BuzzerBeater Forums

Player prices being high as an adverse effect on mid-and-low level teams. Prices being low has an adverse effect on mid-and-low level teams. Two years ago, prices being low was killing the game. Now, prices being high is killing the game.

A. Low prices don't affect lower and mid-level teams adversely -- quit blowing smoke.

You're probably still not caught up to where I spoke about that more. Long story short: the more value each individual dollar has on the market (e.g., deflationary period), the bigger the advantage that higher revenues in higher divisions becomes.

Except for the underlying fact that top-level teams aren't competing with lower-level teams for any players, that might fool some people ... but it's more smoke.

No, the lower level teams are competing with each other. Those who succeed move up to compete against higher level teams. Those who don't, well, don't. But I suppose I should ask before clearing away your smoke, right?

You're probably still not caught up to where I spoke about that more. Long story short: the more value each individual dollar has on the market (e.g., deflationary period), the bigger the advantage that higher revenues in higher divisions becomes.

Again that's only true for cash, not for other assets such as players. I'll make a simple example.

A guy in the top league had a team worth 10 million in S26 if he's able to make the team younger without losing talent now he has a team worth 17 million. Maybe let's say his team is worth 15 million because he had to settle for slightly worse players.

The guy who is in D4 and had a team worth 1 million has the same problem. Now if he's good enough he can do the same replacement exercise and now his team is worth 2.5 millions. However if earlier the gap vs the top manager was 9 million now it's 12.5 million and the revenues for both teams are still the same. Note that inflation for the first team was 70% and for the second it's 250%.

You're forgetting a key element about inflation: cash loses value, assets do not. Even with more inflation at the bottom you need exceedingly more cash to catch up (in terms of worth). It would be fine if the revenues (gates) were inflated too, but they are not linked to inflation and for a large part they are also out of the control and skill of a manager.

If you introduce a required % investment in order to maintain the value at the same level, then the advantage of the top teams reduces. When the required investment is high enough, higher than the inflation, then yes the lower teams will catch up more easily. However, sadly, that value is nowhere near the level of inflation seen over the last 4 seasons, and it's even debatable you need such investment to maintain the relative value of your team.

Also I think you're confusing inflation, which means increasing prices, and a generic environment with high, but constant, prices. We're not in this second scenario just yet and we might not be for the foreseeable future, if the game is structured so that the overall talent pool keeps getting worse and the managers number remains the same.


Last edited by Lemonshine at 3/24/2015 6:17:24 AM

Yes, but you do not need to have sold 15 players, as clearly stated by hrudey, to be affected by the increase in tax, do you? The change affects anyone independently by the number of players sold, but exponentially more those who have sold more players. It reduces the benefit of listing players for everyone (or forces longer holding periods compared to before). However way you look at it, it reduces the willingness of people to list players. This was my point.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 3/23/2015 9:07:25 PM

Wow! You guys should write a book.

A. Low prices don't affect lower and mid-level teams adversely ...

... and here's why they don't:

... the lower level teams are competing with each other.

See? We agree on something.

But the long and short of it is that the reason inflation is better than deflation by a wide margin for newer teams is precisely that it helps erode the advantage older and higher level teams have. As long as player prices are low, replacing one set of aging veterans with another, slightly less aging set costs less in terms of a percentage of revenue ...

That is just so wrong it's scary. The reason that a wildly high cost of players OR inflation is better for UPPER level teams is that they CAN replace one set of aging veterans with another, slightly less aging set. A lower level team cannot even afford to replace more than one or two players that way -- tops.

Personally, though it'll be harder for my club in the short term, I love that inflation is eroding my ability to buy a replacement player for the cost of two home games' revenue.

See? For a lower level team we'd be talking about replacing a player for 10 or even more home games revenue if they are lucky -- measured in home games revenue, the upper level team is at least five times better off.

Sometimes if you just read what you write instead of being so defensive you could see this.

Last edited by Mike Franks at 3/24/2015 4:06:53 AM

I'd rather the game move toward rewarding teams for creating players...

Obviously you're getting your wish. BB-Marin feels the same way, and the game has become a training game rather than a basketball mgmt game. Even the whole economy is adjusted to reward training at the expense of any other winning strategy.

As managers find this to be true they have to decide:
A. stay in this training game,
B. find a basketball game, or
C. neither, it's time to read a book.