This proposal complicates the training system too much. Your method also pushes managers to make a decision between training homegrown draftees in a lower division with inflated salaries so they still receive quicker training speeds or promoting which allows easier management of salaries but a decrease in training speed.
Yes, I agree that such a decision arises when promoting from Division III to Division II.
Some people might choose to stay in Division III and intentionally avoid promotion.
First, BB might need to proactively remind managers that training speed slows down in Division II and above.
For example, a message could pop up when pressing "Update Training."
Next, some management strategies may not be suitable for higher-level divisions.
This situation is not uncommon.
For example, in a less competitive Division II, it might be possible to use 1-position training to develop three players while promoting to Division I.
However, this approach may not be feasible in Division I.
At this point, the manager has to decide whether to maintain their original management approach, which will quickly lead them back to the original division, or to change their management strategy to one that is suitable for staying in that league.
This then might lead to managers forcing to sell players as training becomes too slow (age already slows training!) in higher divisions.
In my limited thinking, if it's a training-focused team, they would likely choose to continue 1-position training for 2 to 3 players at this point (in Division II).
On the other hand, if it’s a match competitiveness-focused team, they would likely choose to sell 1 to 2 players and keep only one to continue 1-position training, just as you mentioned.
However, in the current training system, if a match competitiveness-focused team chooses to use 1-position training to train only 1 player in Division III, then compared to the new method, they would train an additional 1 to 2 players, and these 1 to 2 partially trained players would enter the transfer market.
This is a good thing because most people train players for their own use.
If the transfer market lacks quality players who are partially trained, it becomes difficult to sustain a management strategy focused on partially trained players.
Why should managers be punished for creating good trainees and wanting to become competitive?
Because BB does not allow you to have both match competitiveness and train 2 to 3 excellent players in higher-level leagues, it would be too easy to stay in higher-level leagues that way.
You can refer to these articles
(273660.21)(273660.38)(273660.39) by BB-Marin or this summary of opposing views
(323722.8).
I've said many times, there is nothing wrong with the training system. It should not be easy to create players who are upwards of 150+TSP, it is a huge compromise of investing time and money and finding the right balance when having to train out of position. I will continue to bang this drum, but it is the salary formula that is the issue.
In my community, many people have left BB to play other basketball management games.
One or two of the reasons for leaving are that BB cannot allow everyone to train different skills individually.
It is too far from BB's philosophy, and it feels hopeless.
I don't know if anyone would leave the game because they want their key players to be trained by themselves while also hoping to have a more realistic lineup, where they don't have to start the young players who are still in training, but can instead field a complete starting lineup.
However, this is something we might still be able to improve.
I don’t think adding this training option will significantly affect the difficulty of training players with 150+ TSP because the match competitiveness of both you and your opponents may also increase.