BuzzerBeater Forums

So then maybe a GM who claims to understand it ought to help others instead of making such a silly post trying to mock me, eh?

So then maybe a GM who claims to understand it ought to help others instead of making such a silly post trying to mock me, eh?

I think I have made it I clear I believe you are clueless.

Try again. No one says opportunity cost is a "good" thing. All I've done is try to explain it to some people who obviously don't understand it. Add one more to the list, eh?

"The cost of an alternative that must be forgone in order to pursue a certain action. Put another way, the benefits you could have received by taking an alternative action."

I understand perfectly what you're saying. Don't buy seats you can't fill and use that money to promote. That is why you were unsustainable. That is why the alternative action you promote has proven to come at a negative cost to you. That is why multiple people are explaining that to you.

One way this could be summed up. Look at what league Mike Franks is in, and then look at the leagues of those arguing with Mike Franks. Game, Set, Match.

Try again. No one says opportunity cost is a "good" thing. All I've done is try to explain it to some people who obviously don't understand it. Add one more to the list, eh?

"The cost of an alternative that must be forgone {buying a player} in order to pursue a certain action {buying empty seats}. Put another way, the benefits you could have received by taking an alternative action."

I understand perfectly what you're saying.

LOL, I understand perfectly that you can cut and paste. But if you understood, you wouldn't have thought anyone was calling it a "good thing." And you wouldn't still be unable to repeat what I said.

You all crack me up.

Always remember,

2. Build as much as you can as fast as you can.

Last edited by Mike Franks at 8/28/2015 2:27:59 AM

You're correct. I have never heard of the term "opportunity cost" and until I realized that it was a term, and I had no idea it meant anything other than what the words mean individually. Rather than continue to debate something I didn't fully understand, I took 10 seconds of my time to research it. Once I did I realized that you have even less idea of the point you are arguing.

You failed because you chose to invest on your roster before getting your finances in check. Now you are preaching that it is foolish to do anything differently to the tune of finding it laughable that more experienced (and more successful) managers would disagree with you. They are where they are for a reason. It's the opposite of why you're at square one.

I can except I don't know everything so I can process information. If you could do the same this thread would have been useful to you.

I don't know. I'm still getting my head around how someone can promote, make playoffs in the first season at that level, then demote the next season and still support the idea of "opportunity cost" as a good thing.

Try again. No one says opportunity cost is a "good" thing. All I've done is try to explain it to some people who obviously don't understand it. Add one more to the list, eh?

The counterpoint is that the opportunity cost of prioritizing spending enough to win your current league is twofold. First, you'll end up in a higher level league without the financial ability to spend as much on weekly salaries as those who invested more into arena building. That's something that eventually evens out. Second, and more important, you lose out on the very valuable experience of learning how to compete and win while spending less than your opposition, which is probably the only way to success if you're not going to accumulate massive amounts of cash.

But the easiest way to look at it is this: if you can't afford to compete at a given level while spending money to improve your arena, how are you going to be able to afford at a higher level with the same arena (which puts you at a further economic disadvantage) when teams that do have more finished arenas can outspend you? The answer to that question is one you'll find through some reflection or perhaps you never will and you'll always be in the cycle of winning here, not being able to compete there.

So... Baseline recommendation of seat numbers for a DIV team? (Can't really judge off the teams in my division since they've been pulling for a while and have been in D2 / D3 at points in time)

Now you are preaching ...

Now I am making one point and one point only:

2. Build as much as you can as fast as you can

is foolishness. If you read the thread carefully you will see that this is also the consensus. However, people love to argue in these threads, so let them. What harm does it do?

So... Baseline recommendation of seat numbers for a DIV team? (Can't really judge off the teams in my division since they've been pulling for a while and have been in D2 / D3 at points in time)

Especially if just starting out, my viewpoint is to try to emphasize getting the more expensive seats built. I am pretty sure you won't be able to sell 50 luxury boxes, but build them incrementally and as long as you can sell them, keep adding a couple at a time with each expansion - you may be able to get as high as 40 sold, but probably mid 30s is my guess. Courtside is similar, but I think those may actually be able to sell all 500 even in IV, but I don't have my old arena information available at this point for historical sanity checks.

It looks like you're doing a wise thing already by not overbuilding bleachers early on, though. I think the best thing to do is just build incrementally like you are. I always tried to set prices to where I was pretty sure I'd sell out pretty comfortably when the prices changed, and then try to build in the seats to get dollars back on them immediately, and prioritize between lower tier/courtside/luxury depending on whether they were still selling out. Something like that where you go slow and steady would serve you well.