BuzzerBeater Forums

*DISQUALIFIED TEAMS:

A) When a team is disqualified, ALL games they have competed in up until and including the game that disqualified them...will be altered to a 0-50 loss.
B) If PU games have already been scheduled with a disqualified team, those games, regardless of their actual results, will also be altered to reflect 0-50 losses.
C) All future scheduled games with a disqualified team that are yet to be set, will become 50-0 wins for that team.


This was my idea for the PU system. It would be much different in a PL league, where this amount of control does not exist until the season is finished.

Thank you for your propositions. I will send a thorough reply a bit later, as I have somewhat differing (stricter) views about the penalty and rules structure (which you could probably guess from my previous messages).

But for now I'll just quickly reply to one of the aspects of your message, or rather part of it (as this 0-50 "forfeit rule", should we apply it to the league, is best further discussed) concerning your part A).

While I don't deny there's some logic to it, I think it's still a clear fact that team that is being disqualified has been played all their matches fairly until that point, and I see less good than bad in wiping those previous match results, so I think those results should remain valid.

But maybe even more importantly, from the practical (commissioner) standpoint, I see it as an only realistic option to keep and update league table and results manually, and I'm not crazy about starting to count everything again from the scratch (wins, point differentials, etc.) if some team fails to follow the rules and decides to become ineligible, in other words disqualified from the league. Your read correct - it is a decision, which is intentionally/deliberately made (if it is made) and there is no excuse for it.

One could do it if they so wish, but we do not want to encourage that. And, as once again mentioned, one is joining the league knowing (at least most of these) penalties, so it's a deliberate middle finger to the league if you decide not to remain homegrown. And it's not like penalties from violations would even affect any other part of your Buzzerbeater, only BBHG league, so if you absolutely need to buy that player to avoid relegation, you are free to do so - just be aware that it does have consequences in terms of participating to remainder and following season of the BBHG league (and the season after that too, if you ask me, if you have had nerves to even dress/play those "illegal" players in BBHG league matches).

So for instance for these reasons (among others, don't get me started;), in addition to trust, strict approach to certain aspects of rules and penalties is necessary in my opinion. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't trust managers joining the league. However, there's a funny thing with consequences - it often times makes you do things you otherwise maybe wouldn't do, and I think we want to encourage commitment to the league as much as possible and do everything possible to attract committed enough managers. And one way to keep it functioning as much itself as possible is to make sure everyone is sticking with the rules/protocol.

And impact of such neglectful behavior towards the league and other teams/managers should be minimized to begin with, and the amount of additional work that that kind of undesirable behavior causes to a commissioner should also be minimized, which could be ensured (at least to some extent) by having clear set of rules, penalties and expectations for the managers.

Set of rules and penalties doesn't need to be the most complicated system in the world, but I don't think we should oversimplify this either (your example system wasn't total oversimplification, I don't mean that), but I do have some additions in mind which I will share in some of the forthcoming messages.

@ Deano25. Good to hear from you, mate. I am also leaning more towards the PL than the PU version, although both have strengths and weaknesses. I would still like to hear from more managers about which they prefer.

@Wagner. While I do not agree with too many rules and regulations for managers, as I believe this might cause managers to be unwilling to compete in the first place, I do acknowledge your commitment to this HG League and setting up in a manner you believe correct.

On that note...

...I would like to nominate you formerly as the first 'Commissioner' of the HG League. You have a very clear idea of what this league should look like and have obviously thought about it in detail. As the Commissioner, you can guide all of us in the direction you believe will benefit the creation and maintenance of the HG League.

Can I get some support from other managers to make Wagner the Commissioner?

Hey All,

Sorry it has been a hot minute, The Buckner Bandits are still 100% homegrown and good for any league yall decide!! :-) Thank you all for setting this up! Gonna be fun!!

Hello Gccsteel!
I didn't remember participation to private leagues is restricted to 1 league at a time. In that sense, playing homegrown league as PU league actually appears to be less restricting, and allowing Supporter package owners to compete in both simultaneously: homegrown league and then on some other private league. Playing homegrown league as a private league (of which idea I'm totally not a fan of) would then restrict Supporters to play only that league.

