BuzzerBeater Forums

It's difficult to say, I'm not sure we have enough information to make that call. Speculation is always likely to be the result from lack of clarity. Is that necessarily damaging or can it even be healthy? Well, it depends...

Honestly, I'm not trying to be funny. Perhaps, given the reaction, you could weigh up the pros and cons of revealing the proposed season 10 changes so that a debate can take place. If you do not want to debate it, you could make a statement anyway (and then batten down the hatches).

But I wouldn't get too worked up about what essentially is two camps with differing views on how the game should develop having a new bone to fight over.

This is a little bit off topic, but it seems like a lot of this debate is coming from speculation about the details of this system. We tried very hard to announce very far in advance that this would be happening in order to minimize the impact on teams who decide to adjust their long-term strategy as a result and in order to minimize the impact on the transfer market.

However, we've also made a number of changes this offseason that we really did want to make sure were given proper attention, and we really did not want to spend a lot of time in what was already going to be a long news post focusing on the details of a system for two seasons from now.

Do you think it was a mistake to announce something like this without details? What would have been a better option?

I am quite surprised at the extent of discussion on this. For 99.9% of teams, it is simply a good thing to know for future development and choices. For Superfly and myself, where the b3 season or pl leagues (still trying to master the princeton offense) is the focus of our season, this is a big change because the rules of the game will now be unequal for us no matter how such a policy is implemented (it is a debate whether the current setup is currently unequal in favour of us). In any case, it is good to allow debate and solicit ideas from those affected (positively or negatively).

i think this is a very healthy discussion (except from the comments people directly aimed at players and their teams and i hope you will deal with that) and yes you should have given a reasoning as to why you want to implement such a drastic change... obviously you realise yourself (as developers) as well that this is a drastic change or else you wouldnt have announced this 2 seasons before implementation.

for some teams, 2 seasons announcement is a long time. for the people that plan long term it isnt. i have made a plan for 4-5-6 seasons in a row. this would really bring me back to zero. i paid alot for my trainees for a reason and i know i never would get that back. but i didnt care because i had no plan to sell them.

most people seem to expect the same thing to happen as what me and them are afraid off. you want to see more players being trained that are from their own country. homegrown... why? what is the idea behind that? it can only because off the NT system. because how more i think about it, i really cant see any other reason to change a system that works for all/most players as it works now. There is only 1 coach playing the NT, I havent applied for it, simply because it is lowest on my priority list, like i am sure it is for 99% off the players.

if my opinion counts. give the details about the changes for season 10 as well. since if i need to change the whole setup off my team, i better change now than to wait for the start or end off season 9...

Would BB also consider giving players "citizenships" to players that have played in a foreign country for at least 2-3 seasons?

These "citizenships" would allow teams to count their foreign players as domestic players if they've played in their country for a minimum period of time and wouldn't penalize teams in smaller countries, that had to build a team of foreign players so that they could compete with the best teams in their country.

Would BB also consider giving players "citizenships" to players that have played in a foreign country for at least 2-3 seasons?

These "citizenships" would allow teams to count their foreign players as domestic players if they've played in their country for a minimum period of time and wouldn't penalize teams in smaller countries, that had to build a team of foreign players so that they could compete with the best teams in their country.

As long as they wouldn't be allowe to play in NT or U21 of their new country/countries...

No, they get citizenship only if they have not played for U21 or NT of some other country. Any top prospect going to another country should be added to NT for chance of not losing him if he turns out great:)

Well you don't think so, but quite a few seems to do, and I think people should try (and should be allowed) to argue from their point of you rather than someone elses, e.g. yours.

If you can show me where I told people they were not allowed to argue a point of view, then I will eat my hat.

most people seem to expect the same thing to happen as what me and them are afraid off. you want to see more players being trained that are from their own country. homegrown... why? what is the idea behind that? it can only because off the NT system. because how more i think about it, i really cant see any other reason to change a system that works for all/most players as it works now.

Not necessarily.

I don't think most of the nationality changes are going to be involved with NT issues.

No, they get citizenship only if they have not played for U21 or NT of some other country. Any top prospect going to another country should be added to NT for chance of not losing him if he turns out great:)

Since adding and releasing players from NT team (and u21 as well) is connected with enthusiasm such a player should not play for a different country than his original, period.

You are discouraging them at least.

All I've said is that the hysterics aren't worth it to argue about something that is pretty much unknown.