BuzzerBeater Forums

The best leagues - the NBA for example - has the rules I'm pointing at, in order of having a more competative league.

Disagree. Only 30 teams, which joined at first, have chance to fair competition in NBA...
In BB we want to have more than 30 users...
Salary cap in NBA helps to create fair competition because NBA is closed league. In BB salary cap will create opposite effect because we have many young teams and incomes in lower divisions are smaller.

The best leagues - the NBA for example - has the rules I'm pointing at, in order of having a more competative league.

Disagree. Only 30 teams, which joined at first, have chance to fair competition in NBA...
In BB we want to have more than 30 users...
Salary cap in NBA helps to create fair competition because NBA is closed league. In BB salary cap will create opposite effect because we have many young teams and incomes in lower divisions are smaller.

The NBA contains teams from different market-size.
There the difference in "money" is due to that, and it is not important from what the difference is from.
The "cap-system" had been designed for this reason and for this alone - to make the league more competative.

[And ofcourse not all of the teams in the NBA are there from day one.]

How "amazing" is that those who fight against having a more competative game (Caps, assets reset, etc.) are exactly those who are at the high divisions.
Very weired indeed...

4) If you are caliming that the best BB managers are in the first league - just reset all assets (players, arena size, etc.) every few seasons and prove it.

This is a ridiculous solution to something that is not really a problem in the first place.

This is a copy-paste from (200771.52), worth repeating here:
This is a long-term game by design. A change like that would require a huge change to just about everything in the game (the exceptions would pretty much be the game engine, game viewer, some support functionality such as the transfer list, and the forums).

When you join, you compete against the guys who start about the same time in your country. Does this system have problems? Sure. When a country grows very slowly (or not at all), many new users are put in a tough spot. The pyramid shape of the league structure may not be the best option for small countries; for bigger ones it is a necessity. Every season, however, a skilled manager progresses against those who started around the same time and "gets put on the next level of competition" (not necessarily league level). The point is that you are always firstly competing against your peers. That keeps the game interesting for as many people as possible.

In (200771.42) you were already offered some team age vs. league level data. This is a limited set, but it is interesting in the sense that it was collected for other purposes than these threads and is therefore randomly picked for the purposes of this thread. I cleaned the data here for quicker reading (but you can find the original data following the links):

Season 13 vs. Season 18 teams in SM-Koris (in the order of starting time and league level)

s3 / I ....... s3 / I
s3 / I ....... s3 / III (my team, 4-time champion, one of the s13 teams)
s3 / II ...... s3 / III (former champion)
s3 / II ...... s3 / III (one of the s13 teams)
s3 / III ..... s4 / III (one of the s13 teams)
s3 / III ..... s4 / IV (one of the s13 teams)
s4 / III ..... s4 / IV (one of the s13 teams)
s4 / IV ..... s4 / IV
s4 / IV ..... s4 / IV (current champion, one of the s13 teams)
s4 / IV ..... s4 / IV (one of the s13 teams)
s4 / IV ..... s4 / IV
s4 / IV ..... s6 / IV
s4 / IV ..... s6 / IV
s4 / IV ..... s7 / IV
s4 / IV ..... s7 / IV
s5 / IV ..... s8 / IV

As we can see, in Season 18 we have 7 teams that participated in the top league also in Season 13. What is more interesting is that the average team is getting younger (in terms of starting time, all teams are of course now older by five seasons), although the median team both during Season 13 and Season 18 started during Season 4.

Note that all the top four teams (in terms of starting time/league level) of Season 13 are out of the top competition for Season 18. The remaining 3 teams that started in the top league in Season 3 (which was the first season in Suomi) all make an appearance in the top league either during Season 13 or Season 18. One of these three teams is currently in div II, another one in div III.

To make it to the top league in Suomi, and to compete there, it seems to now take about 10 seasons (and skill, of course). The last two or three seasons have seen some major spending for title runs, which has made maintaining a top team very difficult. That is turning old powerhouses into struggling teams (the most successful league team ever is now in div III). The top teams are not making a profit anymore, they are running full speed just to stay where they are. The gap has been closed, and new teams are closing in. You may think 10 seasons is too long (and in bigger countries it is probably more than 10 seasons), but is it really? This is a long-term game, by design.

Okey, I'd like to explain.

