BuzzerBeater Forums

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.