BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Fix #3/#4 vs #5 imbalance

Fix #3/#4 vs #5 imbalance

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
229555.17 in reply to 229555.4
Date: 11/20/2012 1:47:03 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
774774
Another option would be to increase the rate of promotion and demotion. Instead of 1 team promoting, 2 could (and 8 for demotion). giving more games (more money) and making a 2nd chance.


I wholeheartedly agree with this. The games need to matter more. Perhaps the regular season champ and the playoffs champ promote. 7 and 8 seeds demote automatically. Relegation 5v6 and 6v5.

Either that or the 1 game week pay 1/2 salary. That is also an excellent idea. Less drastic and easier to implement.

If you remember me, then I don't care if everyone else forgets.
This Post:
11
229555.19 in reply to 229555.18
Date: 11/20/2012 9:35:45 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
774774
Agreed. You would have "Conference Champions" shirts/hats etc. Other fans would be pissed off about their team being eliminated and move on to the next sports team in the area depending on the time of year.

If you remember me, then I don't care if everyone else forgets.
This Post:
00
229555.20 in reply to 229555.17
Date: 11/26/2012 2:34:58 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
297297
In the current system 4 teams relegate, but in your system 6 teams would relegate. This would require a complete overhaul of the promotion/relegation system.

The easiest solution to this would be to have a lot of teams promote due to their record but I think this would lower the importance of the playoffs.


This Post:
00
229555.21 in reply to 229555.4
Date: 11/26/2012 2:37:23 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
297297
WHo is the second team to promote? The loser of the finals? The bunch of left over teams with the best records? Either way the playoffs become much less important.

I am not a fan of this idea.

This Post:
11
229555.22 in reply to 229555.21
Date: 12/3/2012 12:04:54 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
9191
So, despite of all suggestions, BB found nothing better than take away money from 1st and 2nd seed?!!
Why couldn't they incur double prices for play offs as was brilliantly suggested?! 4/3 to home team, 2/3 to away team.
This could fix the imbalance without going back on their previous logical justification for teams not playing, not paying.
Is there still time?

This Post:
00
229555.23 in reply to 229555.22
Date: 12/3/2012 1:57:18 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
166166
The way I see it the 2nd place position now receives the least amount of money unless they win their first game. I still don't understand why the 5th and 8th place teams should receive money. Could someone explain why this is without including all the BB bashing?

This Post:
00
229555.24 in reply to 229555.22
Date: 12/3/2012 7:06:11 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
699699
You can't just create extra revenues out of nowhere like that. Many efforts are made to try to harness the game economy.
Extra revenues would go with other changes.

Here, the change is only an existing revenue that is distributed differently, it's easier to implement.

This Post:
00
229555.25 in reply to 229555.23
Date: 12/3/2012 7:08:52 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
699699
The only justification is to try to have a system that works with each position having more benefits than a lower position in the rankings.

From: Jay_m

This Post:
11
229555.26 in reply to 229555.22
Date: 12/4/2012 9:52:51 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
216216
Plus it is already difficult enough to maintain competitive balance. The top teams tend to stay on the top because they get more money than anyone else. This will help even that out.

From: thylacine

This Post:
00
229555.27 in reply to 229555.26
Date: 12/4/2012 1:33:49 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
9191
Plus it is already difficult enough to maintain competitive balance. The top teams tend to stay on the top because they get more money than anyone else. This will help even that out.

So you wanna punish successful teams? It doesn't make sense.
It should be difficult to maintain competitive balance, that's the point of it!
You get more money if you're a better manager.
If you're a great manager, why do you have to pay to inferior managers, so they don't feel hard done by?
It's ridiculous, as is the notion that you can't reward ambitious (=active) teams with extra imaginary money.

Advertisement