training time on actual skills not necessary stamina. If you train stamina, you lose valuable training for trainees. In that regard, it is not cheap at all. Plus, you can pretty much get by with 4 or 5 stamina.
My understanding is that you want to "fix" short rosters. But this means you are just removing one way to play the game. There's some pragmatical issues here, and it's a deeper thing that hides multiple issues.
1. If I look at the B3 tournaments I see that teams play with rosters of 6-8 players, most of the time 7 players. Short roster? yes
2. Most of those players are 150k+ salaries, some of them 225k+ salary. You basically cannot afford to have so many juggernauts on your team. So even having 7 of them means that you are probably going too bankruptcy for performance
3. Having lower salary players means better rounded players, to make them more affordable. But if you want such high performance rounded players you probably need to spend 8(?) seasons of out-of-position training. And even so you will probably manage to build 2 such players, maybe 3 if you're lucky, you still need the juggernauts some how.
4. Will destroying stamina really fix this?
I am derailing a bit because my understanding is that you want to change short roster strategies by taxing stamina