BuzzerBeater Forums

How come there was not a single team who joined BB later than season-four at the first division of Spain (on season 17, when I've checked it).

1) go an check saison 16.

Where there was a single one? Wow? [I didn't check, but I guess this is close to what I'll see].

2) you don't know how many managers started the game before saison 4 in spain. if there were 400 or more managers the upper leagues were full. it's like a pursuit race. the first teams are already on the track and you have to wait and pursuit them.

Ahh???
Unless on Spain, Italy and France (as well as Germany that I've brought also as an example), there was almost no join ups after season-4, it is just not an explanation.

3) france and italy have a similar history. and if you take small nations where only a couple of managers join each season, than there is a big possibility that they start in the first or second league.

France is one of the largest BB-nation, and Italy is far from being a small one.
Again - relevance?

I still didn't get an explanation to the following - How come there was not a single team who joined BB later than season-four at the first division of France, Italy or Spain (on season 17, where I checked it).

Because the people that signed up in season 5 had to compete with people who were there from seasons 3 and 4 (which appear to be the first in Spain). And then those who sign up in season 6 had to compete with all of those, etc. But I'll address this more in a little bit -- see what I bold in the below:

What that got to do with?
It is a league - they all are in competition with one another.
The only differdence - the design of the game causes that old teams have much more money, and hence the competition impossible.
There where 13 seasons with a lot of teams between season 4 and season 17.
In Spain, Italy and Fracne there where only teams from those first four seasons (1-4).
Not a single team from 13 seasons. All from the other first four...
Summarizes it.

At that point, and in case that user is not that worse than you are, this will be a wall that cannot be overcome.

You know, if the problem was just newer teams were at an impossible financial disadvantage, that's something worthwhile. But what you state above shows the flaw in your reasoning - you are saying that it is a big problem that a newer manager, who is not a better manager than an old one, can not pass the old manager. The simple solution to that is not to punish the old manager, but instead for the new manager to become a better manager than the old one. Promotion and relegation should be based on merit, not for trying to make sure everyone gets their turn at the top. And when better managers come into the game, they will surpass those who are there based on longevity -- as it should be.

You did not understand (or did not want to understand)...
I said - In case there are two users managers with the same BB-managing skills, but one of them joined earlier, then the other one has no chance against him, and that user will always be his wall.
In practice, the situation is much worse, and users that are worse BB-managers will succeed more in case they joined the game earlier.

Another question that needed to be answered - does a team earn money each year, or just losses money?

The answer is clear - each year, each season just get more assets.
Better players, making more deals of buying and selling players to improve their balance, building more seats at the arena (in case possible), selling more tickets, etc.
And when you have more money, one can make more deals with better revenue.

Hence, each season the difference just grows between older and newer teams.

This is why we see the phenomenon described at Spain, France, Italy and Germany.

No other explanation is valid here.

Haven't we had enough of these suggestions yet? Same thing keeps coming p over and over again. People come with counter arguments and gets the same arguments we seen in 10+ threads already thrown at them.
The suggestion is out there for the BB's to see. Lets do the right thing and close this clone.

Each suggestion is different, the reason for all of them is the same. :+> :+) :=>

The reason, in case you've forgotten:
1) On season-17, there was not a single team on DIV-I of neither France, Spain nor Italy, who had joined later than season-four. [All where from the first 4 seasons. None from the later 13!!!]
2) Last season, at the German league, the order teams had finished had been exactly upon the order those teams joined the game.

And those are the main reason why this game does not grow above that ~50K users.
When the system does not let the users to compete upon their abilities, then they will not stay part of that game.

In case you did not understood, I can repeat...

Last edited by Pini פיני at 4/11/2012 3:08:20 PM

Another question that needed to be answered - does a team earn money each year, or just losses money?

serious first division team loose money, players getting older, salaries need to be paid and mostly exceells the income, the arena ;) So that the reason why so many old team are there, yes you need some time to have an first division enviroment, but playing at high level means in 90% of the cases to lose money.

Because the people that signed up in season 5 had to compete with people who were there from seasons 3 and 4 (which appear to be the first in Spain). And then those who sign up in season 6 had to compete with all of those, etc. But I'll address this more in a little bit -- see what I bold in the below:

What that got to do with?
It is a league - they all are in competition with one another.
The only differdence - the design of the game causes that old teams have much more money, and hence the competition impossible.
There where 13 seasons with a lot of teams between season 4 and season 17.
In Spain, Italy and Fracne there where only teams from those first four seasons (1-4).
Not a single team from 13 seasons. All from the other first four...
Summarizes it.

