BuzzerBeater Forums

Do you want to keep the result of your game a secret? I won't say anything, just in case.

It's fine, I'd logged off completely for the 2nd half. Not sure if it's the logging in that makes my team worse, or the logging off that makes them better.

Another good 30-30 was the one about the SF earthquake back in '89 at game 3 of the World Series. Brought back memories.

Were you there?
There were quite a few good 30-30s actually. I remember one where Muhammed Ali (with a mustache) was training for a fight in 1980. You could see the Parkinson's symptoms. The footage was great though. Weird to think he was still fighting about 4 years prior to Mike Tyson.



Last edited by shikago at 4/14/2015 11:52:26 PM

And it would be best if you both went RnG FCP.

My 40-58 year olds challenge your 3 worst players to a handicap playoff match. Are you up for it? (waits for viagra/cialis joke)

But really, how about it? Your 3 worst players + 2 fans vs. whatever lineup i can assemble out of sub-$1k players? I'll let you sleep on it... (Saldana, Holman, Druff vs. Sourpis & friends.)

I already know how that would play out - Holman would go 1-33 from the field, but Druff and Saldana would do enough to keep me in the game. I'd be down one, you'd foul someone at the buzzer, but it would be a lucky fan who misses both and that's it.

If you're really interested in that experiment I would happily do it in a scrimmage next week, though. I just wish I could have three lucky fans instead of having to include Holman. Hey, maybe if I fire him, I can put in someone better and . . .

Do you want to keep the result of your game a secret? I won't say anything, just in case.

It's fine, I'd logged off completely for the 2nd half. Not sure if it's the logging in that makes my team worse, or the logging off that makes them better.

Another good 30-30 was the one about the SF earthquake back in '89 at game 3 of the World Series. Brought back memories.

Were you there?
There were quite a few good 30-30s actually. I remember one where Muhammed Ali (with a mustache) was training for a fight in 1980. You could see the Parkinson's symptoms. The footage was great though. Weird to think he was still fighting about 4 years prior to Mike Tyson.

I wasn't but my brother was living with our father in Scotts Valley at the time. Luckily, a summer or two before when we were just there for visitation, there had been a minor earthquake and since I was actually old enough when we'd lived in California to start school and learn the earthquake drill routine, I taught him that his instinct to run out the door was not the right thing to do.

I don't really watch 30-for-30, for the most part. I did watch the Reggie Miller one because, well, Reggie. I have fallen out of love with most sports now, and the NBA I stopped caring much about maybe a decade or so ago. I'd still watch Pacers playoff games, and I actually happened to be tuned in on the night that the whole Artest bomb went off in Detroit. Still think that he and Jackson probably cost Reggie his best shot at a title, but as a guy who's been a fan of the Pacers, Chicago Cubs, LA Kings and Jacksonville Jaguars (at least since we got the team here), not having titles to celebrate was a very common theme in my life until a few years ago at least. Now I pretty much don't even watch the playoffs, except I suppose I'll try to keep up if they make it to the second round or beyond.

The only other real 30 for 30 I saw much of was the one about Miami (you know, the school that the players refer to the "U" because that's the longest thing they can spell). The Ali one sounds like it would be interesting though. I hadn't realized that his career came as close to Tyson's as it did - but I always seem to remember Tyson being late 80s and even early 90s and I didn't remember Ali's career really at all so I had assumed it was pre-80s.

May I possibly suggest to the GM's that instead of splitting p/o revenue, every home team receives 200% revenue during p/o (higher markups in p/o tickets are reasonable in reality) and splits with visitors 60-40 or 70-30? This can be an incentive to keep teams from purposely tanking too.

I would love that. See how it goes over in the Suggestions forum.

I'd say suggestions is the right place to put it. I'll also say that there will be a lot of backlash that it is a system that ensures that the best teams stay on top by giving them more money.

I think personally that it's a damn shame that a team that makes the postseason and only plays one game is essentially losing money for doing so. I don't think allowing a team to get the equivalent of two games worth of revenue each week of the postseason is necessarily good either - that may be too far the other way. I'd probably just say that each week you're in the playoffs, you get the revenue equivalent of the maximum money you'd get from your arena given the increased attendance of the playoffs (I'd say a guaranteed sellout but in my Utopia league where I've got 4600 bleachers and 3500 lower tiers, I could set ridiculously high prices and really abuse that system).

That sounds good too. Yea I am just pretty sick of the fact that a lot of times a tanking team actually cumulates much more revenue ( are you kidding me?) per season, not to mention their early-round draftees. I think it's just unfair that managers of p/o teams are not awarded with their extra time & effort. I think increasing p/o revenue in someway would highly discourage tanking (which has been the main theme of improving BB at recent seasons).


For your concern of "best team keep staying on top", I don't think that weekly-awarding national tournament that you almost won actually helps.


If p/o revenue are increased, we can considered increasing promotion award and the "new-player-compensation", but extend the period. E.g. instead of giving them 100K per week for 5 weeks, give them 5-7K per week based on team performance for the entire first season, which is about 12-14 weeks(?).


However, the most annoying system of this game still remains to TRAINING.

Someone feel free to forward my suggestions along with hrudey's to this so-called "suggestion forum" (or a link would be greatly appreciated).

How about the losers of the first round games play each other that Saturday in a losers bracket game for revenue?

That sounds good too. Yea I am just pretty sick of the fact that a lot of times a tanking team actually cumulates much more revenue ( are you kidding me?) per season, not to mention their early-round draftees. I think it's just unfair that managers of p/o teams are not awarded with their extra time & effort. I think increasing p/o revenue in someway would highly discourage tanking (which has been the main theme of improving BB at recent seasons).


For your concern of "best team keep staying on top", I don't think that weekly-awarding national tournament that you almost won actually helps.
[...]
Someone feel free to forward my suggestions along with hrudey's to this so-called "suggestion forum" (or a link would be greatly appreciated).

I was just pointing out what you'd expect to hear. I agree that the money that can be earned by tanking is absurd. I don't know if making the playoffs too profitable is a good solution, and the Cup's way too random for the money to be fair, especially at lower levels where one team can get four easy bot/V teams and earn 200k and free enthusiasm, while another one draws one of us in the first round and has a crappy fan survey the rest of the year.

Anyway, the suggestions forum is: (202503.1) The message I linked to is the minor suggestions thread, but you'd probably want to create a new thread for these.

teams goes into cycles of rebuild and competing for a championship
if you train properly the window of contention at Div II is about 3-5 seasons
this is when your 1st core group has reached 28-30 and 2nd group has come along at 22-24
that's the most economical way of competing b.c you can control the salary and skill levels
the more you depend on FA the more it's likely that you have to overspend to compete and have much shorter window of contention.

if you define tanking as in not playing your best players
then training = tanking and you really dont have a choice b/c you have respectable 18 year olds coming into leagues of marvelous level players.
if you define tanking as in no getting the all the FA for all the money in your account to get 1 shot at the title and have 0 left in the tank or 0 weekly revenue (this is what contending teams operate on) then this is also absurd.

i think if it's properly managed then you have to go through cycles so there gotta be teams who are playing youngsters.
and they should be saving more money so they could get a FA later down the road and also taken into account the cost of high level trainers.

b/c if you are competing, you have to spent more money than the average to do so. so don't complain if you get less revenue. you also get a chance to win millions if you do win. so the risk and reward balances out. it's up to you to save and train and give your team the longest window to compete. when you reach the next level, everything starts over again.