BuzzerBeater Forums

Why I need to buy a tripple tremendous palyer from manager for 5million, If I can get such a palyer from Free Agent for 3 million? I think Free agents must stay!!!

Last edited by Ragans at 1/23/2009 4:28:13 AM

competition levels never stay the same long enough to make this make sense + who and how can decide who deserves more or who is more competitive?

who: BBs as always :)
how: i.e. average team ratings. Taking into account the first 3 divisions. Or average salaries, or player's ratings, etc...

Do you think it's just a coincidence that your arena is about two times as big as Italian's strongest teams?

Agreed, it does go both ways. Serie A is stronger then the NBBA (what, ive never said otherwise! It costs more to survive there so I'd support them having a slight increased revenue stream, same for the lower divisions. With twice as many users, it costs more to compete in Italy at every level then it does in the US. Why should't there be an adjustment based on the number of users to balance the economic playing field?

even if it would benefit me i don't think this is a good solution

italy has reached the economic balance between income and salaries, i don't know the other countries but i fear the smallest will never reach this balance

Do you think it's just a coincidence that your arena is about two times as big as Italian's strongest teams?

So you think it is impossible to have a bigger arena in leagues where the competition is higher? I don't think, that the German Bundesliga has a very low competion, but most of the teams are able to increase the size of their arena a lot more then managers in other countries (e.g. italy). Here is an actual post of the arenas of the Bundesliga(41747.43).
There are teams that have never been dominant in this or in other leagues (e.g. ESV Laims), who still manage to get a decent sized arena. And now you want to punish the teams, which have choosen an tactic, which seem to work out better in the long term?

Do you think it's just a coincidence that your arena is about two times as big as Italian's strongest teams?

1) Are Italys arenas a fair benchmark to compare all division 1 arenas??
2) My arena was funded from Day Trading.

Is it a coincidence that Italys top teams have arenas 1/2 the size of mine and a healthy percentage of other top teams across the BB globe?

This arena size argument holds no water... everyone has had the money and ample opportunity to buy more seats... the italian community have been almost 'stubborn' in their refusal to follow in the footsteps of others who have spent the time & money to have 25,000 seater arenas.

i think its not fair for anyone to compare arena size and says how come yours is bigger.

everyone here is given the opportunity to do what you want wit your team. now what happens next due to that action shouldnt be a indicator of how one is to another.

also regarding free agents, if you stop it then i think its a waste of talent why., . . the reason they are put back is because aside from being able to be develop or still be develop and the sort of being able to help your team due to his talent that was develop

So you think it is impossible to have a bigger arena in leagues where the competition is higher?

It's not only a matter of investment (more difficult yes, impossible no), but the attendance changes significantly if you have a 16-1 record or if you are in a more competitive league with more losses.

And now you want to punish the teams, which have choosen an tactic, which seem to work out better in the long term?

1. It wasn't me who suggested to tax the arenas (although I don't think it would be a bad idea).
2. What does it have to do with punishing?
3. Well, at least a couple of recent changes (potential, economy) have modified quite a bit the long term programming.

1) Are Italys arenas a fair benchmark to compare all division 1 arenas??

It was just an example.
The economy was rebalanced considering the 'global' economy of bb. At the moment, smaller (less competitive) countries are richer than bigger (more competitive) countries.
For me this is a fact... but of course I might be wrong.

This arena size argument holds no water... everyone has had the money and ample opportunity to buy more seats... the italian community have been almost 'stubborn' in their refusal to follow in the footsteps of others who have spent the time & money to have 25,000 seater arenas.

please, see my previous post. I am in division II (coming up from V) and in the last two seasons the only way I had to expand my arena were from the promotion bonus and from selling players. My net income each week is few ks... and if you check my standings you'll see that selling good players is not an option.

Edit. I forgot. Based on the results, the italian community ain't doing so bad :)

Last edited by Newton07 at 1/23/2009 8:26:53 AM

It's not only a matter of investment (more difficult yes, impossible no), but the attendance changes significantly if you have a 16-1 record or if you are in a more competitive league with more losses.

That is exactly, why I gave ESV Laim as a example (even better, have a look at the Tall Blacks.. they are usually between 40% and 60% at the end of the season). I knew that somebody would write about the 16-1 record of the Bulls... but that is not the point, I think.

1. It wasn't me who suggested to tax the arenas (although I don't think it would be a bad idea).
2. What does it have to do with punishing?
3. Well, at least a couple of recent changes (potential, economy) have modified quite a bit the long term programming.

1. I know that is wasn't you, who initially suggested it. I just addressed my post to you, because you have been the last one that you have been the last one who tried to "defend" this idea.

2. Less money is not a punishment? Maybe you could buy one of my players (just joking) :P

3. About the potential: You are right, the implementation of the potential changed a lot for long-term strategies. The thing here is, that it affected all teams in the same way, didn't it?


I think, if all bigger nations would have acted the way the italian mangers did it, we wouldn't have this discussion. But it is the choice of the manager if he want to have the best team NOW or if he want the stay at the top for more then 2 seasons but therefor 2 seasons later.
Probably a few Italian managers decided to, that they want to win the BBB asap and therefor the others had to spent their money in new players to have a chance of winning the Serie A... and so on, but it still was their own choice how to spend the money.

We should keep in mind that there is a big difference of changes, which affect all managers in the same way and changes that favour some people and handicap others.

I think you are 100% wrong about the big=poor small=rich.
I would be willing to bet that the #1 italian team has more assets than I do, the current #1 Thai team. I might have more cash on hand, but his roster has ten times the value of my cash on hand and roster put together.

Superfly wasn't talking about the italian community's performance on the court. He was speaking only about the size of your arenas.

2. Less money is not a punishment?

Not at all. Was it a punishment to introduce taxes on the arena income? It was a way to rebalance the economy (strongly needed, btw). My whole point here is to discuss if the economy after the changes is fair for all. If it is, perfect, let's keep it the way it is. But if it's not (and I think it's not) let's see how to make it fairer.

I am not talking here for my own interest. The teams I compete with are in my exact same situation.

3. About the potential: You are right, the implementation of the potential changed a lot for long-term strategies. The thing here is, that it affected all teams in the same way, didn't it?

Of course no, it didn't. Teams with all star players already above the new potential cap or far below it were penalized less than team with all star players close to the potential cap.