BuzzerBeater Forums

Tanking has to be contained. I think if a team's salary is significantly less than the average of their league then there should be some kind of consequence for all this losing. One example is Wake Forest (22795). They are 0-22 in USA NBBA(1st division) Yet somehow their lowest attendance rate in the last 10 games is about 63%. I remember going on a 3 game losing streak and then winning the next two games and my attendance was at 67%. I understand that he is in the top division and I'm in the fourth division but that is still ridiculous. His highest salary is a 3k scrub. His tanking makes him an abnormally large amount of money. He probably is one of the richer/richest players in the game. That is unfair. Teams like this should get severe drops in their fan survey and attendence. If you drop his attendence to 25% then tanking isn't as "worth it" as it is before.
Either do that or make a "double demotion" for teams in the first division(and maybe 2nd) that are CLEARLY taking, ie. selling/cutting best players and having abnormally low salaries. Tanking in D.V,D.IV or even D.III isn't that big of a problem because that won't have a huge impact. But tanking in D.I in many major countries is a huge problem that needs to be corrected.

Tanking has to be contained. I think if a team's salary is significantly less than the average of their league then there should be some kind of consequence for all this losing. One example is Wake Forest (22795). They are 0-22 in USA NBBA(1st division) Yet somehow their lowest attendance rate in the last 10 games is about 63%. I remember going on a 3 game losing streak and then winning the next two games and my attendance was at 67%. I understand that he is in the top division and I'm in the fourth division but that is still ridiculous. His highest salary is a 3k scrub. His tanking makes him an abnormally large amount of money. He probably is one of the richer/richest players in the game. That is unfair. Teams like this should get severe drops in their fan survey and attendence. If you drop his attendence to 25% then tanking isn't as "worth it" as it is before.
Either do that or make a "double demotion" for teams in the first division(and maybe 2nd) that are CLEARLY taking, ie. selling/cutting best players and having abnormally low salaries. Tanking in D.V,D.IV or even D.III isn't that big of a problem because that won't have a huge impact. But tanking in D.I in many major countries is a huge problem that needs to be corrected.

I think WFU is quitting, not tanking (he hasn't logged in since the 28th of March), but that's beside the point.

Here's two perfect examples of what's wrong with the attendance formula in relation to tanking:

Match #1 (29542562)

In this game, #8 Wake Forest (0-20), who have lost every game of the season up to this point by an average margin of 80.7 points per game, host #7 King Drive Ballers (1-19), who have lost every game not against Wake Forest this season, and whose average margin of loss is 60.4 ppg (with the win heaped in there for good measure). What was the attendance? 19,936.

Match #2 (32667165)

In the semifinals of the playoffs in the top league in the country, Big 8 #1 seed Chicago Bulls (21-2), fresh off a QF win and riding a 15-game winning streak since their Cup loss, host Big 8 #2 seed Manhattan Beach Metal Detectors (15-8), who have won two straight, most recently a QF victory over the USA Cup winner, Silverbacks. What was the attendance? 19,910.

I know he's quitting but his actions are still similar to a tanker, low salaries, no effort,etc. I agree tanking teams need severe drops in attendance(like 5000 attendence in a 20000 capacity arena) or a double demotion(From NBBA to D.III).

and if u just give up a half season(with the current transfer prices you get every 4 week an elite player), you could still stay in division without getting relegated. Or when more people drive this strategy, we had for asmall time 3 of them and 3 other who drives then with a drastically reduced but still somehow competive rooster(which is ok, but in such scenario you could give up a bit and stay in league - and i think that was the plan of some of them).

And for me there should be a motvation to try not to relegate, even when your chanches are considerly low instead of giving up completly as tactical choiche with a lot of benefit against possibility one.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 4/13/2011 3:21:02 AM

So how should this be solved?

I was contemplating selling my team off, loosing half a season and then building my rooster up again to fight for relegation, this would make me mirrions and have the same result I had this season, I guess.

you could for example use the range of the survey, make for example a normal loose game a three ball a give up game 1 ball and handle it differently. This would even impact normal give up games, especially during the cup phase, but it would be the same for all. And if maybe the last 4-5 games are judge more heavily, also this would be solved quite good.

I agree tanking teams need severe drops in attendance(like 5000 attendence in a 20000 capacity arena) or a double demotion(From NBBA to D.III).

I'd even say 5k is high for a team like that. Would you even pay to watch Kobe and the Lakers take on a team of high school girls who was 0-20? If so, would you pay $170 for a courtside seat?

Maybe a solution is to view the league average salaries. For instance, average salary in the NBBA at this moment is still around $452k/week. Now, this includes teams like Bulls & LMA who spend $800k+ every week, but it also includes the following:

Team			weekly salary
Wake Forest		12,574
Ice Storm BC		17,028
Southsound (bot)	20,787
King Drive Ballers	99,751
Salisbury Auerbachs	239,748

I know Edju isn't tanking (as he's recently sold a couple players), but I threw his number in there for a reason.

Imagine using a team carrying >50% of the league average salary as a threshold for tanking. This would put the current threshold in the NBBA at $225k, which keeps Edju's current salary safe from penalty as long as the other three keep their salaries low. Each time any team bought or sold a player, the threshold would raise or lower accordingly.

The only problem I can immediately see with this idea is newly created teams' salaries in competitive lower divisions (i.e. IV and below) where the average salary might be nearly double what a newly created team may have (or can afford due to small arenas and STH).

A method of curing this is to use CrazyEye's suggestion of merging this information into the Fan Survey. For instance, the line "The team manager is working hard to improve the team" would strictly penalize high level teams with hordes of money and no salaries (KDB has something like $18M, I think), and not penalize the newly created teams. If you have nothing in the bank, there's no penalty, but if you have $6M+ (just as an example) and are losing every game, your fans wouldn't be buying tickets, but burning merchandise and hanging you in effigy in the parking lot; attendance and merch income should suffer greatly in these cases.

That sir, is an excellent idea.

if the other tankers in your example had $100k salaries like KDB, Edju would also be counted as a tanker..

and he wuld also pay still just a small amount of the other team salarys ;) So he is probadly tanking one week, if he rebuilds them, he isn't a tanker anymore.

And the money criteria would also count for a rebuilding team, because it has just sold some player and didn't have any new one yet.