BuzzerBeater Forums

Is the regional league getting bigger then if a Japanese Club promotes but no Japanese Club demotes from league I?

If you 'promote' then you go up and you are mixed leagues then. If you demote you go into your nation grouping.

That's pretty much what I'm suggesting...

and if your nation grouping is full (for whatever the reason) you kick someone down?

or if there is no low division you kick him out of the game?

Meh

Yes, the promotion/demotion would be an issue, but not an unsolvable one.. They worked with lateral movement in Utopia too.

If you 'promote' then you go up and you are mixed leagues then. If you demote you go into your nation grouping.

That's pretty much what I'm suggesting...

and if your nation grouping is full (for whatever the reason) you kick someone down?

or if there is no low division you kick him out of the game?

Meh

Says a guy who doesn't even PLAY in a small nation (SMH moment, right there). SAME AS IT IS NOW, DUDE. SAME AS IT WOULD BE IF THEY MERGED NATIONS. Seeing as you don't know, I'll explain: you play at the next spot available.

Is the regional league getting bigger then if a Japanese Club promotes but no Japanese Club demotes from league I?

Why would that occur? For a start - it's in all likelihood impossible to do that within current BB structures.
There are a few ways you could structure this...

Let's say - for ease - only one super league in Asia - a conglomerate of: Sth Korea, Thailand, Japan, Vietnam (again reiterating: this is for example's sake).
You could...
- have direct relegation/promotion based on nation (lowest finisher relegates, regardless).
- make it simply on ranking, disregarding nation entirely, but drawing on those 4 to provide the highest world rankings in that region - they play in the Div 1.
- Have a relegation game during the playoffs, where lowest Div 1 team per nation plays against a team that would promote - winner goes/stays in Div 1.

Lots of ways that national identity could occur, without going the Utopian route.

Yes, the promotion/demotion would be an issue, but not an unsolvable one.. They worked with lateral movement in Utopia too.

Absolutely. Ball for you.

...

Says a guy who doesn't even PLAY in a small nation (SMH moment, right there). SAME AS IT IS NOW, DUDE. SAME AS IT WOULD BE IF THEY MERGED NATIONS. Seeing as you don't know, I'll explain: you play at the next spot available.

So me being part of a large comunity of players makes you uncomfortable

Well... I'm sorry but get over it

In Utopia have been lateral movement because there is NO COUNTRY limitation

I'm ok with the "next spot available" but do not "encapsule" Divisions by "country" as you were saying

And of course this is the general forum, if you don't want others givieng their opinions about what you worte, stop writting

I
Why would that occur? For a start - it's in all likelihood impossible to do that within current BB structures.
There are a few ways you could structure this...

Let's say - for ease - only one super league in Asia - a conglomerate of: Sth Korea, Thailand, Japan, Vietnam (again reiterating: this is for example's sake).
You could...
[1]- have direct relegation/promotion based on nation (lowest finisher relegates, regardless).
[2]- make it simply on ranking, disregarding nation entirely, but drawing on those 4 to provide the highest world rankings in that region - they play in the Div 1.
[3]- Have a relegation game during the playoffs, where lowest Div 1 team per nation plays against a team that would promote - winner goes/stays in Div 1.

Lots of ways that national identity could occur, without going the Utopian route.

That are some valid ideas.

[1] could work in merged leagues with less than 4-6 countries. If you merge more countries you would have to many teams that are in relegation/demote. However we could have very weird scenarios where a high ranked team demotes just because the other team of his nation is even higher. Still I think this in combination with [3] is the way to go IF such a superleague would be implemented.

two problems this idea does not target are:

-managers of smaller countries would have it easier to promote to the superleague because of weaker competition in the highest national league. a guy, who has been champion for many seasons in his country in the old system, could just stay in the regional/continential league forever in your system, because he would always win the relegation game against very weak opponents.

- new managers would still have very few competition on the same level if they only start with other users from the same country (which would be in many cases equal starting alone!). If you also merge lower leagues new managers would start together with the few new managers other micronations have. This is in my opinion the most important benefit of a merge.

please don't ignore my arguments just because I play in a large nation (which would be ad hominem, too) and think about it ;)

The idea of having a top regional league (like Asia I) and then national lower divisions won't work .There would be the promotion/demotion problem. What has been suggested here is that the lowest team in the Div I will play the highest team in the national Div, like a relegation game .

First of all, how would the top regional league get structured ? Which teams would be put into it ? like maybe 1 from each country !? And then there would be only 1 spot in the top league for Iran for example. This would not work, as there maybe 3 or 4 teams (just an example) in Iran who deserve to be in the top league. A team in the lower national division may be much stronger than a team from another country which is in the top regional division, but he/she can't get promoted because he/she is stuck behind a very strong team from his own country which is in the top regional division.

Some ideas...
- Having top leagues as a local conglomerate...
- Having a second tier for smaller nations ...

...

From reading here, it seems like the majority of those who are *for* this move are from nations that it doesn't even impact. Those from smaller nations seem to be split, but the majority (certainly not vast) tend to not want the straight-Utopian-merge, but something which allows them to participate in what *could* be the best of both worlds.

My main concern is that this is merely a bandaid over a gaping wound, with the lifeblood of BB pouring out. Anyone who sees this as the primary concern for Buzzerbeater at the moment isn't seeing the forest for the trees.

Conglomerate on top, retain the small nation advantages for everyone else ... what a great idea for retaining the financial advantages of small nations. It is no wonder the small nations would like that idea; it keeps the very imbalance that a "merge" is designed to level out.

As far as nations that would not be impacted by even the smallest reshuffle, here is the entire list:
1. ___

We are all in this together and even the slightest reshuffle would impact everyone, at least financially.

You're right in your final paragraph. Of that there can be no doubt. Anything less than a complete reshuffle is nothing but a bandaid, or as I have said, rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.