BuzzerBeater Forums

I think your first suggestion is great. Mixing up the conferences would make things a lot less predictable. I know in the Australian top division one conference has been stronger then the other for quite a while.

in the german one, one league check yesterday, that since season 5 team the right division has three demoted teams ;)

5. Anyone else feel that 42 days of not logging in is an incredibly long time to go bot? A full month (30 days) is more than enough time. I actually prefer like, 20 days of not logging in.

Disagree. I go overseas every year for a month at Christmas. While it is fine if you are visiting Europe or the US, when you are doing the Everest base camp trek or floating down the Amazon River there is little chance of coming across an Internet Cafe so that little extra time is a wonderful thing.

1. Leagues need more parity. There are many leagues out there where one side of the conference is incredibly stacked, and the other side is significantly weaker; and it stays that way for many seasons. All teams need to be shuffled at the end of every season to have more parity. Besides the top leagues, the bottom leagues suffer as well, aspecially when theres 3-4 bot teams consistently on one side of the conference while the other side always has 8 active managers fighting for their lives to stay there. Shuffle up the conferences at the end of the season dudes. Give the leagues more parity.

Overall I don't like this suggestion as I prefer the rivalries that take time to develop over more equal conferences. And I pretty much know how the current system can turn out having played several seasons in the overall stronger and much more competitive conference of my country's top league. (The Great 8 teams are free to disagree.)

However, especially in top leagues (div I and in some cases lower), the league can get unbalanced over time and something should perhaps be done about that to keep the competition more interesting without hampering too much with the rivalries. How about switching of only a single pair of teams every season? Like the number 5 teams? The 5th spot is nowadays typically the one to avoid in many leagues. Obviously switching of conferences could make that spot even more hated or slightly more rewarding, depending on which conference you currently reside in.

Last edited by GM-WallyOop at 7/28/2010 7:08:00 AM

How about switching of only a single pair of teams every season? Like the number 5 teams? The 5th spot is nowadays typically the one to avoid in many leagues. Obviously switching of conferences could make that spot even more hated or slightly more rewarding, depending on which conference you currently reside in.

Love the idea! 5th place is a place in the middle which is good, and would finally give some meaning to the dullness of coming 5th.

I agree, this is a great idea. I'm gonna 5ball you for that! :P

Even 7th place should change the conference when he/she was strong enough to beat other conference's 6th. ;-)

This would trade strength because one of the promoted teams would come to the stronger conference that slowly would adjust the level (less pressure on the former better conference ...).

I love the idea of the 5th place team switching from the Big 8 to the Great 8 and vice versa. Also, why is it that blocked shots result in a new shot clock if the shooting team gets the rebound? If a team has their shot blocked and gets the offensive rebound, the shot clock should not be reset.

I like it all except number 5, even though I get on almost every day, other managers might be having difficulties with their computer or the internet. So I think it is fine the way it is.

I agree somehow with point 1 that, strength differs on both sides of the league, and that something could be done to make that better.

I just thought about those relegation play-offs and it seems to me that it might also be an idea to place the team which wins the relegation play-off between the number 6 of the might - and the number 7 of the strength, automatically on the place of the number 6 of the might. Of course this should also be so in the match between the number 6 of the strength and the number 7 of the might.

Short said
Nr. 6 Might - Nr. 7 Strength - winner will take place Nr. 6 Might, other team still relegates
Nr. 7 Might - Nr. 6 Strength - winner will take place Nr. 6 Strength, other team still relegates

This way strength differences between both sides will even a bit. And both sides will always get 2 new teams.

However with point 2, I really disagree. That's what makes BB challenging!

edit: And offcourse if the number 5 spot could get less hated, I'd like that too!

Last edited by Arsjitekt at 8/12/2010 5:16:10 PM