BuzzerBeater Forums

Just a bit of friendly advice, it is better to finish last in the league above than to try and fight for promotion again in the league below. Financially wise, you are better off in a higher league even if you are unable to compete at that level.

Dont get wrong, if i was good enough to promote, i would have! i certainly didnt not promite through choice, its cause I wasnt good enough! :)

but i say it in retrospect, looking at where i am now, financially, draft picks, scouting points, arena size, etc in retrospect, ive made the best out of not promoting, and im glad i didnt, because it allowed me pick up some silverware last year, and be in an excellent position to do the same this year, AND potentially promote AND be competitive when i promote AND work on some excellent trainee's. of which i may or may not have yet. LOL

With regards to the cap, i dont think it would actually fix anything in the game. It would change how the game is played, and is probably just an alternative mechanism for implemtation of the game.
So - thinking out loud, how can it benefit the game? .... more cash in ones pocket? limitations on what players you could buy therefore mildly affecting the transfer market (ie: less buyers = prices go down)..... Top teams in a league would all be very equal? maybe too equal? it would make it harder for a lower division team to build a team ready for the next division..... It would add an interesting management element to the game i have to admit. ... i think it needs a workshop. To the pub I say.

So lets say there is a cap. Once my arena gets bigger, im just going to be raking in the cash. Im going to have the best players possible for that salary cap.

First, as you will not sell and buy any time a better player is available under the cap, you may not have all the best players under the cap.
In addition, w/o the cap you will most certainly will have better players than under this cap definition.

And if there is a tax above that, my arena will be so big that ill be able to then purchase beyond the cap and pay the tax and probably still make a profit. then ill promote. But that will take a few years.

Yes, you may doing so, but the chances of that under current regulations are much higher.

A new player, may have a small arena. but they might still decide to buy the higher paid players, take the luxury tax hit, and promote... they just wont have as much profit, and again, will have a higher risk of going bankrupt.

So it may discourage this kind of behaviour, but i don't think this soft/hard cap would prevent the 'short running' you speak of.

Maybe not, but the damage to current league they are currently playing at will get lower.
And also the chances that they will behave like that.

I think personally, 2 seasons ago, i had a chance to promote. But i didnt, because my arena was not big enough to accomodate the next division. i would have promoted, not had enough cash flow to have the expensive players, and got demoted straight away.

This last season, i was soooooo close to promoting, and im ready to promote. My arena is good, my players are good, i will be competitive. So i think, you just need to have faith in the existing system that, these 'short running' players will not last. It happens. just gotta be patient and stick with your long term plan.

A system that can be improved should be.

With regards to the cap, i dont think it would actually fix anything in the game. It would change how the game is played, and is probably just an alternative mechanism for implemtation of the game.
So - thinking out loud, how can it benefit the game? .... more cash in ones pocket? limitations on what players you could buy therefore mildly affecting the transfer market (ie: less buyers = prices go down)..... Top teams in a league would all be very equal? maybe too equal? it would make it harder for a lower division team to build a team ready for the next division..... It would add an interesting management element to the game i have to admit. ... i think it needs a workshop. To the pub I say.

Which pub - yours or mine? :+)

Yes, (as already written) this specific suggestion is something that is more to think about than something I'm fully believe at.
I do believe that it might be something that the BB can benefit from (but changes to the current definitions of this suggestion are, with a high possibility, needed to be refactored.

With regards to the cap, i dont think it would actually fix anything in the game. It would change how the game is played, and is probably just an alternative mechanism for implemtation of the game.

Thats the thing. Its a whole concept change on how the game is to be played. This essentially makes financial management a lot less important.

So - thinking out loud, how can it benefit the game? .... more cash in ones pocket?

Whats the point of having more cash if you can't spend it? What if you stockpile millions over seasons and be told you are not allowed to spend it? Then whats the point of trying to make money in the first place?

All this achieves is that it makes the league a lot more equal and gives teams in 8th a chance of knocking off 1st. But why?? Managing finances is one of the challenges of a management game. Imposing a cap will simply kill off the financial challenge of running a team and make the tactical decisions of game tactics a lot more important. Sure its part of the game but if all you care about is basketball tactics then you are playing a coaching game and not a club management game

With regards to the cap, i dont think it would actually fix anything in the game. It would change how the game is played, and is probably just an alternative mechanism for implemtation of the game.

Thats the thing. Its a whole concept change on how the game is to be played. This essentially makes financial management a lot less important.

And make it more BB managing - tactics, line-ups, etc.

So - thinking out loud, how can it benefit the game? .... more cash in ones pocket?

Whats the point of having more cash if you can't spend it? What if you stockpile millions over seasons and be told you are not allowed to spend it? Then whats the point of trying to make money in the first place?

