BuzzerBeater Forums

A proposition based on NFL scheduling:

Division Home/Away +1 : 9 games
Same Conference, Other Division: 4 games (2 home, 2 away)
Other Conference Other Division (alternates by season): 4 games (2 home, 2 away)
Same Division rank last season: 3 games

Big N---Big S---Great E---Great W
--A-------E---------I----------M
--B-------F---------J----------N
--C-------G--------K----------O
--D-------H--------L-----------P

Sample schedule
wk 1 Sat A @ B;
Tue A vs C;
wk 2 Sat A @ D;
Tue A vs E;
wk 3 Sat A @ F;
Tue A vs G;
wk 4 Sat A @ H;
Tue 8 A vs B;
wk 5 Sat A @ C;
Tue A vs D;
wk 6 Sat A @ I;
Tue A vs J;
wk 7 Sat A @ K;
Tue A vs L;
wk 8 ALL STAR GAME
Tue A @ E;
wk 9 Sat A vs I;
Tue A @ M;
wk 10 Sat A @B;
Tue A vs C;
wk 11 Sat A @D
Tue Wildcard/Rel1
wk 12 Sat QF/Rel2
Tue SF/Rel3
wk 13 Sat C1/Rel4
Tue C2
wk 14 Sat C3
Tue Scrimmage


Playoff teams: Best overall record (TB=division record, then PD) in division (seeded 1-4, by overall record then PD), + next 6 best records (PD) (seeded 5-10, by overall record then PD)

PLAYOFF BRACKET
bye---- 1
7-------vs winner
vs winner--------|
10----------------vs winner
bye-----5---------|--------|
---------vs winner--------|
bye-----4------------------|
----------------------------vs (3games) champion
bye-----3------------------|
---------vs winner--------|
bye-----6---------|--------|
8----------------vs winner
vs winner--------|
9-------vs winner
bye---- 2

RELEGATION BRACKET:
14h
vs rel1 winner
15 vs rel3 (3games)
11h

13h
vs rel2 winner
16 vs rel4 (3games)
12h

This would make for stronger divisional rivalries, at least 1 post-season game for everyone (either relegation or playoff), a slightly more difficult (easy) regular season for strong (weak) teams, better playoffs (since we'd take the best 10 overall teams instead of the best 4 teams from each conference) with the chance for interconference playoff games.

I'm not sure it'd be perfect, but the idea sparked, so i thought i'd throw it out there.

Last edited by rhyminsimon at 9/20/2012 1:08:52 AM

The big problem with a bye is the TS management.

Also with more and smaller conferences, it will increase the probability of high imbalances in strength.

Personally, I wouldn't mind a season to go on much longer, so you have more time to develop players.
So instead of training players for half of their BB life, it could be 1/3, 1/4 or 1/5.
I understand it's hard to increase the number of teams through all divisions in most countries. But NBBA can actually consist of 30 teams! 6 divs, one team relegated from each every season. So you'd have to have 6 divIIs.
The least games a team would have to play would be 29 obviously.
There's a 43 version (like today) or even go the full 82, though, I suspect not many users will support that.

btw, scrub cup! It's totally pointless! (consequently scrimmages as well)

and you can have 3 league games a week, ideal GS will have to be adjusted, but it's easy.

if 30 teams is too real, and BB is done by 4, you can have 20 teams.
16(4x4)div+15(5x3)conf+20(10x2)other conf=51 games
3 games a week. 17 regular season weeks.

4 winners + 4 other best ranked teams to the play offs which is more fair than now.
4 teams down.

Last edited by thylacine at 11/23/2012 8:28:33 AM

this will allow to give roughly as much training in 2 seasons, as you would now in 3 seasons.
So you will actually have more time reaping the fruits of your training.

Disagree with the suggestion of a longer season. Personally I prefer online sports games to have relatively short seasons so that the game doesn't get boring. I think what you really want is faster training, which brings with it problems of it's own.

I wouldn't mind more league games in the season (and playoffs where every round is best of 3 is also appealing), but then you'd have to have more league games in a week as well to fit the season into 14 weeks, and that means you'd have to change the entire weekly schedule and the game shape algorithm to deal with all of these extra games.

What's wrong with the cup? You don't have to play your top players in it if you think it's pointless (you can treat it like a scrimmage if you want for GS purposes), and it's another trophy besides the league for everyone to try for, a particularly good thing for those stuck in a boring league (like I probably will be in next season).

I agree that the shorter seasons are good. If a team is going through a rebuilding process that could take 4 seasons (training and arena expansion) then that process takes an entire year. Making that process take 1.5 or 2 years would discourage a lot of D3 and D2 teams from sticking around after a while.

What's wrong with the cup? ...and it's another trophy besides the league for everyone to try for, a particularly good thing for those stuck in a boring league (like I probably will be in next season).

C'mon! You might upset an ambitious DIII team, but that's as far as any of you DIV teams will go.
NBBA team can win the cup, and I'd say half of them want to. So it's a competition for 8 teams out of thousands..
But, good luck to you in the cup! I think you should try for it! :)

It's not about winning the cup for me, it's about getting as far as possible and maybe even knocking down a top team who underestimates and uses their scrimmage players.

If this is not your cup of tea you don't have to take the cup seriously, but it's there for those who do.

One simple solution to slightly refresh the conferences would be to introduce a minimum of 2 new teams on both sides each season. This can be done by switching one of the relagation playoff winners to the other conference in case the 6th and 7th place teams of the same conference win their series. The problem with this is that the refreshing happens with potentially weaker teams (especially if the switcher is the 7th, although they did just beat the 6th of the other conference). In this case, the aim of balancing the competition would not really be achieved. Especially so for div I leagues.

Actually no. If you have a stronger conference, they will win both relagationseries making the strong konference even stronger since only one promoted team(weaker?) joins. On the other side, 3 newly promoted teams enter.
But then there is also the opposite extreme. What if the four promoted teams all ends up being the best?

Over time it all evens out.

My take on the schedule, taking in account the number of games and weeks a season is, is that it´s very difficult to change.
Making the "other konferencegames" random between all teams no matter konference could be one, but then schedule play an even stronger role then it does right now. As of now, getting your homegames against the right opponents is a big deal. As is getting one strong and one weak team every week instead of two week teams the same week and two strong teams the other week.
If you (with random) end up playing four week teams and your rival ends up against the top four teams, it will make a difference.

So I´m not a big fan of adding "chance" to the schedule.

As a last note, as we speak of trying to make managers aim for a higher spot in the standings. What if the "other konferencegames" are somewhat related to last years standings?
Example: (if BIG1 won BIG and had more wins then GREAT1)
BIG1 vs GREAT8 (one "easy" game a week. Away against the "weaker" team.)
GREAT1 @ BIG1 (gets homegame against other "topseed")
BIG1 vs GREAT7
GREAT2 @ BIG1
BIG1 vs GREAT6
GREAT3 @ BIG1
BIG1 vs GREAT5
GREAT4 @ BIG1
The highest ranked team gets the "easiest" schedule.