BuzzerBeater Forums

Thank you for your response, Wagner.

Perhaps we could use this season as the preparation season with the BBHG beginning at the start of next season in-line with the regular BB season?

If you (and LOPO, and Demars, etc) are okay with it, I'm happy to have a crack at getting this BBHG off the ground!?
I think we need to try and get this thing started or, at the very least, get the preparation started so we can launch at the start of next season. We can use this season to recruit/finalise the format/decide on the number of teams competing etc.

Yes, we are very happy to welcome you to help us all to get this started - it seems you have a clear way of presenting yourself and your ideas and obviously your English is practically perfect (which is not completely the case with me) which helps to avoid misunderstandings in some cases.

I try to take more time in these next few days to write more comprehensive replies than right now, but I just wanted to thank you for taking such a massive chunk of time to write all this and compile your drafts which we can use as a base to send our thoughts/suggestions about different aspects of the League (or The League - TL - that's another contender for the name competition ;).

It is very good idea to try to get things started. We are and aren't in a rush should the start of the league be at the start of the season 68. Aren't, because it seems your presence on the forum got things moving even faster than mine (and will expect your presence to affect this in the future as well) and because it seems you also are willing to take lots of time and effort to get all this started. On the other hand we are in a rush, because like you mentioned there are many aspects we need to decide on.

As I am a supporter, and will be indefinitely, I am also willing to create any polls we think would help us move this along. We could do a few simple polls on types of formats; numbers of teams competing; and any other key areas we need some consensus on.

This again is a welcome suggestion. However, I'd ask that before we create a poll, we'd allow enough time here in the forum that all possible options that we want to include to a poll would be included in the poll before we initially publish the poll for the first time (and forum or private messages can be used to let you know which additions we want to be included in a poll). Also, in the more complex subjects such as for instance voting about league system, a clear and thorough descriptions how the league is actually played this and forthcoming seasons (should we keep using the same league system in the following seasons too) should be included in the message(s) that are published here in the forum before poll is published.

Returning to the above Fishbowl comparison, If I remember correctly, I believe the number of teams in each division grew as the league did. Therefore, we could begin by deciding that the first league will have say 16 teams in it made up of two divisions of eight (mimicking the current league setups) and run them in the same format as the Leagues we already know, including finals.

Yes, as you stated in other part of your messages, I'm sure more teams will be eager to join for seasons 69, 70 etc., and we just need to get things started before everything is perfectly optimal. Let me ask you this: you mentioned mimicking the current BB league setup, so I take it that those 14-16 teams would play in SAME LEVEL in the league and NOT in 2 different level divisions (for this season, and for seasons to come, given that the number of participating teams wouldn't be considerably bigger in the future). The familiar BB league format would likely be easiest to approach for all (FWIW), and I guess both 14/16 teams would work decently/quite well with this "traditional" system.
However, just my personal (yet strong) opinion, I'd like to see playoffs decided with 1 match "one-and-done" format.

You are more than welcome to join as long as your team qualifies (meets the requirements of homegrown team), as I believe most of us if not all agree that having bought a supporter will never be a requirement for participation in this Homegrown League. The League needs to be free for all qualified teams. At least for me it's a very important rule that should never be changed - otherwise it'd just become another Private league (for supporters).

Hi there, demars. [...]

I think your original Sumo system format (or something very close to it) is the one we should go with.

To be honest, I'm not still sure I know (nor remember, as it's been a while since we had this long discussion about it) what exactly would that SUMO system be like.
Having said that, I think the only fair system for all teams is when they ALL FACE EACH OTHER without exceptions.

That doesn't happen even if teams are divided into different level divisions (starting from season 2) - however about that I'm still somewhat indecisive if it would be best to divide teams into two different league levels - let alone if teams are faced with each other like wrestlers do face in Sumo wrestling (that not all face all within the same league tier). I'm still not a fan of making some kind of rating system based on last season results, which would then determine which opponents you'll face and which ones not (WITHIN THE SAME league tier).

Simply put, with the risk of repeat, I think ideally all teams should face all during the season ((unless we have different level leagues, in which case we might have to to consider the size of the league and amount of matches played by a team in a regular season to determine which would be the ideal amount of games in terms of maximum season length (13 weeks including playoffs?) and schedule being as fair to all as possible)).

