BuzzerBeater Forums

There are four teams that did not get a game for training and additional cash on Tuesday... the two 5th place teams and the two eight place teams. Only the eight place teams are guaranteed to demote to a lower division... are you sure you want to punish them more by taking away the top draft picks?

The real problem is that the teams in the relegation playoffs have an advantage (both in training and monetarily) to not only the 5th place team... but also (in terms of money and possibly in terms of training) to all but the two teams that move to the finals. [This assumes that the 6/7 teams go into the tiebreaker game.] Fix this issue (one game playoff?) and the disadvantage of being in 5th place is lessened. Give them an automatic scrimmage (with the 8th place team) on the first Tuesday... and the disadvantage with training disappears.

In that case, why not just remove the $$ from the relegation games? Then no one 5-8 gets any gate receipts. Perhaps they could all get some small but equal off-season revenue to get through those no-income weeks, but then at least people would stop throwing games to manipulate their position in the bottom half of the league.

Going off of your suggestion... if:

1) The Relegation series was a one game playoff (with no gate)
2) The 5/8 place teams had a forced scrimmage on the first Tuesday.

All teams would be in the same boat in the first week of training (everyone would get 2 games and have the scrimmage possibility) and none of the bottom 8 teams would get a monetary bonus. This seems fair.

[If there is a pressing need to make the relegation best of 3, I would suggest Tuesday, Saturday,following Thursday (instead of a scimmage) as it would keep all the teams on the same level for training.]

I am curious to know who was the last 4th place team to do so from a High Division.

Not arguing or disagreeing.....

I finished fifth (unhappily I might add) as I tried to position myself for a PO run and got caught behind.

I now am paying approx 400k for two weeks while other teams are only losing 100k to making money.... No that doesn't make for a happy ending.

Ah well

I am under the impression that where you place in your conference has an effect on next years ticket sales. Throwing games to come in sixth can lower your fan survey in one or several catagories (TV or Rival) which carries over too next season as a modifier to how you do then. Lower fan survey means lower prices/gate reciepts for the whole next season. I realize this is a small modifier to the big picture, but one I had not seen mentioned in this thread.

I have a proposal about this issue
After the end of the dead-line for the players available in playoff(for don't distort the post season),there could be a distribution of money in the league based on the final position in the RS of both the conference together(as it happens when the system chose the order of the draft)
There could be four bands of results
The teams with the first best records in the league will receive an extra bonus equal of the sum of money of 4 times the weekly contract TV
The teams between the fifth and the eigth record will receive 3 times the contract TV
The teams between the nineth and the twelfth record two times 2 times the contract TV
The teams between the thirteenth and the last record will receive 1 times the contract TV
In this way the teams which arrive fifth in the conference(normally placed with this system in third,occasionally in second band) will income more or less the same amount of money of the teams which arrived sixth or seventh,without the risk of relegation,and all the teams could be awarded for their strenght,without create enormous gap in the same league(100-200k are not a great difference between the teams)
What do you think?

I think this idea is good, or at least not bad ;) For me it depends a bit on the income reduction next season through visitors, because with the current system i think the difference betwenn the top teams and the middle or bottom team in terms of income is a bit to big in the PO(trough more games, and the most of the visitor income)

If the reduction is big next season in ncome, i thnk this idea good be very good.

Edit: maybe make it a bit more about places, because with this system it creates the same problem like this in some leagues.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 8/30/2009 6:18:37 PM

For me it depends a bit on the income reduction next season through visitors, because with the current system i think the difference betwenn the top teams and the middle or bottom team in terms of income is a bit to big in the PO(trough more games, and the most of the visitor income)

Yep, but i hope that the future change on the arena works only on the "monster arena", so the idea "giving money to the poor" must be different! 'cose in the high league level don't exist poor managers!

For me it depends a bit on the income reduction next season through visitors, because with the current system i think the difference betwenn the top teams and the middle or bottom team in terms of income is a bit to big in the PO(trough more games, and the most of the visitor income)

Yep, but i hope that the future change on the arena works only on the "monster arena", so the idea "giving money to the poor" must be different! 'cose in the high league level don't exist poor managers!

We was very close to the "euqilibrium" at the beginning of this season, my weekly income wasn't that high and without the TV change, i would probadly reached the +/- boarder each week at the end of this season - and then i had to pay 800k extra salary because of "game free" weeks.

I don't think that the top teams still get their money blown in the ass, or at least not for long.

I think the reduction will cut down the visitor income aroudn X%, because if you just cut down at top visitors the top teams just raises prices till there are below the punishment boarder and build more expensive places, and still earn at the level they do before ... But with the difference that more investment in the arena, will reduce your income when you try to use it. Sorry this is pretty confusing, maybe i try it tomorrow again.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 8/31/2009 5:55:59 PM

LOL!

i understand! but i still think that the x% doesn't work.Maybe it be possible a cap that can work with the % of hardness like the new TV contract

for me it should be still the possibility to use the full price range, and don't punish minmum prices to something which gives you less profits.

Already today you had cycles where you need 8-9 seasons, to get the payback from for around 1/4 of the price range so i don't think it makes much sense to build in there but you still have the possibility to use it when you relegate etc. Or if you don't know where to go with the money and are sure at least to hold the league.

So i don't like the caping try, maybe you also could reduce the positive effect, but it is already not so big compared to the cost. Thats why i expect a reduction through the base, but hopefully we know it better in 2-3 weeks. Hopefully we got the oppurtunity to play with the prices more often to arrange with the new situation.

edit: or they just cut the price range down, so that bleachers get sold betwenn 10 and 20 and use the old system ;)

In this case we could arrange pretty fast, and the maximum number of fans are limited dramatically.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 8/31/2009 6:26:14 PM