Anyway, as far as ladder rankings go, you were supposedly discussing about the league system (regular season and playoffs) in your message, unless I understood it all wrong? I have actually already given a proposition for a league system, that MrJ very well condensed on 14th of January: https://www.buzzerbeater.com/community/forum/read.aspx?thread=324689&m=248

So if this aforementioned league system is fine for all, we could use that, with possibly some fine tuning, such as making sure we get these 2 games/week weeks out of the way as soon as possible and most importantly play only 1 playoff match per week (in order to minimize managers not organizing/playing PU matches in time.

We do have to decide some aspects though, and I'm working on my propositions currently.
Especially MrJ's contribution helps me a lot in it, and I will keep his favoring of simplicity and less punitive preferences in mind when planning a structure in terms of rules and penalties (that I'd suggest). However, like I said, thank you MrJ and please send message here in forum or BB mail if you have any propositions to "basic BB rules" in mind that you'd prefer to see implemented. (For instance, you mentioned that if a team gets disqualified, all the results would be changed to 0-50 loss, into which I presented another view for certain reasons; now that I think of your proposition, there are also many strong points in it that proposition and I really like the idea of not getting any wins to the all time stats from such season etc., yet at the same time if I have to be the one that changes/corrects everything manually, I'm not sure how much additional work it would create - handling everything manually doesn't sound very tempting task in the first place, but I get that someone needs to do it in order for this to work).

Same goes for other managers too, you may send me BB mail and we can discuss about pros and cons of certain aspects without overcrowding this forum thread (which I seem to be pretty good at sometimes;).

One of the questions would be though, that as for the first season of BBHG should we stick with 14 teams or also add 1-2 teams in addition that I think already have announced their interest (unless I'm mistaken here?) in addition to 14 team roster that we already have, what do you guys think?

Given that we choose this "one league, 12 playoff spots available" league system that I mentioned before (link added to this post), I suppose it would at least still keep things interesting (in terms of at least theoretically being able to clinch a playoff spot) for the most teams at least almost until the end of the regular season.

In the case there would be for instance 16 of us, we would have to have more of those 2 games/week weeks though, and it would be slightly more work for regular manager (and a bit more for the commissioner) and make significance of 1 league game slightly less important (13 vs. 15 regular season matches), but as long as someone else would take care of creating a random schedule for the regular season, I guess I'd be open for both options. (MrJ, and if needed demars, already has got us covered here if they are willing to offer their help on this one at least).
The more the merrier, some say, but I guess about 16 teams or so might be the maximum for 1 level league for certain reasons.

I see, thank you for clearing up what you meant, it's easy to not get the whole picture of what one meant, but now I think I got your point.

I have actually debated this league format question quite a lot, as it's totally essential part of the whole league.
While I totally agree with league causing a lot of work, I really also hope there is more than a little payout for most managers.

Personally I'm really not a fan of these kind of league systems (Swiss system etc.) where you don't face all teams, as it's never completely fair and equal to all teams. For instance in a typical regular season when you face each and every team once, then if you can get 7 wins and another team gets 6 wins, you've clearly had more successful season, while in many of these more special systems you only face restricted number of teams, and therefore strength of your schedule (SOS) is less likely equal to other teams SOS.

This kind of league system on my opinion creates multiple problems in terms of equality; by which basis which team faces which (and also importantly, which it doesn't face) which are closely also linked to strength of schedule, SOS (term is being used in NCAA for instance) of each team, in which order should teams face each other and how much would that game result affect to the rankings of the teams, how many teams are included in the postseason play, etc. etc..

In an extreme example of such league, if only 2 teams would get a chance to play in playoff (only final match, like for instance in NHLs' 4 nations face-off tournament), then if lowest ranked team would face best ranked team in their last regular season match then if lower ranked team would win that match, they'd be awarded a place in the final (instead of the number 1 ranked team), which would effectively render all the wins of previously #1 ranked team meaningless due to a loss in one regular season match. This is not to say it couldn't work for some leagues, but I really wouldn't want to have such league system being part of a home grown league.

As for having another website for that, in ideal world I'd root for that idea too. Earlier I mentioned that it would be great to have an own website for the league. But as I'm not an expert on that, I'll leave it for others to comment (how realistic would it be without having experience of website creation, and more importantly, what would be the total cost per year at the very least).

As for now though, we have planned to start a new forum thread for the BBHG league (or whatever it's name will become). However, I think game results (links to game box scores) should be sent to forums instead of BB mail of a Commissioner, as the functionality of BB mail, especially in terms of getting access to old messages, is nothing short of horrendously lousy. But I think we will need yet another forum thread for that, as otherwise these links to box scores will effectively cause too much unwanted traffic on the dedicated BBHG league page (in where we would have most conversation about the league instead of this forum thread, after we've established it that is).

