BuzzerBeater Forums

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).

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.

nearly all teams of my team train player, really.

How about some kind of "salary cap" for players for example younger than 25 years ( and staying in team, they got drafted at?)? Like in real life, where first picks, like Lebron has had salary of 4mill per year, even thought he was worth way more those 4 years. I think there should be some salary cap too, lets say you drafted all time great potencial guy, and first 7 years his salary would be like 50% of his pottencial salary, so teams could train their talent. Low league teams, could promote with those guys, they also would have all possibilities to train those players off-pozition, since oponents would be so weak to compare to that talent. This would heavily increase talent on the market of ready to play in highest division teams.

Last edited by Gajus Julijus Cezaris at 12/31/2011 7:47:22 AM