BuzzerBeater Forums

Ah, sure they will be able to bring in great players but at a reduced effect. You cannot utilize your money to buy the best players in BB in every position anymore. And you will still need to plan what kind of players and how your team plays within the restriction of the salary cap. You cannot demolish teams in ALL areas on the court.

Will you go for an insanely inside focused team or balance it out between all the players? 5 monster starters or strength in reserve?

Winning will actually take some planning and tactics instead of flashing the cash.

Or winning will be the fact of hca, and the investement in the rooster ;)


The same thing like today, with the difference that many teams, have to sell there trainees because they reach their cap.

HCA will help. After all, it's only natural that home court brings an advantage.

Investment in the roster is up in the air. As you cannot just bring in the biggest, most expensive player available. You take into account how much more you got before you hit the cap, and go for the best value. You will be challenged to take one road or the other, instead of solving it by throwing down a large sum of money for monster players.

i could use the same arguments for your theoy, in sayinfg that monster players are players with incredible value instead of salary ;)

We could do that, but that would be detracting from the original objective of this thread which is reducing the effect of money buying success. :)

so you don't say that buying superior player, isn't a way of buying succes?

In my eyes it is the same thing, maybe with the diffence that you could play succesfull for a longer time - but maybe also need to wait longer to buy 8-9 high skilled (young) low salary players.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 4/5/2009 11:28:22 AM

There is a marked difference between buying a superior player and buying success.

Buying success can be termed as the over-influence of money in attaining success at the highest level in BB. I do not want this game to reach the point where it ccomes down to the teams with the biggest bank balance win the game.

Manager A has been playing at the top level for oh-so-many seasons. He has a proper long term plan, and his economy is near break-even to support his roster. Intending to keep his team in the black, each decision he makes requires sacrifice. Reducing inside strength for outside, reducing an overwhelmingly powerful team stat in favour for more flexibility.

Manager B has been almost inactive for oh-so-many seasons. He gears his team to earn what he cans, and during the course of time saves up an impressive warchest. Not to mention he was daytrader of the month while the game still held his attention.

Manager B decides to give it a go one fine season. He buys 8 monster players and works on a deficit of 1-2M a week. He logs in once every week to set 'Push the Ball' and 'Man to Man' defense. He blows away all comers and takes the Cup home, followed by the B3 next season. In the process, his bank balance drops to almost zero. He proceeds to sell all the players and goes back to being inactive and a positive income.

This, is buying success.

There is a marked difference between buying a superior player and buying success.

so your argumention is silly, because your problem you discribe doesn't exist ;)

I do not want this game to reach the point where it ccomes down to the teams with the biggest bank balance win the game.

in this case you have to punish people who get teir money to the bank account, or playing without money ;)

Manager B decides to give it a go one fine season. He buys 8 monster players and works on a deficit of 1-2M a week. He logs in once every week to set 'Push the Ball' and 'Man to Man' defense. He blows away all comers and takes the Cup home, followed by the B3 next season. In the process, his bank balance drops to almost zero. He proceeds to sell all the players and goes back to being inactive and a positive income.

In your system, managers B buys 8 monster players, and playing ptb and mtm and blows away all opponents ... With the different he wasting his bank account while buying 8 superior players, instead of blowing away his money on mondays. The result was the same, maybe with the different that player B has to change his rooster after each promotion or can not win the cup, while playing in lower leagues.

But now we wanz to use Player C, who playing a standard team in a high league, which holds the leagues because the lower div teams can't change their rooster fast enough to reach a overall quality to hold the league(because of the difference of the caps).

Player D is an team in a lower div trhen c, who make a impressive Job in building an infrastrukture and have an eye for tactics. Today he could compete with an first division team, who don't made that good job at least in the cup. With your system he only can take the money to the bank, and hope that he don't have bad luck in the PO or loose another good Managers in his league.

So the next problem is relegating, what do you want to dao with an semi active team, which is relegaterd and now have salary who are much higher then the cap?(the same goes for training)

Today they stay in the community but if you don''t have the time to rebuild your rooster, this system could be the dead of this clubs.

Edit: i replace the b for q in the []

Last edited by CrazyEye at 4/5/2009 11:59:04 AM

I don't want to punish people with money in the bank. You can still use it, be my guest. What I want to limit is the impact of money in the game.

All this scenarios only applies if the salary cap affects all teams regardless of standing. If we introduce a global limit of say...somewhere between 500k-1M, then only the top teams will be affected. I don't advocate the cap affecting lower teams, that wouldn't be fair.

don't you propose that depending on the amount of sth? Low league -> less sth.


But the other problem of salary efficiency of player still make this proposal a bit worthless in my eyes.

Actually a little further down the thread, the discussion got to the point where a global cap was the better idea compared to STH for this exact reason. :)