Hello all fellow managers!
Now that I'm in a process to finalize some propositions for the league, I think I'm better off to not throw everything out at once if, and when I've now come across to some challenge that I'd like to have your opinion on (and that could take a bit time to solve, unless someone can solve it in an instant, which is also possible).

So if, and I hope as we'll implement this league as a PU (pickup game) league, I found a challenge we might face.
Also, if and when we implement some sanctions/penalties based on violating these rules, it'd be important to find some surefire way to ensure which way things have actually gone. MrJ earlier proposed that the team which is responsible for sending the challenge to the PU match would be marked to the regular season fixtures (schedule) list, so that's a good idea, but we need to consider these other aspects of PU matches.

So, question is this... how do we ensure, if game isn't being organized/played (and please note there isn't any way for any one of us to verify that, as these games do not show up on team schedule for others than teams involved in PU match) that:
A) Team has actually sent an invitation to PU match
B) Team responsible for accepting the invitation has actually accepted it.

So we'd need to be able to distinguish whose reason was it, and that only because while it's not a loads of work for a regular manager, organizing and playing matches in time is an absolute necessity for this league to run smoothly and equally fairly to all.

To be honest, I'm not a fan of proving this through some kind of screen captures etc., so I'd throw that idea out of window if in any way possible. But what do you guys think, what would be the best (and preferably simultaneously least labor intensive to the Commissioner) method to get a verification for this, should problems arise (matches not being played, or played in a required time window)?

In the case there would be for instance 16 of us, we would have to have more of those 2 games/week weeks though, and it would be slightly more work for regular manager (and a bit more for the commissioner) and make significance of 1 league game slightly less important (13 vs. 15 regular season matches), but as long as someone else would take care of creating a random schedule for the regular season, I guess I'd be open for both options. (MrJ, and if needed demars, already has got us covered here if they are willing to offer their help on this one at least).
The more the merrier, some say, but I guess about 16 teams or so might be the maximum for 1 level league for certain reasons.

I have adjusted my lineup and will be available for next season with a very slim and challenging 10-man HG lineup.
However, we are, by my calculations, at 14. I bbmailed BigChill and his reply was that if someone else wants the spot he would rather they have it. He has previously stated (please correct me if I am wrong, BigChill) that he would rather not have to do too much in the way of setting lineups in advance etc. So, we are still probably at 14.

Is there anyone else out there interested? If so, please make yourself known asap. Although, Wagner, 14 would be fine Im sure.

So, question is this... how do we ensure, if game isn't being organized/played (and please note there isn't any way for any one of us to verify that, as these games do not show up on team schedule for others than teams involved in PU match) that:
A) Team has actually sent an invitation to PU match
B) Team responsible for accepting the invitation has actually accepted it.

I don't want to be negative, but this is one of the few problems running a PU system will need to be addressed.

The answer to your question, Wagner, is simple: we are reliant on managers doing what needs to be done. As for sharing...a screen shot is not ideal (as you noted) but one possibility. Another is that Managers check-in to the thread (the new one that you will need to create for the new league) and make it known that the game was/or was not played.

If it was not played, then what will happen next? Bbmail the manager who didn't do their job? Re-schedule it? These are some of the issues that will likely have to be dealt with on the run. Hopefully, not too many of these issues occur.

I have adjusted my lineup and will be available for next season with a very slim and challenging 10-man HG lineup.
However, we are, by my calculations, at 14. I bbmailed BigChill and his reply was that if someone else wants the spot he would rather they have it. He has previously stated (please correct me if I am wrong, BigChill) that he would rather not have to do too much in the way of setting lineups in advance etc. So, we are still probably at 14.

Is there anyone else out there interested? If so, please make yourself known asap. Although, Wagner, 14 would be fine Im sure.

I'm sure I'm not the only one delighted to see you joining the lineup for the first season of homegrown league!
Yes, I agree that 14 would work well. However, I remembered someone else announced their possible interest earlier on, and sure enough now that I checked out forum again Trouville BBC manager Chucarro let us know in the forum on 19th of February that he might be (or is?) interested in joining the league. Whether or not we'll have additions at this points I guess remains to be seen (and also depends on how other managers feel about this), but if my memory serves me (and based on how he presented his message) he wasn't in our original lineup of 14 teams.