BuzzerBeater Forums

What about the second year 19 year old? If he has played only in cup and scrimmage games, he still has 0 league games under his belt. Now even if you make all games for teamxxx count, what if he get's injured. There are 14 weeks in a season. Not playing one week, will force you to play him atleast 2 times one of those weeks. It just seems so silly you have to play him in certain games in order to be able to use him in cup the next season. When suggesting something always try your suggestion out with a few simple schenarios, that are widely used.
Perhaps he can play after certain amount of days (similar to retransfering) as paperwork takes some time. Still deadline would be the better option. Transfers between clubs nowdays (when the agreement has happened) is pretty quick. The new player might even play the next day, after beeing acquired. Knowing the teams offence combinations and fitting in, is another story alltogether. But that's beside the point atm.

Last edited by Kukoc at 10/10/2011 5:19:54 AM

It must be something stong, because I myself can't understand why I thought you said 14 games. Go figure... 2 weeks could be ok, with rookie exception.

Putting a transfer deadline on the cup though is difficult I think.- My suggestion in simplifying it so taht it can work in all nations with such different cup lengths etc. Is make it like specific to each game not each round. In order to play in a cup game a player must be with a team 14 days. So on the player page in your roster etc. it would give you like a read message 'this player has only been on your team 13 days and can not play in your cup games yet. In order to play in the cup for your team this player must be on your team for atleast 14 days'

That's a simple, straightforward and reasonable suggestion that cuts right to the heart of the problem. +1 from me!

If teams have money, excluding those who have cheated, they've earned it and should be able to use it to improve the team. I think the bigger issue is when players are treated as commodities to be bought and played and sold with no thought for team cohesiveness. This would at least be a step away from that.

I also love the idea! On the other hand, when you think you'll have to pay him 2 weeks before he can eventually help your team out, that sounds a little bit harsch.

I still think some kind of deadline would be a much better option. The problem is not the first rounds of the cup (where the teams are still building) it's the odd, sign players now and win the cup.

I still think some kind of deadline would be a much better option. The problem is not the first rounds of the cup (where the teams are still building) it's the odd, sign players now and win the cup.

I think personally that if there was some mechanism that actually required teams to be just that -- teams that remain relatively consistent from year to year, with upgrades and new trainees, rather than a collection of mercenaries put together at whatever time needed to win league/cup/b3 matches, it would be on the whole far better. The specific problem you're referencing of course could be fixed with a deadline and if that is the only thing one is concerned about, that seems like a wholly natural solution. I just like other direction myself.

Very interesting article from NY-Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/sports/basketball/owner...

So, salary cap or luxury tax? As far as I know, none of these are used in BB. This has to change!

Last edited by ezlife at 10/16/2011 7:57:43 AM

I plused 1 that.

That was a darn good read!