BuzzerBeater Forums

The salary floor idea is a good idea although i think it would be better if it took the average salaries of all teams in that division rather than just league because a league could have a few teams with extremely high salaries skewing the entire thing.

Neglecting all the other things I wrote, and you did not referred to;
Give a single NBA team that tanked all year, and then made a run to the title.

San Antonio did it but there were some special and very good reasons and they were rewarded for their season of tanking with Tim Duncan who they added to David Robinson "The Admiral" and didn't just attempt a championship but actually won three as a direct result of that season of tanking.

Not at the same season!!!
They tanked in one season and made a run on the next.

Here you can tank most season long, and then made a run on the same season!

Salary-floor, Salary-Cap, Luxury-tax, and others all needs to be calculated on the average of that division (league is the 8 teams or 16 teams that are in the same league on BB).

As there is a chance for teams that cannot meet this floor to join the division, there may be an exception;
The salary of a team's roster must be above the salary floor, or should have less than 100K$ in his "bank".
By that, they will need to use all their money for growth (Arena, roster, etc.), and will set a floor that is suitable for that league.

Higher Floors are likely to make the growth process much more painful for new GMs. I promoted after my first full seasons and if the floors were at the 80% level that you offer, I would have needed an extra 10-20% more salary just to meet the minimum to start out at D.IV. I managed to work my way up from the bottom of the heap to the middle of the pack this seasons but that extra salary requirement would have hurt me a ton. I was able to save some money over the course of a few weeks to purchase some quality players but with the higher floors I would have had to waste money on less talented players just to get my salary level up which is garbage.

While your idea to raise the salary floor would help competition due to less people tanking, it would really hurt the new players and those promoted in such a way that it would likely hurt competition as well. I feel that this suggestion would discourage a lot of new players from continuing the game. I do not expect to win my D.IV league in the first season, but at the same point I do not want to have to wait 5 or 6 seasons for the opportunity to promote and with your plan I feel that this would be the case.

This might have a chance of working better if a team was excluded and exempt from salary floors the first season they arrive in their division. If they fail to meet the salary floor by the end of the season then perhaps they are demoted, but I feel that being exempt for one season would at least give them time to earn the resources to be competitive.

I an additional note about that somewhere.

Basically, what I've wrote is that the floor will have an exception:
1) A user can pay less, in case he doesn't posses more than 100K$ (for example) in "cash".
This will allow and obligate those users who can't pay that salary floor to invest at their team.

It can be defined in a way that some percentage of those teams income will need to go to salary, while the other will be free to be used for team improvement.

There are many ways to describe this exception for those promoted poor teams.
But the main idea stands, and will resolve the competitiveness and the tanking issues.

Why don't we set up a new group of players who will be financial counselors and analysts? They will look at each team's finances and transactions and make decisions on whether or not that team is allowed to tank or to buy or sell players. They could also obligate teams to buy or sell a certain fraction of their monthly income in players. If the amount is not met exactly a penalty could be assessed. Not a financial penalty but a number of technical fouls could be assessed in each away league game for two weeks. Plus, for teams who did manage to spend exactly the right fraction of their monthly incomes a special draft pick could be assigned where they would draft against the other managers who were financially perfect. The players would be from a new country, perhaps Suriname, making those players highly likely to play on the NT, thus increasing their TV money,which could be calculated on a twice daily basis and averaged on a fortnightly basis?

I find it kinda funny that the one person beeing most "aggressive" against the concept of tanking is the person who tries to make BB an NBA simulation game. Tanking is the VERY concept of NBA, a league, where you had to invent a lottery, to stop teams from ridicolously trying to lose more than any other. The concepts against tanking therefore should be ...

(1) Add a lottery. Worst record = best pick obviously doesn´t work. Else - skip the draft system and make it a talent academy based youth concept.
(2) Make playoffs more interesting (both in terms of promotion as in terms of finances).
(3) Make demotion for the worst teams more painful than for those "fighting". *
(4) Make sure, teams have a roster (e.g. penatlies for forfeiting games, higher salary floor (EASY to calculate)).
(5) Probably change the league system.

* Still you have to ensure that teams "promoting too early" and beeing in a league that is plainly too strong don´t get crippled. Tricky task.

Last edited by LA-seelenjaeger at 1/14/2012 4:36:43 AM

There should be a premium for 4th place to give incentive not to tank

you get a boost in attendance the next season, which should be higher then the one week salary depending on the words of the BB's.

But the action of at least 1 BB, BB-Charles (22793), seems like that may not be the case. I understand he does things unconventionally, but it seems like he's intentionally tanking into 5th place this season http://www.buzzerbeater.com/league/2/overview.aspx (since the current 5th and 6th placed teams are facing each other)