BuzzerBeater Forums

The largest human-managed division is usually a lower one, with 43–76% of all teams. https://i.ibb.co/FRHLcLX/image.png
If managers' abilities follow a normal distribution, then it is easy to imagine a wide competitive gap in that division.

In countries with fewer managers, teams tend to be concentrated in the top divisions.
As a result, lower-division teams experience a steeper growth curve.


A common suggestion in the past was to use a 1-2-4-8-... structure proposed by Jokehim (236345.1)(268872.1) and Preperito (324434.1).
GM-Perpete pointed out that this change may cause teams to drop two divisions at once — unlike the current system where they only drop one — and this could lead to financial problems. (268872.5)
Manon suggested a special structure: 1-2-4-16-64-256, which would limit teams to dropping at most one division level (294124.1), though managers from big countries might not welcome it. (294124.2)

Other suggestions include reducing the # of leagues within the last division that has human teams by half, creating a structure where the upper divisions follow a 1:4 ratio and the lower ones a 1:2 ratio (as proposed by Preperito (323591.1)), and splitting the last division with human teams into two groups, as suggested by treinadordebasquete (319749.11).

As GM-hrudey noted, the structure affects the # of promotion and relegation spots per league. (236345.2)
The (average) # of relegated teams per league in a division = the (average) # of promoted teams per league in the next division × the ratio of the # of leagues between the two divisions.

To reduce the ratio of leagues to the next division, one option is to decrease the # of relegated teams.
However, this could leave some teams idle during the playoffs or even encourage tanking.
The current relegation system works better.
On the other hand, increasing the # of promoted teams would reduce the value of winning the championship and reduce the # of remaining teams, which would then weaken league familiarity.
I can only comfort myself by thinking that, for the upper divisions, the promoted teams are the same ones — just more concentrated because of more promotion spots and fewer lower leagues.


Here is my plan, made up of two components:

A. Use different league structures for countries of different sizes.
(The # of leagues in Div. I, Div. II, Div. III, Div. IV, etc.)
1-2-4-...
1-4-8-16-...
1-4-16-32-64-...
1-4-16-64-128-256-...
1-4-16-64-256-512-1024-...

1. Same framework, different structures depending on the # of human team leagues.
A1: Halve the # of leagues in the last human division, based on the original structure.
(Parentheses show the lowest starting league #)
1-2-4-8-16(1~)
1-4-8-16-32-64(21~)
1-4-16-32-64-128-256(85~)
1-4-16-64-128-256-512-1024(341~)
1-4-16-64-256-512-...(1365~)

A2: Extend the distribution of teams downward to divisions I~IV or I~V
( [ ] show the minimum and maximum league numbers, while ( ) show the range of leagues (as an example), excluding the fresh team league)
Div. IV ver.:
1-2-4-24[4~31](1~19)
1-4-8-48[6~61](17~37)
1-4-16-192[6~213](29~213)

Div. V ver.:
1-2-4-8-48[8~63](1~39)
1-4-8-16-96[14~125](37~77)
1-4-16-32-192[22~245](69~149)
1-4-16-64-768[22~853](117~853)

2. Use the existing promotion and relegation system.
- For a 1:4 ratio: 5 relegation spots, 1.25 promotion spots.
- For a 1:2 ratio: 5 relegation spots, 2.5 promotion spots (1 champion, 1.5 based on record).

3. Switch structures based on country size.
- Redistribute teams based on their records.
- Switching between adjacent structures within the same plan, teams are demoted by at most one division level.
- Advance notice is needed.
It's better to provide an estimated list showing which teams will be promoted or relegated after the structure change.
- When a big country becomes a small one, the extra teams should be placed in the lower divisions.

4. Transition between structure plans.
- The transition from the current system to A2 (Div. IV version) would at most demote teams by one division.
- Transitioning to A2 (Div. V version) requires two steps and a transitional season to ensure no team is demoted by more than one division.

5. For the National Tournament, the scale can stay the same: 256 to 4096 teams.


Pros:
- The distribution of teams shifts toward the lower divisions.
- In A2, the lower-tier teams are mainly concentrated in Divisions III and IV or IV and V.

