BuzzerBeater Forums

Stajan would have to stretch himself thin in order to get the #6, and there's no guarantee of that happening. If he relegates, attendance will take a hit and he'll lose a ton of money long-term. Maybe this is the issue we should be talking about.

If an overmatched Championship side promotes into the EPL and fights hard but relegates, its fans will still show up the next season. So even if that team is unsuccessful, they'll only benefit financially from promoting for a season, as long as they attempt to win their EPL matches.

I guess I don't see how that's possible for a team spending a season in Naismith. Maybe fans should be more sympathetic when an upstart team pokes its head into the top level, even if it's nowhere near ready to stay there.

Last edited by RiseandFire at 4/22/2011 1:41:50 PM

In any event, tanking in the past has been a poor strategy -- when we studied it, we found that on average it was harmful, because the rate at which teams immediately repromote was simply too low (it typically needs to be around 80% under the old numbers to be break-even, all things included, and it's just not that high).

This is infuriating.

Last edited by Stajan at 4/22/2011 6:46:09 PM

I'd still like to know, how does the upstart team with no chance to stick in their new league not lose fan support the following season?

Instead of preventing tanking, you should have rewarded competing. Stajan is a good example of this, but there are dozens, probably hundreds every season - the well-managed team that wins its weak league and promotes into a strong league, where their arena is too small and the players too weak, and inevitably gets relegated despite competing every game against far stronger and more established competition.

In real life promotion/relegation scenarios, fans understand the reality of these situations and stand with their team. In BB, fans deem the season a failure and doom the team to financial ruin. This is what made tanking financially feasible, of course - if you're going to take the hit, you might as well take as much money as you can with you.

I feel like this idea (preventing tankers for the good of the league) is halfway developed, and should not have been implemented until the other half (rewarding competitors and giving them a road to profitability) was complete.

this i completely agree with.

this i completely agree with.

Stajan's rise to naismith was very quick (as someone who started at roughly the same time as him, and faced him in div2), and he may not have done some of the things he ought to have (like building a large enough arena). I think this speaks more to the fact that this change was introduced without advance notice, because it does change the strategy Stajan may have pursued. Based on the previous rules, it made sense for him to go all in to promote to be able to get some quick cash and a high draft pick and worry about the arena later, now, teams may have to promote when they are ready to compete in the higher level and have the expectation to stay up there.
That said, even with the floor, Stajan will be able to make way more money than he would in div2 if he feels he's not ready and fields a team close to the salary floor, and will also get a high draft pick... so he will still benefit from being in Naismith even considering the lower fan survey he will have if he returns to div2 next season.

That's a less effective form of tanking, and it requires financial dexterity as well as a wasted season. Stajan should be able to field a team containing as much salary as he can afford right now and at least try to avoid relegation. Then if he's not successful, his fans should appreciate the effort. Right now he doesn't even have that option.

Stajan should be able to field a team containing as much salary as he can afford right now and at least try to avoid relegation. Then if he's not successful, his fans should appreciate the effort. Right now he doesn't even have that option.

I'm not entirely sure what that would look like, not as much penalties in the fan survey if people relegate? (I would support that) And what do you mean by as much as salary as he can afford? Stajan carried a $500+k/week team into Naismith, and imho would be competitive to stay if he didn't sell off his team.
I do agree it's a less effective form of tanking if he chooses to go that route, but disagree that it's a wasted season.

Last edited by Fresh24 at 4/23/2011 5:42:39 PM

The point is that, had he not sold off his team, he'd be competitive but would still relegate, and would thus take a large hit in the fan survey. He'd then not have the extra money he's getting by shedding salary. So the floor doesn't help his cause at all.

Last edited by RiseandFire at 4/23/2011 5:51:02 PM