BuzzerBeater Forums

Not that much really....but then we get to...
SHARMAN

PG 247
SG 211
SF 93
PF 198
C 205

That's 954k salarys on starters alone (1,077mil salarys total). His last game brought in 488k, 582k if he wins his previous league game. Add TV money and some merc money to the arena and you can guess how big of a minus he is running. I have already said it before. In micronations, tanking is a viable option. You can't effectivly tank in big nations, you have to pay minus to get back up and if you fail to get back up you are stuck at a nonprofitable division.

So those 3 teams all focused, building, and players are created. Now Sharman buys them up with funds he has via his position in teh leagues and funds banked for the hayday of daytrading.

I've seen you vouching simpler training (just trainee assignement and no playing spot restrictions) and higher skilled trainees on suggestion forums. Wouldnt that even make the problem bigger. As there are more talent to choose from and prices are lower.
What is a good solution? We have some options. Raising the player salary floor is prolly the best to remove most of the tanking positives. Perhaps even introduce a flexible salary cap at 800k. Like it was previously in the NBA. 1 extra dollar on every buck spent over 800k (player salary total only).
I still think the biggest problem lies in the micronations. They really need to get merged into regional divisions.

Thats pretty much the badest suggestion i ever has heard. Well not many players would ever go up this far, but when they do it becomes extremely unfair. It would indeed only help to increase the number of those mono skilled C-freaks that this game already has to many of.

why exactly would this be unfair? everybody can train such a player, even a DIV II team could afford one of those... Plus if we get into 250k+ range the talent cap comes into play anyway...

We don't agree on much but we do agree on this. A higher salary floor and a luxury tax would fix so many things about this game. The first is already in place and I can't see how the second is hard. Simple calculation based on the previous seasons salaries.

For example Australian ABBL.

Current:
League Averages from Last Week Expenses Revenue
Player Salaries: $ 579 263 Attendance: $ 510 114
Staff Salaries: $ 63 166 Merchandise: $ 92 243
Scouting: $ 7 187 TV Contract: $ 201 476
Total: $ 649 616 Total: $ 803 833
League Average Net Income: $ 154 217
Player Salaries Floor: $ 241 771


So just a slight tweak on the salary floor to bring it up to 50% of the last seasons average salaries would raise it to $290,000 which would be a more competetive team. (Teams would still be immune in their first season.)

Then if the luxury cap kicked in at 150% of the previous seasons average and you had to pay say $100,000 and an extra dollar for every dollar you were over that would prevent the vast majority of owners from going over it and would be a very generous $890,000 in the ABBL.

Higher salary floor would work? But the TV contract will be the same as the salary floor.... maybe a team can have his TV contract slashed proportional to the quality of his players compared to other teams?

Why should the TV contract be the same as the salary floor? It isn't now depending what division you are in.

No idea, two seasons in a row the TV contract was 100% exactly the same amount as my salary floor. I guess I'm the only person in the whole of BB to experience that.

No, I think in all division IIs all around the world the TV money is the same as the salary floor, but it is different in division I, III, IV, V or VI. From the game manual:

The salary floor depends upon your league's television revenue:

Division I: 120% of TV money

Division II: 100% of TV money

Division III,IV: 80% of TV money

Division V,VI: 60% of TV money

Last edited by yodabig at 12/27/2011 3:56:39 AM

The matureness of players skills should rise upon the league level that they are drafting for, but there should be a price for that - their first year salary must be higher, and they cannot be sold, but just fired.

Basically the aim is to allow higher league's teams the abillity to (realy) train players, but not allowing the the advantage of having better assets doing that.

It is already the case now - a team that played more seasons has much higher assets on this game - arena size, players value, etc.
Basicaly there is a problem with the competitiveness due to that, and the draft should not make this issue a bigger one than it is already is (and it is already a crucial issue).