BuzzerBeater Forums

Context clues and some mild research would show you that "I haven't done a single draft"
But it would also tell you I am a returning player.

I fully understood - I won't continue the discussion anyways, because investing your money in the draft has been a borderline good investment in the last years - especially with the abundance off decent talent on the market.

hopefully that will change with the alleged new draft improvements from next season on. investing in the draft is currently the third best way to waste money, behind only hiring a lvl6+ coach and building 20k+arenas.

there hasn't been much specifications over the draft improvement. If it's in general skills (as in top rookies are still the same, but the garbage gets a significant improvement, which means that there could be more than 1 or 2 gems in a single draft) then yes, the price might come down a bitt.

however, if the overall skills of all players go up by let's say an average of 6 TSP, then i feel sorry for the guy's who had good draft this season. If the draft indeed is better next season, with better players, then managers will spend even more for the top rookies. This because they'll have a shot at overtaking the rookies drafted at the end of season 36. To be fair, i feel sorry for the teams who drafted decent players with the last seasons draft, cause if the next generation are improved, then they basically have been cheated out of getting a top notch prospect!

Hence, anyone who sold their 'top rookies' probably got premium cash for it.

And i don't consider spending cash on drafting a waste. If you reach age and skillset, then you interview the couple of good 18y olds and you can find the top potential players.

60 points (10 for the ages and length, along with 5x10 for all the skills) lets you know exactly what skill you are drafting. then add another 20 points for the interview of the top 10 prospects and you will have netted a top lvl prospect if there was one in your draft.

that means 80 points should net you the best available option. considering we hhave 14 weeks per season, you can get 56 draft points from 1 season ( 40k a week). Now i'm sure you don't need to invest in the draft each season right? So put it down for 10k for 2 points per week for 3 seasons and you'll have 78 points ==> enough to find 1 great player every 3 seasons (that is if you have secured the top draft spot ofcourse). And that great player will only cost you 420k (3*14*10k), which by my estimates is a joke, considering the amount of 1.5M or higher prices rookies that get sold


concerning the topic, as the question was if a max spending cap was implemented: that would hurt almost everyone.

I'll quickly explain why:

Say you are a team in III or II. the players who start in III are generally the back up players for the teams in II. teams in II have 2 stars and the rest would be back up material for the top division teams. Now if you implement a spending cap, the top division teams won't want to splash out cash anymore. They'll want to use a maximum for their new starters. the leftovers, would be used for the back up players, who generally are provided by teams from II,III or IV. Since they have less cash, the prices of those B- & C- tiers players get pushed down.

==> the cash remains with the top teams, and lower division teams get less cash, meaning they'll have an even harder time catching up to the big boys.

What can the top tear teams spend their cash on?
*) on scouting points. But hey, they are already in the top division. doesn't seem likely they'll need those points any time soon.
*) on staff (pushing prices for trainers, PR and doctor up even more). means the lower teams will once again have a harder time accessing the good trainers to train their players or fill their arena's.
*) on arena expansion. but they already have 20k+ arena's, so why bother?
*) on players with larger salaries, but that means that they'll be even stronger.

see next post for part 2 ;)

So implementing a spending cap would only be beneficial for the top teams. they'll be guaranteed to have heaps of cash for the forseable future. more than they can ever spend or they'll have a super strong team for a couple of seasons & then follow the normal lvl finances.

either way, those who get punished are the lower division teams ;)

I can understand that it's frustrating to have a team drop into your division, spend 3M or more and secure promotion right away. however, a spending cap isn't the solution to solving that issue (or the fact that to many teams have way to large cash reserves)!



Making a suggestion is all good and well. but always be sure to think about the possible influences it would have on the game as a whole (especially the financial implications) It might end up causign you more harm than good ;)

So implementing a spending cap would only be beneficial for the top teams. they'll be guaranteed to have heaps of cash for the forseable future. more than they can ever spend or they'll have a super strong team for a couple of seasons & then follow the normal lvl finances.

either way, those who get punished are the lower division teams ;)

I can understand that it's frustrating to have a team drop into your division, spend 3M or more and secure promotion right away. however, a spending cap isn't the solution to solving that issue (or the fact that to many teams have way to large cash reserves)!



Making a suggestion is all good and well. but always be sure to think about the possible influences it would have on the game as a whole (especially the financial implications) It might end up causign you more harm than good ;)

Between your last post and this you have me convinced of the error in my thinking with the spending cap: I was looking at it the wrong way.

