BuzzerBeater Forums

More and more new teams are coming through the ranks with interesting ideas.

Agree. It's the same in our country. For seasons there were only two teams who battled for championship and none other came close. Now one of the two teams didn't even made the finals, while other lost the interest since it couldn't compete anymore and got relegated to D.II.

I guess they had a lot of money piled up because they started much earlier than others; and I guess they didn't got involved in training or general improvements of their team enough because they thought they were safe. Eventually, the best teams caught up with them and surpassed them two seasons ago.

Last edited by Koperboy at 7/4/2012 3:50:59 AM

+1 to you and Coco.

as a tanker, let me say my own motivation was to build a team from scratch that fit completely with my understanding of the game -- an honorable motive, if i may say. (i was trapped in DII, and saw no reasonable way to advance, but only a path towards eventual relegation. i was barely competitive, with older players, small arena, and no training program. i had done all i could to win DIII, and when i advanced, i saw i had not sufficiently planned for the next level.)

that was some three-four seasons ago. my plan is well underway, and while i will not claim to have watched it unfold flawlessly, i do see a team emerging that fits my ideas and my stadium will eventually produce much greater revenues -- in other words, my rebuild is succeeding.

but i hated, absolutely hated not fielding a competitive team my last season in DII, in part because i think we all enjoy the competition, but it was a necessary step. i did take a severe hit to my attendance that season and the next -- all told, revenues for a home game dropped 50% -- but i was always careful to at least field a team.

with that as background, i would suggest a simple change, and let the coaches deal with it: no penalty for tanking, just a very severe penalty (in attendance and tv revenues) for not fielding a full team for any game.

Exactly! +1

Objective evidence:

Season 17 - Flash Mashers lost the relegation series and were relgated from league USA III.1
Season 18 - Flash Mashers were crowned champions of league USA IV.22
Season 19 - Flash Mashers made the playoffs of USA III.1 (I was top seed in the whole league but got shot down by late season injuies)

It's very possible to do it at the D2/D3 level where it is still beneficial.

I suppose the question here then would be how likely it would be for you to have had a team capable of fighting for promotion last season had you instead competed and developed your team while in III. Well, that would at least give an idea of whether the tanking was "beneficial" or just an alternate route to a similar outcome.

I totally agree with you!!! +1 also from me!!

Ciao

Paolo

Last edited by Birraiolo Pazzo (Ita U21 Scout) at 7/5/2012 5:01:57 AM

I am not sure this qualifies as tanking. You promoted into d. III for season 17 and then relegated. You bought Zebin, Thomas, and Xiros that season. In fact, you spent more than you sold in season 17. There is a difference between losing and tanking.

I think that the size of the country you play in makes a difference with regards to how successful tanking can be. My team is aging and it won't be long before I am no longer competitive. I will, most likely, begin rebuilding when it happens. Training and being competitive in D.I is very difficult so it makes sense to drop down when rebuilding. I don't see anything wrong with it. I do agree that fielding a team of less than five guys is bogus and should carry heavy financial penalties. Add to this a higher salary floor and there is a decent solution.

tanking is one business decision you could do to plan for your team's long term direction. i am personally opposed to it because you may want to rebuild your team through other means without tanking, but it increases the chance of you getting quality picks. but i wouldn't judge anyone who does so. this may be prevalent it lower tier leagues.

I think it's also important to highlight that there's two different forms of tanking...

1. Tanking to save money and get relegated at the end of the season.

2. Tanking with the aim of finishing 7th and saving up enough money to buy in mercenaries for a relegation series.

I do agree that type 2 tanking is worse than type 1 - (as described by Matt)

After 14 seasons in the game including 2 promotions to Division 1, for the first time this season Ive tanked.

Reason I opted to tank this season (my 4th in div 1) was that I was getting bored and wanted to start training players again. (and wanted to even things up a bit between the conferences as there was a bot in the other conference)

No way I could be competitive in div 1 whilst training properly 3 x 18 year olds to become quality small forwards.

I think that the fan survey the way it is currently calculated, promotes type 2 tanking.

I've always had a problem with

"I am familiar with the star players, and am not afraid that they will be transferred"

because I dont think it adeqautely recognises and rewards the "occassions" that you might have several long term quality players on your roster whom your've trained. (never seems to go passed 2 or so balls).

