BuzzerBeater Forums

We are comparing BB to NBA a lot. Of course there are a lot of differences, but tanking is not one of them. Sometimes people want realism, but is tanking really worth it? Is tanking ok if it is so similar to this year's Charlotte Bobcats or OKC Thunder 5+ seasons ago? I think not. Tanking teams just add to randomness of this game and we don't need that IMO. Tanking teams also drive down TV contracts.

I've been "half-tanking" myself for a season when I was training young guns who couldn't realistically compete in D.II. I finished 6th, threw away at least half of the games, but I didn't earn an awful lot along the way. My arena was always 60-70% full and I had to lower my tickets.

Next season I bought two extra players to help me stay competitive even if I trained out of position. I finished 3rd in a pretty competitive D.II and had ~150k of profit each week, without counting the cup. So the extra salaries my two new players required payed itself with higher merchandise from wins and arena income. So I was in a slightly better spot than before. From this experience I can say tanking is less and less viable. If we can make it even less viable, it will cease to exist and our TV contracts will go up + a bit of randomness will be taken out of the game.

Or this seasons New Orleans Hornets.

-Player salaries floor = TV * 2 (2.5). Avoid tanking to earn money.

-Losing by more than 30 points = critical impact on incoming that week. Avoiding teams with short rosters that throw at least 1 match per week. This must involve a change in the home court impact to make a bit easier winning when you play as guest. I´m aware of the fact that this means stronger countries will be still more punished so it also must involve a new TV revenue calculation to compensate for having to fight with 3 difficult matchs per week, notice TV revenue has to be related not only to league teams, it also has to include a strong country factor because of the Cup Tournament.

-Traded players must spend a time to get to the new team and tactical issues. I guess it´s easy to implement, just similar to players sold fees.Favoring Medium term/ Long term planificiations instead day trading option.

-Change of salaries calculation: decrease salaries in players with no secondary skills. Avoiding players of 300K salary with a market value of 100K. This is maybe the toughest point to manage, but as much important as previous points.

Only 4 ideas, just using one neuron :)

What if it's a 1 seed best team in the league vs. a 8 seed worst team in the league? Is that still tanking if the team is so bad and the other is so good???????

Well, 30 points it´s a margin enough to settle a limit. Next week you can recover from a bad day but it´s not admissible expecting a good attendance after being swept.

Perhaps set the maximum salary to some value connected to your other salaries after the "trading deadline". Maybe 25% > min salary week or some such barrier. Would prevent teams from huge changes while giving them a little room, and doesn't face the crippling limitations that a "not eligible for playoffs" would bring?

We need the BBs to move the deadline. At least two weeks earlier. This is getting way out of hand. We need to push it two weeks early. Who's with me?

I am not in favour of moving trade deadline.

At the end of the season it is nice to see the matchups and have some margin to tweek your team to adapt for your matchups. Taking away that option just because some people overuse it seems unfair.

Last edited by Flamen at 5/28/2012 7:25:45 PM

Rather than moving the deadline drop GS to 1 (or 3 or drop it 2 levels, it's debatable). This will limit day-/weektrading and adress the rent a player issue aswell. This could be the player fit in time and is fixable with good minute management. It also gives the other teams time to adjust to the new opponent addition.