BuzzerBeater Forums

You make yourself less credible to the people reading this debate if you go on like that.

I'm not really worried about my credibility. If I was, I would never post in global. The more you get to know me, the less credible I become.

;-)

Anyhow, I will agree with smedlock in this respect. The use of draconian is just a red herring that has nothing to do with the actual conversation at hand.

Last edited by HeadPaperPusher at 10/28/2010 8:36:32 PM

Hooray for semantics?

In any case, the player market currently seems to be going into a deflationary period. I've only been here for a season or so, but that's the most concise summary I can glean from this entire debate.

Some arguments decrying this period of relatively low transfer prices as franchise-crippling state that these prices have essentially rendered training-for-selling useless and that something should be done by the administrators.
Others insist that this time simply is a transition towards an equilibrium when prices will eventually begin to stabilize and thus more accurately represent the value of player.

My opinion tends to coincide with the latter faction. From my basic knowledge of economics, an economy in flux tends towards equilibrium. Of course, there's also a chance for degradation towards anarchy, but that's highly unlikely.
However, my main argument is directed against those who are complaining. It isn't the economy's job to cater towards the consumer. The consumer must adapt to the current situation. It's simply deplorable to complain that because the economy is in deflation the game is no longer of good quality. In short... suck it up.

1. Bad idea. If someone rosters 5 players and wins the game then what is wrong with that? I would certainly go see a real life game where the 5 star players are playing the entire game. Also a bad idea because why should playing a 12 man roster give more money?? Fans shouldn't care how many players are playing in the game, as long as they get to watch a good match.

2. Also a bad suggestion because, as you pointed out, salary is a horrible way to indicate team strength. This discourages having balanced players because you would have a lower salary total and even though you might be winning all your games you are being hurt by merchandise and arena. And you gave the example of under 40k for leagues with 150k average salary, but how do you determine where that line should be? Why not 20k? Or 60k? or 100k?

3. This is again a bad idea because it is based on salaries. And hence hurts teams with balanced players. And benefits teams with monoskilled players.

4. This could work.

Tankers I think would agree (if they speak honestly) that the amount of money they can collect while tanking is ridiculous.

I'm trying to tank and you won't let me! Move out the way - you are occupying the automatic relegation spot that has my name written all over it!!

A team can have more than 5 players, but that doesn't mean they have to list more than 5 players for a game. I've seen a lot of matches where teams only list 5 players for the match even though they have more on their roster.

Salary may not be a perfect indicator of team strength. However, I would almost always bet on a team that has 50% more salary than his opponent in BB. Yes, there are some teams that can do well with low salaries - but not ridiculously low salaries compared to their competition.

Even if we look at a real life example, a team that is spending considerably less in salary than the rest of the teams in their division will hear it from the fans. Well, unless they are winning every game. Of course, winning always makes the fans happy. But if they are losing every game? Or even if they are playing .500 ball? The fans would definitely be upset - especially if the team is sitting with a ton of cash in their bank account.

The team that won my division 2 last year had about 280k in salaries, when the team that he beat in the finals had way over 400k salary. My point is that salary isn't everything, especially when you have 1 or 2 monsters.