APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION | NOT LEAGUE LAW

Rules Proposal Archive

This packet is an approved public governance record. Its proposals do not control league law unless adopted into the official rulebook.

Archive status: Approved for publication
Legal status: Non-binding proposals
Approved: August 12, 2026
Rulebook: Official v0.30 controls

Open approved packet Download approved PDF Compare official rulebook Back to League Office

PROPOSAL ARCHIVEPublished record

Not controlling league law unless adopted into the official rulebook

Search the proposal archive

19indexed sections

Proposal Packet Instructions

This packet reformats the BDA RULE PROPOSAL source into a standard production structure. Draft proposals are not official rules. They remain separate from the rulebook until formally approved and copied into the official rulebook.

The packet is separated by status: Proposed, Under Review, Approved, Rejected, Withdrawn, and Superseded.

Proposed

Entries below retain their recorded proposal status. Publication does not adopt them as league law.

PROP-001 - Roster Stability, Contract Rating Lock, Bird Rights, and Re-Entry Pool

Proposal ID: PROP-001
Proposal title: Roster Stability, Contract Rating Lock, Bird Rights, and Re-Entry Pool
Date submitted: Not specified in source
Sponsor or requesting party: Not specified in source
Current status: Proposed
Rulebook sections affected: Roster rules, contract expiration, free agency, draft re-entry, workbook tracking
Problem being addressed: The league wants more roster stability than the old 3-veteran-keeper system gave. The source identifies churn, overprotection, ratings-cap concerns, and the need to reward development while allowing outside bidding.
Existing rule or rule gap: The current rule book has contracts, annual 3-season rights, RFA, Rising Stars, and current-year free agents, but does not yet contain the full Contract Rating Lock / Bird Rights system proposed in the source.
Exact proposed rule language: Any player who finished the BDA season as a current-year free agent, waiver pickup, or temporary replacement returns to the BDA Re-Entry Pool unless the team legally converts that player into a new contract during the offseason signing period.
Rationale: Reward development. Tax imports. Keep the draft alive. Track it in the workbook so nobody has to argue from memory.
Benefits: Increases continuity, rewards scouting and development, preserves a market for expiring players, and creates workbook tracking.
Costs and tradeoffs: Creates added offseason complexity, requires rating locks, requires offer-sheet administration, and may overlap with current RFA rules.
Exceptions or special cases: Rising Stars already have a separate control path. Current-year free-agent signings do not create automatic future control unless converted.
Implementation requirements: Create or maintain Contract_Rating_Lock with player, team, acquisition method, contract timing, signing rating, current rating, rating change, Bird eligibility, offer-sheet eligibility, and notes.
Vote or commissioner decision: No vote or commissioner decision recorded in source.
Effective date if approved: Not specified in source.
Revision history: Source status: Proposal for discussion. Not locked league law until approved and copied into the official rule book.

Under Review

Entries below retain their recorded proposal status. Publication does not adopt them as league law.

PROP-002 - Draft Order Format Review and Optional Hybrid Format

Proposal ID: PROP-002
Proposal title: Draft Order Format Review and Optional Hybrid Format
Date submitted: Not specified in source
Sponsor or requesting party: Not specified in source
Current status: Under Review
Rulebook sections affected: Draft Rules, Draft_Order_Calc, draft structure
Problem being addressed: A regular non-snake order would help weaker teams more, but a full regular order could overcorrect in an 8-team league with a broad BDA draft pool.
Existing rule or rule gap: The rulebook currently uses snake draft order with draft tiers and Draft Priority Points.
Exact proposed rule language: The BDA Draft shall remain a snake draft unless both owners approve a special rebuild-assistance draft format before the draft begins. Any approved exception must be recorded before draft day and may not be applied retroactively.
Rationale: Keep snake order as the default while allowing owner-approved rebuild assistance before draft day.
Benefits: Preserves competitive balance and allows targeted rebuild help when approved.
Costs and tradeoffs: Hybrid exceptions could complicate draft prep and pick-value comparisons.
Exceptions or special cases: Optional hybrid format to consider: Round 1 and Round 2 use final draft priority order, Round 3 and later snake.
Implementation requirements: If adopted, record any exception before draft day and update Draft_Order_Calc.
Vote or commissioner decision: No vote or commissioner decision recorded in source.
Effective date if approved: Before a future draft, if approved.
Revision history: Source status: Proposal archive for discussion.