Cons:
- Transitioning to the new structure will rearrange teams, almost completely breaking existing league familiarity.
- Structural changes based on country size may need to be applied manually.
- In the 1:2 ratio, promotion spots increase from 1.25 to 2.5, reducing the value of winning the championship.
- In the 1:2 ratio, the # of remaining teams per league drops from 9.75 to 8.5, weakening league familiarity.


B. Use dynamic groupings in the last division or the last two divisions (if the # of teams in the last division is too low).
For example: I.1; II.1–II.4; III.A1–III.A8; III.B9–III.B16; IV.A1–IV.A8; IV.F63, IV.F64 — where "F" indicates a fresh team league.

1. Structure:
- Human teams are placed into leagues in the usual order.
For example: III.A1 → ... → III.A8 → III.B9 → ... → III.B16 → IV.A1 → ... → IV.A8
- The position of the fresh team leagues remains the same as in the current system.
- For groups across different divisions, the size of the first group in the lower division can be 1 to 4 times that of the last group in the upper division.
- For groups within the same division (excluding the last group and the fresh team leagues), all group sizes are equal.
The last group's size must not exceed the previous group.
- The structure is illustrated as follows: https://i.ibb.co/JRJR8Zsw/image.png

2. Economic differences between groups
For example:
If a division is split into 2 groups: A = conference ranks 1–4; B = F = ranks 5–8.
If split into 3 groups: A = ranks 1–3; B = ranks 3–6; C = F = ranks 6–8.
If split into 4 groups: A = ranks 1–2; B = ranks 3–4; C = ranks 5–6; D = F = ranks 7–8.
If split into 5 groups: A = ranks 1–2; B = ranks 3–4; C = ranks 5–6; D = E = F = ranks 7–8.

- Dear BB-Justin, would such a setup be possible?

3. Promotion and Relegation
- Treat different groups as if they belong to different divisions.
For example:
I.1 ⇆ II.1–II.4 ⇆ III.A1–III.A8 ⇆ III.B9–III.B16 ⇆ IV.A1–IV.A8 ← IV.F63, IV.F64 (F = fresh team league)

- For cross-division (between the last group of an upper division and the first group of the next lower division):
Use the existing promotion and relegation system.

- For inner-division:
(a) Both playoff finalists are promoted, but only the champion receives a champion boost.
(b) The 8th-ranked team in each conference is automatically relegated.
(c) The 5th–7th ranked teams in each conference and other eliminated teams from the playoff in the next lower group, play a promotion/relegation playoff series.
The winner stays in the upper group league.
→ Two neutral-site games on Tuesday and Saturday.
→ Win condition: Upper group team win if they take either game; lower group team must win both games in a row.
→ If the last group is smaller than the upper group, fill with computer-controlled leagues.
→ Ordered by record (human teams take priority over computer teams), with strong teams matched against weak ones.
→ The league official provides a fixed income to both teams: Lower group teams receive nearly full attendance income; upper group teams receive only half.

- For teams in fresh team leagues, only the champion can promote early and receive the champion boost.

- To fill any bot-controlled team spots, promote by record in both cross-division and inner-division cases.
Priority within a division:
Upper half of the first group
Lower half of the first group that remain
Champion of the second group
Runner-up of the second group final
Teams in the second group who win the promotion/relegation playoff
Upper half of the second group
Lower half of the second group that remain
Champion of the third group
Runner-up of the third group final
Teams in the third group who win the promotion/relegation playoff
Teams from the first group who were demoted
......
Lower half of the last group that remain
Teams from the second-to-last group who were demoted
Teams from the last group who were demoted (if it's within the same division)

4. Group merging and splitting
- Some # of leagues allow two possible structural forms.
If the # of leagues exceeds a certain threshold, it transforms into one form; if it drops below another threshold, it reverts to the other.
- The transformation involves either merging two adjacent groups of equal size or splitting one group into two adjacent groups of equal size.
- For merging: After the promotion and relegation process (ordered by record),
each conference from both the upper and lower group leagues is evenly split in half, and the resulting halves are placed into two conferences in the newly merged group league.
- For splitting: After the promotion and relegation process (ordered by record),
the upper half of each league becomes a conference in the upper group league, and the lower half becomes a conference in the lower group league.
- If the # of leagues changes significantly, multiple rounds of transformation may be required.
- Advance notice is needed.