Please imagine one old and one young team. They play in the same league. Of course old team has huge advantage.
In first season old team has, let's say, 95% chance to win with young team. It's obvious, because he has better players, larger arena, etc.
And now we can imagine two scenarios:

1) BB with salary cap
Manager of young team is by little better than manager of old team. Effect? Young manager has practically no chance to develop his team as fast as old manager. Why? Because old team has salaries = salary cap. And young team needs the same salaries to have chance to fair competition. But he has worse players (for example because of time needed to train secondaries) and he has smaller arena. His results will be worse so his incomes will be smaller too. So he will have less money than old manager. Of course he can buy worse players but then he should be relegated ;-) In this way his team never be as good as old team ;-)
If young manager is much better then he can decrease advantage of old club (for example because he can win few matches thanks better tactic). But it's long way. In 2nd season he should have 94% to win with old team. In 3rd season he should have 93%. Etc, etc. In this way his chance should be equal after 45 seasons ;-)

2) BB without salary cap.
The same as in first case in first season young team has 5% chance to win with old club. But young manager is better than old. What does it mean? It means that old (worse) manager needs to have more expensive players to defeat young (better but weaker) manager. It means that old manager has to pay 100k more in every week. In this way young manager has 1,5M more after full season (please note that in case with salary cap it's almost impossible). He can spend this money to increase arena or to buy better players (with better secondaries). In this way in 2nd season he should have 85% chance to win with old manager. In 3rd season he should have 75%. Etc, etc and.... after 6 seasons he should have better club than old and he should have more than 50% chance to win ;-)

Not after 45 seasons, only after 6 seasons. Of course 6 seasons isn't very short period of time. But it's still better than 45 seasons ;-)

It shows that salary cap would be helpful for old teams ;-)

--
In past I was the youngest team in my country ;-) Still I have no chance to compete with ~20-30 teams in my country. But with salary cap I would have no chance to compete with ~200-300. I had chance to overtake most of them because they wasted their money and paid huge salaries. In game with salary cap it would be impossible.

I agree with You that it's hard for young team to compete with older teams. But with salary cap it will be harder, much harder. Your diagnosis is good. But Your solution (salary cup) sucks ;-)

The "cap-system" had been designed for this reason and for this alone - to make the league more competative.

You talk like you understand only why cap system exist, but don't understand what cap system is.

The "cap-system" had been designed for this reason and for this alone - to make the league more competative.

You talk like you understand only why cap system exist, but don't understand what cap system is.

Here is a phrase taken from WIKI first paragraph describing the NBA salary cap;

"Like many professional sports leagues, the NBA has a salary cap to keep teams in larger markets (with more revenue) from buying all of the top players and extending their advantage over smaller-market franchises."

Last edited by Pini פיני at 11/6/2011 4:38:41 PM

Still the same.

So If salary cap came to BB, Venomous Scorpions will buy best players to the maximum level of salary and nobody can have better team than his, only the same. NBA is the other world, do not compare BB to it.

Last edited by ozi90 at 11/6/2011 4:46:40 PM

Salary cap works very well in closed league with money from outside. Salary cap prevent to spend extra money to gain advantage.
BB is completely different than NBA. Leagues aren't closed but there aren't incomes from outside. So salary cap would increase advantage of old teams.

You (and me) want to decrease this advantage ;-)

With salary cap old teams will buy players with better secondaries with the same salary as players in young teams but with worse secondaries. In this way old teams would eat cake and still have cake. Without salary cap old teams have dilema - to eat cake (better chance to win match with young team but less money after season) or to have cake (less chance to win match with young team but more money after season).

This is a ridiculous solution to something that is not really a problem in the first place.

1) There were solutions (ploural).
2) Again, "amazingly" a team from the first division, that "amazingly" [I do like this word... :+)] are in this game since season-3, is against a new system for improving competativeness, and against a system that causes this disadvantage to those teams who started after the first few seasons.

As we can see, in Season 18 we have 7 teams that participated in the top league also in Season 13. What is more interesting is that the average team is getting younger (in terms of starting time, all teams are of course now older by five seasons), although the median team both during Season 13 and Season 18 started during Season 4.

I don't remember who was the one who brang a similar information about his top league (I think it was the ABBL).
But, then (as written here in the first message on this thread) I looked what happened to the teams who have been part of the teams that played on the first division on season-4, in order of understanding what have happened to them.

What had been seen, is that teams not been beaten by new teams, but where just leaving the game.

And I will repeat a main concept here:
In case that the first league teams are there solely due to better managers, and not (by any chance) due to the season they started playing at, then there is no reason why not to reset the teams' assets every few years.

And we wee how it is working, right?

your idea is sick, this is a sports simulation game,
I'm not building my financial foundations and later on focusing on training my players, knowing the fact that sooner or later there's going to happen something like a 'soft wipe'

You like the game - stay and play
You get bored - leave

People never play one game for longer that a given certain period of time that is why sometimes they leave because they get bored, or have their particular reasons.