#SLOE: People's Basketball Sim League

What are the implications of lifting training restrictions?
How will this affect the most successful GMs differently than those who are not as active?
How will it affect parity?
Will it help the league?

Rules: 1 point if you give thoughtful answers, which I will award after the timer ends for responses. The timer ends for responses at the moment the corresponding week's Sim is run.

Note: Use approximately 5 sentences as your bare minimum for 1 point. If you write 3 long, complex sentences, you'll still get a point. If you write 5, 3 word sentences, you will not get a point. Don't @ me.

Due: Deadline for Sim 3

Mike Lowry wrote: Wed Jan 28, 2026 3:31 pm What are the implications of lifting training restrictions?
How will this affect the most successful GMs differently than those who are not as active?
How will it affect parity?
Will it help the league?

Rules: 1 point if you give thoughtful answers, which I will award after the timer ends for responses. The timer ends for responses at the moment the corresponding week's Sim is run.

Note: Use approximately 5 sentences as your bare minimum for 1 point. If you write 3 long, complex sentences, you'll still get a point. If you write 5, 3 word sentences, you will not get a point. Don't @ me.

Due: Deadline for Sim 3

I honestly don't think the change proposed by Darth (PM'd out to the league by the commish) will have any substantial changes. I think you could see a few more A potentials popping up at a "discounted" rate now... before no one in their right mind would pay 30pts for a B->A potential change for a player who's potential was over 71-72... just economically not worth it. But I do think it will make players more attractive because of more A potentials out there and no one checking to see what that A is or remembering its a result of a cheapy potential boost. Think of this like training a guy from 58-61 in QKN and it boosts him from green to blue. It's that kind of cosmetic training.

But it makes sense.

I think it's interesting that new league is a lot more open to souping up players, but we still have restrictions on training to be purple. My Byron Scott athleticism trainings got rolled back because they would make him purple!

I think the proposed formula for the new training could be more expensive, like training past 81 currents in anything is a lot more expensive (or maybe just an extra point more expensive...whatever). I don't think this will have a huge impact on the league, but it does provide the opportunity for the rich to get richer, so to speak. Not in a very significant way, though, because the GMs that have points for training will be able to train just a little bit more than before.

I don't think it will hurt the league in any way, though.

What are the implications of lifting training restrictions?
Like greeple said, it is always amusing to see folks willing to tinker with training but we still cant train to purple. Hopefully another league vote soon overturns it. With regards to the new training proposal, it's cool with me but save it for next season with a vote. Not a big fan of changing the rules midseason. There will be a few creative GMs who will take advantage of the extra juice for their star players but overall not much should change.

How will this affect the most successful GMs differently than those who are not as active?
Their players will get the boost and the others sit idly.

How will it affect parity?
No real effect to me. Just improves player efficiency.

Will it help the league?
Sure more training means more activity. That is a good thing for the league.

I think the implication of re-pricing training will be marginal at best. I think you will see more “low A” (85) potential players but is the difference between, say, a 78 and an 85 score a game breaker. I don’t think so,

I think it will negatively affect GMs that rely on quick gut feel to make decisions (as mentioned earlier, those that don’t realize the difference between green and blue was a couple points of training) but I think we have fewer of those GMs than we used to.

Parity is likely to be unaffected. Training is expensive and is generally reserved for young key pieces. Changing training doesn’t change the number of those entering the league in the draft each year.

I don’t think it helps the league, but I don’t think it hurts the league, either.

What are the implications of lifting training restrictions?
I think we will see an influx of people training people to A level. Will it make a huge difference, no. But if they are seeking those letter increases, I think we should still make it a more than the cost of B. Training someone from B to A for less than the cost of C to B is wild to me. Maybe make it the same as B level and then add on whatever the new price would be. It seems like an inconsequential move that wouldn't benefit the very active.

How will this affect the most successful GMs differently than those who are not as active?
To use points, you have to make points. The teams that win the most make the most points (and keep asking for more to get a greater advantage). Less active GMs tend not to put in DCs, respond to town halls, etc so they won't have the points to develop a player.

How will it affect parity?
Minimal affect to the league honestly, but it will give some more margins for people to take advantage of. I enjoyed the fact that if you want that letter of "A", you had to put up the money.

Will it help the league?
No. There is no direct benefit to the league as a whole for this. Some GMs will find a small advantage, but to me, this isn't worth the hastle.

Mike Lowry wrote: Wed Jan 28, 2026 3:31 pm What are the implications of lifting training restrictions?
How will this affect the most successful GMs differently than those who are not as active?
How will it affect parity?
Will it help the league?

The specific training proposal sent out won't have HUGE implications, so long as the 85 point potential cap is in place. I'd love to see some kind of rolling scale by position (e.g. you could train PG HND/PAS up to 100, SG JPS, etc.) though this would be almost impossible to implement so it's not a REAL idea.

Like some others have said, may result in a small color change that less active GMs don't totally catch.

It probably doesn't heavily impact parity other than a trade or two, maybe.

It's probably indifferent to the health of the league.

What are the implications of lifting training restrictions?
I really see this having minimal implications. This seems to be more for the aesthetic of seeing the pretty "A" in your player's potential ratings. Sure it allows for a boost but not many players will see that drastic of a change in their skills because of it. Honestly, I think if anything it just increases the amount of time players have at playing at a higher level.

How will this affect the most successful GMs differently than those who are not as active?
I think if anything, it will help bridge the gap a bit more. Most of the top teams have players with a lot of A potentials or at least very close to A potentials so this could just help the lower tier teams make their players better quicker.

How will it affect parity?
As I just said, it could very well help the bottom tier teams get closer to the top tier teams. I don't think this helps the top tier teams pull away even further, especially if it's at a reasonable cost. Making the cost too high just gives the top tier teams an advantage since they typically get more points each season.

Will it help the league?
I don't think it will help nor hurt the league. I think the people who really care about training will take advantage of it and the ones who are less active will continue doing the same thing they have been doing

This is the guys who are highly engaged and very successful looking for an edge to compete for the top without consideration for the middle class.
It's just an opportunity for the hand full of GM's who understand the dynamics to further separate.
I think the difference between an 82 attribute and a 97 is a gulf.
This just allows the few GM's that consistently earn large amounts of points to cross that gulf without benefitting anybody else.
The limits that exist allow for someone like #78 to draft well and still compete, this rule will change will cut people out of contention.
I know plenty of us have an ego on the line, but if you think the same teams always dominate now, this will certainly move the needle further off the scale.
My opinion is that it will harm parity.