BuzzerBeater Forums

It is more about the opposition as you've said. In a tougher league, I would have probably finished between 5-7 or barely made play-offs. Even if that's the case, I think my point still stands.

If I believed $30.000 would make the difference, I would have improved my roster without a second thought. However, the cost of championship is much more than $30.000 and I do not want to spend that money until my trainees turn 26-27 years old. Therefore, I'd rather not spend $30.000 because it makes almost no difference as far as my final standing is concerned.

Who knows, maybe with those $30.000 split over some players or a better player, you would have won the final. You lost 5 of the 8 games against the other conference, so it's not a big domination on your part either.

Still, congrats on succeeding with a financially succesful roster. Bit telling about the opposition though.

I see.
For those who make due with limited salaries, being competitive without being dominant, isn't really that competitive!

Discouraging tanking while crippling new teams at the same time is a pretty bad compromise.

I can't find a team right now that is ~16 weeks old, but I am pretty sure most of those teams have not finished their stadium and a pretty bad roster, that does not fit the salary floor criteria.

How would a good starting strategy for a new team in DIV II-III look like right now? I don't know, but I am pretty sure the salary floor is a huge handicap for beginners in the first few months.

Strategies at ANY level for tripling your team salary to get up to the floor:

1. Buy enough players to get up to the salary floor? No, the Transfer Market is wildly, wildly overpriced so all they can do is throw money at garbage players.
2. Buy more expensive staff? No, staff salaries don't count against the floor.
3. Train up their players so their salaries rise to meet the floor? No, training works in 6 or 8 or 10 seasons, not 16 weeks.
4. ___________ open for suggestions ...

First of all, your time frame there is a helluva lot longer than 16 weeks. That's all new teams will have, and many of them need to triple their salary base to get above the floor. I think a LOT more teams are going to have to operate below the floor, and that is sure to stimulate joy in the hearts of new coaches ... NOT.

I bought pretty bad players for some positions that was better then my starting players

So did I, when I wasn't troubled by the higher salary floor. That was one of the possibilities I considered, but the Transfer Market is only getting worse and worse.

added some seats now and then to my arena

Irrelevant to the salary floor, as far as I know.

trained my own drafted players with an advanced trainer.

Again, I am looking at the 16-week grace period given new teams. Training results are not within that window, and an advanced trainer is likely to be beyond the reach of a new team trying to get above the salary floor.

...as my economy grew ... after another promotion ...

... and we have left the 16 week window far behind in the dust. As I suspected, so far there aren't many suggestions how a new team is going to triple its salary base in 16 weeks to get above the floor.

I was at no point so low in salary that I would have been hit by the salary floor either.

Maybe missing out on that experience makes it hard to walk a mile in such a manager's shoes.

Come on let's be reasonable, this one about "new managers" is a completely ridiculous argument.

So complaining because they make, maybe, 20k less per week well into their second season and they have more than 1 season without floor seems puzzling.

It is compelety ridiculous to mix up new teams, promotion bonusses and the revenue of Englands D I, just to refute my opinion.

You said:

To make a profit in D1 in England you need to make 156k per week.

The break even point really? If I make $1 per week, with a weak roster AND minimum salary staff (that would drag me into the red the very next week) I might be making a profit, but I am going nowhere.

I see, that the salary floor in "competitive" leagues might be too low - good indicator would be demoting teams, that promote the next season, but then again we could raise the demotion penalty and hurt specific teams that underperform.

Take a look at a team in my league: (42118)

45k salary with a standard 21 man roster - 6k arena

arena max income: $79k
TV: 109k
merch: 63k

Income in the first 16 weeks if this team stays put ~ 3.3 million. Just take a look what players 3.3 million will get you (keep in mind you have to add 140k total salary), old farts that will decline, foreigners most certainly, that will make your merchandise fall off a cliff. If you invest like half the money in your arena, you get even less useful players.

Promotion money is far far away and the gap between established and new teams is the same as before, it just takes longer to catch up.

For the "real" tanking teams nothing has changed. in my situation: They demote from D I. with a 500-600k roster, sell one or two players, cruise to the finals like it ain't a thang, maybe add one or two players after allstar-break. Win promotion, rinse repeat.

It is compelety ridiculous to mix up new teams, promotion bonusses and the revenue of Englands D I, just to refute my opinion.

No it isn't. You say the problem is where they don't have revenues to turn a profit, which means in higher divisions (hence the stress on D1's economy). People start in higher divisions only in smaller nations.

Since they start at the lowest possible division where there are tons of bots, a lot of new managers who stick around actually get their first promotion rather soon (hence the promotion bonus).

The break even point really? If I make $1 per week, with a weak roster AND minimum salary staff (that would drag me into the red the very next week) I might be making a profit, but I am going nowhere.

With a weak roster you can make up to 400k per week in the first 16 weeks. I described the (apparently) WORST POSSIBLE scenario where:
1) you have started in a D1 with those economics (I think in micronations economy is somewhere between a D1 and D2 elsewhere, so it's even less of a problem)
2) you have blown $600k on players in the first 4 week, which cost you $420k a week in salary. So in fact, over 16 weeks you have spent 16*420k+600k=7 million on players and you have no cash.
3) you have built 0 seats

Math is not difficult you could have very easily seen that with 16 week on a 50k salary (staying put) you will make 5.5 million with those economy numbers. 5.5 million: spend it on the arena, and you will keep making $300k per week from week 17 onwards. Seriously.

arena max income: $79k

Don't offend my intelligence. This person has not changed prices. $79k (which is 81,230 to be precise...) is NOT a realistic indication of his arena income. He's selling out every single class of seats. 120k probably is more accurate with correct seat prices. Which again: 120k+109k+63k-45k-6k=+241k per week = 3.8 million (if he hoards the money). That's like 7-10k worth of seats.

Absolutely nothing has changed from before. Nothing, not for new managers.

For the "real" tanking teams nothing has changed. in my situation: They demote from D I. with a 500-600k roster, sell one or two players, cruise to the finals like it ain't a thang, maybe add one or two players after allstar-break. Win promotion, rinse repeat.

I did say that a slightly higher floor in D1 would be welcome. 420k for us is not bad, that's already removing 500k-1m from tanking teams.

Now, if they could amend the fan survey to punish people losing on purpose it would be better, we all agree. Evidently it was too hard to do quickly and they chose a sensible and quicker way to deal with the problem.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 2/19/2016 5:13:49 AM