BuzzerBeater Forums

Milner, given, martins, Carroll, Enrique- all purposely sold and replaced with MUCH cheaper players. So not so different really. You must not be a Newcastle fan...

i think in reality there is tradition and good place of location which help clubs also recruiting visitors in bad times, i am quite sure if Real madrid goes bancrupt and had to restrt in 6 league they still get plenty of fans especially compared to other 6 league teams. We had a quite similiar situation in germany with Dynamo Dresden, who lost there license and was demoted out of economical reason.

But it is nice when it is like in the reality, but i think it is even ebetter when it is fun and manager try to compete like in reality. If it is difficult to stay in division today, it is quite stupid to try, since you loose a lot of money but not trying means less fun i think for all. So i would love a change which punish the tankers a bit more, the minimum salary was a good step making the fans more discerning would be a good way to do it and not so unreal.

Milner, given, martins, Carroll, Enrique- all purposely sold and replaced with MUCH cheaper players. So not so different really. You must not be a Newcastle fan...

Milner and Given were not purposefully sold, they wanted to leave and the club couldn't keep hold of them, Despite that Newcastle tried their best to avoid rtelegation. Carroll and Enrique left 2 seasons later when Newcastle were back in the Premiership, the money was reinvested and they are on the verge of the Champions League. Very different from them selling everyone on auction in one season and having 60k fans turn up every week to watch 25-0 walkovers until they had enough money to buy Barcelonas first team.

Again, I think you know this and are just creating a random tangent unrelated to the point for your own amusement.

Similarly, there really is no decent argument for allowing long term tanking to happen as it does apart from for the entertainment of the few weirdos that do it. For most of us it's just annoying and ruins the illusion of the game.

i think u r spor on here

i think we all understand what teams like the bobcats r doing & there have been lots of teams like that but they still have SOME nba quality players and pay a decent payroll

when i used 2 play domestic bball there was a big fine like $60 if a team forefitted a game could be the same here

tanking would be severely limited if...

change #1

salary floor was raised to about 150% of tv money in all leagues

this is the current

Division I: 120% of TV money

Division II: 100% of TV money

Division III,IV: 80% of TV money

Division V,VI: 60% of TV money

im my d2 right now tv is 128k & average salaries are $263k so @ 150% the salary floor would be $190k still low enough that teams can semi tank & save but would still have a decent team

change #2

if any team plays a league game in the week without 5 players rostered they forefit their tv money

if u ran a tv station & a team forefitted a game (or a whole season) would u still pay them? nba has a rule like this & while teams would have no reason not 2 have $190k of players some would be perverse enough 2 still play 5 x 1k scrubs, but @ least them they wont wreck everyone elses training & stats & it will look like a game

I tanked and earned easily enough money to promote back out of D4 and am now leading my D3 league, it was VERY beneficial to me especially because it gave me two seasons of easy games in order to train a SF who then sold for 1.2 million after I returned to D3 along with a few other players I sold for profit. It was very boring but it is paying of more than I ever imagined now.

I like the idea of tv money forfeiture.

Milner was sold purely to make cash, he didn't want to leave. Carroll, Nolan, and Enrique the same, although Enrique wanted out desperately. Given I'm not sure about. My point was that, given the nature of the realism of this game, I think if you give yourself some some leeway in your interpretation of real world you can see similar situations. Not that they're right or wrong just that there are similar scenarios being played out in real life. NBA teams at this time of the year are undoubtedly tanking in order to get more balls in the lottery barrel.

I think we should first define precisely what is tanking before talking about how to penalize them. My take on it:

1. Tanking a match. You can field 5 players and still tank a match. You just need 5 2k-salary-players. But if you lost 30 pts for TIE vs TIE, 50 for TIE vs normal, 70 for TIE vs CT, that's tanking a match in my book.

2. Tanking vs Build-up strategy. BB actually acknowledge some build-up strategies where you somehow sacrifice something now for the future. From what I see in the game design, their response to our questions...BB would tolerate it if we only tank a bit. So we should draw a line: if you are still in the cup, you play 3 matches a week, it's reasonable to 'tank a match' (see above) out of the 3. It's only tanking if you tank 2 of them. If you are out of the cup, you play twice a week, 'tank a match' out of the 2 is already tanking.

Last edited by 7ton at 4/28/2012 2:14:47 AM

I think we should first define precisely what is tanking before talking about how to penalize them. My take on it:

1. Tanking a match. You can field 5 players and still tank a match. You just need 5 2k-salary-players. But if you lost 30 pts for TIE vs TIE, 50 for TIE vs normal, 70 for TIE vs CT, that's tanking a match in my book.

2. Tanking vs Build-up strategy. BB actually acknowledge some build-up strategies where you somehow sacrifice something now for the future. From what I see in the game design, their response to our questions...BB would tolerate it if we only tank a bit. So we should draw a line: if you are still in the cup, you play 3 matches a week, it's reasonable to 'tank a match' (see above) out of the 3. It's only tanking if you tank 2 of them. If you are out of the cup, you play twice a week, 'tank a match' out of the 2 is already tanking.

Basicaly it is defined nicely.

I will add that it is not exactly true.
For a team who is promoted the differences are huge, and those cases can happen even if they will do their best.

What can be examined are the following:
1) What is the extra free money a team has in the bank, comparing to the value of his best player.
This value may be due to a very recent selling, and hence needs to be ignored for a short period of time.
2) Which players where chosen to start a game, in terms of value. Choosing none (or just one) of your best-five is suspicious... Of course, injured players are to be taken in consideration when doing this examination.

BTW - one of the reason that tanking is so widely used in this game, in opposed to the NBA where tanking start very late in the season (if at all), is that this game as serious competitiveness issues, as I've provn more than once.

The only thing that bother me is that the they decided that the most urgent thing to do was to add that additional statistics and not resolving the real issues in this games.
Hence, I'm not sure what good this forum does.