PROP-003 - Good-Faith Competition and Anti-Tanking Rule

Proposal ID: PROP-003
Proposal title: Good-Faith Competition and Anti-Tanking Rule
Date submitted: Not specified in source
Sponsor or requesting party: Not specified in source
Current status: Under Review
Rulebook sections affected: Game integrity, standings, draft order, penalties
Problem being addressed: The rule book does not yet have a direct anti-tanking misconduct rule. It relies on general game integrity, but should clearly require good-faith competition.
Existing rule or rule gap: Current anti-tanking features exist indirectly through draft-order weighting, Mini Crown value, snake draft, roster lock, waiver priority movement, and playoff/home-court incentives.
Exact proposed rule language: All owners must make a good-faith effort to win every official BDA game. A team may experiment with lineups, develop young players, manage injuries, or test strategy, but may not intentionally lose games, bench healthy core players for draft advantage, manipulate rotations in bad faith, or use roster moves primarily to damage competitiveness.
Rationale: Clarify that the violation is bad-faith non-competition, not normal coaching experimentation.
Benefits: Protects integrity, prevents draft manipulation, and gives the league review factors.
Costs and tradeoffs: Requires judgment calls and possible penalties.
Exceptions or special cases: Normal lineup testing, young-player development, and strategic rotation changes are legal.
Implementation requirements: Define review process and penalties. Source lists warning, loss of waiver priority, loss of Mini Crown draft bonus, draft-order adjustment, loss of late-round pick, and loss of unused 3-season signing right for severe or repeated conduct.
Vote or commissioner decision: No vote or commissioner decision recorded in source.
Effective date if approved: Not specified in source.
Revision history: Source status: Proposal archive for discussion.

PROP-004 - BDA Trade Portal Rule

Proposal ID: PROP-004
Proposal title: BDA Trade Portal Rule
Date submitted: Not specified in source
Sponsor or requesting party: Not specified in source
Current status: Under Review
Rulebook sections affected: Trades, roster control, workbook tracking
Problem being addressed: The rule book says what may be traded, but does not fully define how trades are proposed, logged, reviewed, discovered, accepted, rejected, or expired.
Existing rule or rule gap: Legal trade assets are defined, but trade-proposal workflow is not fully defined.
Exact proposed rule language: The league shall maintain a BDA Trade Portal in the official workbook. The portal shall include a Team Needs Board, Player Trade Block, Wanted List, Trade Proposal Log, and Trade Legality Checker.
Rationale: Use a workbook portal to discover, organize, review, and record potential trades while preventing hidden side agreements.
Benefits: Improves trade clarity, review, legality checking, and historical records.
Costs and tradeoffs: Requires additional workbook maintenance and defined process ownership.
Exceptions or special cases: In-season trades between teams controlled by the same owner are prohibited unless both owners approve the move as a league correction, emergency fix, or special exception.
Implementation requirements: Create Team_Needs_Board, Player_Trade_Block, Wanted_List, Trade_Proposal_Log, and Trade_Legality_Checker.
Vote or commissioner decision: No vote or commissioner decision recorded in source.
Effective date if approved: Not specified in source.
Revision history: Source status: Proposal archive for discussion.

PROP-005 - Quick Lookup and GPT Source Management

Proposal ID: PROP-005
Proposal title: Quick Lookup and GPT Source Management
Date submitted: Not specified in source
Sponsor or requesting party: Not specified in source
Current status: Under Review
Rulebook sections affected: Sources, workbook management, GPT maintenance
Problem being addressed: The custom GPT can be slow when searching the full workbook for simple current questions.
Existing rule or rule gap: No short Quick Lookup source is established as a secondary fast-lookup layer.
Exact proposed rule language: For simple lookup questions, check BDA 2K QUICK LOOKUP first. Simple lookup questions include who plays next, who is injured, who can return, current standings, current stat leaders, latest transactions, and current awards race. If BDA 2K QUICK LOOKUP is missing, stale, or conflicts with the official workbook, use the official workbook as the source of truth. The official rule book still controls rule questions. The newsletter is secondary media/context, not controlling law.
Rationale: Create a short Quick Lookup source for simple answers while keeping the workbook and rulebook as controlling records.
Benefits: Faster answers, cleaner source priority, less workbook search overhead.
Costs and tradeoffs: Requires routine updates after workbook changes.
Exceptions or special cases: If Quick Lookup conflicts with the workbook, the workbook controls season data. If Quick Lookup conflicts with the rulebook, the rulebook controls league law.
Implementation requirements: Create BDA 2K QUICK LOOKUP with Last Updated, Current Week, Next Games, standings, injury report, return eligibility, transactions, waiver notes, roster lock status, leaders, and awards snapshot.
Vote or commissioner decision: No vote or commissioner decision recorded in source.
Effective date if approved: Not specified in source.
Revision history: Source status: Proposal archive for discussion.

