BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Tanking solution

Tanking solution

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
203208.10 in reply to 203208.9
Date: 12/3/2011 7:42:38 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
105105
We can't actually force the same rule as NBA. Create a salary cap and force teams to fill out, for example, 70% of that. I think this would be really hard to implement, as team that promotes and has near to 0 available funds (except that promotion bonus), can not fulfill those requirements. I think the player salary floor is working, perhaps a small raise of that salary floor should be in order.
There is no explanation why it is not possible. The reason is that it just is POSSIBLE and RIGHT.

When a team exploits all of it funds at the beginning of the year, and will just use new income for improvement during the season, it will be fall at the limitation of 10% (for example) from the teams salary average during the year.

In case that team had not have money for players because they use it for seats, and could only buy during the season - well, this is just an excuse, and they will need to think about when to invest at the arena, when this feature will be (hopefully) added.

This Post:
00
203208.11 in reply to 203208.8
Date: 12/3/2011 10:39:12 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
I believe I wrote it somewhere, but I think that the easier way of defining a tanker will be the following:
Each week that the salaries total had been 10% (for example) below the average salaries (of that team) will be taxed (at the end of the year) by 1$ per 1$ difference (for example).

I totaly agree with you that the tanking issue should be handled much better than it currently does.



many teams tank a full season, also you can reduce your salarys without beeing worse* or get better in course of a season without forfeiting before but this will push the averages of that week below. Most teams who promote the last season, will increase their salarys in the first week in the season, and now they get fined for this week?

Or player who sell their draft and get 1-2 old guys for them, should be fined at the end for it now?

This is a solution which leads to tanking, cause selling the whole roster at the begin of each season would be the the much better way now, instead of getting bwetter to stay in the league.

* for example, i have an elite PF. if i play a classical C instead of him there my salarys will increase around 120k to stay at the same level of the competition. And voila if i make this change, my first week of the season would be tanking^^

Last edited by CrazyEye at 12/3/2011 10:41:49 AM

This Post:
00
203208.12 in reply to 203208.10
Date: 12/3/2011 1:22:49 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
13361336
We have promotion and demotion (NBA does not have this btw).
I think this would be really hard to implement, as team that promotes and has near to 0 available funds (except that promotion bonus), can not fulfill those requirements.
Read this again. I think you should try harder to understand!

This Post:
00
203208.13 in reply to 203208.11
Date: 12/4/2011 1:14:17 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
105105
I believe I wrote it somewhere, but I think that the easier way of defining a tanker will be the following:
Each week that the salaries total had been 10% (for example) below the average salaries (of that team) will be taxed (at the end of the year) by 1$ per 1$ difference (for example).

I totaly agree with you that the tanking issue should be handled much better than it currently does.
Many teams tank a full season,
Yes - and if they'll do that, they will be demoted. This is a fair punishment for that type of tanking.

also you can reduce your salarys without beeing worse* or get better in course of a season without forfeiting before but this will push the averages of that week below. Most teams who promote the last season, will increase their salarys in the first week in the season, and now they get fined for this week?
It just not important. They should do that at a defined time -the first two weeks for example, or suffer the consequences.
This cases are a good price for eliminating (or at least drastically narrowing) the tanking phenomenon.
Tanking is so widely seen that it is just MUST be handled.

This Post:
00
203208.14 in reply to 203208.13
Date: 12/4/2011 5:10:07 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
and other teams who tank get demoted?

Teams that go bancrupt, get a money fine for the automated rescuing, which makes the rescuing a final killing etc.

This Post:
00
203208.15 in reply to 203208.14
Date: 12/4/2011 5:35:00 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
105105
and other teams who tank get demoted?
Your are saying that like they need to get a price or something...
Those who are tanking should be panished, or more precise pay a price for their behaviour.
If it had been done stupidly, they will pay more.
A good (real-BB) manager create a team at the start of the season and does not make to big changes afterwards.
It should be the same here.
Those who play hard all season should not suffer from those who tank most if it.

This Post:
00
203208.16 in reply to 203208.15
Date: 12/5/2011 1:09:53 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
587587
A good (real-BB) manager create a team at the start of the season and does not make to big changes afterwards.
It should be the same here.

So, basically you want a longer off-season?

This Post:
00
203208.17 in reply to 203208.15
Date: 12/5/2011 3:11:02 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
and other teams who tank get demoted?
Your are saying that like they need to get a price or something...
Those who are tanking should be panished, or more precise pay a price for their behaviour.
If it had been done stupidly, they will pay more.
A good (real-BB) manager create a team at the start of the season and does not make to big changes afterwards.
It should be the same here.
Those who play hard all season should not suffer from those who tank most if it.


no i say that the punishment should be the same, if you say that teams who fight for compete get punished, teams who tank halfway get punished, teams who avoiid bancrupcy get punished ... But teams who punish the whole season, get nothing ... oh wait there demote, but if one of the cases above demote too, it isn't a punihshment then this is bad luck ..

And most teams who tank, do it cause they don't see the chanche to keep the league.

This Post:
11
203208.18 in reply to 203208.1
Date: 12/5/2011 4:51:52 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
809809
tanking is so easy to stop & the rule is already there & now the nba has it too

a salary floor

only problem is it is still too low

the nba is more like 80% of the salary cap & that is more like what it should be here i think around 2/3 of the league average in the previous season

example

my league has average salaries of $260k & floor of 120k

if it was 2/3 the salary floor would be more like 180k, not a massive difference from the current 120k but still enough to make it so that teams may as well have a competetive team on the floor & for 180k u would not have a winning team but u would have one that teams have to take seriously

This Post:
00
203208.19 in reply to 203208.18
Date: 12/5/2011 5:04:47 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
would be the better solution, make the amount higher but relate it strictly to income ... Cause when it is combined with the TV and get bigger, newcomer in small countrys get trouble.

This Post:
11
203208.20 in reply to 203208.18
Date: 12/5/2011 9:47:48 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
12061206
Disagree. It's possible to qualify to play-offs if you have salaries equal 60% of average salaries in league.
In Your example good managers will be punished only because they are able to build good team with low salaries.

Advertisement