BuzzerBeater Forums

Hello !

Homegrown is homegrown, not homegrown BUT...

It's too easy to have 5 HG players + 3 elite players from elsewhere.

Yeah I agree.

Maybe my question wasn't clear enough. I'm not asking about if a partial HG team can compete but a 100% HG team.

Furthermore, can a team (who becomes a HG team) eventually join this league?

Maybe my example will clarify better.

As it stands right now, regardless of whether you look at my 1st or 2nd team, both teams are NOT HG teams.

HOWEVER, I have made the decision to turn my 2nd Team (Westopian Tigers) into a HG team over the next 3+ seasons. That is, I will continue training my current players until their U21 teams BUT...

I will slowly fire or sell EVERY player and ONLY keep players I have drafted. Obviously I can only draft 3 players per season. 3 Seasons from now I will have 9 players (training them as I go).

So, I am going to turn my current team into a 100% HG team.

So, returning to my original question:

If I BECOME a HG team in this way, will my team still be viewed in the same way as those HG teams which were crested from the beginning; those teams that started HG and stayed HG?

I'm just interested to know where HG teams stand on this 'created' HG team v 'original' HG team. Does it matter?

Well, I'm not the master of HG teams ;)
And my team became HG 25 seasons ago, I think, not at the beginning.

I think that ANY team without any players from other team can play any HG league, but I'm not alone.
Let's read the other ones :)

I'm in !

Different options and opinions are definitely welcome, so thank you. I'm not also sure whether I understood all aspects of your proposition (for instance, where are tie-breaks needed for - to establish which teams possess higher "team strength rating"?), but that doesn't mean I couldn't reply to a message. ;)
What do you mean by SUMO? (I know only sumo wrestling, and as far as I know, not everyone meets everyone during one tournament, and it could be years that some wrestlers don't face each other as there are about 40 wrestlers on the highest level and 15 matches per tournament - and in some occassions they never meet unless it's mandatory to decide a tournament winner. There are rankings that change after each tournament though, so that's why I wonder if you meant that).

At the first thought I'm supporting your idea that weakest would face weakest and strongest face the strongest at the end of the regular season, however, as of now I think it'd better and (for the league commissioner probably easier) to use salaries in some form to determine the weakest and strongest teams. Also, if I'd personally have to create schedules (of which I have no experience of), I don't know how much more complicated that would make it if there are plenty of participants.

Also, I think it might be more transparent, more clear (and some might feel, more fair - however, I realize salaries might not the best way to determine the value of the players, but it's probably the best one that's viewable to all and therefore can be verified by anyone) to stick with some values that are more easily comparable and in one sense, more logical. I guess salary would also reflect better the real strength of the team in the given/following season (as opposed to last seasons regular season success), so using salaries as a base for determining such things would create more even groups.

I think it'd be great to also consider establishing rating systems that wouldn't require that much work to be determined (ratings made by calculating and comparing salaries unfortunately are not automatic either if you do it manually, so someone would have to overtake this job once per season), and that would be transparent enough (if such ratings would be used that demars suggested, who would create those rankings, on which basis would those be made, and would the rankings sort of be valid anymore for the season 2 that they're being used, if some homegrown team decides to sell player(s) close at the end of the season 1 for instance while still maintaining high league position at the season 1 league table), unless of course those "team strength ratings" would automatically be determined only by the regular season table. Also, if new teams join for the next season, sticking with salary would make it easier to put them into a "correct" group based on the team strenght (if there even would be multiple groups in the league), as a joining team wouldn't have any ranking (if ranking is understood here the way manager demars wrote about it) based on last season play, as they weren't participating in the league.

Having said that, while it all might have sounded negative and like I'd try to shoot down your idea, that's not the case. Things are not black and white, and there's good in every option (some more than in others - but that's how things eventually get decided, by comparing pros, cons and preferences). I was simply throwing out some thoughts that it awoke and trying to give some insights why I think this way currently.. As of right now, because of many reasons, personally I'm still fan of using salaries to compare teams strength ratings (so far I haven't come up with a better option, if I will, I'll change my opinion).

