BuzzerBeater Forums

-GM-JuicePats has been adamantly opposed to banning farm teams in this thread, and I stated it was an obvious stance considering he is a NT manager.

or he see the difficultys in the rule, because at which point you are a farm - this question is very very subjective ... And rulez should be treated for everyone, i don't know when you like to mae a new start, and keep your star player and get banned for it because you selled your other guys and maybe some minutes fillers - i would say that was silly. Especially when it is just forbidden for players with a flag.

But when something is changed their is no intrest conflict to, because the rulez are for everyone so also the other nations have to be adapt and banning teams who have star players instead of balanced teams.

Or did you mean he won't abnned multi accs, when they are farms? He isn't the only gm out there, ok he is something like the top instance from it, but i didn't think he get their because he don't hold the rules. And other Gm would have intrest in banning those teams especially when they are NT and it isn't a farm from them - in this case you would get an conflict of intrest too but this will lead to punishment without a good reason.

to be someones alternate team (considerably more likely than the suggestion that these players just want a NT player regardless of how bad thier team is)

This is surely the case with some teams. However to say that all of the farm teams are just guys who are playing an alternate style is a bit of a stretch, imo. A couple of these teams rarely log on, dont manage minutes for their stars very well (hence the poor GS early in the season before cup elim reduces minutes to norm) and dont try to get other players trained at the same position (1 position training can still give you another full trainee +1 partial). This hardly seems the behavior of someone whos interest are purely National Team oriented. They are in effect one-player hosts, not one position trainers.

Thats some for me so like the NT trainers who all have 20 teams, to byuout all NT players when they get elected like it sounded in the first post ;)

I sometimes have trouble with your meaning, and this is a good example. I hope you arent saying that I suggested all NT trainers had 20 teams. I did not say or mean anything remotely similar to this.

Somehow I am getting roped into what all the other posters have suggested. I agree that you cannot ban people just on suspicion or because they play poorly, I believe I even stated that earlier in the post. I never spoke of banning at all.

Its an incredible debate and one where it is still obvious to me that if teams aren't farming players then they surely soon will be.

Why not impose an average salary cap? You cant own players 3-4 x greater than your average players salary. (just figures as an example)

This would end all speculation about who could be a farmer and who isnt. Are there really managers with 9x $2k players & a $150k one creaming themselves over the ownership of a NT player? I mean genuine managers?????

If they had a $150k star player merged in amongst 9 others that could actually play I would understand their excitement.

I'm still on the no farm teams side.

Somehow I am getting roped into what all the other posters have suggested. I agree that you cannot ban people just on suspicion or because they play poorly, I believe I even stated that earlier in the post. I never spoke of banning at all.

so how was your suggestion to avoid then?

Thats some for me so like the NT trainers who all have 20 teams, to byuout all NT players when they get elected like it sounded in the first post ;)

I sometimes have trouble with your meaning, and this is a good example. I hope you arent saying that I suggested all NT trainers had 20 teams. I did not say or mean anything remotely similar to this.

No the first one two posters in this thread mention, that nobody will do it and nearly all teams are multi accs from nt's and nt near persons.

The thing is, except for maybe Grubbs, none of our players come from farms, nor have I ever attempted to set up a farm or anything close to it.

My first priority is to be the EGM for BuzzerBeater - regardless of the implications for my team, the USA NT, or anything else in BB.

When the first trade happened, I was strongly in favor of allowing them as long as the sales were both proper.

That first trade was 2 USA NT players that went to teams that would no longer train those players, putting some pretty big hurt on us.

When I offer statements on issues such as this, it's strictly with the GM hat, not with an eye towards any personal interests.

Let the Italians, Spaniards, Germans have all of the farms they want as long as they follow the rules.


On a side note - farming has some serious downside, since Grubbs is so good he hardly, if ever, comes out of a game he plays, so he's almost always near 100 minutes a week, hurting game shape.

Take that for what you will.

On a side note - farming has some serious downside, since Grubbs is so good he hardly, if ever, comes out of a game he plays, so he's almost always near 100 minutes a week, hurting game shape.

a real farm won't to do that :)

No the first one two posters in this thread mention, that nobody will do it and nearly all teams are multi accs from nt's and nt near persons.

Ok cool (whew)

so how was your suggestion to avoid then?

Not sure, tricky situation. I think SuperflyGuy may be on the right track.

i believe this suggestion willlead to much more farming then it already is, because when you have an salary cap your centers will need a lot of of sideskills who nearly have no effect on salary but 4-5 off them will be better tehn one centerskill.

But to train them and keep them in shape, you have to play him out off position and when you play your best player who is an center on SG to give him outside shooting training and then try to manage that he don't gets more then 65 minutes - you won't play succesfull and orientated for team succes. BB-Charles who was mentioned as a farm here, plays Grubbs a lot, on the right position and wins his games from time to time.

Another point is, do you like to tell managers, that their player X is to good for the NT and that there will just weaker players - thats pretty curious and would make the nt a bit to a comedy.

I greatly appreciate your response. In retrospect I should not have addressed my post specifically to you as it then looked I was trying to point to you specifically. I apolgize if it seemed this way and assure you it wasnt my intention. Only the last part of my post was in anyway a response to you, the post would have been better suited to everybody.

The thing is, except for maybe Grubbs, none of our players come from farms, nor have I ever attempted to set up a farm or anything close to it.

Grubbs is on too good of a team, imo. I never took a second look there. With the limited information you can get from just skimming pages as a user the best a person poking around can do in this case is go 'hmmmmm'. There is no way to prove or say for sure anything. If there was an American player that caused me to go 'hmmm' it would probably be Boggs. Hmmm means nothing though, just discussing.

My first priority is to be the EGM for BuzzerBeater - regardless of the implications for my team, the USA NT, or anything else in BB.

I have always considered you a stand up guy. I will argue with the person who disagrees.

On a side note - farming has some serious downside, since Grubbs is so good he hardly, if ever, comes out of a game he plays, so he's almost always near 100 minutes a week, hurting game shape.

This is why I say he is on too good of a team. If you are a farm team, as opposed to a team that trains one position manages minutes and focuses on one player, you want to be out of the cup early and keep your star in good GS. This way you can log on every couple weeks to change training and hold your team. If you linger in the high IV to low III area financially you can continually support the one player and arouse little suspicion. Just discussing a theory concerning farm teams.

Take that for what you will.

Response appreciated, further discussion welcomed.