PROP-006 - Workbook Expansion for Contracts, Trades, and Quick Lookup

Proposal ID: PROP-006
Proposal title: Workbook Expansion for Contracts, Trades, and Quick Lookup
Date submitted: Not specified in source
Sponsor or requesting party: Not specified in source
Current status: Under Review
Rulebook sections affected: Workbook tracking, contracts, trades, draft order, waivers, injuries
Problem being addressed: The workbook should not only hold stats. It should also hold operating records for contracts, rights, trades, draft order, waiver status, injuries, and lookup information.
Existing rule or rule gap: Current source recommends new workbook tabs to support governance.
Exact proposed rule language: No exact official rule language recorded beyond recommended workbook additions.
Rationale: Keep operational records in one place so disputes are not decided by memory.
Benefits: Improves tracking and supports rule enforcement.
Costs and tradeoffs: More workbook structure and maintenance required.
Exceptions or special cases: Not specified in source.
Implementation requirements: Add Contract_Rating_Lock, BDA_Trade_Portal, Team_Needs_Board, Player_Trade_Block, Wanted_List, Trade_Proposal_Log, Trade_Legality_Checker, and BDA_Quick_Lookup.
Vote or commissioner decision: No vote or commissioner decision recorded in source.
Effective date if approved: Not specified in source.
Revision history: Source status: Proposal archive for discussion.

PROP-007 - Playoff Extreme-Hardship Replacement Exception

Proposal ID: PROP-007
Proposal title: Playoff Extreme-Hardship Replacement Exception
Date submitted: Not specified in source
Sponsor or requesting party: Not specified in source
Current status: Under Review
Rulebook sections affected: Playoff injuries, roster lock, replacement players
Problem being addressed: A prior playoff series demonstrated that an absolute no-replacement rule can turn an extreme injury event into a stamina and roster-availability contest rather than a competitive basketball game.
Existing rule or rule gap: Current law does not allow temporary or permanent injury replacements during the playoffs.
Exact proposed rule language: Beginning next season, a playoff team may receive an Extreme-Hardship Replacement Exception only when officially recorded injuries leave the team with fewer than eight healthy, eligible players for its next playoff game.
Rationale: Provide emergency relief only for extreme injury situations while preserving playoff roster integrity.
Benefits: Protects competitive play in extreme injury events.
Costs and tradeoffs: Creates possible approval disputes, rating-cap checks, and temporary roster administration during playoffs.
Exceptions or special cases: Proposal for the next BDA season only. This does not change the current postseason roster lock or current no-replacement rule.
Implementation requirements: Track injured players, healthy-player count, authorized replacement slots, replacement ratings, approval status, activation game, and mandatory release point.
Vote or commissioner decision: Owners must vote on threshold, rating cap, approval authority, and automatic vs discretionary activation.
Effective date if approved: Next BDA season only if approved.
Revision history: Source status: Proposal archive for discussion.

PROP-008 - Open Questions for Owner Vote

Proposal ID: PROP-008
Proposal title: Open Questions for Owner Vote
Date submitted: Not specified in source
Sponsor or requesting party: Not specified in source
Current status: Under Review
Rulebook sections affected: Draft, anti-tanking, trade portal, Quick Lookup, newsletter/source roles
Problem being addressed: Multiple proposal items require owner choices before they can become official rules.
Existing rule or rule gap: Source lists open questions but does not record final decisions.
Exact proposed rule language: No exact rule language recorded for these questions.
Rationale: Owner votes are needed before draft format, anti-tanking penalties, trade portal requirements, and Quick Lookup placement become official.
Benefits: Prevents draft proposals from being mistaken for official league law.
Costs and tradeoffs: Requires owner review and decisions.
Exceptions or special cases: Not applicable.
Implementation requirements: Collect Ron and Oliver decisions, then copy approved language into the official rulebook.
Vote or commissioner decision: No vote or commissioner decision recorded in source.
Effective date if approved: After owner approval, if adopted.
Revision history: Source status: Open questions for owner vote.