The other criteria I dont like is

"The general manager is doing everything he can to try to improve the team"

I currently have 5 balls for this despite throwing my last game by over a 100 points by purposely bringing in dud players and playing them in their worst positions to make sure that I wouldnt lose 1st pick in the draft.

Perhaps part of the calculation methodology for this criteria should recognise teams whos players salaries are less than 2 and a half times the weekly tv money, and then penalise those teams severly. (Dont make it "proportionally rewarding" for teams being way above this figure as this would help the old gaurd established teams- increasing the gap between new and old teams)

Its an absolute joke that I can get a 5 ball

"The general manager is doing everything he can to try to improve the team"

, with a team near the salary floor and after buying in duds and then purposely playing them out of position to lose a game.

Perhaps even "take away" the early draft picks for teams who have not for every week of a season, spent more than 2.5 x weekly TV contract. (starting from next season - would stuff me up if you did it this season)

First round of draft picks is only for teams who have spent 2.5 x weekly TV contract for every week of a season.

This would effectively take away the first round pick for those teams who dont spend 2.5 x weekly TV contract for every week of a season, and give them a 4th round pick instead

I do also like the "eligibility rule for finals" as raised previously and repeatedly in this forum.

Perhaps newly acquired players should have to be on your roster for two weeks prior to the finals and even longer periods for 2nd and 3rd players acquired before finals.

Last edited by Sid Vicious at 7/9/2012 11:10:18 AM

I think the general manager is doing everything he can to improve the team refers to trades, not tactical decisions. Those are covered by the questions relating to games.

I think the general manager is doing everything he can to improve the team refers to trades, not tactical decisions. Those are covered by the questions relating to games.

Currently you could be correct

Again if I can get 5 balls for this criteria, after buying in dud players and then playing them in their worst positions in order to gaurantee that Id lose a game, then there is a problem with the way this criteria is measured.

And if it is just for making trades then whats the point of having it at all as it just directly opposses the other fan survey criteria "I am familiar with the star players, and am not afraid that they will be transferred".

Fixing up the way these 2 criteria are measured as I suggested, will go along way to reducing the financial incentives to tank.

IMO something also needs to be done to get rid of the bots out of leagues.

Having a bot team in your conference enables teams to sell off their rosters, free from any concern that they can be auto relegated. i.e bots encourage tanking

Perhaps if a team goes bot, either through lack of interest or from being suspended for cheating, then that team can be immediately dropped down to division 5.

The top team from a league lower can immediately be promoted to the league from which the bot team was relegated from and be given promotion money as well.

A formula would need to be worked out to position "the promoting replacement team" fairly on a ladder of that higher league part way through a season, something like the number of wins of the bot team and the replacement promoting team are added and divided by 2.

i.e. Team "Fat Boy" is caught cheating in the Division 1.

A time period is allowed for appeals etc, but at most the team will officially go bot in 5 weeks from being caught.

(For a team suspended for cheating I would like this time period reduced to about 2 weeks)

Team" Fat Boy" is now bot and it is round 8 of a season and they have 2 wins and a points difference of -100

A top team from division 2 who had 10 wins and a points difference of + 150 , is instantly promoted into division 1 with promotion money.

They come into the conference from where the bot team was removed with 6 wins (2 +10)/2 and a points difference of +25 (-100+150)/2.

No bot team in div 1 exists and hence there is less enticement for teams in that league to tank. It is then also fairer for the teams in the other conference and plus also less boring for all concerned.

Naturally a team from div 3 would have to be promoted (using the same methodolog) to replace the team in div 2 that was promoted to replace the team that was promoted to div 1.

This "arrangement" would actually make the lower leagues more interesting as well, because it could "open them up for more even competition" by allowing a team that was going to promote anyhow, to be promoted early.

Removal of the bot teams and the promotion of teams that were going to promote anyhow, during the course of a season would certainly freshen up all of the leagues and probably by doing so, keep the interest of managers up so that less teams go bot in the first place.

Good idea?

How many season supporter am I rewarded with?







Last edited by Sid Vicious at 7/9/2012 7:19:08 PM