Yes, there were 13 seasons, but a team that joined in season 14 for example would not be able to get to the top league by season 17, so you're already arguing from a flawed base with that. So what you're really saying is that no team from seasons 5-13 were not in the top division by season 17 (though I suppose, in theory, you could have seen teams in season 14 placed in IV). And going straight from V-IV-III-II-I is practically an unreasonable expectation as well; a fairly ambitious projection would be a team promoting every two seasons -- meaning a team joining later than season 9 could not reasonably expect to make it to the top (they'd spend 9-10 in V, 11-12 in IV, 13-14 in III, 15-16 in II and promote for season 17). Suddenly your 13 seasons are reduced to five, and even that group requires very optimistic appraisals of how long it takes to promote.

But the "what does that have to do with it" thing is related to the thing you're overlooking - teams don't magically promote to I. To get to I, you have to get through II, and to get to II, you need to get through III, etc. And those levels are filled with other managers who are trying to do the same. So if 16 very good managers get into a league in III and make it difficult for the others to promote, that's not the fault of the guys in I -- that's just the nature of promotion and relegation. Eventually the teams that deserve it will make it up, and then adjust to the new level of challenge or fail.

[You did not understand (or did not want to understand)...
I said - In case there are two users managers with the same BB-managing skills, but one of them joined earlier, then the other one has no chance against him, and that user will always be his wall.
In practice, the situation is much worse, and users that are worse BB-managers will succeed more in case they joined the game earlier.

And if the new user is no better a manager than the old user, there is no reason at all that it is a problem for him to never pass the other. (Though, of course, getting "identical" managers is impossible). But can you point to one of these "worse" managers who succeeds in spite of a "better" manager, who you may also identify? If this is such a problem in the game environment, surely you must have plenty of documented examples to illustrate the problem, other than of course your mantra about join date in four specific leagues. Show us that better managers are truly being disadvantaged by the system, rather than just citing dated statistics that are quite sensible indeed given the league structures in place.

Last edited by GM-hrudey at 4/11/2012 3:08:23 PM

Another question that needed to be answered - does a team earn money each year, or just losses money?

serious first division team loose money, players getting older, salaries need to be paid and mostly exceells the income, the arena ;) So that the reason why so many old team are there, yes you need some time to have an first division enviroment, but playing at high level means in 90% of the cases to lose money.

And that explains why they don't get broke, but only get more dominant and unbeatable by newer teams..
Yeah... Right...Sure...

In case you forgot:
Last season (as far as I remember), the order of the teams in Germany first division had been exactly upon order they had joined the game.
It must be because they are "losing" money each season.
It is known fact that "losing" money makes the team stronger, because they "try harder", or something like that...

maybe the younger teams should buy older rosters ;) But this is more for the help forum, to explain that for you.

I still remember you saying, that those palyer doesn't loose value, when i just sold him:

(4587237) which you even used as example ;)

Another long time player for my team: (4595070) sure they gain value ... And yes selling him gave me still money, to survive evenw ith a bigger pay check for a while, in buying a cheaper player with a bigger salary. And while i was looking for him i even earned some money.


Last edited by CrazyEye at 4/11/2012 3:30:02 PM

Yes, there were 13 seasons, but a team that joined in season 14 for example would not be able to get to the top league by season 17, so you're already arguing from a flawed base with that. So what you're really saying is that no team from seasons 5-13 were not in the top division by season 17 (though I suppose, in theory, you could have seen teams in season 14 placed in IV). And going straight from V-IV-III-II-I is practically an unreasonable expectation as well; a fairly ambitious projection would be a team promoting every two seasons -- meaning a team joining later than season 9 could not reasonably expect to make it to the top (they'd spend 9-10 in V, 11-12 in IV, 13-14 in III, 15-16 in II and promote for season 17). Suddenly your 13 seasons are reduced to five, and even that group requires very optimistic appraisals of how long it takes to promote.

Even when you are trying to reduce it with a logic with no base, you still get 25% of BB-community with only teams from the first four division and not the other later five (you narrowed down into) at those first divisions.

Although much less important, why did you decided that two seasons is the number?
Does a good BB-manager should have trouble on the lowest divisions?
I mean, when neglecting the current state where what is main importance for promoting is not the quality of the BB-manager but the date he joined...

So basically, once again, you didn't explained that.

And if the new user is no better a manager than the old user, there is no reason at all that it is a problem for him to never pass the other.

No one said differently.
But what you didn't answer again is the other case that currently exists.

Two users, with the same BB-managing qualities, that had joined at two different seasons, will never be able to compete, and the one who had joined first will forever be before the later one.

But can you point to one of these "worse" managers who succeeds in spite of a "better" manager, who you may also identify? If this is such a problem in the game environment, surely you must have plenty of documented examples to illustrate the problem

For doing that, we will need to go over each desicion one have made and give a score for that.
This is not practical.

You are trying an arguement that is equal to the question "prove that you don't have a sister".
No matter what you will say about that, you couldn't prove it wrong.

What can be asked, and still haven't been explained is how does the cases I've brought, about Spain, Italy, France and Germany [More than 25% of the BB-community], can happen if the system is OK, and there is no competitiveness problem on this game who gives older teams an misfair advantage.