BuzzerBeater Forums

And you think this formula will work? How do you estimate what is enough to add 1, 2, 3 players?

Considering the recent acquisitions in my league, this would mean like 6-20 million range...

To me what sounds odd is that you need to win at least 3 games and not just random 3 games to prove you're trying to your fans. No, you need to win at least 1 of the first 8 then 1 of the interconference and 1 again in the last 8. The first 8 is particularly problematic given everyone is in the cup and Marin's general statement does not clarify at which point (5 million? 10 million? 20 million?) the boycott becomes a 50% haircut on gates and how much the boycott is at 3 or 4 million savings, which, as Knecht said, in D1 is probably not enough to buy 2 sub-33yo starters.

I think this change could be really just very light or very hard depending on the actual implementation (the amount of savings), is it possible to ask Marin to clarify if there are differences across league levels (so in D1 it starts from higher amounts than in lower leagues because the players you can buy are also more expensive at the moment) and at which point the boycott becomes a 10% drop and a 50% drop in gate receipts?

Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/11/2016 9:50:30 AM

Can you, or some other staff please elaborate on your thoughts of introducing this out of the blue? After the first season game?

Tanking is not a legitimate strategy in any properly structured pro/rel form.

Tanking is not a legitimate strategy in any properly structured pro/rel form.

I disagree with this. Tanking in the NBA is a very legitimate strategy which has been done many times over the years and have been proved useful over and over again. Tanking of course isn't a legitimate strategy in Europe since there is no draft.

Tanking is not a legitimate strategy in any properly structured pro/rel form.

The draft is no useful tool in any pro/rel system.

Tanking is not a legitimate strategy in any properly structured pro/rel form.

I disagree with this. Tanking in the NBA is a very legitimate strategy which has been done many times over the years and have been proved useful over and over again. Tanking of course isn't a legitimate strategy in Europe since there is no draft.

dont forget tanking in NBA isnt cheap and profitable(fans dont go to games and they still have to reach salary floor), its only used by team to rebuild with youngsters thru draft (but in BB you can just buy them, so tanking shouldnt be needed here).

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