BuzzerBeater Forums

For positivity's sake, can anyone supporting the salary floor articulate a good strategy for teams like Stajan to follow?



(to any BB reading the deleted post, my bad I had him confused with another team)

Last edited by RiseandFire at 4/21/2011 3:44:28 PM

The problem is, it's a bad strategy that made the game less fun for other teams in the league, and that's the point at which it becomes a problem.

im curious..what if i some managers have fun with rebuilding their team because competition aint a factor anymore since div I and cup is dominated by one single team..and no one will ever be able to beat this team? (41768)

(and dont get me wrong..im not jealous of teams like that..i have fun the way im playing this game)

Even though I like this new PSF and it sounds reasonable, I think it is not adequate. It is a good start. I hope that limit (procentage) will not be raised. Raising the procentage would harm some teams, who don't deserve it. If you build your team effectivily you should not be "punished". Current level seems quite right.

Next step should be reducing arena incomes for teams who are not even trying to win. How anyone can get over 500k from ticket sales if team has lost last five games in a row by over 40 points. If you have promoted you will get huge income from arena for the whole season regardless of your success. I think I know this ;)

Also, how merchandise can be same than player salaries? It should also have some kind of more tight connection to player ratings or so (not necessarily to players salary).

Stajan would have to stretch himself thin in order to get the #6, and there's no guarantee of that happening. If he relegates, attendance will take a hit and he'll lose a ton of money long-term. Maybe this is the issue we should be talking about.

If an overmatched Championship side promotes into the EPL and fights hard but relegates, its fans will still show up the next season. So even if that team is unsuccessful, they'll only benefit financially from promoting for a season, as long as they attempt to win their EPL matches.

I guess I don't see how that's possible for a team spending a season in Naismith. Maybe fans should be more sympathetic when an upstart team pokes its head into the top level, even if it's nowhere near ready to stay there.

Last edited by RiseandFire at 4/22/2011 1:41:50 PM

In any event, tanking in the past has been a poor strategy -- when we studied it, we found that on average it was harmful, because the rate at which teams immediately repromote was simply too low (it typically needs to be around 80% under the old numbers to be break-even, all things included, and it's just not that high).

This is infuriating.

Last edited by Stajan at 4/22/2011 6:46:09 PM

I'd still like to know, how does the upstart team with no chance to stick in their new league not lose fan support the following season?

Instead of preventing tanking, you should have rewarded competing. Stajan is a good example of this, but there are dozens, probably hundreds every season - the well-managed team that wins its weak league and promotes into a strong league, where their arena is too small and the players too weak, and inevitably gets relegated despite competing every game against far stronger and more established competition.

In real life promotion/relegation scenarios, fans understand the reality of these situations and stand with their team. In BB, fans deem the season a failure and doom the team to financial ruin. This is what made tanking financially feasible, of course - if you're going to take the hit, you might as well take as much money as you can with you.

I feel like this idea (preventing tankers for the good of the league) is halfway developed, and should not have been implemented until the other half (rewarding competitors and giving them a road to profitability) was complete.

this i completely agree with.

this i completely agree with.