BuzzerBeater Forums

I voted for liking 3.

But in all actuality, the only one I feel is "essential" is Point #3, that one should get attention first.

I do not feel you need to rent a player to overcome veteran teams.

high salaries in playoffs make winning teams go red, which sucks, but if we are always green- then no one coudl ever catch you.

You would not be always green. Currently you might be green even with near 900k roster (if you negate staff and scouting). Perhaps you could even maintain higher player salarys if you got a lot of self drafted/NT players. I think it would be a good thing for the competition, if teams that go over the average total earned by teams in the league, with player salarys only, to burn out faster than before. This also limits the gains of tanking, relegating and overspending to get back up. Additional player salary tax would eat all that cash you got while tanking.
I also don't think that teams in the big countrys have hoarded up all that money 15 seasons ago and would never use it to win.
Estonia for example has had 6 different league winners and 7 different cup winners, last 10 seasons.

Thank you Kukoc for these well-thought out and well-put suggestions.

I like 1. It could include staff salaries too. It makes sense to have to balance revenues and expenses.
The penalty could be lower as I think the possibility to overspend for a while should still remain.

I don't think 2 and generally salary floors are necessary or efficient.
Hit the wallet ! Teams who field blatantly understrength lineups should be severely hit on their income, arena receipts and merch. It's conceivable to cut TV rights too, it would need more thinking and analysis on the consequences, so I'd be careful touching it.
This in conjunction with 1 would lower the team average total income for the next seasons and would be enough to negate the point of tanking.

I don't like 3. Most transfers are legit, why hurt everyone ? And would it work ? I can see ways around it and I am not the wicked kind. Both problems you want to fight with this are minor in my eyes and the solution is too drastic and with fallouts on the market difficult to predict.

Suggestion 4 is not necessary with your 1 and my 2.

I am a bit baffled about the activity answering this poll. This is a 2 week poll, so the time is not up yet, but 19 responces is really low. I do feel that this poll has enough options for everyone. Does this mean only 19 people bothered to read this through or is there only 19 users total, reading suggestion forums.

Not everyone can be bothered to input.

i like only point 3.

Likewise.

I am a bit baffled about the activity answering this poll. This is a 2 week poll, so the time is not up yet, but 19 responces is really low. I do feel that this poll has enough options for everyone. Does this mean only 19 people bothered to read this through or is there only 19 users total, reading suggestion forums.

I personally read it and didn't vote just because I think the poll itself isn't ideally framed. Discussing the individual suggestions instead would be preferable in my mind, rather than an aggregation of how many we agreed with. That, and it's much less fun to have an "I'm agree" post instead of an argument. ;)