All this achieves is that it makes the league a lot more equal and gives teams in 8th a chance of knocking off 1st. But why?? Managing finances is one of the challenges of a management game. Imposing a cap will simply kill off the financial challenge of running a team and make the tactical decisions of game tactics a lot more important. Sure its part of the game but if all you care about is basketball tactics then you are playing a coaching game and not a club management game

Look what is happening in the NBA. I will say that it works their fine.

And still, I'm not sure whether it is a good suggestion for BB-game...

Last edited by Pini פיני at 11/2/2011 10:34:20 AM

And make it more BB managing - tactics, line-ups, etc.

But this is a club management game. If you only want to manage the basketball side of things then play a coaching game instead.

Look what is happening in the NBA. I will say that it works their fine.

The NBA is not fine here. In the NBA big market teams like LA have the ability to make more money (and hence spend more) than the small market teams.

In BB, all teams in the league have the same capacity to make the same amount of money.

And make it more BB managing - tactics, line-ups, etc.

But this is a club management game. If you only want to manage the basketball side of things then play a coaching game instead

It does not make it only about BB managing.
It is the other way around. Current game is mostly about economy managing, and this is not the purpose of it.
You can go play monopoly if you wish to.

Look what is happening in the NBA. I will say that it works their fine.

The NBA is not fine here. In the NBA big market teams like LA have the ability to make more money (and hence spend more) than the small market teams.

In BB, all teams in the league have the same capacity to make the same amount of money.

Big market in BB is upon Arena-size. Each team can choose in what to invest more - Arena or current Roster.

It does not make it only about BB managing.
It is the other way around. Current game is mostly about economy managing, and this is not the purpose of it.
You can go play monopoly if you wish to.

But how are you to sustain a club if you do not run the finances? Every club needs finances to survive. If there is no money there is no club and there is no basketball.
You can just go play basketball too if you want to. Don't manage a club. Just play ball

Big market in BB is upon Arena-size. Each team can choose in what to invest more - Arena or current Roster.

There is a arena cap at 20,000 seats.

There is also a decision by the manager on whether they want to invest in arena or roster. Hence the capacity is there for all teams to be of a equal footing. Just because you want to focus on roster rather than arena or vice versa does not make the need for a salary cap. It is your decision whether you want to focus on a win now (roster) or a win later (arena) strategy. Market has nothing to do with it.

It does not make it only about BB managing.
It is the other way around. Current game is mostly about economy managing, and this is not the purpose of it.
You can go play monopoly if you wish to.

But how are you to sustain a club if you do not run the finances? Every club needs finances to survive. If there is no money there is no club and there is no basketball.
You can just go play basketball too if you want to. Don't manage a club. Just play ball

Did I suggest removing the economy altogether? No I didn't.
Does BB managing is more about BB and less about Economy? Yes it is.

Big market in BB is upon Arena-size. Each team can choose in what to invest more - Arena or current Roster.

There is a arena cap at 20,000 seats.

There is also a decision by the manager on whether they want to invest in arena or roster. Hence the capacity is there for all teams to be of a equal footing. Just because you want to focus on roster rather than arena or vice versa does not make the need for a salary cap. It is your decision whether you want to focus on a win now (roster) or a win later (arena) strategy. Market has nothing to do with it.

Market size, at the end, is about income (Merchandising and Arena).

With regards to the cap, i dont think it would actually fix anything in the game. It would change how the game is played, and is probably just an alternative mechanism for implemtation of the game.



Thats the thing. Its a whole concept change on how the game is to be played. This essentially makes financial management a lot less important.

And make it more BB managing - tactics, line-ups, etc.

i think you won't reach that with hardcaps, cause then being active on the TL even get more important. Players who are salary efficient, for one league have toi few main skill in the next one, so you need to find replacement for then under the new cap. If you promote or train your player to much, you get over the cap, and have to sell.

But changing leagues with your suggestion will, lead to rebuild to keep up with etablished teams working close to the cap already - without a possible preparation time before.

There is a arena cap at 20,000 seats.

This means that the arena currently acts as a quasi-psuedo salary cap.

If Arena size roughly equals income stream, then you only ever going to be able to have a team that supports 20,000 seats (of course, throw in price differentials in seats, but ignore that for the time being)

So - 20,000 seats = $X income which only leaves $Y to spend on salary.

Sooooooooo. If you REALLY wanted to implement some kind of cap, you could just cap the arena size based on Division.
Div I - 20,000 cap
Div II - 17,000 cap
Div III - 12,000 cap
etc
etc.
Then it would be up to the player to manage his arena prices and profit after wages.
If Div I teams all had an arena of size 20,000, then essentially, they are already operating under this kind of cap-management system.