BuzzerBeater Forums

Yes it is a lot more, but I was there (arround 2002) when it was about as big as BB is now, and I promiss you, the contovercys where a lot bigger.

You might be right, but I see it as very unlikely that they would change solution in the near future, and I hope they want. Because, that kind of flip-flopping would defnitely hurt the game in the long run.

At the same time I am sure that they do monitor this thread and they take ideas into consideration for the future. If they dont panic they can later on present a better longterm plan, without risking too much controvercy.

Last edited by chespirito at 8/4/2008 7:03:39 AM

I should say though that the intention wasn't to be scientifical about it or anything. It was to stress that this is a big controversy.

few seconds ago it was clear that everybody hates that change, and now is a controversity? ;)

I would say a fix changed won't make it better, because the main problem of this solution was, that it comes so fast ... But if you act to adept the changes and another fix comes you got the same problems

Definately this thread is 10 managers discussion...:DDDDD

Well, everybody hating it would still be controversy since it will be implemented afterall. It just wouldn't be comunity vs comunity controversy, it would be comunity vs bb's (which by all means are still part of the comunity anyway).

I'm not sure that a maintenance fee would be the correct solution. First, it would be confusing to have something like that changing on a seasonal basis - especially when it needs to be 40% of ticket costs one season.

What actually might be needed is a free market in wages. Fans would be willing to see a matchup between two respectable players, if those are the two best players in BB as they would two legendary players.

But right now most of the money for the best players goes to the former owner of the best players, rather than to the player. And that isn't really a cost, since the player can be re-sold again. It is more a conversion of assets.

You could perhaps have a division-based salary surcharge. But that might tend to keep the best players in lower divisions.

Free market on wages would be very complicated to implement as I see it. How would it work?

Free market on wages would be very complicated to implement as I see it. How would it work?

I forgot to add that to my reply. I don't really know how. To have a free market, you would have to have the option for players to move freely, and to have someone negotiating on their behalf.

In HT, I suggested at one time that player salaries should be based on the transfer price. Currently, it is the other way around, where the high salary of a divine player reduces his transfer price, such that almost any team can afford a divine player for a few matches, but no team can really afford one for seasons on end.

This would at least have some sort of negotiation process, where a player's current team would be negotiating on his behalf (the more they get in transfer costs, the more the player receives in salary). But you would also have to have a mechanism where players are periodically exposed to the transfer market. There is also the question of how do you handle players who have improved their skills considerably in just a few seasons? You possibly could index salaries to player improvements - or simply give them X% more each season. If a player doesn't train, his salary would still increase.

I really like the idea of salaries based on transfer prices. A way to implement it might be to have two components of salary

component 1: the regular BB salary
component 2: the transfer portion

The transfer portion could be zero until someone pays over a certain amount - like 2 million for instance.

Also, if a player is playing more than 48 minutes a week in division I, then his transfer salary could gradually increase to the average of the starter's transfer salary in that division.

Just an idea.

I don't see the need for a regular BB salary, except perhaps as a minimum. Let's say the salary were 3.5% of the transfer price. Over two seasons 28 weeks, you would pay the player about the same (98%) as you paid the other owner.

Perhaps players could be protected from too precipitous a salary drop. So even if a subsequent sale were for less money, the player's salary might only drop at most X% (10%)