BuzzerBeater Forums

Actually this does not happen in the systems I suggested. The 18 team league still only has 22 games, whilst the 20 and 24 team leagues feature 23 games with the extra game being squeezed in to replace an all-star week cup game. We can still get the season done in 14 weeks each time.

Something that can be tweaked about the 18 or 20 team system, depending on the preference of the developers and community, is how the championship play-off berths and relegation play-off teams are determined. Instead of adhering strictly to conference standings, you could instead go for more of a wildcard set-up as follows;

18 teams: 6th placed teams still auto relegate, but the next four worst teams across the whole league enter the relegation play-offs. At the top, you can either still have 1st and 2nd qualify along with the next two best teams, or just have 1st placed teams automatically qualify along with the next five best teams.

20 teams: Again, 5th placed teams would still relegate, with the next four worst teams overall in the relegation play-off. 1st placed teams still make the championship play-offs, but instead of all the 2nd place teams, make it the next four best teams overall.

Last edited by Jay (OTT) at 12/13/2016 2:12:26 AM

If it's that big of a deal for the Cup/Tournament to be wrapped up before the end of the regular season, then the only solution is to cut the size of the Cup in the bigger nations to 2048. This may shaft some low ranked teams if the user base jumps back up later, but at the moment this still ensures that every human controlled team has a place, whilst allowing the Cup to be completed just before the play-offs begin despite a 23 league game schedule.

This also has the positive of removing that 7 day period where nothing of note is happening for those who are already out of the Cup.

So I think you'd need to come up with a solution for that regarding the suggestions that tale away that game.

Play the first cup game on the Tuesday after the first weekly update or instead of the thursday scrimmage. This way you also somewhat alleviate the problem of those teams with no home game in that week (cup game instead).

this would make the playoffs a little longer (great!)

Please no. Imo the playoffs should be as short as possible.

I agree with keeping the playoffs to 8 teams, and with my proposed league expansion it would make the regular season a bit more important. Not that it's meaningless now, but I have seen teams limp in to the play-offs as a 4th seed only to become a major title threat with the pre-playoff buy-up. A smart strategy, but not necessarily rewarding of success in the season as a whole.

The 'short as possible' philosophy was one of my main reasons for previously proposing a condensed 13 week BB season in 2015 (a thread you may remember since you posted in it), with the time savings made by once again cutting the all-star break and shortening the championship finals to a 2 game aggregate score series to be played on Saturday and Sunday. However, this does require a significant restructure of several aspects of the game of Buzzerbeater.

Last edited by Jay (OTT) at 12/13/2016 11:12:50 AM

Pre-playoff buy up can be dealt with fairly easily: make homegrown players contribute more than their skills by default and recent additions contribute less for 4 weeks or so. This way you really need to get a monster player to get some meaningful impact if you buy in the last weeks before the playoffs and you incentivise people to train their own players

Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/14/2016 7:28:48 AM

Not a fan of that idea. We shouldn't be dictating or homogenising how to play this game to such a large extent, and that's why I'm suspect about this new boycott rule and the rising salary floors also. What was so wrong about the strategy of tanking a season for money and a good draft pick?

There is already a benefit to being strong over the course of the season rather than just the play-offs, and that is the very significant advantage of HCA. All I'm saying is that by adding more teams but keeping the play-offs to eight, you're demanding more regular season success from potential champions.

What was so wrong about the strategy of tanking a season for money and a good draft pick?

Don't ask me: I'm good either way, but I suppose that people made too much money out of it. I suspect the changes were presented as if they were aimed at boosting competitiveness, but they really are about trying to reduce cash in the economy.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/14/2016 8:31:37 AM

For 1 and 2, this argument could also be made for any team that is significantly weaker than the league average. And there will always be weaker teams in a league even if they aren't actually tanking, that's just the nature of the game.

3 and 4 are valid points, but for 3, you're only truly 'safe' if there's at least 3 tanking/inactive/weak teams in your conference, and for 4, do keep in mind that tanking does also exist in real life leagues that carry a benefit to doing so (see; the 76ers and the process).

Besides, tanking is still going to be a thing. It's just that now the tankers will sit on a salary floor roster and be smart enough to crunch time one game that they can win whenever they need to avoid the boycott, ending on a 3-19 or 4-18 record. But I digress...

Let's bring the main topic of discussion back to the potential league formats I have put forward. The primary benefit to each system that I see is;

18 teams: You can make the conversion without changing any other aspects of Buzzerbeater's seasonal schedule.

20 teams: Most teams have an aforementioned 'boring week' when they're out of the cup on all-star week and have to wait 7 days between league games. This set-up removes that.

24 teams: This set-up also removes that 7 day break, and makes room for a 1-3-9-27 league pyramid without relegating too many lower level teams unfairly.

If you're liking my ideas, please also consider the alternate BuzzerBeater's Best format that I suggested last year. It consists of;

- A qualifying round, where the weakest teams (based on world ranking and/or method of making the B3) have to play a single neutral venue game against each other to make the final 128 team cut.

- A group stage with 32 groups of 4 teams each playing a home and away round-robin, for a total of 6 games. The top two teams in each group then advance to the round of 64, with group winners gaining home court advantage and playing against group runner-ups. After this, the tournament would revert to the 32 team neutral venue knock-out that we have now.

The point is to get rid of the random 'doom draws' that some teams get in the 'group play' stage. A bit of bad luck can easily turn those four away games into a nearly impossible road to the round of 32, even if you otherwise have one of the best teams in the world. You could also make the group stage 8 teams in a single round robin (all neutral games, or 3 home, 3 away, 1 neutral) and remove the round of 64, or you can just make the 8 games in the existing 'group play' format neutral venue games.

Last edited by Jay (OTT) at 12/19/2016 6:02:37 AM