1. We aim to start the inaugural BBHG League at the start of Season 68. (LOCK IT IN)

Locking in progress...
Locking done. ;)

2. We already have 13 teams (see list below) who have commented in this thread about their interest in being in the upcoming inaugural BBHG. We could lock these 13 teams in now, recruit 1 more, and begin setting up the division (or 2) and create a schedule. 14 teams might work well. Every team plays every other team over 13 weeks on 'neutral' courts (PickUp games) (no need to worry about home/away) and this will still leave us time to play finals (format to be finalised).

We actually already have 14 teams as one other manager has sent me a BB mail.
14 teams would be plenty for both "regular/traditional" BB league system, or it could be also enough for a single league without same level divisions (like in BB traditionally).

With one league table only, there are multiple ways to add more than 8 best teams to the post season play, such as if leagues best (4 in this example) team(s) would receive a place in the playoffs and some number of teams (8 in this example, positions from 5th to 12th) would then face each other in pre-playoffs, from which winners would advance to playoffs. (To give some advantage due to better regular season record, we could allow better team to have home advantage in a single elimination match in both pre-playoffs and playoffs)). With this example we could include 12 of 14 teams to a post season play, which would make end of the regular season competition more meaningful. (8 out of 14 proceeding to playoffs would be fine for me too though).

Or we could give winner (and a runner up?) of such one tier one division league "a punched ticket" to playoffs "second round (as they do in real life in some NCAA conferences AFAIK), and let 12 teams play playoffs first round, from which 6 teams would accompany those 2 best teams from the regular season in the playoffs - this would work also with 16 teams division, as 14 out of 16 would be included in post season play.
Like we've discussed, there are so many possible ways to handle this if traditional way is not chosen.

3. Any other teams that come along and show interest can be added to a waiting list ready for Season 2 of the BBHG.

Yes - and if it seems necessary due to number of participating teams, we might want to either A) change league system B) make ranking system/waiting list "pecking order" C) make worst teams (top 8/12 salary?) compete which ones are left out.

4. If we have all of these teams confirm they are still interested and will be 100% HG and ready to go by the start of Season 68...we can start getting the schedule organised?!

Yes, indeed. However, if we're able to reach some kind of consensus whether or not 14-20 teams should play within one (read: SAME) league tier, it might be beneficial to be able to let everyone who's interested in participating The League know what kind of league system are we going to have now and in the future.
((Even 20 teams would probably work quite well when being divided to 2 SAME league tier level groups, from which both 8 best after regular season (so total of 16) would advance to playoffs (sharing teams to groups fairly is another unpleasant task here though, and I think salaries should be used when being determined which team will play in which group - but all this is just speculation and is only valid IF there would be 2 groups within the same league tier, like is the case with "traditional BB league format")).

Having said that, it's beneficial also to keep an open mind, as we have a freedom to alter the league system if need/some kind of consensus of the need for change arises.

I'll now add a name of 14th team to list of interested teams (he has informed me in his interest with BB mail), which is Suuret Muinaiset (172657) (Suomi II.4).

5. By the end of this first BBHG League, we will have a ranking for each team which can guide the following season's structure.

Thoughts?

I like how you keep an open mind to different options in the future. That way we of course can get the best out of it, as we have a chance to change something. In the beginning it's not necessarily easy to see what kind of system would be most optimal, and maybe only time will tell. Traditional league system of course is familiar to all, fair, and time tested and in that sense I'd expect it also to be most approachable and favorable to most. I'm not saying it's absolutely ideal or best (it could be, but not necessarily) though. But I think the goal should be that all teams play against each opponent, as that is the only way to make it fair. Having said this, it also plays some role at which part of the season which teams face each other (maybe some teams take scouting and such more lightly if they have lost chances for playoffs etc.), and salary could be the best way to determine "team strength" when creating somewhat balanced schedules for each team in terms of order in which they face which opponent in the regular season (but either random, or then same system should be used for all teams).

What becomes to these "ranking systems" (I know it's a broad term, so don't get me wrong), like I mentioned I find salary (in addition to last season success, but with that again we reach for example the same problem that I mentioned before, that new joining teams won't have any rating whatsoever) - as it's one of the only ones that's publicly open information - to be maybe the best way to rank teams. Nevertheless, the "ranking system" should be very clear to all, and I think there SHOULDN'T BE matchmaking based on that (but instead all should face all during the regular season).

