The vast majority of teams will never play a competitive game with somebody outside their country, and play most of their competitive games with teams in their own league. The most important thing we look at in terms of game balance is whether teams who start later are able to compete with those who start earlier. In particular, I'd say that the most important metric we look at is that teams which promote are able to compete reasonably with teams who are already in their division, and that teams which demote do not automatically repromote. Since Italy seems to have come up as an example, there are 350 teams that promoted in season 9 in Italy and continued to have human owners through the present time. Of those 350, 11 promoted again in season 10, 191 remained in their new league, and 148 relegated. That corresponds to 42.3% relegation, compared to a 25% chance of relegation for an average team. The chance to promote twice in a row was quite low, as teams needed to acclimate to their new league first. Seems roughly reasonable to me.
We can of course debate whether these are the desired numbers. I think these are pretty close to what we are looking for -- generally speaking, teams who promote have a good chance to compete and teams that demote are not dominant, meaning that a new team can hope in the long run to complete at the top level. It will take a while, because one needs to beat each successive division; the numbers tell you that a team created in division VI in Italy should not expect to reasonably be in Serie A in 5 seasons. But I believe such a team can reasonably expect that if they are managed well enough, they can eventually reach and compete in Serie A.Anyway, that's the most important thing we look at -- whether new managers can hope to get to the top and the rate of mixing among leagues.
I haven't seen anybody try to do an analysis apart from the post(s) I made. If you don't believe my analysis, then I'd recommend doing an independent analysis and seeing what results you get.I think if you look at the history of discussions in Global, the BBs tend to believe our own analysis over unsupported assertions, but we're pretty good about reading other people's analysis and responding appropriately. But we're not going to be convinced by a bunch of big-country managers complaining about the advantages that small countries have...
the games still quite young , it may take another 12 seasons before australia hits that level of comp in its top 4 div's , and personally i cant wait.
How are we bad managers?We don't have to buy better players all the time because is less competition.How is this any of our fault? It your fault for going on crazy spending sprees then looking to give someone else the blame.How can we improve from the market? You are already above us on the players level so we are trying to catch up.
i don't want to judge your ability as managers,but the system was made to give you a TEMPORARY advantage to allow you to improve fastly on the marke
I think part of the problem here is that most of the people complaining about not having enough money simply want to "improve fastly on the market" whereas that may not be the right way to go about success.