Approved

Entries below retain their recorded proposal status. Publication does not adopt them as league law.

No proposals in this status category were identified in the source materials.

Rejected

Entries below retain their recorded proposal status. Publication does not adopt them as league law.

No proposals in this status category were identified in the source materials.

Withdrawn

Entries below retain their recorded proposal status. Publication does not adopt them as league law.

No proposals in this status category were identified in the source materials.

Superseded

Entries below retain their recorded proposal status. Publication does not adopt them as league law.

No proposals in this status category were identified in the source materials.

Original Source Text Archive

Entries below retain their recorded proposal status. Publication does not adopt them as league law.

The following appendix preserves the original proposal source text in cleaned ASCII-safe form for reference. Formatting has been normalized; proposal status has not been upgraded to official law.

BDA ROSTER STABILITY RULE PROPOSAL

Status: Proposal for discussion. Not locked league law until approved and copied into the official rule book.

Purpose

This proposal archives the current roster-stability discussion. The goal is to increase continuity from season to season without letting any team hoard already-established superstars forever.

Current foundation from existing league law

The current rule book already gives the league several building blocks:

Teams may use 3-season, 2-season, and 1-season contracts.
Each team currently has annual 3-season contract rights.
Unused 3-season contract rights may be traded but cannot be carried over.
Expiring controlled players become restricted free agents unless the team declines rights.
Rising Stars already have a separate control path.
Current-year free-agent signings do not create automatic future control unless converted through a legal offseason contract process.
The draft is already broader than a real-life rookie draft because current NBA players and approved legend classes can enter the BDA player pool when not under BDA control.

Main problem

The league wants more roster stability than the old 3-veteran-keeper system gave. The new 4th keeper helped, but a pure keeper-count system can still create problems:

Too much yearly churn makes team identity weak.
Too much protection can make the draft feel like leftovers.
A ratings cap can punish good scouting if a young player improves after being drafted or signed.
The league needs a clean way to reward development while still letting the opposing owner bid on expiring players.

Guiding principles

Reward teams that draft or sign young players before they break out.
Tax teams that import already-made stars.
Keep the draft meaningful every season.
Let opposing owners bid on expiring players.
Give the current team a fair right to match.
Track everything in the workbook so disputes are not decided by memory.

Core idea 1: Lock rating at contract signing

When a player signs a BDA contract, the league records his official 2K overall rating at the time of signing.

Formula:

Rating Change = Current Rating - Signing Rating

Example:

Signing Rating = 78

Current Rating = 86

Rating Change = 86 - 78 = +8

The signing rating controls the player's contract class for that contract cycle. A player should not become more expensive during the same contract just because the team scouted well and he improved.

Core idea 2: Acquisition class matters more than current rating

A player's control class should be based on how he entered the team.

Suggested classes:

Franchise Keeper
Veteran Keeper
Homegrown Development Player
Rising Star
Imported Star
Current-Year Free Agent
Temporary Injury Replacement
Rights-Held Inactive Player
Draft Re-Entry Player

A young player drafted or signed before becoming elite should be treated differently from a veteran superstar acquired after he was already elite.

Core idea 3: Homegrown Development Protection

A player drafted or originally signed before becoming elite keeps Homegrown Development Protection during his original contract, even if his rating improves.

Example:

A team drafts a player at 79 overall.

He rises to 87 overall before the contract expires.

He remains a Homegrown Development Player during that original contract.

This rewards good scouting and development. The team should benefit from being early. It should not get punished for being right.

Core idea 4: Bird Rights and offer sheets

When a player completes a contract, the current team may receive Bird Rights.

Bird Rights mean:

The player may still receive outside bids.
The current team gets the right to match the outside offer.
If the current team matches, it keeps the player.
If the current team declines to match, the bidding team gets the player and pays the offered compensation.

This keeps the market open but gives the developing team a real retention advantage.

Core idea 5: Development Bird Rights

A player qualifies for Development Bird Rights if he improves by 5 or more overall rating points during the contract and the current team held his rights through the completed contract.

