BuzzerBeater Forums

As thread's name could not be changed by the thread's creator (Opened a new thread about that too...), I've opened a new thread that generalized the idea I've already wrote about for a wider discussion.

That thread had been closed, so I am enhancing the topic here to be "Improving competativeness between old and new users".

Like in the NBA and in other leagues at USA, adding (hard and soft) caps to the roster (salaries) of teams playing at a specific league will make the game more interesting and each league more competetive.
It will give more essence for being a good manger "on court" and not just on business.

The managers will need to peek their players better, to define their lineups and strategy better etc. - more BB less economic game.

REMARK - I believe that the economic part should be main thing in this game, but it will be nice to give more credit for court-related topics at the expense of economic related topics.

I still need to think about this sepcific suggestion, but basically I like the ideas behind that.

Last edited by Pini פיני at 11/4/2011 4:58:08 AM

Teams weekly income already works as a salary cap. Think of it this way -> going into deficit is like paying luxury tax. There is no need for an aditional cap. It's the managers own choise how much he uses his income on staff and scouting.

I still need to think about this sepcific suggestion, but basically I like the ideas behind that.

Why not do the thinking first, before proposing nonsensical stuff? The salary cap is meant to level the playing field. Here all teams in the same division have the same tv money (unlike in the NBA) and everyone chooses how much they want to spend in staff, how big their arena will be, ticket prices, etc. In the NBA, the Lakers don't go in the red because they have multiple other sources of income (huge tv deals, merch, $10000 tickets for Jack Nicholson). Here there is no such thing. If a team overspends a lot on salary, they will go into debt pretty soon. So there is no point in implementing a feature that is already there

Yer in the NBA the hard and soft caps are implemented to basically stop the NBA turning into the soccer Premier League, where basically there is no cap.

At present, i can go out and buy 5 $100k players, put in my starting lineup, and I will win my league.

But I will also go broke.

Paying those higher salaries is a bit like 'the luxury tax' in the NBA. Essentially, if my wages are higher than my income, im losing money. Similar to a luxury tax - Miami went out, bought premium players, and pay the luxury tax.

So essentially, the caps are already there in the game, they are just implemented in a slightly different manner. The league 'floor' caps are used to help prevent tanking, which is a totally different implentation for a totally different problem.

So... good idea, but already in the game IMO :)

I agree that it is not exactly the same, and I was not sure about it while writing it. It was just an idea I wanted flooding in the forum for thinking about.

BUT

What you said is not precise.
1) The cap is defined to have a more competitive league. When all teams having the same scale of money then, (most of) the games are more thrilling, the game is more about BB decision and less about economic ones.

2) Each team has different revenues. So, the difference exists. A team can tank for several seasons and then come with enormous money and win it by cash.

3) A team can invest on premium players, in order of taking a league, and get broke, bu then a new team will replace them and they might be doing the same.
A case when there goal at that league succeeded - taking that league, but got broke on the next league - is the case that we want to prevent.

4) Luxury tax is not paying more than your income. This is the definition of "soft cap" that can be added to BB.

Summarizing - I think BB should not be for short runners - those that are coming to take a single title (league) and then getting broke. I think that in order of preventing that and making the game more BB-oriented the soft-cap or/and the hard-cap can be added.

Again, I'm not fully sure about this suggestion, but we can try and develop it...

yer i see where you're coming from. Introduce a cap such that a guy can't purchase a $250k a week salaried player just before finals, win the league, then go broke 5 weeks into the new season in the higher division.

Of course, he wouldn't go broke if he sold that player. Probably a loss, in which case there is still the chance of the user going broke.

Tanking has its risks, attendences go down, merchanise goes down, the salary floor is designed to help prevent this high level of tanking, which, i think is working suitably.

So lets say there is a cap. Once my arena gets bigger, im just going to be raking in the cash. Im going to have the best players possible for that salary cap. And if there is a tax above that, my arena will be so big that ill be able to then purchase beyond the cap and pay the tax and probably still make a profit. then ill promote. But that will take a few years.

A new player, may have a small arena. but they might still decide to buy the higher paid players, take the luxury tax hit, and promote... they just wont have as much profit, and again, will have a higher risk of going bankrupt.

So it may discourage this kind of behaviour, but i don't think this soft/hard cap would prevent the 'short running' you speak of.

I think personally, 2 seasons ago, i had a chance to promote. But i didnt, because my arena was not big enough to accomodate the next division. i would have promoted, not had enough cash flow to have the expensive players, and got demoted straight away.

This last season, i was soooooo close to promoting, and im ready to promote. My arena is good, my players are good, i will be competitive. So i think, you just need to have faith in the existing system that, these 'short running' players will not last. It happens. just gotta be patient and stick with your long term plan.

But maybe the cap could be used in a different way? maybe the outcomes of a cap could be different? Maybe it will level out income differences between top teams? i dunno. ill have a think.

The only problem here against the cap is that all teams have the capacity to be on the same level playing field. If your arena is too small, that is your decision not to expand it earlier, etc. But at the end of the day, you have the opportunity to expand your arena to make up that difference in income and earn just as much as everyone else.

Introduce a cap such that a guy can't purchase a $250k a week salaried player just before finals, win the league, then go broke 5 weeks into the new season in the higher division.