I just add another way of making divisions/groups/PO.

If you know SUMO, all the teams face each other, and at the end of all games, a new ranking is published.
The next season, we do the same, BUT the best teams face each other at the end of the schedule (and all the "worst" teams also).
In case of a tie, there is a tie-breaker (logical !).
It's very easy to create ! 1 game / week, and 2 weeks left for tie-breakers.

And againg, it's very interesting to read different ideas and thoughts... things can be done in so many ways. And no one forces us to stick with only one way for the rest of the BB history, but we're free to change things (league system, certain rules, possible penalties etc.) should we so decide it's necessary/better to do so. If BuzzerBeater takes responsibility of managing/governing the league, that takes all the administrative work away from us (which I guess nobody would complain about!), but supposedly we wouldn't have that much control over some aspects of the league (just as we don't have a say on how leagues and BuzzerBeater Masters is being played nowadays). Having said that, I do have somewhat strong preferences on some (or many? some is a relative and debatable term, isn't it) things/how things would be best done. But I think most things are open for discussion, except at least these two things which should remain untouched: league being free to participants forever, and only totally homegrown teams would qualify to participate.

Now that demars mentioned SUMO, it reminded me that at least in sumo wrestling rankings and matchmaking are an interesting world, and it's part of the "mystery" of the sports, but on the other hand it'd be nice to know totally clearly on which grounds it is decided who will face who and at which part of the tournament (and that's what I´d personally like to see in BB homegrown league - while mystery is nice in some cases and areas of life, in BBHG being as transparent and fair to all as possible could be one of the leading values of the league in my opinion). Same kind of "mystery" is also built into a NCAA basketball (playoff) tournament selection process, when they decide which teams are invited to a "Big Dance" (a.k.a. March Madness, the playoff tournament of NCAA). But again, AFAIK that's a very complicated process that takes piles of information into account, takes lots of work and expertise to accomplish and is very hard to do totally fairly, neutrally and without taking a bias/sides.

But like mentioned before, I think it's not unfair to keep homegrown league as a homegrown league, so in my opinion, so that only currently totally homegrown teams are allowed in the league - except that there's already a sort of an exception (which I find a good exception), some would say; you may have purchased back your own drafted player that has meanwhile played elsewhere and still qualify as a homegrown. Homegrown status has been determined this way (at least) by Eliocroca CBs' manager LOPO_, who has done great work by establishing and updating this list of homegrown teams (at the beginning of this forum post, as most if not all already know). But please note, that not all homegrown teams are found on that list, so there are more of us - not all people want to include themselves on the list, but all qualified teams are warmly welcome to BBHG league whether they are on the list or not!

Thanks for the (huge) answer ;)

I clarify :
- yes, it is Sumo wrestling
- yes, they don't face each other, as you say, cos' they are 40, and they play 15 games

- we are, for now, only 7-8 (if I don't make a mistake) so we can face each other
- yes, I have created (some years ago) tournaments with 15 or 20 players for sumo tournaments
- yes, you have probably guessed taht I like Sumo.
- I add that I'm a teacher in primary school, and made many tournaments with a sumo-model.

- I created a excel sheet which create a schedule in 5 minutes.
- If we are more than, say, 14, we can easily create TWO divisions. A upper one, and a lower one. The worst go down, the best goes up (or win the title).

It was just to clarify my idea, I don't absolutly push for this way of league ;)

Love the idea.

For those of us who do not have a Home-Grown (HG) team, but have considered it, will the BBHG consider teams who convert to a Home-Grown team?

That is, change their team (over a few seasons) to have ONLY home-grown players?

[...]

If this was accomplished, would you consider accepting such teams? Or, are you only accepting teams who started BB as a HG team?

I'm just interested to know where HG teams stand on this 'created' HG team v 'original' HG team. Does it matter?