Rather than a spending cap:
1. Lets get rid of the luxury(hoarding tax).
2. Have only the last place team relegate again.
3. Limit how much you can earn and hoard in a very simple fashion.
a. Whatever money you have left at the end of the season. You do not keep all of it.
I. 50% of it just goes away
II. this limits how quickly you can hoard up money, now 1 season of tanking will no longer cut it, it would have to be for multiple seasons. With it being multiple seasons tanking to that last spot is no longer ideal as a demotion, means less money for next season added with whatever was left to rollover after spending and purging.


(I haven't been to D. I so throwing out random numbers). Lets say I make 10M in D1 in 1 season. and I don't spend any of it, Like my staff. etc. For the next season, I only have 5 Million of that. Now I can do this same process, and end of this 2nd season I will have 15 million. again happy with staff etc. now 7.5. etc. We all get it from there.

I believe that this will help re-regulate prices from TLs to be more reasonable as while the supply vs demand is still an issue. It gives more of a FINITE budget to everyone vs the people with seemingly infinitely deep pockets to pull cash from. Also, I believe it will encourage more people to scout, and train players themselves, regardless of divion and level. You yourself outlined how at only 10k a week, for 3 seasons. 420K. You can essentially "Suck for Luck" or go for the "LeBron sweepstakes" or whatever fancy term to pretty much ensure a sure fire HOF (figurative not literal or potential) player.

I await the constructive criticism. (criticism is good, that's what spurs change and innovation, by trying, failing, and repeating).

Rather than a spending cap:
1. Lets get rid of the luxury(hoarding tax).

1. What do you mean by that? Limit the money you have? It will be ok for people who have more than 20M maybe.

2. Have only the last place team relegate again.

Absolutely against that. If less teams relegate, less teams promote.

3. Limit how much you can earn and hoard in a very simple fashion.
a. Whatever money you have left at the end of the season. You do not keep all of it.
I. 50% of it just goes away
II. this limits how quickly you can hoard up money, now 1 season of tanking will no longer cut it, it would have to be for multiple seasons. With it being multiple seasons tanking to that last spot is no longer ideal as a demotion, means less money for next season added with whatever was left to rollover after spending and purging.

In both cases it's ridiculous. Lossing half of the money you earn would make that bids at the end of the season will be impossible because all teams would have to spend part of his earnings for not throwing it away. It will provoke more inflation of the prices.

Most of this options will be against old members of BB and benefit the (few) new ones. It will be the beginning of the end of BB.

Not benefitting the new and only pandering to the old is what is "killing BB"


A business doesn't succeed by not growing the customer base. A sports franchise doesn't succeed by only doing things for pre-existing fans. Etc.

My idea is not perfect, it needs work, but it's a starting point. Your last sentence there is just ignorance and entitlement. It shows you are fine with the decline and death of bb as long as your longstanding gains are not effected.

Last edited by RandyMoss at 1/19/2017 3:36:39 PM

A business doesn't succeed by not growing the customer base. A sports franchise doesn't succeed by only doing things for pre-existing fans. Etc.

The "pre-existing fans" in this scenario are the experienced players who pass their knowledge down to the new players. Without them the new players will lose interest just as quick.

The problem is salaries have been lowered and incomes have been raised from what they were many seasons ago. There is so much extra revenue accumulated from that, even with taxes to try and reduce income, teams still have stockpiles large enough to keep driving prices up.

People will argue that newbies can't catch up, but the reality is they can and the way they can is what is hurting the game. It is far more profitable to train youth and win 3 games a season than it is to have a competitive roster. Even if you promote, the bonus barely covers the cost of salaries (let alone purchasing prices).

Taking money off people who earned it is unfair, but you are right in saying money needs to be taken out of the game. Raising salaries, lowering incomes and flooding the market with free agents and staff would be the fairest and most effective way to do it.

A business collapses when its customers are left for their bad decisions. And your last sentences it shows that you are fine with change the base of the game for a few time before it collapses and die. There are things that you can improve and others that it's better not do it. Change the style of a game it's one of the second ones.

A business collapses when its customers are left for their bad decisions. And your last sentences it shows that you are fine with change the base of the game for a few time before it collapses and die. There are things that you can improve and others that it's better not do it. Change the style of a game it's one of the second ones.

Elaborate on how that changes the style?