Formula:

Development Gain = Current Rating - Signing Rating

Eligibility:

Development Gain >= 5

Example:

Signing Rating = 79

Current Rating = 86

Development Gain = 86 - 79 = 7

7 >= 5, so Development Bird Rights apply.

Development Bird Rights allow the current team to match the contract years of an outside offer without paying draft-pick compensation to itself.

Core idea 6: Offer sheet scoring

Outside bids should be structured and comparable.

Formula:

Bid Score = Contract Years Offered + Draft Pick Value

Draft Pick Value:

1st round pick = 3 points

2nd round pick = 2 points

Late-round pick = 1 point

No pick = 0 points

Example:

Offer = 3 contract years + 2nd round pick

Bid Score = 3 + 2 = 5

If bid scores tie, the Bird Rights team receives the tie advantage.

Core idea 7: What happens when the current team declines

If the Bird Rights team declines to match:

The bidding team receives the player.
The bidding team gives the offered draft-pick compensation to the former team.
The player signs for the contract years in the offer sheet.

Example:

Oliver offers 3 years plus a 2nd round pick for one of Ron's expiring developed players.

Ron declines to match.

Oliver receives the player.

Ron receives Oliver's 2nd round pick.

Core idea 8: Anti-hoarding guardrails

Bird Rights should not become a lifetime coupon.

Suggested limits:

Maximum Bird Rights matches per team per offseason: 2
Maximum Development Bird Rights matches per team per offseason: 1
Maximum new 3-season veteran contracts per team per offseason should remain limited unless changed by rule.
At least some roster spots must return to the draft or re-entry pool every offseason.

This rewards development but still forces hard choices.

Core idea 9: Draft re-entry pool

The BDA Draft should be treated as a re-entry and allocation draft, not only a real-life rookie draft.

A player should enter the BDA Draft if:

He is a current NBA player or otherwise approved draft-pool player.
He is not under active BDA contract.
He is not protected by retained Rising Star rights.
He is not protected by injury-retained rights.
He is not protected by another recognized BDA rights status.

The key question should be:

Is this player currently controlled by a BDA team?

If yes, he stays out of the draft.

If no, and he is eligible for the player pool, he can enter the draft.

Core idea 10: Free agents from the prior season

Current-year free agents, waiver pickups, and temporary injury replacements do not automatically create future control.

They must be converted into a legal contract during the offseason signing period. If not converted, they return to the BDA Re-Entry Pool.

Proposed rule:

Any player who finished the BDA season as a current-year free agent, waiver pickup, or temporary replacement returns to the BDA Re-Entry Pool unless the team legally converts that player into a new contract during the offseason signing period.

Required workbook tracking system

Create or maintain a tab named Contract_Rating_Lock.

Recommended columns:

Player Name
Team
Owner
Acquisition Method
Original Acquiring Team
Contract Signed Season
Contract Start Date
Contract Length
Seasons Remaining
Signing Rating
Current Rating
Rating Change
Development Status
Bird Rights Team
Bird Eligible
Offer Sheet Eligible
Last Verified Rating Source
Notes

Required formula:

Rating Change = Current Rating - Signing Rating

Suggested offseason order of operations

Season ends.
Contract seasons decrement.
Expired contracts are marked.
Teams declare keepers and contract extensions.
Teams declare Bird Rights or RFA intent.
Current-year free agents are converted or released.
Outside offer sheets are submitted.
Bird Rights teams match or decline.
Uncontrolled players enter the Re-Entry Pool.
Special eligible players are added.
Draft pool locks.
Draft happens.

Draft rule wording to consider

The BDA Draft is not limited to real-life rookie classes. The BDA Draft is a re-entry and allocation draft for all players who are draft eligible and not currently under BDA contract or retained BDA rights.

Veteran players may re-enter the BDA Draft multiple times across seasons if they are not under BDA control.

A player's past appearance in a BDA Draft does not remove his future draft eligibility unless he is currently under contract or protected rights.

Bird Rights rule wording to consider

A team earns Bird Rights on a player if the team legally held that player through completion of a BDA contract.

Bird Rights give the current team the first right to match an opposing owner's offer sheet when the player's contract expires.

Bird Rights do not block the market. They only give the rights-holding team a retention advantage.

Development Bird Rights rule wording to consider

A player qualifies for Development Bird Rights if his Current Rating at contract expiration is at least 5 points higher than his Signing Rating.

Development Bird Rights allow the current team to match the contract years of an outside offer without paying draft-pick compensation to itself.

