BuzzerBeater Forums

Thank you, and you are also more than welcome to join the league!

So that makes 7 of us currently willing to participate - we're not far away from a 10-12 team mark, which would give us even more options in terms of a league system (should we establish and manage the league ourselves; in the case it would be official part of BB, developers would likely be willing to stick with the already established league formats and rules used in league&playoff play, or Buzzerbeater Madness). Of course, we could already start it out should we decide to do so, but on the other hand I'd personally like to wait for at least 1-5 teams to join, which would give us more flexibility and choice in terms of league system used.

And, I wouldn't mind if BuzzerBeater owners or developers (or staff!) would give their opinion on whether it'd be realistic for BB Homegrown (BBHG) league to become an official part of BuzzerBeater in the near future!?

But what becomes to league system used, I think for instance even as low as 10-12 teams would be enough to have a typical/regular kind of league, with 8 proceeding to playoffs. Or like I mentioned before, there are numerous league systems/methods to choose from... In the case of 8 participating teams, we could for example make 2 groups of teams who would play EITHER ONLY against teams in their group OR ALSO against teams on other group.

In this kind of two group league system teams could be divided into groups based on salary of top 12 players, or if some teams would have less players than that, maybe based on total salary of maximum top 12 earners of team divided by amount of players. In practice it goes so that if some team has got 9 players for instance, salaries would be added and divided by 9; if some other team has 15 players, salaries of only top 12 earners would be count together and divided by 12. And then Group A would receive teams that have salary ranks 1st, 4th, 6th and 7th, and Group B teams ranked as 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 8th in salaries.

But again, this is only an example of many possibilities (as many different and interesting league and playoff formats are used around the world in different team sports), but in this example I was trying to make it as fair to all as possible. (I might have made a mistake on setting teams to groups based on salaries, but I made that division partly by intuition and some reasoning - if people would find Group A ranks 1,3,5,7 and B ranks 2,4,6,8 better option that would also be fine - however I guess Group A would then be tougher group to advance to playoffs from).

I just add another way of making divisions/groups/PO.

If you know SUMO, all the teams face each other, and at the end of all games, a new ranking is published.
The next season, we do the same, BUT the best teams face each other at the end of the schedule (and all the "worst" teams also).
In case of a tie, there is a tie-breaker (logical !).
It's very easy to create ! 1 game / week, and 2 weeks left for tie-breakers.

Love the idea.

For those of us who do not have a Home-Grown (HG) team, but have considered it, will the BBHG consider teams who convert to a Home-Grown team?

That is, change their team (over a few seasons) to have ONLY home-grown players?

As an Australian manager, who would like to only have Aussie plyers, and as someone who likes the idea (and challenge) of pivoting towards a HG team, I would need to do the following:

1. Keep those few players on my team who are either draftees, or who were given to my team from the beginning (the star players); and
2. Fire or sell all OTHER players on the team; and
3. Only keep trainees, training them up while adding more season after season.

If this was accomplished, would you consider accepting such teams? Or, are you only accepting teams who started BB as a HG team?

It's probably a mute point as it would tyake numerous seasons for me to change my current team to a HG team...

...and by then who knows what will become of your BBHG competition.

I am seriously considering though.

Hello !

Homegrown is homegrown, not homegrown BUT...

It's too easy to have 5 HG players + 3 elite players from elsewhere.

+ 1

Homegrown is an attitude of life

Hello !

Homegrown is homegrown, not homegrown BUT...

It's too easy to have 5 HG players + 3 elite players from elsewhere.

Yeah I agree.

Maybe my question wasn't clear enough. I'm not asking about if a partial HG team can compete but a 100% HG team.

Furthermore, can a team (who becomes a HG team) eventually join this league?

Maybe my example will clarify better.

As it stands right now, regardless of whether you look at my 1st or 2nd team, both teams are NOT HG teams.

HOWEVER, I have made the decision to turn my 2nd Team (Westopian Tigers) into a HG team over the next 3+ seasons. That is, I will continue training my current players until their U21 teams BUT...

I will slowly fire or sell EVERY player and ONLY keep players I have drafted. Obviously I can only draft 3 players per season. 3 Seasons from now I will have 9 players (training them as I go).

So, I am going to turn my current team into a 100% HG team.

So, returning to my original question:

If I BECOME a HG team in this way, will my team still be viewed in the same way as those HG teams which were crested from the beginning; those teams that started HG and stayed HG?

I'm just interested to know where HG teams stand on this 'created' HG team v 'original' HG team. Does it matter?

Well, I'm not the master of HG teams ;)
And my team became HG 25 seasons ago, I think, not at the beginning.

I think that ANY team without any players from other team can play any HG league, but I'm not alone.
Let's read the other ones :)

I'm in !

Different options and opinions are definitely welcome, so thank you. I'm not also sure whether I understood all aspects of your proposition (for instance, where are tie-breaks needed for - to establish which teams possess higher "team strength rating"?), but that doesn't mean I couldn't reply to a message. ;)
What do you mean by SUMO? (I know only sumo wrestling, and as far as I know, not everyone meets everyone during one tournament, and it could be years that some wrestlers don't face each other as there are about 40 wrestlers on the highest level and 15 matches per tournament - and in some occassions they never meet unless it's mandatory to decide a tournament winner. There are rankings that change after each tournament though, so that's why I wonder if you meant that).

At the first thought I'm supporting your idea that weakest would face weakest and strongest face the strongest at the end of the regular season, however, as of now I think it'd better and (for the league commissioner probably easier) to use salaries in some form to determine the weakest and strongest teams. Also, if I'd personally have to create schedules (of which I have no experience of), I don't know how much more complicated that would make it if there are plenty of participants.

Also, I think it might be more transparent, more clear (and some might feel, more fair - however, I realize salaries might not the best way to determine the value of the players, but it's probably the best one that's viewable to all and therefore can be verified by anyone) to stick with some values that are more easily comparable and in one sense, more logical. I guess salary would also reflect better the real strength of the team in the given/following season (as opposed to last seasons regular season success), so using salaries as a base for determining such things would create more even groups.

I think it'd be great to also consider establishing rating systems that wouldn't require that much work to be determined (ratings made by calculating and comparing salaries unfortunately are not automatic either if you do it manually, so someone would have to overtake this job once per season), and that would be transparent enough (if such ratings would be used that demars suggested, who would create those rankings, on which basis would those be made, and would the rankings sort of be valid anymore for the season 2 that they're being used, if some homegrown team decides to sell player(s) close at the end of the season 1 for instance while still maintaining high league position at the season 1 league table), unless of course those "team strength ratings" would automatically be determined only by the regular season table. Also, if new teams join for the next season, sticking with salary would make it easier to put them into a "correct" group based on the team strenght (if there even would be multiple groups in the league), as a joining team wouldn't have any ranking (if ranking is understood here the way manager demars wrote about it) based on last season play, as they weren't participating in the league.

Having said that, while it all might have sounded negative and like I'd try to shoot down your idea, that's not the case. Things are not black and white, and there's good in every option (some more than in others - but that's how things eventually get decided, by comparing pros, cons and preferences). I was simply throwing out some thoughts that it awoke and trying to give some insights why I think this way currently.. As of right now, because of many reasons, personally I'm still fan of using salaries to compare teams strength ratings (so far I haven't come up with a better option, if I will, I'll change my opinion).