5. Consolidation
The consolidation process remains the same as in the current system, but it applies only to the last group within the last division.

Pros:
- The percentage of teams in the largest division or group relative to all teams in the country decreases from 43–76% to 16–37%.
- Adds more intermediate steps, flattening the growth curve for lower-division teams.
- The treatment of different conference ranks in dynamic groups during the playoffs is improved compared to the current system.
(# of attendance income, salary paid, and full training weeks during playoff/off-season)
Normal structure:
The two finalists: 2+fixed amount, 3, 2~3
Losing semifinalist: 1, 2, 1
Losing quarterfinalist: 0.5, 2, 1
Relegation game: 1~1.5, 2~3, 1~2
8th in conference: 0, 1, 0

Dynamic groups (excluding 1st group):
The two finalists: 2+fixed amount, 3, 2~3
Losing semifinalist: 2, 3, 2
Losing quarterfinalist: 1.5, 3, 2

Dynamic groups (excluding last group):
5th–7th in conference: 0.5, 2, 1
8th in conference: 0, 1, 0

Cons:
- Group merging and spliting will partially rearrange teams, reducing league familiarity.
- The cost of tanking decreases in the second-to-last division.
- Promotion spots increase in the first group league, reducing the value of winning the championship.
For a 1:2 ratio: 2.5 promotion spots
For a 1:1 ratio: 5 promotion spots (on average)
- The promotion/relegation playoff series happens later than usual and requires prior notice — for example, it should appear in the schedule in advance.
- Inconsistencies may arise between how different conference ranks are treated in normal divisions versus dynamic groups.


Finally, this is my plan:

1. For a regular country, use A2 (Div. IV version) + B.
The Division IV version looks like this: https://i.ibb.co/Y4vSFWWy/image.png


2. For 4 merged countries (Nation of XXX), use the multiple top leagues version of A2 (Div. IV version) + B.
- If the country size increases by one division level (starting from Division III), then double the # of leagues in Division I.
( [ ] show the minimum and maximum league numbers, while ( ) show the range of leagues (as an example), excluding the fresh team league)
Div. IV ver.:
1-2-4-24[4~31](1~20)
2-4-8-48[7~62](21~38)
2-8-16-96[11~122](34~74)
2-8-32-192[11~234](58~138)
4-16-32-192[21~244](85~148)
4-16-64-384[21~468](116~)
8-32-128-768[41~936](341~)
16-64-256-1536[81~1872](1365~)

Div. V ver.:
1-2-4-8-48[8~63](1~39)
2-4-8-16-96[15~126](21~78)
4-8-16-32-192[29~252](85~156)
4-16-32-64-384[53~500](148~308)
4-16-64-128-768[85~980](276~596)
8-32-64-128-768[105~1000](341~616)
8-32-128-256-1536[169~1960](552~1192)
8-32-128-512-3072[169~3752](936~2216)
16-64-256-512-3072[337~3920](1365~2384)
16-64-256-1024-6144[337~7504](1872~)
32-128-512-2048-12288[673~15008](5461~)
64-256-1024-4096-24576[1345~30016](21845~)

Part of the Division IV version looks like this: https://i.ibb.co/vCc1d0YW/image.png

- To avoid having the strongest teams end up in the same league, the top 2.5 teams (based on record) should be redistributed every season in countries with multiple Division I leagues.
- This design aims to encourage micro countries (e.g., those with fewer than 56 managers, excluding fresh managers) to be willing to merge.


Cons:
- On the country page, I'm not sure how to display multiple champions.


3. For Utopia, use the normal structure + an extended fixed group system.
Take Div. IV as an example:
IV.1 ~ IV.96
If IV.64 is full, it splits into two groups: IV.A1 ~ IV.A64 and IV.B65 ~ IV.B448.

- For promotion and demotion purposes, treat IV.B65 ~ IV.B448 as if they were Division V teams.
- There will be economic differences between the groups.
If a division is split into 2 groups: A = conference ranks 1–4; B = ranks 5–8.