BuzzerBeater Forums

USA - NBBA > Season 20 Smack

Season 20 Smack

Set priority
Show messages by
From: Calum

To: Coco
This Post:
00
216564.124 in reply to 216564.123
Date: 6/4/2012 12:34:13 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
394394
Happy to keep him given the current NT GS climate. Once we start getting what we need from the others, i'll look into the market. :)

From: Calum
This Post:
00
216564.125 in reply to 216564.1
Date: 6/4/2012 12:36:18 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
394394
I actually think the problem with my team is that it's actually too balanced. lol

From: AZ

This Post:
00
216564.126 in reply to 216564.125
Date: 6/5/2012 10:12:41 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
134134
I'd like to think that 5 of the 8 games being tank-fests are an unusual occurrence.

From: Calum

To: AZ
This Post:
00
216564.127 in reply to 216564.126
Date: 6/6/2012 1:41:02 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
394394
I hope so. Mine was purely related to my cup game, and i'll be interested to see how this is addressed in the upcoming rule changes. :)

From: shikago

This Post:
00
216564.128 in reply to 216564.127
Date: 6/6/2012 3:39:40 AM
Milwaukee Lethargy
III.5
Overall Posts Rated:
849849
wow, i completely missed the S20 news.
i don't see how they would eliminate tanking though. didn't they already do something to make it less profitable than it used to be? (salary floor + the demotion penalty for much of the following season).

as for late in the season tanking (as opposed to full season tanking)...
they didn't exactly help things with their really awful 5th place "fix" a while back...

From: AZ

This Post:
00
216564.129 in reply to 216564.127
Date: 6/6/2012 9:51:41 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
134134
I dont know what they could do besides have a few game tanking penalty towards your attendance. It clearly has to be something financial. Although I'd prefer it if the non-tanking teams received a benefit instead of the tanking teams receiving a penalty.

From: wozzvt

To: AZ
This Post:
66
216564.130 in reply to 216564.129
Date: 6/6/2012 10:09:47 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
228228
I dont know what they could do besides have a few game tanking penalty towards your attendance. It clearly has to be something financial. Although I'd prefer it if the non-tanking teams received a benefit instead of the tanking teams receiving a penalty.

The solution is actually really, really easy.

(1) Ramp up the effects of 30+ pt losses on future attendance.

(2) Ramp down the effects of close losses.

(3) Extend out the duration of these effects so that they last more like 4-6 games.

This both provides a motivation to keep it close and a disincentive to completely tank. And it also fixes the problem of the immediately preceding road game having undue influence on home game attendance (by smoothing out the effects over a larger window).

From: AZ

This Post:
00
216564.131 in reply to 216564.130
Date: 6/6/2012 10:35:35 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
134134
Love it. Wozz for BB status.

From: Calum

This Post:
00
216564.132 in reply to 216564.130
Date: 6/6/2012 11:32:09 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
394394
Nice pick-up! I didnt wake up early enough, lol

From: brian

This Post:
00
216564.133 in reply to 216564.130
Date: 6/6/2012 12:19:52 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
yep, not sure what the BB's are hemming and hawwing about on this issue.

Typical Weekly Net Income: $ 470 400

15k showed up last night after i sold all my players. there's no need to overthink this.

Individually tanked games can probably be reduced as well if they reduce HCA effect (the last two seasons home teams have been winning 70% of games, compared to 60% in the NBA). I tried to win almost every road game last season which was prob not the best choice in hindsight.

Last edited by brian at 6/6/2012 12:20:33 PM

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
Advertisement