BuzzerBeater Forums

(I'm not sure I'm not suggesting something that's already in place, because the Cup/Tournament is more or less undocumented in the rules... Consider that an implicit suggestion, too...)

Here's my selfish reason for this. I've focused on the Cup this season over the league. I've seen numerous posts from staff (in response to users asking for Cup prize money) suggesting that the Cup crowd income for each round is reward enough. In my case, that is simply not true. I'm going on the road in yet another piddly arena for the Cup finals. This will be my 8th road Cup game out of 10 (and 7th of the last 8). For a top division team, is $35K for a cup game worth sacrificing performance in the league?

I'd like to suggest the Cup final (at least... maybe the semis too) be scheduled at a neutral site, probably one of the larger stadiums in the country in question. (Not original, I know... straight from HT.) The increased revenue in later rounds would give all teams more incentive to take the Cup seriously. It would also limit the degree to which a team that goes far in the Cup could have their schedule influenced by a bad random home/road split.

I'm in the finals now, and flags fly forever, so I'll be trying to win, of course. But under the current system, assuming I'm still a top division team, there's no way that allocating any resources to the Cup makes sense.

You got $35k from a cup game? Sweet! Guess how much I got from my scrimmage that day?

Sarcasm aside, I like your idea. It may be a way that the cup could remain randomly drawn (thereby not encouraging the sandbagging in lower divisions so popular in HT), yet still be profitable for higher division teams (keeping reality involved, the best teams in the country vying for the cup rather than flag-chasing).

The only drawback I can find is the possibility of the largest arena in a country being owned by one of the teams participating, thereby gifting home court. One way around that would be to give the cup final a "derby" setting (regardless of where it is played), where neither team gains home court advantage.

Come to think of it, it wouldn't be too shabby if all cup games were played at neutral sites, but that's another topic.

Edited by darykjozef (12/21/2007 7:37:22 AM CET)

Last edited by darykjozef at 12/21/2007 7:37:22 AM

You got $35k from a cup game? Sweet! Guess how much I got from my scrimmage that day?

I'm guessing you got my point, but I don't think $35K in general is worth tanking a league game in a top division.

Anyway, I won the Canadian tourney, so I'm happy about that. But I won't try again. I'm probably going to miss the Canada I.1 playoffs and possibly have to play a qualifier.

Even taking into account the higher enthusiasm I was able to maintain, I feel fairly certain my league standing would be higher if I had ignored the tourney. The loss of playoff income and the risk of demoting isn't nearly balanced by the tourney income. Unless the tourney win gave a huge boost to my future season ticket holders, there's no way it was worth it.

I know the staff is busy, but I'd love to hear a game designer's input on whether they feel the tournament format "works" right now.

as I can read, it seems you crunch timed your way through the cup..
which isn't also ment to be the way to go.
If you wouldn't have crunch timed in the cup, but played normal all the way, there would be no effect on your enthousiasm...
It's a choice you made, don't blame BB for it. ;)

You misread.

I played CT for only one cup match. You can probably guess which one. The league sacrifices I made had much more to do with resting personnel than enthusiasm management.

It's a choice you made, don't blame BB for it. ;)

To clarify a bit more, the way I see it, there is no rational choice to be made for a top-level team. The Cup as it exists now just is not worth it, so it's a choice I wouldn't make again.



Edited by oeuftete (12/29/2007 10:41:20 PM CET)

Last edited by Mod-oeuftete at 12/29/2007 10:41:20 PM

I'm guessing you got my point, but I don't think $35K in general is worth tanking a league game in a top division.

$35k might not be, but the honor and prestige of becoming your country's cup winner (and maybe even pulling off the cup/top league title) would be worth it to me.

I'm certainly one of those managers who is driven more than anything by the competitive spirit. For me, winning is prize enough. I understand not everyone would feel this way. I like the system as it is now. I'm not necessarily saying I'm opposed to a cup prize, but I don't have a problem with how it is currently run.

This season, (although I'm not in the NBBA), I was able to make a deep cup run and stay competitive in my league. The extra income was great. I really don't have a problem with the fact that some NBBA teams chose not to pay much attention to the cup and focused on their league games. It allowed me to advance further than I would of had I run into a top level team early on.

Well, giving it a bit more thought I have come up with the following:

maybe BB designed the cup on purpose to not be worth winning economically.
Why? to prevent from the best team to win it all at once.
With this system the lesser teams, can try to take a shot at a 'big' title, because the top teams can't afford to go for it...

When you play games like this I think it's about everyone's goal to get every possible title at least once.

In order to make it as fun as possible it should be difficult to win all the posible titels in 1 season.

Since division 2, 3 and 4 teams have no way at winning their countries title in the competition, they might try to get a shot at the cup. But if the cup is economicaly-spoken very attrctive, the div.1 teams will also try to get it...
So in the end it is not so bad that the cup is there for players trying to clinch it, just to have the trophy, rather than players wanting to make as much money as possible...

I considered this before (in my head), and dismissed it.

BTW, I'm not saying it should be "economicaly-spoken very attrctive" for the I.1 teams. But right now, for a I.1 team, it's completely unattractive economically. Even if you take the risk of going for it all (which is no guarantee, especially with the the chance of getting away games all the way through the final... the original point of this thread), the end result (ignoring the glory) is nowhere near break-even, in my opinion. If you don't even get the glory, it's a complete disaster.

You're suggesting the BB's may have designed the cup here to be something like an even less relevant version of English football's League Cup, where the lesser teams field their best sides, the top teams field their kids and reserves, and no-one seriously cares about who wins. I hope that is not the case.

Edited by oeuftete (12/30/2007 4:18:29 PM CET)

Last edited by Mod-oeuftete at 12/30/2007 4:18:29 PM

first off, let's start by telling that I totally would not mind if the money was split 50/50 between the teams, the home team will have some advantage already by playing a home match.

But yes, it might be purposely that the cup might be more attractive for lower division teams... But I also don't doubt that a team who won the championship in first division, but hasn't won the cup yet, might try to get the cup to add to his trophies in the next season...

It is up to the manager to put his lesser players in the cup, just for training and see how far they get, or to put his best in order to win it, or anything in between.

first off, let's start by telling that I totally would not mind if the money was split 50/50 between the teams, the home team will have some advantage already by playing a home match.

The rules don't have anything to say here, but I believe the split is already 50/50. (I heard something about a rules rewrite somewhere else... hopefully the new ones have something to say about the cup.)

It is up to the manager to put his lesser players in the cup, just for training and see how far they get, or to put his best in order to win it, or anything in between.

Completely agree, of course, and never stated otherwise. The problem is that there's only one rational (i.e. ignoring pride) choice for a I.1 team, and that is to ignore the cup.

Edited by oeuftete (12/30/2007 10:05:07 PM CET)

Last edited by Mod-oeuftete at 12/30/2007 10:05:07 PM

Completely agree, of course, and never stated otherwise. The problem is that there's only one rational (i.e. ignoring pride) choice for a I.1 team, and that is to ignore the cup.

Edited by oeuftete (12/30/2007 10:05:07 PM CET)

unless it's the manager's goal to get that cup, and he's ready to sacrifice some money for it....
:)