BuzzerBeater Forums

For 1 and 2, this argument could also be made for any team that is significantly weaker than the league average. And there will always be weaker teams in a league even if they aren't actually tanking, that's just the nature of the game.

3 and 4 are valid points, but for 3, you're only truly 'safe' if there's at least 3 tanking/inactive/weak teams in your conference, and for 4, do keep in mind that tanking does also exist in real life leagues that carry a benefit to doing so (see; the 76ers and the process).

Besides, tanking is still going to be a thing. It's just that now the tankers will sit on a salary floor roster and be smart enough to crunch time one game that they can win whenever they need to avoid the boycott, ending on a 3-19 or 4-18 record. But I digress...

Let's bring the main topic of discussion back to the potential league formats I have put forward. The primary benefit to each system that I see is;

18 teams: You can make the conversion without changing any other aspects of Buzzerbeater's seasonal schedule.

20 teams: Most teams have an aforementioned 'boring week' when they're out of the cup on all-star week and have to wait 7 days between league games. This set-up removes that.

24 teams: This set-up also removes that 7 day break, and makes room for a 1-3-9-27 league pyramid without relegating too many lower level teams unfairly.

If you're liking my ideas, please also consider the alternate BuzzerBeater's Best format that I suggested last year. It consists of;

- A qualifying round, where the weakest teams (based on world ranking and/or method of making the B3) have to play a single neutral venue game against each other to make the final 128 team cut.

- A group stage with 32 groups of 4 teams each playing a home and away round-robin, for a total of 6 games. The top two teams in each group then advance to the round of 64, with group winners gaining home court advantage and playing against group runner-ups. After this, the tournament would revert to the 32 team neutral venue knock-out that we have now.

The point is to get rid of the random 'doom draws' that some teams get in the 'group play' stage. A bit of bad luck can easily turn those four away games into a nearly impossible road to the round of 32, even if you otherwise have one of the best teams in the world. You could also make the group stage 8 teams in a single round robin (all neutral games, or 3 home, 3 away, 1 neutral) and remove the round of 64, or you can just make the 8 games in the existing 'group play' format neutral venue games.

Last edited by Jay (OTT) at 12/19/2016 6:02:37 AM

If they want to REALLY help people who build over time instead of those who buy to win the solution is simple and it's been there for ages in Hattrick. Get an affinity skill that measures how integrated a player is with his teammates and that starts at 1 and can go up to 20, the more the player is close to 20 the more he plays close to the skills he has. Boom, you just erased the possibility of buying before the playoffs and even winning by buying the entire team at the beginning of the season will be harder as that team will lose games in the first part of the season so it will be harder to get HCA for the playoffs. More on this: you can also set it in a way that the players you drafted or trained since they were 18 or 19 can go above 20, so you have a tangible advantage to train.

Of course, instead of something so simple, they just implemented economic measures because of some shortsighted reasoning that created and still causes other problems.


@ Jay (OTT) Your idea on the B3 seems very reasonable

what the new system is going to do is naturally eliminate the catbird's seat.

this is all well and good as the drive to five has been steering the plane many a season on this game.

that being said I'm actually in favor of contraction as opposed to expansion 12 team leagues double round-robin top 4 go to the playoffs 5-6 sit. 7-10 battle. Bottom two pack up.


The cup needs to be addressed because the economic inequity which stems from that definitely has a lot to do with the economic imbalance. that buzzer beater has issues with

The cup needs to be a two-phase event on all levels in that there should be a group and then a knockout stage I think we're all mature enough to handle that. All cup matches should be neutral court because by god the locals want to see something different in their arena. Income should be a 50-50 split

speaking of which in league I think there should be Revenue sharing of the gate. not on a 50/50 split on you but I don't think the old school 2/3 vs 1/3 split is out of line.


In the end we all want to see the same thing... upward mobility.


Last edited by Coach Lambini at 12/20/2016 7:20:03 PM

So the affinity skill has to be resetted before the first season game.

Makes sense that after a "training camp" or something like that it resets to the highest level (so if it goes along with the GS calculation, it would be reset on the Thursday after the draft). Someone buy 5 or 6 players will have a hard time doing so in one or 2 weeks at the end of the season anyway.

A training camp training for all players at a training regime of choice wouldn't be a bad idea either (helps speeding up training and make up for inefficient training at the end of the season (2 games/week for a lot of managers).

So we'd have Monday-Thursday after you pay salary for the first time where you have a 'training camp'.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/21/2016 8:22:26 AM

Affinity is a good idea, though I wonder if there is a simpler solution coding wise. For example, we could just make the post-transfer GS penalty longer, or install a trade deadline.

Also, I would still argue that this buy-up problem would be greatly reduced if my proposal is implemented. Adding more teams into the league whilst still keeping an 8 team play-off would make it more difficult relatively speaking to get in, especially in the 20 or 24 team formats I drew up.

Last edited by Jay (OTT) at 1/26/2017 5:04:06 AM

A major catalyst for me making this thread a while back was the proposed relegation system, so it's pleasing to see that the mid-season news includes an amendment so that five teams relegate instead of six. However;

1. There's still the problem where if you don't finish top four in your conference and make the play-offs, you risk relegation. The fifth placed team does now get an easier relegation series on paper, but this only mitigates rather than eliminates the problem.

2. Expanding the leagues/divisions also has other potential benefits aside from freeing up promotion/relegation set-ups. I'll bring up the argument of making the play-offs tougher to reach again, as I feel that making teams/managers truly earn their right to play for the championship is a good thing. A larger league size can also create a bigger inner community within that league, and at least increase the chance of one of the managers starting a conversation on the forums.

In essence, this post is a bump, but I feel like one is acceptable for a major suggestion that received some attention like this one. Next time this falls off the front page, I'll let the thread die, but I feel that the BB's if they read this should give the ideas and thoughts that myself and others have presented in this thread some consideration...