BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Changes Season 10

Changes Season 10

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
109686.1
Date: 9/8/2009 5:22:57 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
3535
Also as previously announced, teams with arenas larger than 20,000 seats will have more trouble selling out, as their fans would much rather watch the game at home than from a nosebleed section. However, teams in upper divisions will also find that people are willing to pay more to see their games, so on average teams with very large arenas will earn about the same amount from ticket sales as before.

Teams with giant arenas will have a similar income AND lots of money back by selling extra seats... wow.

As the prize to build and sell seats is the same... does that mean that I can expand my arena now, have a whole season with higher attendance (and income) and sell the seats again before the end of the season... getting back all the money invested? Wow again.

And what about the possibility of having a player playing different positions when attacking and when defending? It was announced for the beginning of season 10, but it seem to have disappeared.

This Post:
00
109686.3 in reply to 109686.2
Date: 9/8/2009 6:45:47 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
i have some concern when salay don't play a role for merchandise, because this will lead to pretty low merchandise on leagues with good defence and high income for teams who maybe have some dominant players independent from the quality of their opponents.

About the arena, if their is a limit around 20k seats and the rest stay the same, why we got the possibility of low prices? And are there limit in contribution also, or would we see lot of arenas who max out their VIP places for low prices, and ask for "nearly" maximum prices in the bleachers.

This Post:
00
109686.4 in reply to 109686.1
Date: 9/8/2009 8:39:28 AM
1986 Celtics
IV.21
Overall Posts Rated:
88
right now there was a huge variance in the amount of ticket revenue upper division teams could ear, and this was trending even larger as time went on. The effect of this policy is meant to keep the average revenue the same but reduce the variance (not eliminate the variance.. REDUCE the variance). Not reduce it to nothing mind you, just reduce it, and keep it from running away to an even larger value. So the aim is not to give upper division teams MORE money, its to keep it about the same as we tried to explicitly say with the words "same as before".

As far as arena deconstruction, this will only be available for a limited time. This was meant to soften the blow on teams for whom we are changing the rules midstream on. I know its controversial, but that's what we had said we would do and so that is what we are going to do.

Last edited by BB-Forrest at 9/8/2009 8:44:33 AM

This Post:
00
109686.5 in reply to 109686.4
Date: 9/8/2009 8:51:30 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
88
As far as arena deconstruction, this will only be available for a limited time. This was meant to soften the blow on teams for whom we are changing the rules midstream on. I know its controversial, but that's what we had said we would do and so that is what we are going to do.

and where we arrive after this?

From: brian
This Post:
00
109686.6 in reply to 109686.4
Date: 9/8/2009 9:00:19 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
Probably the biggest change:

In other economic news, the worldwide downturn has reminded both players and owners that BuzzerBeater salaries cannot continue to rise forever. The best players in the game might be getting better, but the best teams aren't taking in any more money, and so player salaries will begin levelling out. Player skills will continue to develop normally, but each offseason the players union will scale salaries to match the total revenue available for them to distribute. Those who have been using salary as a proxy for overall skill should be warned that this relationship will be changing.


The arena revenue should even out in the near term, so this one will have a bigger long term affect. Will change how we measure players (no more salary estimator) and plan for training. If only the salary is changing but not training potential relative to skill set then this will have less effect.

Either way it will effect expenses and budgeting so will be interesting to see that first players union salary adjustment, esp as how the top players salaries change.

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
This Post:
00
109686.7 in reply to 109686.4
Date: 9/8/2009 9:17:19 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
3535
Thanks for your reply. I do appreciate your effort to improve the game, but this time I have a hard time liking the changes.
There are too many economical changes too often and it's more and more difficult to plan a long term strategy.

So the aim is not to give upper division teams MORE money, its to keep it about the same as we tried to explicitly say with the words "same as before"

If teams with large arenas "will earn about the same amount from ticket sales as before" (but the money from selling seats) and the "variance in the amount of ticket revenue upper division teams could earn" will reduce and "teams in upper divisions will also find that people are willing to pay more to see their games"... that means that upper division teams will become richer than before compared to lower division teams, doesn't it?
And this comes after the increase of TV contracts and precedes the renegotiation (reduction) of (high) salaries. It seems too much to me.

This Post:
00
109686.8 in reply to 109686.7
Date: 9/8/2009 9:29:39 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
409409

If teams with large arenas "will earn about the same amount from ticket sales as before" (but the money from selling seats) and the "variance in the amount of ticket revenue upper division teams could earn" will reduce and "teams in upper divisions will also find that people are willing to pay more to see their games"... that means that upper division teams will become richer than before compared to lower division teams, doesn't it?


No, because " teams with large arenas will earn about the same amount from ticket sales as before".

The thing you need to understand is that High Arena Teams (HATs) had been earning a lot of money because of their huge arenas were crowed. Now, those teams will continue to have about the same income as before but for a different reason: less people will come but that people will be willing to pay more money to watch the game. Meaning that teams with smaller arenas will be able to earn about the same as HATs because of increased prices combined with less attendance.(A much more competitive scenario)

This also means, that for an average recently promoted team, the total money he will need to spend in order to catch up other First division team incomes will be less, thus, not creating such a big gap like before where you need a lot of money (and time) in order to start a race where your opponent was always growing faster ;)

Things now will be easier for lower division teams heading to the premium division and also, for teams that were already there but could not qualify as HAT.

Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 9/8/2009 9:33:12 AM

This Post:
00
109686.9 in reply to 109686.8
Date: 9/8/2009 10:31:41 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
88
No, because " teams with large arenas will earn about the same amount from ticket sales as before".

The thing you need to understand is that High Arena Teams (HATs) had been earning a lot of money because of their huge arenas were crowed. Now, those teams will continue to have about the same income as before but for a different reason: less people will come but that people will be willing to pay more money to watch the game. Meaning that teams with smaller arenas will be able to earn about the same as HATs because of increased prices combined with less attendance.(A much more competitive scenario)

off curse, but imagine if i've 20000 empty bleachers, with this siply multiplication 20000*200= 4000000.
I earn the same from my HATs and in my balace page i will have 4 million $
Very nice change!

This Post:
00
109686.10 in reply to 109686.9
Date: 9/8/2009 10:51:58 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
409409

off curse, but imagine if i've 20000 empty bleachers, with this siply multiplication 20000*200= 4000000.
I earn the same from my HATs and in my balace page i will have 4 million $
Very nice change!


I believe a major change in the rules in such a delicate and crucial part of your planification (like Arena Building for HATs) needs to have a compensation when changes are specially designed to restrict your growth strategy because it was too good.

Plus, there are so few teams that will actually have benefits like the one of your example, taking into account that probably those few teams were the ones being limited by the change and considering that the vast amount of teams benefited with the new rule... I really think is just fair enough to have a compensation.

It could be less or more, but I do not think that this is a wrong or unfair measure at all.

Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 9/8/2009 10:52:56 AM

This Post:
00
109686.11 in reply to 109686.10
Date: 9/8/2009 11:18:06 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
88
Plus, there are so few teams that will actually have benefits like the one of your example, taking into account that probably those few teams were the ones being limited by the change....

sorry, but the HATs owner are the fulcrum of this 3d, isn't?

I don't think that this change works aswell on me, i'm in IV division! but i can wait!

cheers