If this is your sole problem then other suggestions work better than this so called cap. Simply making transfers end 2 weeks before playoffs would mean teams would have to stick with the unsustainable salaries longer making this a less attractive option. Also, whats to say you can't follow suit and buy another $300k/week player after seeing you opponent buy that 250k player.

Also, why should there be a cap to restrict how much the top teams make? They are higher ranked so obviously they will be able to pull in more merchandising. Don't like it? the opportunity is there to win more games and/or to buy more players from your country.

The point is, the opportunity is there for all teams to be equal. It is not like in real life where the Lakers have a lot more revenue then a team like Milwaukee simply because the team is situated in a better market

I think personally, 2 seasons ago, i had a chance to promote. But i didnt, because my arena was not big enough to accomodate the next division. i would have promoted, not had enough cash flow to have the expensive players, and got demoted straight away.

Just a bit of friendly advice, it is better to finish last in the league above than to try and fight for promotion again in the league below. Financially wise, you are better off in a higher league even if you are unable to compete at that level.

Just a bit of friendly advice, it is better to finish last in the league above than to try and fight for promotion again in the league below. Financially wise, you are better off in a higher league even if you are unable to compete at that level.

Dont get wrong, if i was good enough to promote, i would have! i certainly didnt not promite through choice, its cause I wasnt good enough! :)

but i say it in retrospect, looking at where i am now, financially, draft picks, scouting points, arena size, etc in retrospect, ive made the best out of not promoting, and im glad i didnt, because it allowed me pick up some silverware last year, and be in an excellent position to do the same this year, AND potentially promote AND be competitive when i promote AND work on some excellent trainee's. of which i may or may not have yet. LOL

With regards to the cap, i dont think it would actually fix anything in the game. It would change how the game is played, and is probably just an alternative mechanism for implemtation of the game.
So - thinking out loud, how can it benefit the game? .... more cash in ones pocket? limitations on what players you could buy therefore mildly affecting the transfer market (ie: less buyers = prices go down)..... Top teams in a league would all be very equal? maybe too equal? it would make it harder for a lower division team to build a team ready for the next division..... It would add an interesting management element to the game i have to admit. ... i think it needs a workshop. To the pub I say.

So lets say there is a cap. Once my arena gets bigger, im just going to be raking in the cash. Im going to have the best players possible for that salary cap.

First, as you will not sell and buy any time a better player is available under the cap, you may not have all the best players under the cap.
In addition, w/o the cap you will most certainly will have better players than under this cap definition.

And if there is a tax above that, my arena will be so big that ill be able to then purchase beyond the cap and pay the tax and probably still make a profit. then ill promote. But that will take a few years.

Yes, you may doing so, but the chances of that under current regulations are much higher.

A new player, may have a small arena. but they might still decide to buy the higher paid players, take the luxury tax hit, and promote... they just wont have as much profit, and again, will have a higher risk of going bankrupt.

So it may discourage this kind of behaviour, but i don't think this soft/hard cap would prevent the 'short running' you speak of.

Maybe not, but the damage to current league they are currently playing at will get lower.
And also the chances that they will behave like that.

I think personally, 2 seasons ago, i had a chance to promote. But i didnt, because my arena was not big enough to accomodate the next division. i would have promoted, not had enough cash flow to have the expensive players, and got demoted straight away.

This last season, i was soooooo close to promoting, and im ready to promote. My arena is good, my players are good, i will be competitive. So i think, you just need to have faith in the existing system that, these 'short running' players will not last. It happens. just gotta be patient and stick with your long term plan.

A system that can be improved should be.

With regards to the cap, i dont think it would actually fix anything in the game. It would change how the game is played, and is probably just an alternative mechanism for implemtation of the game.
So - thinking out loud, how can it benefit the game? .... more cash in ones pocket? limitations on what players you could buy therefore mildly affecting the transfer market (ie: less buyers = prices go down)..... Top teams in a league would all be very equal? maybe too equal? it would make it harder for a lower division team to build a team ready for the next division..... It would add an interesting management element to the game i have to admit. ... i think it needs a workshop. To the pub I say.

Which pub - yours or mine? :+)

Yes, (as already written) this specific suggestion is something that is more to think about than something I'm fully believe at.
I do believe that it might be something that the BB can benefit from (but changes to the current definitions of this suggestion are, with a high possibility, needed to be refactored.

With regards to the cap, i dont think it would actually fix anything in the game. It would change how the game is played, and is probably just an alternative mechanism for implemtation of the game.

Thats the thing. Its a whole concept change on how the game is to be played. This essentially makes financial management a lot less important.

So - thinking out loud, how can it benefit the game? .... more cash in ones pocket?

Whats the point of having more cash if you can't spend it? What if you stockpile millions over seasons and be told you are not allowed to spend it? Then whats the point of trying to make money in the first place?

All this achieves is that it makes the league a lot more equal and gives teams in 8th a chance of knocking off 1st. But why?? Managing finances is one of the challenges of a management game. Imposing a cap will simply kill off the financial challenge of running a team and make the tactical decisions of game tactics a lot more important. Sure its part of the game but if all you care about is basketball tactics then you are playing a coaching game and not a club management game