Open questions

Should the development threshold be +5 rating points, or should it be +4?
Should Bird Rights be limited to 2 matches per offseason, or should that number scale by roster size?
Should Development Bird Rights be limited to 1 per offseason?
Should outside offer sheets require draft-pick compensation, or may contract years alone be enough?
Should the current RFA cost of 1st plus 2nd round picks remain, or should Bird Rights replace part of that system?
Should imported stars have any separate retention tax?
Should real-life NBA rookies enter only when available in 2K, while veteran re-entry fills the other BDA drafts?

Working recommendation

Use Contract Rating Lock, Homegrown Development Protection, Bird Rights, Offer Sheets, and a BDA Re-Entry Draft Pool.

Do not use a pure ratings cap. It punishes good scouting and young-player development.

Reward development. Tax imports. Keep the draft alive. Track it in the workbook so nobody has to argue from memory.

BDA GOVERNANCE AND OPERATIONS PROPOSAL UPDATE

Status: Proposal archive for discussion. Not official league law unless approved by both owners and copied into the official rule book.

Purpose

This update collects the additional governance ideas discussed after the roster-stability proposal. The goal is to give the league better procedures for draft order, anti-tanking, trade discovery, trade review, GPT/source management, and fast lookup without changing official league law by accident.

Section A: Draft Order Format Review

Current rule foundation:

The official rule book currently uses a snake draft.
Odd rounds use the final draft order.
Even rounds use the reverse final draft order.
The current draft-order system already uses draft tiers and Draft Priority Points to help weaker teams without making losing too valuable.

Proposal discussion:

A regular non-snake order would help weaker teams more because the highest-priority team would pick earlier in every round. This can speed up rebuilds.

Concern:

A full regular order could overcorrect in an 8-team league, especially because the BDA draft pool can include current NBA players, eligible legends, Rising Stars, and re-entry players. Repeated early picks could give one team too much help and punish winning too heavily.

Working recommendation:

Keep snake order as the default draft structure.

Optional hybrid format to consider:

Round 1: Final draft priority order.
Round 2: Final draft priority order again.
Round 3 and later: Snake order.

Reason:

This gives weaker teams a little extra rebuild help without turning the full draft into a bailout system.

Proposed rule wording:

The BDA Draft shall remain a snake draft unless both owners approve a special rebuild-assistance draft format before the draft begins. Any approved exception must be recorded before draft day and may not be applied retroactively.

Section B: Anti-Tanking and Good-Faith Competition

Current anti-tanking features already in the rule book:

Draft order is not based only on worst record.
Draft tiers and Draft Priority Points make wins matter even for teams lower in the standings.
Mini Crown games count in the standings and create extra draft-order value.
Snake draft format prevents the highest-priority team from picking first in every round.
Roster lock after Game 12 limits late-season roster manipulation.
Waiver priority helps weaker teams but moves a claiming team to the back of the line after a successful claim.
Home court, playoff seeding, head-to-head, Mini Crown record, and point differential reward competitive play.

Identified rule gap:

The rule book does not yet have a direct anti-tanking misconduct rule. It relies on general game integrity, but it should clearly require good-faith competition.

Proposed rule wording:

Good-Faith Competition Rule

All owners must make a good-faith effort to win every official BDA game. A team may experiment with lineups, develop young players, manage injuries, or test strategy, but may not intentionally lose games, bench healthy core players for draft advantage, manipulate rotations in bad faith, or use roster moves primarily to damage competitiveness.

Tanking review factors:

If tanking is alleged, the league may review:

Lineup usage.
Player availability.
Recent roster moves.
Game context.
Playoff, draft, Mini Crown, and owner-race implications.
Prior owner conduct.
Whether the conduct looks like normal coaching experimentation or intentional non-competition.

Possible penalties:

Warning.
Loss of waiver priority.
Loss of Mini Crown draft bonus.
Draft-order adjustment.
Loss of late-round draft pick.
Loss of an unused 3-season signing right for severe or repeated conduct.

Clarification:

Normal lineup testing, young-player development, and strategic rotation changes are legal. The violation is bad-faith non-competition, not ordinary coaching.

Section C: Trade Practices and Trade Portal

Current rule foundation:

The rule book already allows trades before the Game 12 trade/signing deadline. Legal trade assets include players, draft picks, unused 3-season signing rights, contract rights, Rising Star rights, family-coded pairs when moved together, and other league-approved assets.

