BuzzerBeater Forums

I think this is an important part of the game that needs fixing...

I have won 5 championships, always losing the second game (playing TIE and putting a B squad to be sure) in order to get extra revenue + extra training minutes, and I now many other managers do the same (some of them don't even manage to lose :-)

This is the only logical thing to do, more training, more revenue, more chances of winning title (since you TIE and tiebreaker is only 1 day after) but spoils the fun and is not very realistic...

I think managers should be rewarded for winning in straight games...

What is your opinion, and if you agree, what do you thing could be introduced as an incentive? (get the money anyway? extra training bonus?...)

when you are playing in a "mickey mouse league" you can do that, but i will go for a win in all three games ...

Because i better take an higher chanche to win in the awy game, instead of increasing the chanche of winning game threee ... because i am pretty sure, that with your way the change is much higher to loose the finals.

after winning game1 it's almost automatic to play normal-playoff in game2 when you'll play the next day game3 at home

Last edited by mark_lenders at 12/22/2008 1:08:04 PM

i don't know it in close leagues, as an automatism ;)

Sometimes you do it, but i like to say, that 3* crunch times will lead to more succes then ct, normal, ct.

fact is, there are more negative not winning game 2 whether intentionally or not

you lose attendance . . . which i cant believe why and how on earth on a game 3 homecourt thing. wherein they should be there cheering for you and taunting at the enemy.

anyways winning it in 2 games, you just go home with a trophy and thats it i guess . . . . no mvp finals series :D

but i like the trophy more then loosing it in 3 games, i believe thats a big advantage ;)

And with only one poromotion place in 16 teams, or just one national championship per country this is worth pretty much.

Is this worth revisiting? The BB's changed the bbb tournament because of teams throwing games, but have ignored this aspect. Yesterday, the top teams in Canada, the US and Japan all fielded subpar lineups so that additional revenue (around $400 k) and training could be taken from the third game. I find this to be quite ridiculous that in the series finals, teams would would throw games, but the incentive to do so is too high (especially with the economic changes). By throwing the second game, I essentially receive almost half of my bbb prize money amount (with the bonus of extra training) with the extra game.

Perhaps a set amount could be offered as prize money for the finals series (say $1 million total for a first division league), with it distributed based upon the results. So a team that won both games would receive $800 k (and the losing team $200 k). But if the series went to 3 games, the winner would receive $600 k and the loser $400 k. Now a team trying to throw the second game would take a financial hit to try and get more training.

This would also make the arena sizes irrelevant for the finals, which would make sense since most of the money would be from television anyways.

Or you can just play the tie-breaker in the new B3 mode

Yeah, I'd rather see TB games give no money and no training.

another possibility is to make the PO in a cup modus, where you get no attendance revenue but price money for winning games/rounds depending on the league level(first league get highers prices then second and so on).

That needs to be fixed ASAP. Having never heard of this before, It is now my number one concern.