BuzzerBeater Forums

I think incorporating your last idea would be great and giving more points overall for spending money is also in my previous post.

I do think that the "lottery" teams should get more points though. That is the ENTIRE purpose of a real draft; to help the teams who need it and to allow the teams that need it the most to be helped the most. So it would be great to give teams extra points based on their finish IMO as that would allow for more scouting to be done and also allow the teams that deserve it to find a great draft pick to help their team greatly.

Yes I know this could lead to teams tanking, but if they are willing to do this and demote just to get a draft pick then that seems fair. In the NBA teams do this a lot. Cleveland did it to get Lebron in the first place and lot's of teams gut their squad to free up cap space and to earn a high draft selection. It's part of the game.

Perhaps "giving" a number of extra points would not be the best way to handle this. Giving extra % to each team based on their season ranking would be the way to go. Start with 1% and the last get's 16% extra (or make it proportional raise based on record). That way if you do not put any money in to the draft you actually can't get anything for free. Now putting in 40k a week with that extra 16% at the end of the season makes a difference.

A good thought for sure. Could go with this.

I still don't think "giving" points is a bad thing though. Scouting is done in the NBA and most teams scout pretty much the same players the same amount unless a team knows they aren't going to move up in the draft and they have no shot at a couple of the higher picks. They still scout them just maybe don't dwell on them as much. However, information is not unable to be obtained, whereas in our system that is the case. Just because I only spend $10k on scouting, but finish last doesn't mean that part of my strategy wasn't to just save money and use my free points in hopes of a good draft pick. Look at some of the teams over the last few years. Cleared money out to save up and didn't mind taking losses on the court in order to save money for free agents and get a solid draft pick. Seems like "giving" points is still a good option to me, but I do like your way as well.

A good thought for sure. Could go with this.

I still don't think "giving" points is a bad thing though. Scouting is done in the NBA and most teams scout pretty much the same players the same amount unless a team knows they aren't going to move up in the draft and they have no shot at a couple of the higher picks. They still scout them just maybe don't dwell on them as much. However, information is not unable to be obtained, whereas in our system that is the case. Just because I only spend $10k on scouting, but finish last doesn't mean that part of my strategy wasn't to just save money and use my free points in hopes of a good draft pick. Look at some of the teams over the last few years. Cleared money out to save up and didn't mind taking losses on the court in order to save money for free agents and get a solid draft pick. Seems like "giving" points is still a good option to me, but I do like your way as well.

Let me ask this question, why should a team that has invested only $10K per week in scouting and finished out of the playoffs get more scouting points than a team that finished say as a #4 seed in the playoffs and spent $20K per week? Under your proposal that would happen and it should not. You should make any extra points available due to the investment in the team, if you tie it to team position it rewards tanking even more. Teams out of the playoffs already have an edge by drafting higher than playoff teams, that should be enough of a reward.

A good thought for sure. Could go with this.

I still don't think "giving" points is a bad thing though. Scouting is done in the NBA and most teams scout pretty much the same players the same amount unless a team knows they aren't going to move up in the draft and they have no shot at a couple of the higher picks. They still scout them just maybe don't dwell on them as much. However, information is not unable to be obtained, whereas in our system that is the case. Just because I only spend $10k on scouting, but finish last doesn't mean that part of my strategy wasn't to just save money and use my free points in hopes of a good draft pick. Look at some of the teams over the last few years. Cleared money out to save up and didn't mind taking losses on the court in order to save money for free agents and get a solid draft pick. Seems like "giving" points is still a good option to me, but I do like your way as well.

Let me ask this question, why should a team that has invested only $10K per week in scouting and finished out of the playoffs get more scouting points than a team that finished say as a #4 seed in the playoffs and spent $20K per week? Under your proposal that would happen and it should not. You should make any extra points available due to the investment in the team, if you tie it to team position it rewards tanking even more. Teams out of the playoffs already have an edge by drafting higher than playoff teams, that should be enough of a reward.

In your scenario the 4 seed could or could not earn more points. It all depends at what sliding scale you use. I gave an example, not the exact amount of points to be given. Say we start with 3 extra points for 2nd place in a division and go up 3 points until you get 21 extra points for getting 8th place and auto demoting. 21 points seems like a lot and it is, BUT considering that is only fully scouting 7 players out of like 50, I don't see this being too terrible. So say the 6th place team puts 10k into scouting which would give him a total of 28 points for a 14 week season, correct? He would get 15 extra points for a total of 43 points. The 4th place team puts 20k into scouting giving him a total of 42 points for a 14 week season plus the 9 extra points giving him a total of 51 points. This would still be a fair amount more than 6th place.