Identified rule gap:

The rule book says what may be traded, but it does not fully define how trades are proposed, logged, reviewed, discovered, accepted, rejected, or expired.

Working recommendation:

Create a BDA Trade Portal in the official workbook. The portal should not make trades official by itself. It should be used to discover trade fits, organize available assets, log offers, and review legality.

Recommended workbook sections or tabs:

Team_Needs_Board.
Player_Trade_Block.
Wanted_List.
Trade_Proposal_Log.
Trade_Legality_Checker.

Team_Needs_Board recommended columns:

Team.
Owner.
Current Record.
Team Direction.
Needs.
Wants.
Available Assets.
Untouchable Players.
Contract Concerns.
Draft Pick Situation.
Notes.
Last Updated.

Player_Trade_Block recommended columns:

Player.
Team.
Owner.
Position.
Role.
Current Rating.
Contract Status.
Seasons Remaining.
Rights Attached.
Trade Status.
Asking Price.
Preferred Return.
Hard No Teams.
Notes.

Suggested Trade Status dropdowns:

Available.
Listening.
Would Need Overpay.
Untouchable.
Injury Replacement Only.
Rights-Held Only.

Wanted_List recommended columns:

Team.
Owner.
Wanted Player Type.
Specific Targets.
Position Need.
Skill Need.
Contract Preference.
Willing To Trade.
Not Willing To Trade.
Urgency.
Notes.

Suggested Wanted Player Types:

Backup point guard.
Rim protector.
3-and-D wing.
Bench scorer.
Expiring contract.
Rising Star prospect.
Draft pick.
3-season signing right.

Trade_Proposal_Log recommended columns:

Proposal ID.
Date.
Proposing Owner.
Receiving Owner.
Teams Involved.
Assets From Team A.
Assets From Team B.
Draft Picks Included.
Contract Rights Included.
Rising Star Rights Included.
3-Season Rights Included.
Family-Coded Players Included.
Roster Size Legal.
Deadline Legal.
Status.
Expiration Time.
Final Ruling.
Notes.

Suggested proposal statuses:

Proposed.
Countered.
Accepted Pending Review.
Approved.
Rejected.
Expired.
Withdrawn.
Illegal.

Trade_Legality_Checker recommended columns:

Proposal ID.
Before Game 12.
Roster Size Legal.
Assets Legal.
Draft Picks Available.
Contracts Transfer Correctly.
Rising Star Rights Transfer Correctly.
Family-Coded Pair Kept Together.
Injury Replacement Issue.
Same-Owner Conflict.
Both Owners Accepted.
Commissioner Logged.
Final Legal Status.

Proposed rule wording:

BDA Trade Portal Rule

The league shall maintain a BDA Trade Portal in the official workbook. The portal shall include a Team Needs Board, Player Trade Block, Wanted List, Trade Proposal Log, and Trade Legality Checker.

The portal is used to discover, organize, review, and record potential trades. A player listed as available, listening, wanted, or untouchable is not an official trade offer. It is only a trade-discovery signal.

A trade offer becomes official only when it is entered into the Trade Proposal Log with all teams, players, draft picks, contract rights, Rising Star rights, 3-season signing rights, conditions, and expiration terms listed.

A trade accepted by both owners is not final until it is reviewed for legality under the rule book and entered into the official workbook.

All official trade offers expire after 24 hours unless both owners agree to extend or immediately process the offer.

In-season trades between teams controlled by the same owner are prohibited unless both owners approve the move as a league correction, emergency fix, or special exception.

No hidden side agreements are enforceable. All trade terms must be written in the Trade Proposal Log.

Once a trade is approved and logged, it cannot be changed retroactively unless both owners agree that a recording error occurred.

The trade and signing deadline remains after Game 12. No trade may be processed after the deadline unless a future rule creates a specific exception.

Section D: Quick Lookup and GPT Source Management

Purpose:

The BDA custom GPT can be slow when it has to search the full workbook for simple questions such as who plays next, who is injured, current standings, or current stat leaders. A short Quick Lookup source should be created to speed up simple answers while keeping the workbook as the official record.

Recommended file or tab name:

BDA 2K QUICK LOOKUP

Recommended Quick Lookup sections:

Last Updated.
Current Week.
Next Games.
Current Standings.
Current Injury Report.
Players Eligible to Return.
Recent Transactions.
Available Free Agents / Waiver Notes.
Roster Lock Status.
Top Stat Leaders.
Awards Snapshot.

