BuzzerBeater Forums

I agree that there is a hit to attendance for bad teams. That's obvious and I even provided evidence of that in the actual NBA to those claiming otherwise, but it's not 50% and some teams (Brooklyn Nets of a few years ago with one of the highest payrolls and one of the worst records) are just bad, they want to win, they have former allstars in their roster, yet they can't win.

To me record is not a sufficient criteria to identify tanking teams and the new policy will affect bad teams in a transfer market environment which makes it hard for them to improve. But I think that some people who were in the committee who decided on this hijacked the decision like they hijacked the decision on IS for guards and SF to turn it into a general secondary skills increase. Instead of sticking to the point and properly prevent tanking why don't we just push weaker teams to spend more?

It looks to me they are trying to affect the economy by trying to make people spend since obviously people have cut back on payroll to save more in order to afford higher prices on the TL. Once again they are trying to deal with something they created in the first place. If they boosted training directly none of this would have happened and the game would be in a much healthier state

Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/12/2016 5:38:18 AM

i thought that was his point: promotion/relegation form

but you can't say BB is equal to promotion/relegation because we have features that are more akin the NBA than European leagues and while we don't have term contracts to honour (i.e. we can move and fire players and staff whenever we like), prize money and sponsorship are very very low (bonus only for winner, merchandising).

So yeah in real life tanking is done for draft picks, because draft picks have a extremely high value considering you have control over a player for 8-9 years and the first 4 are on a very friendly salary.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/12/2016 5:38:53 AM