BuzzerBeater Forums

but far away from these extrems, and what i have seen from the NBA they don't forfeit their game even now when the Po are unreachable for most.

So what about in real life when a team cant make the PO and they send there players to get surgery to heal injury's so there player is 100% for the next season, Should they be punished for doing whats best for the team in the long run?

And at least in our top divison most of the team who try stay into the devision, and i don't want to make team who get demoted run economical bad. But in your example, with the low transfer sumd you get the salry from 300 to 400 k, and still make 200k each week. Which is more sympathic for me then, promote and reduce the salary to 30k and make 550k each week.

That's why Good sport's have salary cap's, it's to stop the rich teams buying all the best players. If we had a salary cap income would be less important and training will become more important. witch is what this game need's.

The last time i checked this was a basketball manager game not the stock market. We need to get away from who has the most money can buy a championship to who can train better and smarter. And to who can do better than others in there div with the same salary cap.

And before you say the game sort of has a salary cap with the arena capped at 20k that is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about when a team promotes from a lower div that the salary cap is closed enough so that the new team can be competitive straight away.

It's like if you had 2 identical players 1 in div 1 and the other in div 2, the team in div 1 has more attendance, Merchandise and TV Contract than the div 2 team, but why do they have to pay the same salary. If Lebron James went back to Div 2 i bet they wont pay him 15 million a year or whatever he make's now. We need to take the importance on income out of the game and increase the importance of training.

I'm worry that this rule can detect me as using tanking strategy if I lower current 1,3M wage bill to some 700-800k for next season :-)
But with combination of series of losts it could work.

Point of whitemaggot is very serious. I agree income difference between Div I and Div II is too big and I can imagine lowering it, but how to do it so that global economy stay healthy without huge turbulences?
But even with current system best managers are still able to find strategy how to avoid relegation after promotion to Div I and finally settle in Div I.

That's why Good sport's have salary cap's, it's to stop the rich teams buying all the best players. If we had a salary cap income would be less important and training will become more important. witch is what this game need's.

There is already salary cap. Find out how many team all around the world has over 1M wage bill.
Why new Div I should be able to battle for tittle in first season?
In our Div I 9th highest wage bill is $ 556 411, in all Div II there are teams over $ 400 000 (noone over $ 500 000). I guess it's not problem to buy someone and have the wage bill on average of Div I after promotion or at least sometime about half a season in Div I which could be soon enough to avoid relegation.

I'm worry that this rule can detect me as using tanking strategy if I lower current 1,3M wage bill to some 700-800k for next season :-)

You would definitely be close to it - and the fact that you are already worried about it proves the deterrent works! ;-)

Though maybe I should ask how likely you think it is that this team will go right back up.

Given the fact that you can have a lot higher wage bill, I'd say very likely. That $5 mill will just fund the promotion via a anti-bankruptcy fund. Genuine D2 teams can't compete on salary wise as they can't afford to make losses every week. Whereas this D1 tanker can afford to make losses week in week out in D2 because of the extra cash he has. That means ,this team can afford to have a salary bill of a lot higher then what a genuine D2 team can have.

Not to mention this team becomes the envy of all. Being able to gain D1 revenue whilst running close to no team at all. Needless to say, the D2 teams get very frustrated because this tanker hogs a spot in the top league while there are D2 teams that can easily roll over this D1 team if they play a match together.

You're welcome to argue about whether it's effective or not, but our solution as game designers to this problem is that such teams are very likely to get relegated. One thing we've definitely noticed is that managers as a whole tend to underestimate the downside of being relegated and overestimate their chances of coming straight back up. This came up in the debate about 5th place vs. 6th place as well, remember.

Do you think your position would be improved if we handed you $5M (your estimate for what this team will make over the course of the season) but relegated you? As a long-term strategy, you're going to give up a lot of that in the first season you spend in a lower division, between upset fans and having to play D II instead D I games. Probably if you come right back up, you'll end up turning a profit, but if you stay down for more than 1 season it becomes a major loss. Which then means we should be asking how likely it is that you go right back up, and I think you're overestimating that by a pretty wide margin. Though maybe I should ask how likely you think it is that this team will go right back up.

We want one change. Team that loses the matches should receive much less profit from tickets. It would have been correctly. A lot of teams come in D1 not to fight for trophies, they just poured games and earn tickets. In real life, these teams are not interested in the fans and they do not buy tickets for losing teams.

We want one change. Team that loses the matches should receive much less profit from tickets. It would have been correctly. A lot of teams come in D1 not to fight for trophies, they just poured games and earn tickets. In real life, these teams are not interested in the fans and they do not buy tickets for losing teams.

So if you have a home game against one of these tanking losing team's the fan's also would not turn up to watch a 1 sided flogging. So should we make it so that the home team takes a big income cut?

What would happen when you get 3 tankers in the same conference, the other 5 team's would suffer and not be able to compete with the other conference.

We want one change. Team that loses the matches should receive much less profit from tickets. It would have been correctly. A lot of teams come in D1 not to fight for trophies, they just poured games and earn tickets. In real life, these teams are not interested in the fans and they do not buy tickets for losing teams.

So if you have a home game against one of these tanking losing team's the fan's also would not turn up to watch a 1 sided flogging. So should we make it so that the home team takes a big income cut?

What would happen when you get 3 tankers in the same conference, the other 5 team's would suffer and not be able to compete with the other conference.

It should be related only to the home matches of this team, the rest should receive income in accordance with their position in the league.