2016 PEBA financial and performance-based adjustments

[John]

After the conclusion of the playoffs, a handful of adjustments are made to select teams' Fan Interest, Fan Loyalty and/or Market Size. These adjustments are related to a variety of factors, including profitability (or lack thereof), current-year vs. historical performance, and more. The time has come to announce the 2016 end-of-season adjustments. You will see these changes reflected after our next sim.

Fan Interest penalties
League rules require teams to make strides towards profitability. There are two circumstances which can trigger financial-related Fan Interest penalties:

1. Losses beyond -$25,000,000 are erased upon the end of a season, but there is a penalty to fan interest for every $2.5M below -$25M a team ends a season with.
2. The first time a team ends a season in the red, the team goes "on watch." Until the team finishes a season in the black, the team will suffer a fan interest penalty at the conclusion of every subsequent year in which it:
   1. Remains in the red, AND;
   2. Fails to make progress towards break-even cash on hand.

In 2016, the following teams met at least one of the above criteria and will be assessed a Fan Interest penalty that is reflected in our current league file:

• Charleston

The following teams are "on watch" and must make progress towards break-even cash on hand in order to avoid Fan Interest penalties in subsequent years:

• Arlington
• Aurora
• Connecticut
• Crystal Lake
• Palm Springs
• San Antonio

Performance-based Adjustments
Teams are evaluated in a number of different areas related to on-the-field performance. All evaluative criteria are examined over a one, three and six-year period, with greatest weight placed on three-year performance. Team data is entered into a custom formula that generates a percent chance for Fan Loyalty and Market Size gain/loss for each team. While many teams will have only a chance to gain or lose ground, some teams may have a chance for both, while others may have no chance to change whatsoever.

Once the percentages are generated, a roll is made against the gain/loss chances for each team; one roll each for Fan Loyalty and Market Size. A "failed" roll is one that is within the percentage chance for loss, while a "passed" roll is one that is within the percentage chance for gain. Whenever a roll fails or passes, there will be a one-level adjustment down/up in the applicable area for that team. Because Fan Loyalty and Market Size each get their own roll, it is possible for a team to experience a drop in one area and a gain in another.

The system is designed to produce a modest number of changes per year (it may produce no changes in some years). There is also protection against rapid changes. A minimum of two seasons must pass between fan loyalty changes and a minimum of three seasons must pass between market size changes. Finally, winning the Planetary Extreme Championship grants you exemption from Fan Loyalty/Market Size drops for three seasons.

Performance-based adjustments are completely independent of OOTP adjustments. It is entirely possible for a team to receive a Fan Loyalty/Market Size increase/decrease from both OOTP and performance-based adjustments in the same season. OOTP-generated status changes do not preclude performance-based adjustments under any circumstances.

In 2016, the following teams experienced performance-based Fan Loyalty/Market Size adjustments that will be reflected in our next sim:

• Tempe: Fan Loyalty DROPS to "Poor"
• Yuma: Fan Loyalty DROPS to "Average"

[Denny]

In 2016, the following teams experienced performance-based Fan Loyalty/Market Size adjustments that will be reflected in our next sim:

• Tempe: Fan Loyalty DROPS to "Poor"
• Yuma: Fan Loyalty DROPS to "Average"

They may be realistic, but I have never cared for these adjustments--it seems to me that they make an already unequal situation even more unequal.

[Alan Ehlers]

In 2016, the following teams experienced performance-based Fan Loyalty/Market Size adjustments that will be reflected in our next sim:

• Tempe: Fan Loyalty DROPS to "Poor"
• Yuma: Fan Loyalty DROPS to "Average"

They may be realistic, but I have never cared for these adjustments--it seems to me that they make an already unequal situation even more unequal.

In the case of Tempe, the penalty is well deserved. We stunk up the league this year. I wouldn't pay to watch my own game replays. My only gripe is that this is our second consecutive season with a Fan Loyalty Penalty. IMO, the one last year was unjust. We had one of the best second half records in the entire league.

Never the less, I enjoy the challenge. I've identified a lot of the mistakes I've made this year are hope to vastly improve next season. I'm just really happy to see that the "projected budgets" turned out to be inaccurate like I suspected. Yesterday my owner said I had 50 million to work with, today it's 76 million. That's a big relief.

[Matt]

In 2016, the following teams experienced performance-based Fan Loyalty/Market Size adjustments that will be reflected in our next sim:

• Tempe: Fan Loyalty DROPS to "Poor"
• Yuma: Fan Loyalty DROPS to "Average"

They may be realistic, but I have never cared for these adjustments--it seems to me that they make an already unequal situation even more unequal.

Careful Denny, you will get acused of class warfare. This is America, where in order to make the poor work harder we TAKE from them, and in order to make the rich work harder we GIVE to them. Trying to achieve any sense of fairness is socialism and if there is one thing Americans will not stand for it's fairness. We can't pick on the rich teams just because they want it all.