BuzzerBeater Forums

shouldn't the question be if there's a need for a coach? and not how much should he earn in every div?

I am for one against adding another staff member and against adding a coach. If we'll do so we'll have to make other economic changes...

imho i like it how it is, if you think it is a good investment today you pay more, or less when you think it is not.

I'd say I don't know how it is in Israel.... but I have a good friend who graduated from Tel Aviv. I've been to Israel myself as well, and another friend who lives there currently.

Bu Israel, USA, alike. College = School.

I don't know what fantasy realm you live in where a college isn't a school. If you meant HIGH-School, you should say HIGH-School.

4. Miami Heat, expensive roster, cheap coach you are proven wrong there.

Their team played as a unit? SoChalmers, Battier, Norris Cole were all averaging over 8 points per game? Lebron and Wade weren't averaging over 20+? Their team shared the ball offensively like the Denver Nuggets?

Their team isn't stronger? Shane Battier would be a starter on the Cavs, Warriors, Timberwolves, Raptors, Rockets, need I name more? Mike Miller would even be a starter on the Cavs.

So, you've stated 4 points, ignored the link where it shows more than just Pittino, and the only point you have managed to prove at all, was my point. Top teams will have a more expensive coach in general is just not true as a declarative statement like that. It depends. its not so black and white.

if you'll add a coach to the staff members as an additional staff - team will have to get a good one in order to compete with other teams.

If you won't even it out economic wise, managers will have to build their roster / staff differently. That's also ok, but it demands a heads up warning so managers will have time to adjust.

And above all, I am sure that he still does not get a salary of a coach from any school. And that is the main thing here.

And none of the schools his players originally attended received money when the player was drafted, nor could they force the player to play for them until they tired of them, nor could those schools ever join the NBA.

1) A team from a lower division who has a roster equal or lower than one at an higher division will not pay more for a coach.
The only rare case that this may be "broken", is in case that it is a temporal thing.

2) A college is not a lower division compared to the NBA, it is just something else.

3) A college is not a school. It is not even an high-school.

4) It is not a coinsidence that you find that in real-world it is a very rare case if exists, and in BB it is a common case.
It is not a coinsidence that who does not find a connection is probably one that exploit the above unnatural phenomenon.

1) A team from a lower division who has a roster equal or lower than one at an higher division will not pay more for a coach.
The only rare case that this may be "broken", is in case that it is a temporal thing.

2) A college is not a lower division compared to the NBA, it is just something else.

3) A college is not a school. It is not even an high-school.

4) It is not a coinsidence that you find that in real-world it is a very rare case if exists, and in BB it is a common case.
It is not a coinsidence that who does not find a connection is probably one that exploit the above unnatural phenomenon.

#3
explain your logic there.

1) A team from a lower division who has a roster equal or lower than one at an higher division will not pay more for a coach.
The only rare case that this may be "broken", is in case that it is a temporal thing.

2) A college is not a lower division compared to the NBA, it is just something else.

3) A college is not a school. It is not even an high-school.

4) It is not a coinsidence that you find that in real-world it is a very rare case if exists, and in BB it is a common case.
It is not a coinsidence that who does not find a connection is probably one that exploit the above unnatural phenomenon.

#3
explain your logic there.

School is a place one goes to (generally) between the ages of 6 and 18.
In any case, I brough it as an extreme example, and you are trying to make this discussion irrelevant, so this definition issue ends here. For me.

You cantbexplain something that does nor exist.
Like always this thread had go e way out of topic and the original suggestion has been very clearly pointed out more then ones. is there actually anything more to add to this? Or for that sake all the other Katarina threads with meatless discussion

Ususally when one does not anything to add, he just does not add...
In case there is no additional insight today, there might be tomorrow, and in any case the discussion will die by itself.
There is a way of some representatives of shuting a voice coming from a discussion down by closing it.
How many discussions had been closed due to "the idea is clear" what is the percentage from them that are mine?
I'm sure that all the other threads are getting more and more information by the second, so they just cannot be closed compared to...

Ususally when one does not anything to add, he just does not add...

And yet you keep writing even though you really don't have nothing to add...

The only reason threads related to you are getting more and more posts is the fact that you annoy everyone by dragging the discussion of topic by giving strange examples, doubtful facts and repeating the same apocalyptic arguments...