BuzzerBeater Forums

Well, the really small countries don't have so many round of their tournaments i.e. they can't TIE for B3 and arepenalized that way. I guess neutral arenas and thus PO Normal/ PO CT kick in for the same rounds of tournaments for each country meaning it is not in the same week for everyone. If that is the case (I didn't bother to check) that easily disables any advantage depending on size of a country.

Whilst I agree from a purists perspective it would nice to see teams go mano y mano with their more settled rosters, it didn't take a rocket scientist to forecast the trend we've seen this season and last given the fall in transfer prices. Couple this with the knowledge that we've known that the most expensive player in the world would always eventually bounce around from team to team and you would have to be kidding yourself if you think you could win this competition without having to take more risks than previous winners.

A 3rd element is the fun factor which a lot of big teams have lost having dominated their domestic rivals so they will go even further to try lift the last trophy missing in their cabinet.

Rule changes will surely occur but for now its a arms race using whatever resources you have at your disposal. If you cant beat em, then join em.

What type of situation are you referring to?

best players not being affordable for the best teams for more than 2-3 weeks

Might be enough if team couldnt go over weekly incomes otherwise most expensive player couldnt play in a game or something. Doesnt sound very exciting to me that managers are using loopholes in most famous international event. It is like there would be nails on the F1 road just because developers would think that teams have too much money.

Fair point. Just this: if and when you have that conversation, be careful with the data. In season 12, Los Dragones rented the mother of all rental players: Silves. Not suggesting that this alone should make you change the systems but simply that strictly speaking:

Yeah, that's a bit of a funny situation. They did buy Silves and they did win, but his acquisition was not the major reason they won the final.

It will be 1/5 of the reason.

It's also past the point of being a trick that may or may not have worked in the past. Both finalists have added ~500k centers in recent weeks. This season the divine trick has already succeeded and the final has yet to be played.

Last edited by brian at 12/4/2010 5:54:42 PM

It's also past the point of being a trick that may or may not have worked in the past. Both finalists have added ~500k centers in recent weeks. This season the divine trick has already succeeded and the final has yet to be played.

With the money some teams have stocked up (not me but the even smaller nation/dominant teams) a cut-off point for registering players will make their task even easier. It will just boil down to timing your run.. naturally if 2 similar teams go for it at the same time they'll only have a 50/50 chance but what is also not being discussed is when certain teams adopt this strategy, it can have the complete opposite effect on other so called contenders.

If you see that team X is going for it by adding players that he just can't afford week in week out and you aren't prepared to copy, then you can just go defensive and operate at much lower than you normally would and compound the saving you make over your rival so that the following season(s) you have a much bigger advantage.

Charles will likely argue that this is good because it guarantees different winners each time but then we are in a scenario where there isn't really that much close competition. You just resign from the race to win the trophy and only go for it when you are almost certain of victory.