BuzzerBeater Forums

I think one of the big issues with this game is that recent games are weighed too heavily. I think replacing how a team played in their last game with how they played in their last 8 would help fight tanking.

I also think that having a salary min for a player to be transferred into certain leagues could help. Maybe make it 1/20 of the salary floor or something with the exception for 18 and 19 year olds.

I also wonder if a ticket sale pool would be feasible. A certain amount of money from league home games (say 10 percent maybe) would be taken and place into a pool and then a payout at the three end points of each league session (Conference set one, interconference, conference set two) would be a award to where you are in the standings. 0 percent to last place and an increase to first place. This would cause no new money into the economy but would reward winning at all points during the season.

There are much easier ways to avoid certain sorts of tanking. It is easy to increace the salary floor as that mechanism is the one real leagues like the NBA use. When teams forefit they need a special penalty and a simple previously discussed one is forefitting their weekly TV money as well. This could also apply to teams that suit up less than five players. Perhaps that can also be extended to losses of 100+ points to stop teams just suuiting up 3 scrubs and creating a massive blowout that can affect the league even more badly than a forefit.

Well, I still don't see how we can have a mechanism that can detect tanking, unless of course, we take into account of some factors. Because now, to me, tanking seems to be a bit on the grey side.

I don't think we need a mechanism that detects tanking, but having a mechanism that detects teams making poor decisions over and over again is fair enough. If a manager continues to make bad decisions time and time again, should they be in the higher leagues? I don't mean a few mistakes here and there, I mean a continuous string of bad decisions (for various reasons, the main being that they refuse to learn).

If a team loses by a large margin (40/50+ points) for an extended period of time, there can only be two reasons: they made bad decisions and are suffering as a result or they are tanking to make money. Should either of these be rewarded? You might say, "what if a team 'has a bad run'?" That happens. Injuries happen.

We might be seeing a Chicago v Miami final if unlucky things didn't happen. What if Durant got injured..?

No, don't get me wrong, I don't think that if a team does go on a high margin losing streak, their economy should be hammered, but some kind of negative consequence is certainly necessary, rather than rewarding them with loads of cash.

Exactly.

There would have to be a balance between making it fun for those who are clueless and making it a challenge (and fun) for those who want to learn and refine their skills.

Why not penalize them? let's say. 100k per game?

• BB Sanctioning Body •

• If on a Saturday, when weekly stats or playing time is reset, they didn't include their best players on the lineup (take note: not including in the lineup... benching is forgivable, i guess), it is considered an intentional mismanagement of roster.

• If there are only four players submitted in the lineup... automatic penalty... (except scrimmages)

• They get penalized, fan survey gets a low rating, fans and merchandise drop, team and staff salaries.. this might be enough for tanking teams to feel that they needed to do something to bend the rules again (lol)

• Any other means of playing the second team instead of their first five must be investigated... as their starting lineup must be played in the first stages of the game (I didn't say "best players of the team" because some may be playing their 4th or 5th best player as a reserve... there may be some teams who are like that... I was one of them.)

So if you have 3 games in 1 week, and Saturday's game is against your weakest opponent you HAVE to play your best players or youe penalized. I don't like that idea at all.

me niether, I tank all day in D5. Except it's not called "tanking" it's called "Cruise Control" which means even if I TIE every game I still win. I can even put my bench/do a bizzare tactic and still win.

Well, yeah.

Tanking means not playing all of your best players in a game...

Rotating players is another example, though.

It has to be a consistent thing. One game isn't enough.

After reading a lot of people's opinions and different leagues and statistics within those leagues, I do now see the difficulty in determining what a "tanker" actually is. I mean, we know it when we can see people's strategies, short and long term, but some managers aren't intentionally doing it and still fall into the same statistical category.

What I've concluded from it all, though, is that the fan survey desperately needs to be updated.

Tanking means not playing all of your best players in a game...

Wait what? We are in serious trouble if this what a Mod defines as tanking. Have you ever tried to train while not trying to lose games? You have to spread your minutes around. That doesn't mean you are tanking.