BuzzerBeater Forums

Excelent decision to start again next season and get a wonderful team plus good rookies :D

Not exactly. One can keep 3 good players for training plus some crap. In that case you're able to make even more profit in such "season".

Edit: Shouldn't be allowed to have 0 players or less than 5 for more than 1 week.

Last edited by piotras at 5/21/2010 6:08:18 PM

He makes 400k and more per game. Plus probably a massive TV revenue. Plus maybe a tiny bit of money from merchandise although not much probably.

So he is making about 500k to 600k profit a week. Although I am sure he would be spending 40k a week on the draft.
Then he gets 1st draft pick which will probably be a player worth at least 500k unless he gets very unlucky.

Like it was mentioned above, he received 30.5 million dollars from his player sales.
The season is 14 weeks roughly which means he will make roughly 7 million in this time.
Plus who knows how much money he had in his bank account to begin with.
He might have over 40 million in his account at the moment.
Sounds like he will be unbeatable when he relegates :P

He might be able to train 3 players, but unless they are already good players then chances are their defense sucks and they will get fouled out every game before they get to 48 minutes.

He might be able to train 3 players, but unless they are already good players then chances are their defense sucks and they will get fouled out every game before they get to 48 minutes.

Nah. Just pick up 2 players to use as scrubs in addition to the 3 trainees (you need to set a valid line-up). Chances are most of the shots will go to wherever the lucky fans are playing, so fouling on his trainees should not be any more than normal.

Don't need 5 to have a valid lineup. You need 3 players dressed per game.

It's easier than you all imagined. Before the Finals of the previous season he had told us he would leave the game. He wanted to win and leave unbeatable. He wasn't successful in Finals, but he sold all his players and actually did what he had promised. I don't know exactly, but now he is probably looking for great trainees, as he tried to get one of our best Centers of U21 but he decided not to pay so much. Let's see, maybe all our predictions are wrong...

Don't need 5 to have a valid lineup. You need 3 players dressed per game.

Yeah but I personally would not play each of my trainees every game. I would play them 1 game per week and not take the chance of an injury.

thanks for all your comments so far!
there have been a mix of factual comments and comments slightly supportive of the tactic

i dont like it at all, but am i being too sensitive?!

i know there are lots of less extreme examples where strange behaviour can benefit a team slightly and i know this is *just a game* - but i think its a shame that behaviour so out of line with the spirit of running a basketball club/ running a business is rewarded in this unrealistic way.

this tactic tests the limits of how BB's game/financial mechanics works and results in an unrealistic outcome. i say it tests the limits because you cannot get a smaller roster than 0 players and be any better than a team in a top division with large arena.

Ideally all managers would try to be realistic and play in the spirit of the game, rather than just the rules.

It would be a shame to have to make rules (which need to be enforced) or change the mechanics of the game (taking time and possibly opening up new opportunities to take advantage of) to manage extreme cases such as these, but i think it is worth considering if it becomes more common.

replacing the roster of your team is a legitimate thing to do. perhaps we could think about the ways this can be done in BB and which ways are realistic and which ways arent and see if something can be done about making the consequences more realistic.
i believe managers should have the choice but be faced with realistic consequences.

so if you cant field a team, the game would be cancelled in advance meaning no gate receipts. couple more times and the TV company looks to recoup some/all of its money. perhaps a condition of receiving tv revenues in any one week is that the team salary is a certain % of the league average/whatever figures went into the tv revenue calculation in the first place?
also this behaviour would (does?) have effects on other teams in the league, so it isnt fair on them that their players and fans get to have 1 or 2 less games with them a season.
should such behaviour attract a fine from the league's governing body?

He could also buy just 4-5 players with 1k wage and do the same. There is nothing to do. Positive impact is that he is giving chance to another team in the league.

what if BB were to implement a rule stating, if you have no roster for X amount of days then the computer will create a roster similar to the original 18 players given and money would be spent to get those players?

I doubt that this would have to be implemented oftenm, but i think in some cases like this, its needed.