BuzzerBeater Forums

Maybe the fund problems, could be fixed in dividing the money 50:50 - that won't be bad for the PO team too.

I could go with that, but there's no reason that every team that doesn't make the playoffs shouldn't have to fight for their safety. When the playoffs start, everything is back at square 1 - season records don't matter except for homecourt advantage, which doesn't need to be there anyway because of the placement of teams in the playoffs.

I think the biggest issue is the problem with incomes not really adding up with league standings.

We can probably all agree that #1 and #2 have it covered. #3 and #4 are a little off balance (#4 prolly earns more than #3 as the income is based on the home team arena. #1 usually has a bigger income than #2), but it adds up with #3 having a better chance to win the game. Usually playoffs end for them in one away game income.

#5 has the biggest problem with no income. Perhaps this should be avoided with both #5's playing eachother with income split and multiplied perhaps with 0.5 (why? because we want their income to be below #4 teams income) or any number that balances it out a little.

I think the the relegation matches should be decided with one game. With #6 playing at home and income divided just like with playoff teams. This income needs to be multiplied with a number, making #6 earn a little less than #5. The second option would include some attendancy penalty for the relegation matches.

#8 should relegate without extra income, with the bonus of getting a high draft pick.

I hope this was understandable.

While agreeing that there is an issue with the monetary funds... that issue is mostly with the 3 game relegation playoffs. The 6th and 7th placed teams end up profiting more than not only the 5th place team, but likely the 3rd and 4th place teams.

I don't personally see a major problem with the lack of funds for the 5th and 8th place teams. I do see a problem with both teams losing a game for the purposes of training.

Therefore, the only 2 changes I would like to see is:

1) On the Tuesday where the playoffs start, the 5th and 8th place teams play a force scrimmage (B5 vs. G8, G5 vs. B8).
2) Something be done to limit the financial gains of the 6th and 7th placed teams (going to a one game playoff would be fine as they also would not gain the extra games for training... putting all but the top 2 teams in the same training position).

I don't personally see a major problem with the lack of funds for the 5th and 8th place teams. I do see a problem with both teams losing a game for the purposes of training.

if you had weekly balanced like my team you see it maybe the opposite, i make last season -900k in the last three wekks with one game in the PO. And this season my salarys raised another 100k, and i think i am going to play relegation instead of PO this season because of the founds(even it hshould be a ahrd fight to reach it^^)

if you had weekly balanced like my team you see it maybe the opposite, i make last season -900k in the last three wekks with one game in the PO.

Perhaps I would. I certainly understand that upper level teams have a much larger salary they have to absorb over these weeks with income lacking.

However, I think it is a simple fix to make sure every team in the first week of the playoffs to get the 3 games that a team normally get for training. I certainly don't think the 5th place team should be punished for finishing 5th as they are now. [I finished 5th my first season here. It is really difficult on any training plan.]

I certainly don't think the 5th place team should be punished for finishing 5th as they are now. [I finished 5th my first season here. It is really difficult on any training plan.]

i like those weeks without competition, else you could train stamina freethrow or your guys out of position which i do most times in this cases(i am such a 4-6 place team^^).

Remember how you didn't like my idea from last time? Well, I have it fixed.

8's get RELEGATED.

Two pools are made (below)
Pool 1: Big 8 #5, 7 & Great 8 #6
Pool 2: Great 8 #5, 7 & Big 8 #6

Then, teams compete in a round-robin format.
1st Tuesday - #5 (at home) vs. #6
1st Saturday - #5 (at home) vs. #7
2nd Tuesday - #6 (at home) vs. #7

TO NOTE: Even though one team is playing at home, both teams split the game profits from the arena 50-50. This gives every team 1 game of profit.

The team with the most wins (or largest point margin as TB) is SAFE in both pools.

2nd Saturday - 2nd place team in Pool 1 (at home, according to above) vs. 3rd place team in Pool 2.
2nd place team in Pool 2 (at home, according to above) vs. 3rd place team in Pool 1.

Winner is SAFE, loser gets RELEGATED.

Why should the 5th, 6th and 7th team profit more during this time period than the 3rd and 4th place teams?

[Asking this question knowing full well that the 6th and 7th placed teams already profit more than all but the top teams in the current playoff process.]

sounds good for me

The idea of the current system is to have at least 1 team per division relegate unconditionally -- no second chances.

Whose idea? I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but you're making that up.

I think it's a great idea, actually. And not just because I'm a curling fan. This suggestion — not coincidentally, from a Canadian — is simply the Page playoff system (without a final) used in curling tournaments.

The BB team. I am not making this up -- I have brought up proposals for relegation playoff structure that involves the entire bottom four. The answer was that being able to tank for a top pick and avoid relegation at the same time is undesired. Therefore, guaranteed relegation is a must for the league structure to work as desired.

The problem is 8th spot can be even 9th pick in unbalanced divisions. It's rare but it happens sometimes that directly relegating team would make play offs in the other conferences.