As for ranking order, there are also multiple things to consider when teams are tied in wins, for instance:
- should we use point differential in the first place, or instead something that's used in some leagues:
if teams A and B are C tied, the one is being put higher on the table which one has the best winning record and scoring differential against that exact competing opponent, and if needed (it shouldn't be needed if each face each other once) then rating order could be scoring difference in regular season-point differential-POINTS ALLOWED-points scored
- should we change some typically used rating orders (this would be a minor change though): wins-scoring difference in regular season--point differential-POINTS ALLOWED-points scored.

Thoughts ? I'm perfectly OK with your message.

I'm IN !!!

(I can give a schedule any time you want, it's easy to do)

Is there an ideal number of teams in your opinion? I read your previous comments...would 14 work? Is 16 better?

I kind of have responded to this before, but to me it depends on league system, and how many teams are wanted to be included in playoffs.

But as for making preseason rankings, if and when salaries are being used, I don't think team total salary should be used. I already wrote more about this in this thread before last year.

Take my team as an example: Total wage is 486K, but top 8 only 246K. Those players outside salary rank 12 will have very little meaning in terms of bringing me an instant success, and that's what this salary ranking would be used for - to determine team strength right now. This could be also implemented in many ways, but I believe buzzer-manager "semi-automatically" offers us top 8 and top 10 salaries (when you go to a league stats page) of a team, and like mentioned, players outside of that 8 or 10 best salary rank hardly offer any significant value to the team, from which I conclude that players outside of either top8 or top10 (or top12 if consensus is that it's best) should be excluded altogether from calculations when "team salary strength" is being determined.

To demars:
You have experience on creating regular season schedules. For how big of a league will it be easy for you to create a fixture for? Will it be easy/doable to create a fixture for 14-16 teams in the same league, as there are quite many matches? And how would it be possible to "arrange them by hand" if you'd want to create a balanced order in terms of at which part of the season teams face each other, or will such arranging lead to biased results and completely random generator should be used instead?

PENALTIES:

1. To ensure the fairest contests, any team responsible for issuing the PU challenges who does not select the 'neutral' arena for the matchup, automatically loses the match with a 0-50 point difference. No other penalties apply.
2. If, for whatever reason, a team does not have a token and it is their turn to issue the challenge, they can simply negotiate this with their opponent. In the event that neither team has a token, both teams will receive a penalty? Or, the issuing team?
3. In the event that a team fields a non-HG player, their team will receive an automatic 0-50 point Loss and an asterix next to their name, similarly to that used by BB to denote forfeits. This will be both a results penalty and a visual penalty, signalling to all other teams that this particular team has already broken the rules. That team, which would theoretically no longer be a HG Team, has until the start of the following PU to have their team return to being a 100% HG Team. Failure to do so would see them receiving an automatic loss for each subsequent game until their team returns to being HG.

MrJ

I need to take more time to consider these (what kind of suggestions I'd have), but I'd like to note that there are some things to consider. In some leagues, such as in NCAA, there are different level of penalties for different violations (please correct me if I'm wrong) exist, for example
- you are not eligible to participate for the competitive play for the season (or maybe multiple seasons if violation has been big enough if my memory serves me?)
- you are not eligible for playoffs for the current season, no matter how good is your regular season record (I think we could/should include AT LEAST this to the list of penalties, but actually I favor more strict approach to penalties).

Also please note that while it may sound harsh, if you give team a strict penalty who becomes a non-homegrown during the season that only makes sense, because I think we want committed users (committed at least for 1 season in a row - that can't be too much) and not teams who continuously buy players season after season (during HG season, to become ineligible for the league) and mess up the whole regular season season (randomness of schedule steps in, as well as really radical scoring difference from the matches if 0-50 is being used for instance) by playing extremely strongly against the spirit of BBHG league. And if they have bought players during a season, are they HG for the whole next season? Not likely.

