BuzzerBeater Forums

[..]
My 1st team will go from $95k this season to $125k next season if training stays on track for the last few weeks; so, a $30k improvement.
[..]
EDIT: I should note that the following season will see much larger jumps due to the type of skills being trained. It won't be long before both teams are easily $200k+ teams.
[..]
I have now gone 1-position training for both teams. I should have a very decent SF and PF for my first team by the end of next season before switching to guard training in Season 71. My SF, Livingstone, will be ready to adapt to guard training to finish him off. My 7'3" PF prospect, Hunter, will be a $50k+ 22yr old with plenty of training left in him.
[..]
Well, I am a couple weeks away from knowing exactly what draftees I will select for my first team, but there are some guard prospects I really want target as my backcourt is old and almost ready for retirement.

[..]

Importantly, nearly every one of my players on both teams have received some training this season so this has only increased the depth of both teams.
[..]

Interesting and very thorough answer, thank you.. :) So much so, that it's not easy to reply to every aspect of it. But even if I don't, like I said it's interesting to read all this, and I think these kind of replies can give also other managers even more inspiration to keep fighting hard to make their team(s) as strong as possible.

And this reply of yours also underlined the fact that you know what you're doing, and like you said, jump in salaries after you reach that certain level (if you do the training certain way, that you train "expensive" skills bit later on) will usually be quite fast (say, from $125K to $200K level like in your example). And reaching that first victory is not going to be far away... this season you were already pretty close to get it.
And this wasn't said to overemphasize the meaning of winning games as you and I (and I believe most of us) feel BB and HGL is much more than just about winning, but it will be a nice bonus for your hard work nevertheless. :)

Good to hear your training has been very effective this season... I might not be able so say the same for my team with same confidence, as it's been a survival battle in my "regular BB league", which gives me a bridge to another subject: BB and HGL league system (in terms of one/two separate groups).

There were many reasons why a single league table was chosen for HGL instead of two same level groups, one being that it's most fair and equal choice for all. While following example - that underlines the benefit of using single league table - is bit on the extreme side, it's still a real example of "when things go wrong with two same level league tables".
The example mentioned before is actually my teams' BB league's league table, which is as uneven as I've ever experienced/seen.
League table is found from here: https://www.buzzerbeater.com/league/2300/overview.aspx

Teams that are on the other side (my side) of the table are 3rd and 4th on the league table with record 7 wins-12 losses, while if positioned to the other group, would be directly relegated with that record (you would have to have better than 9W-10L +/- minus 20 record to avoid direct relegation in that group).
Also, all teams in that "other side, better group" will in practice win their relegation matches, having pretty much superior rosters (in terms team capability and in most if not all cases, also in top5 salaries), so for teams in my (weaker) group relegation is only avoided by qualifying into the playoffs.

So I won't even get myself started more than this right now (unless someone comments something that I'd then respond), but I wanted to use this example if anyone still thinks it'd be better to have two same level groups/league tables in HGL instead of one same level group that we've been using since the beginning. ;)

Thanks for your responses, Wagner.

As for the 1 v 2 league proposal...

I like the 1 league ladder we have used up until the present. And while it would be great to continue it, I see a couple of obvious problems with this.

Firstly, the ladder will continue to grow (if history has shown us anything as more and more teams join the HGL) and we ensure every team who wants to play, can.

Secondly, and perhaps as a result of this, a larger ladder/league will require more games. This in turn will require a lot more PU tokens from players. Now, although some of you have large caches of PU tokens (still?), even those players will, if the league continues to grow, find it hard to keep up with that many tokens.

For both of the reasons stated above, perhaps we all need to start discussing and considering a change to the league/ladder so that:

1. We include as many teams as possible in the HGL; and
2. We ensure that the number of games per season don't out-pace the number of PU tokens teams colelct in the same period of time.

Just some thoughts...

I will also add here a proposal I may have floated originally when we were setting up the HGL.

As you might recall, I used to be involved (about 35+ seasons ago) in a large Australian PL competition called the Fishbowl. Like the HGL, it started off relatively humble with 16-20 teams and quickly began to grow as more and more teams heard about it and wanted to join.

As a result, we created an upper division and a lower division (the names of these escape me as I write this). The upper division comprised of the top 16 teams and the lower division comprised of the 16 lower teams. I don't recall how we defined which team went into the upper or lower division but I think it was based on salary.

We also had a component that required a team to win or finish in the final of the lower division (for example) to be able to 'promote' to the upper division where the 2 worst performing upper division teams relegated in much the same way we do in the league currently.

Now, I may be not entirely accurate in the number of teams we had playing in each division and those that were promoted and relegated, but you get the idea.

Perhaps we might consider something similar for the HGL? In terms of effort on your part as commissioner, it wouldn't be that much more work. More scheduling, however, and perhaps more importantly, will alleviate the PU token pressures that are surely on the horizon if we maintain the current setup.

We could even have a Deputy Commissioner responsible (in the same way you have been for the HGL thus far) for scheduling, maintaining and enforcing rules for the proposed 'lower' division.

These are just musings of course as you have floated the possibility of change and, as we can predict with some accuracy, change will be required at some point in the future if the HGL continues to expand.