No, really, the problem you seem to have with this idea of scaling down is incomprehensible. In debates about player builds, it is completely irrelevant how high the skills are; what matters is the ratio of skills. Anyone who's familiar with BB and the buzzer-manager salary estimation tool should be able to produce equivalent yet cheaper builds in a matter of minutes.
So, what's the deal?
What I said is,
The vast majority of managers have never even seen any "triple-17" nor have they had any players with the lofty salaries like those mentioned. And I see that no one disputes this; the best they can do is dance around it and try to justify it.
This is still true. Wah wah wah, hubba hubba hubba, but no one denies the truth of what I said. Whether less is more is another argument separate from this. Scaling down may be true and it may not be, I haven't seen that analyzed and I don't expect ot see it analyzed (
bluster is NOT analysis, even from the expert from Japan who we all know walks on water). But what I said hasn't been denied. No one says, "The average USA DivV or Div IV team
does have three triple-17's, so you are wrong, Mike." No one.