This is just an example and maybe using a scale of 3 points for 2nd and bumping it up 3 until you get to 8th would be a better system then the 4 points I had stated earlier. Using the 4 pt scale the 4th place team has 54 points and the 6th place team 48 points....still more points for the 4th place team. I understand you not liking this system if you are a perennial playoff team as it makes it harder to sneak in a good draft pick, but the draft should NOT be so luck based and nobody will ever convince me otherwise. We need to make it less luck and more transparent so that the teams in need are able to have a better (not absolute) shot at getting a good player to help their team. It's only FAIR.

Even if the 6th place team would get more points than the 4th place team I would be okay with it. Why is the question you asked me...and honestly it's because the worse teams should get the better players. Period. That is the entire purpose of the draft...to make bad teams better. Do players slip through the cracks? Of course and that's why you reward teams for spending money during the season. Yes this could encourage tanking, BUT if you tank, just as in real life, you lose revenue with fewer seats filled in the arena and as an added penalty you are DEMOTED. Seems that demotion should discourage tanking a bit, eh? If it doesn't then the team is going to be hurt financially, but if they are willing to make this sacrifice...just as many NBA teams have done...then they should have the best shot at drafting a great player. The people that would dislike this method would be those that want to get a good player, but are perennial playoff teams. I am usually not one to get a great draft pick so this system wouldn't necessarily benefit me most of the time.

It all comes down to the purpose of the draft...and that is to give the best shot at getting a good player to the bad teams.

I respect that you disagree, but my question to you is...Why? Why is it so bad that the terrible teams or teams willing to flop have a better shot at getting a good player? Just remember tanking is a strategy used by NBA teams as well so it is not so unrealistic....and is quite more realistic than the current draft system. Now if you want a real UNFAIR situation, look at the 5th place team...the only team that receives zero cash after the regular season outside of the 8th place team.

Man, that's a friggin wall of text there.

That is the entire purpose of the draft...to make bad teams better.

No, it isn't. The purpose of the draft is to replenish the player pool with younger players. If you've had your team for more than 3 seasons, there is no way a draft pick makes your team better. Training makes your team better.

Yes this could encourage tanking, BUT if you tank, just as in real life, you lose revenue with fewer seats filled in the arena and as an added penalty you are DEMOTED. Seems that demotion should discourage tanking a bit, eh?

Not really. Look at KDB and Sharman Gamethrowers for two quick examples of how the game currently rewards teams who tank. Seriously, look at their arena pages and add up how much cash they're making. Now subtract what they're paying in salary. To see an example of a team that's done this two straight seasons, go here: (23435)

I respect that you disagree, but my question to you is...Why? Why is it so bad that the terrible teams or teams willing to flop have a better shot at getting a good player?

I think his disagreement stemmed from a smaller weekly investment getting the same amount of draft points (or more) as a larger weekly investment.

Just remember tanking is a strategy used by NBA teams as well so it is not so unrealistic....and is quite more realistic than the current draft system. Now if you want a real UNFAIR situation, look at the 5th place team...the only team that receives zero cash after the regular season outside of the 8th place team.

I can get on board with the 5th place argument. There's quite a problem there.

I agree that it is also used to replenish the player pool, but the bottom teams deserve the better players in the draft. Yes training makes your team better, but getting a very trainable player in the draft can turn around your team if trained correctly...if not you must go buy trainees. Yes you can buy trainable players at a reasonable price, but not elite ones. The worst teams deserve the best shot at elite players...i'm not saying we make it a slam dunk that they get them, just give a bump in points to increase their chances.

As for teams that tank and the economy...okay I see your point that a team can have no salary and be in a league that is D3 or higher and make a lot of money. However, when you demote your ability to make money automatically goes down and you must work your way back up to a higher division. Can you bank the cash and use a smaller roster to get their over time...yes of course. If teams are willing to sacrifice losing for draft picks then so be it in my opinion.

Now you say his disagreement was that a smaller weekly investment getting the same/more points than a larger one...well I think my examples showed that it doesn't have to be the case in the system I am proposing.

Now how do you feel about my proposal? What is your opinion on the topic?

Regardless of what the change would be, I do believe we need more visibility of the draftable players and the draft needs to be far less luck. Whether something similar to my idea or a percentage of extra points given as someone else proposed I really don't care...I just would like something to change for the better to make the draft involve less dependent on luck.

Clearly the draft in BB is different than the NBA draft. In the NBA draft, the talent level of the top couple of players is enough to dramatically improve a team in the first year. In BuzzerBeater, you can get a decent player to train or sell, but it probably has little impact on a teams wins and loses unless they're in the very bottom division.