BuzzerBeater Forums

Where its written that a team most play with 5 LeBron?
If you can effort 800/900 k salary you should make managerial choices, as this game Is supposed to make you do, for stay in that sum....

Take this 900 to 1,2 million raising TV contract not change the fact that the game engine Will make the 5 LeBron play 45 minutes....

Problem Is the engine for me, not how much Money you can manage....
About the 8 man lineup i agree but still if the best players play 45 minutes without problem , It Will not solve the problem.... Better for me the 8 man lineup plus take away option let coach decide and work on substititions on the engine, bench most play a certain amount of minutes...

I am not contrary to raise a bit TV contract but have nothing to do with short roster

Technically speaking, a LeBron type of player in this game would be around 155-160+ TSP. I competed in the B3 and D1 and had a respectable run considering I did NOT have 5 LeBrons. My starting five players were all around 140-147 TSP, which is pretty conservative for a B3 team now-a-days (I even trained two of my starters); yet their salaries were still much too inflated.

In fact, I was still operating at a loss with a 6-man rotation of 'not-LeBrons.' I am not suggesting that a team be able to play 5 "LeBrons", but rather, for managers not to lose money with a starting 5 rotation of: 4 'Andrew Wiggins', 1 'Kevin Love' and 1 'Jr Smith.'

I said this before, but again this is a serious issue so I'll say this once more, a 144 TSP NT player, center, age 33, should not be selling for 300k on the TL. You mean to tell me this player is on the Chinese NT, a top power in terms of national competition; however, he isn't worth more than 300k? Image Ronaldo or Messi going for such a discounted price.

There are players in NBA that are dumped in a trade as soon as possible because of the salary. They have a value below zero and they have to be offered in a package with, for example, draft picks to find a team that takes them. From this perspective, BB salaries are quite realistic.

Last edited by jesus.sanchez at 10/12/2021 11:47:41 AM

All these are valid points, but in my opinion, there's an issue above all which I think was mentioned some days ago.

If in an even game, starters with Stamina 8-9 always play 44-45', no matter whether you set up 300k salary backup players, it's absolutely senseless from an economical & performance point of view to have strong backup players. What is the point of going for 7 x 180k players instead of 5 x 250k if in the first case your two backup players will play 8-10' per game? Until this is not fixed, the short roster issue will not change.

Starters must play less than these 44-45' in order to let backup players actually make an impact. And if you don't use backup players, starters must have a significant decrease in performance in the second half, unlike what is happening now.

Looking at the transfer-list, in some cases, 160 TSP players are going for as little as 3m; due to salary inflation, very few D1 managers can afford to pay the weekly salaries of such players which is one reason they are so cheap on the transfer list.

There has been an influx 150TSP+ players. There are far more of these players than there are managers that can afford to pay the weekly salary of these players, which drives down the TL value. That's an advantage for the top B3 managers who will simply eat their inflated salaries . . . something very few managers can do.

And it doesn't just stop at the 'Lebron' type of players. You see 140-130 TSP players with salaries at 230K+ which only D1 managers can afford to play those inflated prices. If more managers are able to afford to pay the weekly salary of any particular player, that will drive up their value on the transfer list, making it harder to buy these players at a discounted price.

It would be much harder to buy a 155-160+ TSP player if they were going for 6m+, as they should.

I was recently in D-1 and if I were not tanking, I could have easily bought a NT center with 144 TSP for around 300K, but why? Because I can easily absorb the player's salary. Imagine being able to buys 5 NT players for under 1m, because no one can afford to pay their weekly salaries. Well, if you are in D-1 or competing in the B3 you can do that at a faction of the cost -- which is a massive and unfair advantage.

I believe if we adjust the cap or fix the inflated salaries it will make for a more competitive and healthy economy, driving up the TL value of players. These inflated salaries will not stop the upper echelon of B3 teams from acquiring 'Thanos' like power, acquiring 160+ TSP players like they are affinity stones at a discounted transfer-list price; while they simply absorb their inflated salaries, something only the 1% of managers will be able to do if they save up the money/revenue.

Anyways, I like the 8-man rotation idea, because it forces B3 managers to use up cap space on three additional roster spots so they can't just buy 5 160+ TSP players without any depth at all; however, if the 8-man rotation is put into practice . . . the salary inflation will need to be addressed one way or another.

Otherwise, no team could afford to field a competitive roster under the current salary cap with an enforced 8-man rotation.

Last edited by A-Dub at 10/12/2021 8:28:39 PM

I think maybe to control players playing time there should also be more fouling, some even matches finish with one team with 20 fouls and other teams sometimes like 6 fouls for the whole team for the whole match, I think there should be more fouling and more fouling out players, that maybe will force teams to have bigger roster and control their playing time

I think maybe to control players playing time there should also be more fouling, some even matches finish with one team with 20 fouls and other teams sometimes like 6 fouls for the whole team for the whole match, I think there should be more fouling and more fouling out players, that maybe will force teams to have bigger roster and control their playing time

More fouls? No thanks. That would hurt training minutes. Players already foul out in the first 10 minutes of a game, I'll pass on any solutions involving increased injuries or fouls.

Last edited by A-Dub at 10/12/2021 8:13:25 PM

i would like to know if those ideas to increase the revenue would mostly advantage top teams and help them stay above everyone else or if the teams in lower would still get a shot at becoming the best teams ?

I basically addressed your question in my above post: (312180.30), but to summarize:

I believe that by fixing the salary inflation, by any means deemed necessary or appropriate (i.e. raising the salary cap, lowering player salaries, or a mixture of both), this will help lead to a more competitive and balanced economy, because more managers would be able to afford the weekly salary of any particular player which would help drive up a players transfer list value.

Moreover, with the 8-man rotation being enforced, B3 managers and all manager alike, would need to pay for three additional roster spots instead of simply paying five 160+ TSP players and no depth players.

In theory, they would be at a competitive disadvantage if they were to play three scrubs as substitutes during a B3 match. And of course by substitute players, I mean, the three depth players would need to be slotted in the 'backup' positions and not just simply dressed as reserves that won't receive any game minutes.

Just to add to that: if salaries were to be lowered, I would like to see a more balanced approach where salaries reflect TSP rather than individual skills, more or less.