Proposed GPT/source priority for simple questions:

Official Rule Book for rules.
BDA 2K QUICK LOOKUP for simple current questions.
Current Season Master workbook for detailed stats, schedules, rosters, contracts, and verification.
Newsletter for storylines, recaps, awards context, and media tone.
Rule Proposal documents for discussion only.

Important clarification:

The Quick Lookup source is not the official record. If it conflicts with the official workbook, the official workbook controls season data. If it conflicts with the official rule book, the official rule book controls league law.

Recommended GPT instruction wording:

For simple lookup questions, check BDA 2K QUICK LOOKUP first. Simple lookup questions include who plays next, who is injured, who can return, current standings, current stat leaders, latest transactions, and current awards race. If BDA 2K QUICK LOOKUP is missing, stale, or conflicts with the official workbook, use the official workbook as the source of truth. The official rule book still controls rule questions. The newsletter is secondary media/context, not controlling law.

Operational GPT maintenance note:

If the current workbook is uploaded into the custom GPT as a Knowledge file, it is a snapshot. It is not live-synced to Google Sheets. After every official workbook update, the commissioner should export the newest workbook, replace the old workbook in GPT Knowledge, click Update, and notify users that the GPT workbook is updated.

Status

Proposal for the next BDA season only. This does not change the current postseason roster lock or the current no-replacement rule.

Historical reason for the proposal

A prior NJ Devils playoff team entered Game 6 with two players already injured, then lost its entire starting five to injuries during Game 6. The Devils still won Game 6, but only five healthy players remained for Game 7. Those five players had to play the entire deciding game, which the Devils lost by two points on the final possession. The result demonstrated that an absolute no-replacement rule can turn an extreme injury event into a stamina and roster-availability contest rather than a competitive basketball game.

Proposed rule wording

Beginning next season, a playoff team may receive an Extreme-Hardship Replacement Exception only when officially recorded injuries leave the team with fewer than eight healthy, eligible players for its next playoff game.

The team may add only enough temporary hardship players to restore the roster to eight healthy, eligible players. The exception may not be used to build depth beyond eight available players.

Each hardship replacement must come from the eligible free-agent or waiver pool and must be approved and recorded before the next game. A replacement may not have a higher overall rating than the injured-player slot used to justify that replacement. When multiple replacements are required, the available slots are matched beginning with the lowest-rated injured players.

Hardship replacements are temporary emergency players only. They create no contract rights, Rising Star rights, restricted-free-agent rights, keeper rights, draft compensation, or future roster control.

An injured player remains subject to the full 100% playoff injury duration. When a player becomes eligible to return and the team has at least eight healthy players, the corresponding hardship replacement must be released before the next game.

Only injuries suffered or officially recognized in BDA competition may support the exception. Owners may not manufacture availability issues through benching, voluntary deactivation, cuts, or other roster manipulation.

Recommended administration

The workbook should track the injured players, healthy-player count, replacement slots authorized, replacement-player ratings, approval status, activation game and mandatory release point.

Decision required before adoption

Owners must vote on the eight-player activation threshold, the rating cap, who approves the replacement, and whether the exception becomes automatic once the objective requirements are verified.

Section G: Open Questions for Owner Vote

Should the BDA draft remain full snake order, or should the league test the hybrid format with Round 1 and Round 2 using draft priority order before snaking?
Should the Good-Faith Competition Rule become official league law immediately?
Which anti-tanking penalties should be available, and should any penalty require unanimous owner approval?
Should same-owner trades be completely banned during the season, or allowed only with both-owner approval?
Should official trade offers expire after 24 hours, or should the default window be shorter?
Should the Trade Portal be mandatory before any trade can become official?
Should Quick Lookup be a Google Doc, a workbook tab, or both?
Should the newsletter remain media-only, or should it contain a clearly marked current league snapshot section for fast GPT lookup?

Working recommendation

Keep snake draft as the default. Add a Good-Faith Competition Rule. Build the Trade Portal. Create a Quick Lookup source for fast GPT answers. Keep the official workbook and rule book as the controlling records. Use the newsletter for story and context, not as the controlling source.

Effective date: April 27, 2026, with amendments through Version 0.30 | Page