It's not like I'd prefer to create a league in which someone says, "well, I participated BBHG on seasons 68, 70, 72, 75, 77 and 79 because I wasn't eligible as I had purchased players". It's possible and I still welcome such managers, but it's not ideal and I think violating the rules ultimate way needs to have ultimate consequences - and it's not like this would be a surprise to anyone, rules are being read before anyone "signs up" for the league. :)

As for your proposition "3. In the event that a team fields a non-HG player, their team will receive an automatic 0-50 point Loss and an asterix next to their name, similarly to that used by BB to denote forfeits.", I kind of stated my opinion already.
But as I feel strongly about it, I'll say it again: if team for whatever reason becomes a non-homegrown team during any part of the season, it's a clear sign from them that they've done the ultimate violation in the BBHG league, and should immediately be botted and thrown out of the league, AND given an additional penalty (of not being able to participate BBHG league in the next season for instance). I mean nobody in their right mind buys players totally accidentally (I know some have said to have done that, but seriously, with the same logic you could've purchased anything online which I don't think any of us have done "by accident"), so I think we can agree if someone does that it's not an accident? ;D

Welcome - based on salary alone your team seems to be one of the favorites of the league, certainly a very strong medal contender in the first season of BBHG league!

Welcome to you Paul George as well, it seems you already have (and in the future increasingly so) very competitive team for the homegrown League!

Yes … who want s to be second 🤪

In the interest of keeping things moving along, I have tentatively begun to flesh-out possible Information, Rules and Penalties for our league. Please read below and provide your thoughts, ideas and/or comments.

Excellent initiative - all of us are thankful of you contribution, which will help us to discuss and decide things easier.

INFORMATION:
[...]
For example, the great thing about PU games is they can be scheduled at any time. However, given that the teams participating in this league come from different countries, there may be time differences for Game Shape updates each week. Therefore, a game between two teams should take this into consideration before playing one another.

Each scheduled matchup should be played as early in the week as possible. This will allow enough time for all the results to be passed on and updated for all to see.

Even though in my earlier post I was against playing on Mondays (please do not read why that was my opinion ;P), you certainly have a solid reasoning and strong points here, and as there's bit of work in updating league tables and such, it's better to give this process enough time so that people who will actually do it have enough time to follow it through (as usually something will come up in "real life" that can interfere with our all important hobby;).

In terms of when matches are being played, unless we stick with the plan (play as early) I think it might be good to at least choose a window when we play our weekly game, so that teams couldn't decide to wait until next player shape update to have a BBHG pickup game, if their player shape is lousy that week. And nobody forces us to think that playing week must be from Monday to Sunday (BBs' weeks are not Mon-Sun either like you know!), but it'd be better to arrange it so that the playing window doesn't extend over Fridays' game shape (and training) updates.

It may be better if both teams bbmail their results to the organiser rather than post in the forum. In this way, any teams who were wishing to watch a match already completed, don't accidentally see the results before they have an opportunity to watch it.
At the completion of each matchups, BOTH teams are to pass on the results. This will ensure that at the very least (if only one team remembers to do it) that the results are forwarded, or (if both do it) then confirmation that the results are accurate eventuate.

That's well thought out. For the sake of openness, I might consider it a good idea for organizer to post all weeks game links to a forum at the end of the week though, with (or in a different message with) an updated league table, as game box scores aren't openly available otherwise.

It may prove beneficial to have a set day of the week every week when the PU games will take place. This will remove the possibility of a team issuing a challenge which doesn't provide their opponent enough time to fairly set a lineup. A Monday might be the best day given no games of any kind are scheduled by BB at this time?

IF we consider a week from Monday to Sunday (unlike BB does), then I guess Monday wouldn't be bad as it's kind of an early option and doesn't include any games. On Friday there aren't any other games either though, but then we'd might need to reconsider another definition for a week than Mon-Fri. (Having another match at the same day, because as we know BB players can play 2 matches simultaneously, but I know what you mean and agree with it that if we set a fixed game day it'd be better if there aren't other games regularly scheduled for that day).

Each week, one of the two teams competing in a matchup will have some kind of visual note that means it is their responsibility to issue the PU challenge.

If we do this week by week, good idea. But can't we organize all of season matches before beginning, wouldn't that be best?

Yes … who want s to be second 🤪

In terms of...? ;P
It seems your sense of humor was too sharp for my dull tiredness this time xD