Sorry for delay... Yes, that's the road map of becoming HG team. You haven't had to be always homegrown to be accepted, it is enough that you are homegrown when you enter the league.

If someone decides to buy a player (and become non-homegrown) during the BBHG season, that's of course very undesirable, and would cause ineligibility in the league (and other work and problematic situations, however, maybe we could use Buzzerbeaters forfeit rules that you win like 50-0 when you face a team like that), which is why we hope that everyone who joins the league would be committed to keep their team eligible (totally homegrown) for at least duration of one BBHG season.

HOWEVER, I have made the decision to turn my 2nd Team (Westopian Tigers) into a HG team over the next 3+ seasons. That is, I will continue training my current players until their U21 teams BUT...

I will slowly fire or sell EVERY player and ONLY keep players I have drafted. Obviously I can only draft 3 players per season. 3 Seasons from now I will have 9 players (training them as I go).

So, I am going to turn my current team into a 100% HG team.

This was actually a point that I didn't even consider before, because I had established a basis that this league is always going to be free to all participants. (It wouldn't cause costs/restrict others participants if you'd have Utopia team, I get that, but in my opinion it's in a way it's against the original spirit of HG, and if you ask me Utopia shouldn't have been blended with the base game in any way).

Also, in the original aforementioned LOPO_'s list of homegrown teams (which is found from the page 1) the requirement/restriction he has established in order to qualify as a homegrown team mentions "Utopia 2nd teams won't be included in my list.". Personally I really like that restriction. The only "real" way of becoming homegrown in my opinion is to do it with the main team. I think it'd become uneven playing field in a way if you play in BBHG with a Utopian team, as with Utopian team you don't need to worry so much about building your team, relegation stuff, bankruptcies and such - Utopia to me is a playground in where you can just explore and try different things, which (if and when it exists) I think should be totally contained from the base game totally (like I mentioned, I don't like Utopian players being blended into a main game).

Ultimately Wagner's call since he is doing the coordinating here. But we discussed allowing teams to enter if they had enough homegrown players to field a legal lineup. I would think 8 players would be a good minimum so you could still play if you had an injury, foul out, etc. But 5 is technically the legal limit. Would rather not see lucky fans...

I think making the rules flexible to allow interested teams to engage while still allowing them to compete on the world stage would be beneficial for all. Maybe they have a homegrown team except for 3 players that help them compete in top league and only play homegrown players for a HG tournament or league. Playing non-HG in the tournament is auto-loss for rankings.

Technically, I guess the minimum requirement for Buzzerbeater (to avoid a 0-50 forfeit) is to dress 3 players, so theoretically that could be the minimum limit. But I also don't like to see bots more than necessary, and having only 3 players would create horrendous matchups and unnecessary blowout victories. However, if other people would find it suitable/best, the minimum requirement could become 3 players. I'd personally prefer 5 though. That would give the freedom of choice on what kind of (reasonable) roster you want to play with. 5 players you'd be able to acquire in 2 draft sessions, so it'd make joining (for lower skill rank teams) a faster process.

I like to read different opinions, so thank you for your proposition of allowing other than not totally HG teams. Having said that, I'm going to have to second other opinions already given on this forum, as I feel that's strongly against the spirit of being/becoming homegrown. Part of being homegrown is certain kind of uncertainty on many things (drafts, training effectiveness and order, older players skill declination, relegation, economy, not being able to buy your team out of trouble if you haven't played your cards right, etc.), and while you mentioned that in your propositions they wouldn't be allowed to play in HG games, having those players still affects the whole team and actually makes your training easier especially in the case if you simultaneously need to worry about relegation etc. ((as you can buy necessary players to support your otherwise possibly low quality lineup (I'm not talking about your lineup here, but in general) in order to be able to train players in sub-optimal positions without having to suffer about losses due to that)).

Thank you for your interest, and you are definitely warmly welcome!