BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

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.

This is a long discussion, to which I'm not sure I have enough time currently. But I'll give some reply for now.
This post of mine in fact wasn't 1 vs. 2 different league level-leagues proposal, not at all. I was referring to 2 same level groups within a same league tier. However, many problems/challenges can be considered similar in 2 different level leagues, so for the purpose of this post, I'll use those interchangeably.
No solution will ever be perfect, but I don't see too many problems with current setup to change it.

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.

As you mentioned, we'll have to see how many teams would be interested in joining HGL, and how "participation rights" would be given to teams, if there would be limited amount of league positions available for given season. This has been discussed on also earlier, or at least I've given multiple solutions on how to possibly solve this. As a very short recap that might leave some earlier presented options out, we could for instance have "a play-in league or play-in playoffs for participation right to next HGL season" during the current HGL Regular Season or Playoffs. This, of course, only would work until certain extent, if teams wouldn't be stepping out of HGL voluntarily (as has been the case so far, as many teams have left HGL and replacing teams have filled the 16 teams roster - this might or might not be the case also in the future).

As for the number of games per team if team amount is increased, this is a clear problem/challenge.
That's also a reason why it might be preferable to keep this number of teams at a certain maximum level, and have a short play-in series/playoff instead (for participation rights to next season) if many new teams would apply for position in HGL.
On the other hand, we'd have to deal with decisions such as should any of the current HGL teams be forced to enter such play-in series, with a risk of losing their place in HGL should they not play well enough in it - as you know, initially I haven't been a fan of that idea (and I'd prefer to secure a place for teams that want to keep on playing if they keep on following the HGL rules and protocols).

However, while problems of growth are positive problems, I also wish to remind that there is no obligation for HGL to grow/accept new teams more than it sees optimal (in terms of main league, I'm not referring to possible play-in type of league/playoff series), and if decision on significant growth is being made, all aspects (including possibly expanding teams allowed to Playoffs, etc.) need to be considered prior to that.

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...

Maximum amount of teams in HGL within current setup is debatable, but I guess it's somewhere between 16-18(-20?) teams(?).
Token usage is one thing to consider, but as long as we don't expand beyond those numbers, it could be possible to adapt requirement if given team is low on tokens.

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 [..] 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.

I won't edit all parts of your message out that I'm not referring into here, but I'll just respond to some parts of your post.
I remember your Fishbowl experience, however I've forgotten most if not all of it's details.

It is possible that HGL reaches similar kind of interest when time flies by, but as for now, there are still limited number of HG teams, of which limited amount are interested in playin in HGL (both of those numbers we of course hope will increase in the future), so this is clearly not a problem within the same scope as it was with Fishbowl with approximately 36 teams playing in it.

As for considering similar kind of system for HGL, I'm currently not a fan of it. While it does have some positives, and while I haven't 100% ruled out two tier league system somewhere in the distant future, I don't see it being optimal at all at this point. Of course it is necessary to approach this cautiously, as we want to present HGL as inviting option and want to give potentially new HG teams a realistic time scope within which they could achieve a place in HGL (by playing or by accepting team by a Commissioners' decision as has been the case so far), so that their initial experience/feeling of HGL would be as positive as possible.

However, we do need to remain realistic on the amount of HGL related work (remember it is 100% manual league). If team number would grow, league related tasks would grow significantly, and even more so on 2 different level league tiers-setup.
And as long as token usage remains about lower than what can be acquired per season, I don't see that as a major problem.

As for now, dividing some tasks among 100% committed managers that share the same views (on everything, including forcing penalties strictly) could be okay, but I don't think I'd be a fan of giving for instance this "lower level league" total control to someone else. And if I wouldn't, then it would still mean I'd have to verify everything myself (yes, again more work). So as usual, I will consider all you've written and those will possibly alter my opinions (towards your views) in the future, but they didn't change my position/current views at least just yet.

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.

I'll just take a quick example about the amount of work, given that league would expand.

Matches played (please correct me if there's a mistake in calculations!) in HGL regular season, if there are:
- 16 teams: 120 matches (current setup)
- 18 teams: 153 matches
- 20 teams: 190 matches
- 22 teams: 231 matches.

So as you can see, there's tremendous amount of more matches, if amount of participating teams are added even ever so slightly. And in all-manual league, this work is done, well, manually.
Those who haven't done the scheduling process themselves (including creating posts, checking/verifying matches for correctness, sending posts and BBMails so that uncorrect situations will be corrected, keeping a list of required actions, etc.), probably can't appreciate the amount of work that is required before it's all correctly finished. so adding 4 teams to current setup would add over 58% more matches to the regular season, which is a big number.

And dividing teams into two different level leagues would have many other negatives which have been discussed in great length before, including what Hadár mentioned earlier (kind of in between the lines, while he didn't present it exactly this way, but he presented as playing 2 matches per week as a strong point of HGL), that it would drop the number of games played in HGL per week to 1 (and shorten the season), unless we'd then play twice against the same opponent during the season (which if my memory serves me, demars mentioned as a negative side effect of such league with low team amount as it's more boring to play twice as opposed to playing different opponent each week, which I totally do agree).

Anyway, about the possible expand (to 17/18 teams?) on Season 3, again I would prefer an even number of teams, and as we currently have "only" 17 teams that are willing to participate for Season 3, we could start to think of the options...