First, I'm not attacking you, "dude". I attack your particular reasoning here.
Second, the flaw in your point resides in thinking that "managers like me who are about to exploit this rule for 'personal gain'" [nevermind that it is REALLY moronic to think a sim sport game like BB offers some sort of "communal" gain or any gain other than the personal, but whatever] is not equivalent to "the betterment of BB". It has no base. Perhaps it would fit the argument if you please explained that SO SELF-EVIDENT thing called "the betterment of BB".
Third, what was the crime about "personal gain"? Are you some sort of the BB-Gandhi? My "personal gain" here is to have fun playing this game; I'm not clinically depressed just because a rookie went banking on a fellow I was bidding for, nope, not at all. Yes, I seek personal gains, thank you, Mr. Gandhi for defending the game "as a whole" and calling me out for being "egotistical" about it.
Fourth, you see,to train players doesn't imply sine qua non "to tank/bank"; you could actually tank/bank better without training, since you don't have to spend on draft points or trainer [salary, plus the bid for any decent one; plus if you have a trainee mildly decent in upper divisions you need at least a lvl 5] I know many old managers who have spent some serious time in DI -my country has an effective 3-division playing field- and have developed NT players without tanking/banking; besides, what's the problem with "banking"? I didn't know that to have a good economic surplus, so you can buy a tough 150k center or point guard, was against the "betterment" of BB. You -or whoever- horde money, so what? You call for "betterment" of BB but nobody knows what you mean here, since you just throw it like if it was a self-evident argument. And "the root cause"? The root cause for what? For the "betterment" of BB? What would make BB better and why, that is the question you plant here on the fly, like if it would have such an obvious one-issue answer.
For me, the OT doesn't do ANYTHING, so I take no personal direct advantage from it. I built my arena, trained my guys, have my balance, and have fun playing it. When I'll be all good to fight promotion [I might be, but I want to finish the training of my guys], I will hire some decent free agent gentleman, or reshape the roster, etc, etc, no big deal: this will cost me just equally as if there were no OT in the first place. Of course, I will be happy when rookies destroy their team by overexpending or short-rivals start paying extra 50 cents for every red dollar, so, yes, the system will favor me, it will "change" who benefits from it: from the rookies/dumb-managers/short-term guys it will change to guys like me, who spend in the draft, bid for staff employees and find satisfaction in training at least some U21 gentleman. What's the problem with that? Why is that not equivalent to "a better BB"?
Any more arguing is senseless at this point [or at least in these parameters]. I think there are bigger issues to make BB better than this OT. Besides, I don't remember the BBs and the GMs saying this OT reform was some sort of the-mother-of-all-reforms. It's a reform, a good one -in my view-, a game changer?, maybe, perhaps not. It will benefit me indirectly, and I like it. But, please, don't play the Mandela game here.
Now, I find, e.g., more important the problem of disbalance between few-teams countries against highly populated countries. Some of the former have basically 4, 5, 6 players in DI, and you can check their transfer balances and they run in the red ink for zillions of money; while, for the latter, you can find very competitive managers all the way to DV. To me, these two type of countries just play entirely different games of BuzzerBeater. Another issue, farm teams. Etc, etc. I think those issues have more weight into the "betterment of BB" business, which you seem quite good at it, than the supposedly self-evident "root cause" of yours.
Last edited by petrosian at 12/30/2013 4:53:22 AM