BuzzerBeater Forums

Three season terms are better for U21 coaches as well. Think about it, you are elected as U21 coach. In your first season you have a team you don't know. In your second year you work with players who were trained for only one season the way you asked. If you are not successful you won't be elected again. If you're successful it's not your merit but the previous coach's. An U21 coach needs more than 2 seasons to realize his plans.

This is specifically why I am against U21 in general. You can be given instruction on how to train a player and do it perfectly for 2-3 seasons and then have the script flipped by a new manager with a completely different mindset. If this was all in an enough to develop players mot players could maintain it would be fine but typically it is not.

Also I'd be more in favor of a 2 season rotation of WCs so that every draft class (18 year olds) could get a chance to shine.

As someone who hates national teams and wants nothing to do with them, I think this could potentially help maintain the user base and perhaps attract new ones. It' not a terrible idea.

Now if we could have more intuitive training (like SF defensive training the covered OD and ID)

You can be given instruction on how to train a player and do it perfectly for 2-3 seasons and then have the script flipped by a new manager with a completely different mindset. If this was all in an enough to develop players mot players could maintain it would be fine but typically it is not.

As the U21 NT manager for the USA, I can tell you that although this can sometimes be true, in the USA at least, it seems to be a very understanding and helpful community, specifically on the offsite. I know that fewmit did a fantastic job of giving his perspective when asked for training advice while also letting people know that in the future there will probably be a new manager with slightly different viewpoints on training. In general though, I don't think that varying view points are that much of an issue for U21 NT roster spots, since ultimately if your player has been trained well, we can usually find a spot for him on the team assuming his manager is easy to communicate with and his player remains in high GS.

Also I'd be more in favor of a 2 season rotation of WCs so that every draft class (18 year olds) could get a chance to shine.

I believe that this is already a thing. That is why there are elections every two seasons. If you think the manager is doing a good job (And if that manager has been given advice on how to train your player to make the team), you can re-elect them. The worse situation would where there is a major problem with the U21 manager and that nation is stuck with that manager for 4 seasons.

I know specifically of two examples where this would have been terrible. A couple of seasons ago France had a manager that completely ruined their U21 NT and seemed to make a big joke out of it. He had under a 30% manager approval rating, but they had to stick with his bizarre coaching style for 2 seasons. Now Poland is in a similar situation where they only had one manager run in the U21 NT elections, but he has only a 22% manager approval rating for the Poland U21 NT. They are stuck with him for 2 seasons. Having 4 seasons of the same manager seems problematic, if there is not a reelection somewhere in between those seasons. 2 seasons between elections seems appropriate to me.

As someone who hates national teams and wants nothing to do with them, I think this could potentially help maintain the user base and perhaps attract new ones. It' not a terrible idea.

Sad to hear you want no part of it, as we would love to have you on the offsite to help out with the National teams, but I can understand if you don't want to help out.

Now if we could have more intuitive training (like SF defensive training the covered OD and ID)

This has been talked about before, and I personally would be in favor of it, but some people argued that it would either be an overpowered training tactic, or not good enough, where simply training ID and OD separate weeks would still be more effective. Not sure if this would ever get implemented.

I am still neutral on the idea of a U23/U24 NT, but will be following this thread closely to see how my opinion changes.

Last edited by E.B.W. at 9/19/2014 1:08:20 AM

I agree with that

hope this idea gets implemented sooner rather than later.

it makes very good sense from all angles, has a ton of positives versus the unseen negatives

BB to prepare for its launching by Season 30? fair enough BBs? EGMs?

If it's implemented, I'd like the 3 different NT coachs to be elected for 3 seasons. 2 seasons is too short

So we change everything in international competition ? World Cup is currently logical continuity of continental competition. It also means three different generations for U24 and U21, you might have only one good generation during those three seasons and if the results of one competition is depending of the other competitions, it's a problem.

You'll have to explain why you want 3 seasons and how it should be there. Not just asking for it.

Today, NT coaches are chosen for two seasons because we have two of them in each country : one election by season. If we have three NTs by country, it seems logical to me that those coaches get three seasons.
Just imagine the mess with two elections at the same time.

The idea of having a world cup qualifying tournament in the middle season is good too. There are not enough countries in the world cup as it is right now.

discussing everything and splitting hairs over the most trivial matters would just put this suggestion to "boring status" once technicalities rule this thread.

what i pointed out is that i definitely see more plus to this suggestion rather than minuses.

the plus points are on :
1. Continuity of training from u21 to NT ( u23/24 is the bridge that does that)
as was pointed out , that some managers lose steam in pursuing their U21 members to the NT as it takes about 3 years real time to realize that.

2. TRAINING ---- the core of buzzerbeater,, this encourages more managers to focus on this crucial aspect of BB


3. You pointed out that a possible negative would be the load on servers --- what if we do the U23/24s by zones like what the real FIBA does, select only the top 24 or 32 nations from the U21s.
That way it lessens the countries involved?

the suggestion can be 48 hours old or 48 weeks old but the core concept of it remains and it is a good idea by the OP

PS sir Perpete, if you look at my previous comment on top i was suggesting this in about 3 seasons time or season 30, so that development ( in case the BBs consider) and research can be fully done. At least you also said that u24/24 could one day be a possible addition to our game and that is fair enough for me.
peace.

Last edited by abu at 9/19/2014 7:23:04 PM

you made a good point that u23/24 players comes from the u21 team, but there is also a possibility that managers train their youngsters for the u23/24 itself and bypassing the u21s if they do not believe in their u21 team manager, or if their players just missed the u21 squad, then they could further pursue the u23/24s.

that is what is good in this idea---continuity of training, and encouraging training to be done for the incentives it brings to managers.

the technical development of the idea can be handled later on , what is important is that the BBs see the benefits of the idea first.
you can suggest a ton of development plan but if the BBs are not sold out on the general idea then you are just talking to a wall

I'd like to chime in on this thread.

I personally, like the idea of having U-24 teams. It helps the Country get better overall. It'll develop more well rounded players as well. If you don't have a shot for U-21 because you're trying to make a well-rounded center, no need to fear! In 3 seasons time after they're 21, you can pound on their primary skills, thus having a chance to be on the U-24 team. There are pros and cons to this tho:

PROS:

More training, more competition between managers. More points invested in drafts (because even 19 yr olds will have a chance) Also, more well rounded guys as stated above. Lowered prices a bit on Transfer list, but not TOO low I'd think either. Since guys with high skill sets either way will still go for chunks of cash.

CONS:

This could deflate the prices of TLs a lot. Also, there'd be more chaos at the offseason processing, but I'm sure we all don't mind that. This also could cause a LOT more free agents on the market, if a team quits and were training for U24, then more players would go into Free Agency.


Here are my questions though: As stated, there was a discussion about having 3 year seasons for Managers. Lets say Team A wins the continentals, what do they do in middle season (2) where the world cup qualifiers are playing? Since this team has already clinched it, a lot of managers would be like: "Whats the point in training for this season? We're not going to do ANYTHING" Which could be a MAJOR problem. Maybe I'm overreacting to it, but I'm pretty sure that would be one issue that rises. Would they just play scrimmages the entire season? Or what?

Thanks for you thoughts on the matter! As I suggested the (not very developed) plan of having a world-cup-qualifier-season as the second season in a 3 season election period, I had in mind that everybody INCLUDING the continental champions would have to qualify for the world cup. So no automatic qualification through the continental championship. If you look at soccer in real life, you always have to qualify for the championships, both european and world cup. And if we could give that qualification-round a character like having qualifications groups and after that K.O.-Rounds, that would probably be interesting...

just a couple of thoughts from me ...