BuzzerBeater Forums

Here is the funny part in Estonia. None of the bolded (promoting) teams were tankers.
BC St.Patrick - relegated because he thought he was safe from relegation games, sold his roster for offseason and surprisingly dropped to 6-th. Lost his relegation games. Was heavily in minus to get back up.
Raketid - was battling hard in his relegation season, surprisingly lost while having a home court in relegation games. He ended 6-th on his league side.
LaLunaBasket - Like I said I got promoted to a league side where only one team relegated in the previous season. I was building my team the whole divI season. I came into 8-th spot, but I did everything I could to not relegate, it was not enough.

Oh, maybe, I am misunderstanding what is the main problem of tanking because I have just started two seasons. I don't know what the stituation of the higher league is. But my point of view, you can't save much when you are in lower league, maybe there is a big different in the higher one.

If the fund raising is important to all, just show them winning is more benefial then losing.

Thought some of the posts suggested, I agree:
1) raise the salary floor.
2) make different TV contract revenue between the playoff teams, 5th & 8th, but also relegation team
a) playoff teams - the highest TV contract revenue
b) 5th & 8th - the lowerest TV contract revenue
c) relegation team - the average league revenue from playoff teams, 5th and 8th.
3) adjust the arena attendence affection extend to 5 matches before.
4) now is no different between you lose 1 point or 10 points, even 40 points in one match. So, make 2 or 3 level of negative effects when you lose.
5) The arena attendence may also take the PD value as reference.
6) adjust the minimum attendence of each level of league.( maybe it has. I don't know)

thank you!

Last edited by Cliff Green at 7/12/2012 11:36:08 PM

Not to you, but everyone. Please do shutup about the drafts. This is about tanking. Now I may not be such an experienced bb player BUT a simple a way I've figured out to fix this IS: Depending on what league you are in, introduce sponsorship contracts. At the moment I'm in league 3. Earning roughly 20k a week with a full arena. A tanker however would be earning 100k a week, if I'm not correct.

Sooo, why not make a sponsorship contract which determines how much money you earn per game won, but not only that, but also how much money you will win if you make the playoffs.

Eg. In III.2 (random) team A earns 30k a week. Through the contract he earns another 20k per game + 10k for every time the fan favourite is played 40+ minutes (listed in the fan survey) therefore 50k all up and 80k per week. Team B however has 5 players, all of which are scrubs. He has the same sponsorship contract, although he is tanking so the only extra money he is earning is from the star player earning or the fan favourite. As an enticing factor for both teams, if you make the playoffs, you earn an extra 100k...

Newly promoted players will have larger contracts though. Simply because they have to adapt to a harder league therefore they'll be earning something like 80k in EXTRA money. Any flaws, or further ideas, let me know. :)

In some lower leagues you could win even while being below the salary floor. Obviously there should be different constants for different league levels. Should they tie it to the whole season running salary average or start of the season salary etc. There are a bunch of things to think about.

I shouldn't be punished for training salary efficient players.

This is a really strong statement. Should a team be punished to spend anything if he can outplay 4 bot teams in his conference? Perhaps that one more salary efficiant player "you are punished" to add, might take you to promotion level (while your opponents are already spending over the raised floor)? Maybe your leaguemates are not good enough or are more focused on cup games. Maybe your memory fails you (we can't actually check if you are telling the truth here, or remember the facts correctly, right?).

We actually have no real parameters for tanking teams. I just hear: "everyone is doing it", "it's the only tactic available if you want to win" bla bla bla. Then there are the suggestions how to spot and punish a tanker. If a team loses by (insert any number here). If he loses (insert that number again) 2-6 (whichever you like of these numbers) times in a row. Has walkovers in a row. Has (insert number again) walkovers in a season. All this is irrelevant tbh, as teams have different league/cup/tvgame/rivalgame you name it goals. It's called tactics to get ahead of your league-/countrymates. If it sometimes requires you to start your subs and have towelboys back them up, so be it (unless ofcourse you want to train GS the whole season).

Obviously we still need to leave some leverage in the salary floor (for teams who have been sitting in +-0 for a long time and have a team full of 33+ players), to actually make some money and help teams get back to their feet. But the current salary floor in the top divisions is too low.

With salary floor we are not trying to punish salary efficient teams, but trying to limit excess income for teams who are not trying to compete.

NB! I think your idea of tieing fan reactions to available funds is a good one. But I think most of us know that "The general manager is doing everything he can to try to improve the team" and "I am familiar with the star players, and am not afraid that they will be transferred" are not really heavy hitters compared to "The team played well in our last league game" :)...

But salary should never be considered for anything else than to decide how much a player costs to his team.

Just like in the NBA there is a minimum you have to spend (85% of the salary cap). It's your own choice, are you filling that cap with more salary efficiant players or get fewer higher salary prime skilled players.
Remember your goal should be winning, not getting most income while finishing second.

Putting a minimum spending floor is the only way to force tanking teams to hire players with skill.

Are you trying to say, there are no overpaid players in the NBA? LOL. You can just check how many teams have used their amnesty exception. You can look at the salaries paid in 2011. Although you have to be familiar with the NBA in order to know who is overpaid. Reading NBA.com once a week is not enough... I can throw in a few names: R.Lewis (22.1mil), G.Arenas (19.2mil), A.Jamison (15.0mil), B.Davis (13.9mil). Although I would never have signed J.Johnson, E.Brand, R.Gay to max deals and are currently overpaid, they still do produce at a decent level.

I had a suggestion about how salary floor could be calculated, some time ago. Belgium has 440 users, so basically divIII is their lowest league (leaving only 104 teams to divIV - enough to fill 6,5 leagues out of 64 divIV leagues). Ofcourse you can win lower divisions with all SF lineup. Every competition level needs to be looked at. The salary floor might be fine in the lowest league. It's not fine currently in the top divisions.

Your goal should be winning, not spending more money than the next team.

Nobody is forcing you to spend anything. But you will pay the minimum salary floor that is considered "competitive" in that division level.