BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Inflation

Inflation

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
268316.69 in reply to 268316.65
Date: 3/23/2015 8:20:49 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
Player prices being high as an adverse effect on mid-and-low level teams. Prices being low has an adverse effect on mid-and-low level teams. Two years ago, prices being low was killing the game. Now, prices being high is killing the game.
A. Low prices don't affect lower and mid-level teams adversely -- quit blowing smoke.


You're probably still not caught up to where I spoke about that more. Long story short: the more value each individual dollar has on the market (e.g., deflationary period), the bigger the advantage that higher revenues in higher divisions becomes.

Except for the underlying fact that top-level teams aren't competing with lower-level teams for any players, that might fool some people ... but it's more smoke.


No, the lower level teams are competing with each other. Those who succeed move up to compete against higher level teams. Those who don't, well, don't. But I suppose I should ask before clearing away your smoke, right?



This Post:
33
268316.76 in reply to 268316.72
Date: 3/24/2015 12:19:20 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
262262
Wow! You guys should write a book.

This Post:
00
268316.77 in reply to 268316.69
Date: 3/24/2015 3:30:52 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
370370
A. Low prices don't affect lower and mid-level teams adversely ...
... and here's why they don't:
... the lower level teams are competing with each other.
See? We agree on something.

But the long and short of it is that the reason inflation is better than deflation by a wide margin for newer teams is precisely that it helps erode the advantage older and higher level teams have. As long as player prices are low, replacing one set of aging veterans with another, slightly less aging set costs less in terms of a percentage of revenue ...
That is just so wrong it's scary. The reason that a wildly high cost of players OR inflation is better for UPPER level teams is that they CAN replace one set of aging veterans with another, slightly less aging set. A lower level team cannot even afford to replace more than one or two players that way -- tops.

Personally, though it'll be harder for my club in the short term, I love that inflation is eroding my ability to buy a replacement player for the cost of two home games' revenue.
See? For a lower level team we'd be talking about replacing a player for 10 or even more home games revenue if they are lucky -- measured in home games revenue, the upper level team is at least five times better off.

Sometimes if you just read what you write instead of being so defensive you could see this.

Last edited by Mike Franks at 3/24/2015 4:06:53 AM

This Post:
00
268316.78 in reply to 268316.47
Date: 3/24/2015 3:37:06 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
370370
I'd rather the game move toward rewarding teams for creating players...
Obviously you're getting your wish. BB-Marin feels the same way, and the game has become a training game rather than a basketball mgmt game. Even the whole economy is adjusted to reward training at the expense of any other winning strategy.

As managers find this to be true they have to decide:
A. stay in this training game,
B. find a basketball game, or
C. neither, it's time to read a book.

Advertisement