BuzzerBeater Forums

It's the player salary floor that should be adjusted.

Disagree. I won my conference a couple of seasons ago while juste 10k above the salary floor. I shouldn't be punished for training salary efficient players.

I still think attendance should be a function of perceived financial power. If fans think you have money to spend, they should expect you to try to compete.

In some lower leagues you could win even while being below the salary floor. Obviously there should be different constants for different league levels. Should they tie it to the whole season running salary average or start of the season salary etc. There are a bunch of things to think about.

I shouldn't be punished for training salary efficient players.

This is a really strong statement. Should a team be punished to spend anything if he can outplay 4 bot teams in his conference? Perhaps that one more salary efficiant player "you are punished" to add, might take you to promotion level (while your opponents are already spending over the raised floor)? Maybe your leaguemates are not good enough or are more focused on cup games. Maybe your memory fails you (we can't actually check if you are telling the truth here, or remember the facts correctly, right?).

We actually have no real parameters for tanking teams. I just hear: "everyone is doing it", "it's the only tactic available if you want to win" bla bla bla. Then there are the suggestions how to spot and punish a tanker. If a team loses by (insert any number here). If he loses (insert that number again) 2-6 (whichever you like of these numbers) times in a row. Has walkovers in a row. Has (insert number again) walkovers in a season. All this is irrelevant tbh, as teams have different league/cup/tvgame/rivalgame you name it goals. It's called tactics to get ahead of your league-/countrymates. If it sometimes requires you to start your subs and have towelboys back them up, so be it (unless ofcourse you want to train GS the whole season).

Obviously we still need to leave some leverage in the salary floor (for teams who have been sitting in +-0 for a long time and have a team full of 33+ players), to actually make some money and help teams get back to their feet. But the current salary floor in the top divisions is too low.

With salary floor we are not trying to punish salary efficient teams, but trying to limit excess income for teams who are not trying to compete.

NB! I think your idea of tieing fan reactions to available funds is a good one. But I think most of us know that "The general manager is doing everything he can to try to improve the team" and "I am familiar with the star players, and am not afraid that they will be transferred" are not really heavy hitters compared to "The team played well in our last league game" :)...

I know and this is why they should increase the impact it has on attendance, provided fans already have a rough idea of your finances, which I doubt.

But salary should never be considered for anything else than to decide how much a player costs to his team. A skill floor (aggregate skill count) would make more sense than a salary floor, for what it's worth, even if there is no real life equivalent.

But salary should never be considered for anything else than to decide how much a player costs to his team.

Just like in the NBA there is a minimum you have to spend (85% of the salary cap). It's your own choice, are you filling that cap with more salary efficiant players or get fewer higher salary prime skilled players.
Remember your goal should be winning, not getting most income while finishing second.

In the NBA the goal is the same as it is here, dissuade tanking by forcing teams to be competitive. Putting a minimum spending floor is the only way to force tanking teams to hire players with skill.

In this game player skills are objective, measurable numbers. Even salary is a function of player skills. Why use salary as a measuring tool for competitiveness when player skill is what determines it?

Your goal should be winning, not spending more money than the next team.

Putting a minimum spending floor is the only way to force tanking teams to hire players with skill.

Are you trying to say, there are no overpaid players in the NBA? LOL. You can just check how many teams have used their amnesty exception. You can look at the salaries paid in 2011. Although you have to be familiar with the NBA in order to know who is overpaid. Reading NBA.com once a week is not enough... I can throw in a few names: R.Lewis (22.1mil), G.Arenas (19.2mil), A.Jamison (15.0mil), B.Davis (13.9mil). Although I would never have signed J.Johnson, E.Brand, R.Gay to max deals and are currently overpaid, they still do produce at a decent level.

I had a suggestion about how salary floor could be calculated, some time ago. Belgium has 440 users, so basically divIII is their lowest league (leaving only 104 teams to divIV - enough to fill 6,5 leagues out of 64 divIV leagues). Ofcourse you can win lower divisions with all SF lineup. Every competition level needs to be looked at. The salary floor might be fine in the lowest league. It's not fine currently in the top divisions.

Your goal should be winning, not spending more money than the next team.

Nobody is forcing you to spend anything. But you will pay the minimum salary floor that is considered "competitive" in that division level.

You keep missing my point. I'm not sure why you think I'm saying there are no overpaid players in the NBA, but since skills are subjective in the real world compared to objective in this game, the NBA has no choice but to act on salary in order to force teams to feature skilled players. Then there are contracts in the NBA, which can turn out good or bad (which is why some players are overpaid and some underpaid), which does not apply in this game anyway...

You keep missing my point. I'm not sure why you think I'm saying there are no overpaid players in the NBA, but since skills are subjective in the real world compared to objective in this game, the NBA has no choice but to act on salary in order to force teams to feature skilled players. Then there are contracts in the NBA, which can turn out good or bad (which is why some players are overpaid and some underpaid), which does not apply in this game anyway...

How are the skills subjective in the real world?
Does LeBron James jump higher in Miami than he did in Cleveland because Miami "thinks" he jumps higher?

The skills are just as objective as here. The subjectivity is just the same as here. Do the skills that the player has, fit in with my team, fit in with my offense, fit in with my defense? If not, should I try and force it, should I find a different player whom can, or should I change my offense? Sometimes even a simple option of "should I bring this player off the bench" like with jason terry.

How are the skills subjective in the real world?
Does LeBron James jump higher in Miami than he did in Cleveland because Miami "thinks" he jumps higher?

The skills are just as objective as here.

no, but LeBron play a little different role in cleveland then in Miami which maybe hide 1-2 weaknesses better or underline his strength more.

And the discipline "jumping high", is properly one you can measure very good but for example the Jumpshot is described more roughly in real live then here where agent know it "exactly" and put it into salary calculation.

While in basketball, the scouts often have problems to predict how player, will play after a single good season or when they reach a higher level(i.e. Morrision).

Also there are in reality manager who are better or worse, in getting the max paycheck.