BuzzerBeater Forums

Interesting, it seems that africans like big men...

But the point i've made still remains. With your guards you're as predictable as i am, don't you ?

Some more things for the future:

- A financial fair-play to avoid having a team against you with three times (random guess by me) your payroll

From the news post

As you know, the global financial crisis is hitting everyone, and we strongly believe that BuzzerBeater teams should be able to run a sustainable franchise. To encourage managers to build a team that can operate within its means, we’re introducing a “fair play” rule into the financial system that gives teams an incentive to keep their salaries in line with that which they earn in in a given week. We’re still fine-tuning the details, but we’ll be introducing this into the game at the start of the next season.

Funny how this can be read two different ways.

Is it going to become more difficult to buy high salary players on the market when your team hasn't got enough revenue?
Judging from the point about only allowing teams from high divisions to buy expensive players, you could argue that this quote is just another change going in that direction. You don't have enough money, the game doesn't let you buy players who would ruin your club. Safety net sort of thing.


Then you could read it another way. If you remember last year there was another increase in player salaries floor. You had to be spending at least a certain amount on player salaries. So this could be another penalty for managers who 'fail' to spend as player salaries the money they earn each weak.

I've always said the player salaries floor is tackling the problem from the wrong end. The penalty for a team underspending should really come directly from attendance and merchandise. And of course that means if a team manages to have a good playoffs run with a cheap team, the fans don't get as mad as if the lack of spending made then non-competitive.

Player salarie floor is flawed because it doesn't take staff expenditure and other costs and investments into account. It doesn't take team success into account. The stated goal is to ensure teams are competitive, then it should not punish teams who are competitive yet manage to have a low salary roster.

But the point i've made still remains. With your guards you're as predictable as i am, don't you ?

I'm a bit predictable, but I don't care if France (Or Brasil before that) bother to guess my tactics. With or without, I have no chance to beat them.

Against the teams you can beat, you'll have the same tools and have a chance to beat them with or without. This tools will not give 100% bonus and nothing can beat it. This is another way to try to win by scouting the opponents and not just play on the strenght of the team someone is managing.

Maybe it's time for small teams to try to vary their builds. That's not easy, but that's the burden of small country. I don't really see how that is so against small NT. They are small, that's a fact that this tool will not change. They can use it and fight it.

For once i have to disagree with you. Less good players means less tactical options. Since 4 seasons as Senegal's headcoach i've tried all tactics and i know for sure that the team is better in only one of those...

This prediction thing is, i think, a good thing for the clubs, even if i've build my team to be competitve in LI. But not for the NTs cause NTs with only one "weapon" will be penalized compared to NTs with many "weapons"

Change that. Don't change that.
Be quick to change. Wait five seasons before changing things.

Yes, changing a game midstream after seasons of leaving it alone despite obvious imbalances is a PR challenge. This should be expected.

Everyone can't be happy. This time, they decide to change things and you are in the unhappy group. There is a good lot of happy people, so that wasn't a bad choice by the BB to act.

Thanks for clarifying it was the right choice. I was unsure thinking it was still up for debate. Happy people lot FTW.