BuzzerBeater Forums

Yes, that's where it has to be discussed. It could be an average or a virtual estimated maximum income, a border you could not cross.

We could set a maximum margin for each team, because so many factors can change the weekly income (cup games, merchandise, arena...).

Another way would be to set a salary roof for each division (1 million for div 1, 600k for div 2 or whatsoever).

But hey, it's not like a 1.5 million team (only the players!) like the venomous scorpions could ever make money with the current BB economics.

At the moment, it looks like the best accountants win, not the best global managers. We could give more credit to training and tactics that way.

The players' union is firm in their stance rejecting any discussion of a hard cap system in the NBA. We firmly believe that any league shortfalls are best addressed through expanded revenue sharing.

STAND!

Another way would be to set a salary roof for each division (1 million for div 1, 600k for div 2 or whatsoever).

But hey, it's not like a 1.5 million team (only the players!) like the venomous scorpions could ever make money with the current BB economics.

At the moment, it looks like the best accountants win, not the best global managers. We could give more credit to training and tactics that way.

the situation is same for everybody ! everyone can pay 1.5 m salary !

how you define a good manager ? a good manager is who could create the best team ! not only who could choose a tactic ! choosing a good tactic is the most easiest act in this game !

and the best manager is who has the best team and high information about the game !

i cand understand why most of you think that the best manager is only who know the game ! this opinion is false !

Another way would be to set a salary roof for each division (1 million for div 1, 600k for div 2 or whatsoever).

for a basketball manager that's unacceptable

Hey, do you think BB could introduce some rules about financial fair play?

The teams could not spend more in salary (staff + players + scouts) than their weekly income.

That would make the competition in the top leagues a lot more interesting, since some teams tend to "buy" their titles. It would also give more credit to the B3.

How does that sound?

you will still buying titles, cause the rich team still can buy the best most salry efficient player to get the most performance below cap.

Also the week at the aend of the season could be very stupid on the tl, when player had to list player due relegation, salary updates etc. Which often means rebuild nstead of selling one or two stars.

PS: I believe that was in the global i put it into the suggestion area.

Why? Am I not allowed, to spend my earnt money in the beginning of the season (each week +50k), In the last weeks of the season extra (-20k)?

besides, if everbody makes profit, the economy would also fail.

Well I agree this would be far from easy to set up, but this is just a suggestion. Moreover, this idea doesn't come from nowhere: I shall remind that the barclay's premier league (english soccer) has agreed on a financial fairplay chart.

It's more or less a collusion between 2 worlds that I would illustrate with 2 soccer clubs: Manchester United and Manchester City. The first one is a soccer institution that has a great formation center to back up an awesome team. The second one has nothing but a rich president who will buy superstars and try to buy his titles. These are different ways of thinking and both can work.

However I believe the Manchester United win owing to a great management while City may win with a great sponsor (accountant in BB). Isn't the best manager supposed to succeed in BB? That's what's on the ad...

But I understand it's not easy to work on this idea and it's more likely not gonna be done anytime soon. The best would probably be to follow the professional leagues (real ones) and try to do the same (as it is now) so as to be as close as the reality (which is obviously not working out too well for them at the moment).

The idea is here and every thought is welcome. I do respect the winners, regardless the way they win; especially in a game in which you basically can't cheat.

@VS: thinking about how you're gonna train up 3 players or more and introduce them to your starting 5 while setting the right tactics based on your own strenghts and your opponent's weaknesses is A LOT tougher than buying the most expensive players on the market who are gonna outplay their opponent whatever tactic you run.

Though I understand your idea and do think you're right somewhere, I believe the 'line' you cannot cross is wrong.

I want to take a sidestep in this post, since as far as I know your example from real life is wrong.
Manchester United is owned by the Glazer family. This club also doesn't write black numbers as far as I know. Arsenal is one of the few english clubs that does. Also you shouldn't look in Spain or Italy. If you want an example from football you should look at the german footballclubs.

This whole OP is stupid, how can it draw comments? It is not like you can put millions on your account here in BB from some outside source. You can not use more here per time unit (why week? Month/year/hour/whatever!)than you have managed to produce first the money yourself (your club)!

Yes I agree my examples are certainly not the best. Arsenal would indeed be a lot better here.

About the line story, it's just something that went through my mind... we all gotta start somewhere don't we? Right now I'm thinking about some kind of a "maximum weekly deficit", because it's true that an economy in which everybody earns wouldn't be any good either.

@D. Mirosavljevic: the idea is not about questioning how or where managers get their money from. It's about how to balance the competition and give more credit to managers who plan long term rather than the 1-2 seasons strong rosters. I believe B3 would be a lot more rewarding that way.

By the way, hasn't the nba got some salaries regulations? I'm pretty sure they do. Although there some things that could never be reproduced in bb, like players giving up a huge part of their salary in order to play in a better team (K.G. from Minesotta to Boston) or whatever goes "under the desk".

Last edited by ezlife at 10/8/2011 6:56:18 PM

At the moment, it looks like the best accountants win, not the best global managers. We could give more credit to training and tactics that way.

Isn't those that manage their teams well, good at their finances as well? Tactics and training is only part of this game. The beauty of it is that you can play the game however you want. You don't have to persue a training regime if you do not want to.


Having said that, If the whole point is about making the B3 fair, then I do not believe this is the root cause of this problem. It comes from team's ability to load up and spend more than their income after having built a big buffer of cash that they can afford to make losses week in week out.

But why are they able to build up that buffer of cash? Most teams from competitive nations aren't able to as the competition level on their league will force them to have to spend big on salaries to maintain their level of competitiveness or risk relegation. Having to pay big salaries means they won't be able to build up that big buffer of cash.

On the other hand, it is the smaller countries where competition is low that the top teams there can afford to run a half competitive roster and still save up millions for that buffer of cash. Here is the reason why it is so advantageous to be playing in a smaller nation financially wise as you are able to save up to buy yourself titles so easily due to lack of competition forcing you to keep a full roster (close to your div's salary cap) all season.