BuzzerBeater Forums

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

Fix #3/#4 vs #5 imbalance

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
229555.36 in reply to 229555.35
Date: 2/25/2013 6:59:46 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
9191
Now, feeling the hit in "reality" makes the 50/50 revenue split in the playoffs seem even more ridiculous than before!
It supports teams which loiter round 4th spot and get expensive hires for the playoffs. They don't have to spend money on the stadia either, cause it's now being payed for by stupid teams which invest money in arena and steady growth.
People automatically link HCA with going deep in the playoffs. That's just simply inaccurate.
Why wasn't the same (faulty) logic applied when comparing 4th and 5th seeds before?! "4th seed has a chance to get extra revenues!" 3rd of 1st, 3rd of 2nd or 3rd, 2/3rds of the other conference winner + 2/3rds of home revenue.
I believe BB should reward teams who finish top in regular season and get worst draft picks, not take away their money to fix a disbalance elsewhere!

This Post:
00
229555.37 in reply to 229555.36
Date: 2/25/2013 10:23:13 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
13691369
You know there is this silly little thing called HCA which makes teams win games against equally skilled opponents? Finishing 4th you have to be BETTER, and not only better, but clear cut better than any opponent to really have a shot at promotion.

Zwei Dinge sind unendlich, die Dummheit und das All...
This Post:
00
229555.38 in reply to 229555.36
Date: 2/25/2013 10:47:43 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
It supports teams which loiter round 4th spot and get expensive hires for the playoffs. They don't have to spend money on the stadia either, cause it's now being payed for by stupid teams which invest money in arena and steady growth.


Yeah! I mean, sure, by not spending on their arena they're forgoing a metric buttload of income from their 11 regular season home games, but they'll rake it now by pulling in an extra 1/6 of the #1 seeds income in a playoff game that in most cases they're going to lose, but if they win they get another 1/6 of the #2 or #3's income. How in the world did nobody else but you see the problem in that?

This Post:
00
229555.39 in reply to 229555.37
Date: 2/25/2013 10:55:07 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
126126
You know there is this silly little thing called HCA which makes teams win games against equally skilled opponents? Finishing 4th you have to be BETTER, and not only better, but clear cut better than any opponent to really have a shot at promotion.



I both agree and disagree with this....
I was 3-5th all season so my late season player acquisition push came at selling the guys that got me there too... I almost made my leagues finals, and had a legitimate shot at promotion even without having hca. The HCA is not that big of an advantage here in BB.

I am not complaining about the extra revenue of 50% either since my arena was smaller than the other playoff teams. But in all honesty... I should be in the negative for my revenue right now... I put my eggs in the promote and promotion bonus basket... Had I got the 1/3 instead of half I would still be negative. Instead I am not, and can clear players I don't need for league or cup per say, and now have money to maybe score some better potential trainees than what I had been working with.

I feel the 1-2 seeds that do not promote are being punished in a way by this change.

This Post:
00
229555.41 in reply to 229555.40
Date: 2/25/2013 5:51:10 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
9191
HCA is besides the point. To base your theory and subsequently revenue distribution on the assumption that the home team always wins is incorrect to say the least.
Why don't we just gather all the money and share it equally among all teams, this way we make sure no one gets short changed.
It's crazy! God forbid #1 seed will earn more than don't-give-a-toss teams.

This Post:
00
229555.42 in reply to 229555.38
Date: 2/25/2013 6:00:26 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
9191


Yeah! I mean, sure, by not spending on their arena they're forgoing a metric buttload of income from their 11 regular season home games, but they'll rake it now by pulling in an extra 1/6 of the #1 seeds income in a playoff game that in most cases they're going to lose, but if they win they get another 1/6 of the #2 or #3's income. How in the world did nobody else but you see the problem in that?

why 1/6? I don't care what you profit from your arena when we don't share revenues. But in the play offs now you can make more money playing away, it's unreasonable.

But the point is still: why punish dedicated managers? Taxing success might be wise in a society, but it doesn't belong in competitive sports, let alone imaginary ones.

This Post:
11
229555.43 in reply to 229555.41
Date: 2/25/2013 6:05:32 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
HCA is besides the point. To base your theory and subsequently revenue distribution on the assumption that the home team always wins is incorrect to say the least.
Why don't we just gather all the money and share it equally among all teams, this way we make sure no one gets short changed.
It's crazy! God forbid #1 seed will earn more than don't-give-a-toss teams.


A few simple things to keep in mind:
- HCA gives you an advantage (that you earned).
- If you leverage that advantage and win, you earn a second payday in that first week - the team that loses doesn't.
- The net effect of the change is that you pay a regular week's salary and if you win the first game, you earn a regular week's income (50% times two games). If you don't win, you earn 50%.

If getting 50% instead of 33% is so overpowered for the 4th place team, feel free to tank enough games to get there. It'll cost you a whole lot more during the regular season, of course, plus cost you the next season in your fan survey, but if you truly are so obsessed about a difference of less than 40,000 per playoff game you have the power to make sure you don't make the same mistake again.

This Post:
00
229555.44 in reply to 229555.43
Date: 2/25/2013 7:05:01 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
9191
I have the power to try and change ridiculousness.
If it's nothing or so little, why change it in the first place? It's not about how little you or me think we can get by with. It's about rationality. You can't keep patching up a system with naked eye and hope you reach a balance.

This Post:
00
229555.46 in reply to 229555.40
Date: 2/25/2013 9:57:39 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
126126
You were far from having a shot to promotion. You finished 3rd and beat another team of your level on an away game, then easily lost by 15 against the 1st ranked.

I encourage any one to look at more than 30 leagues (to get a good sample) and tell us the %age of teams who lost at home during the PO.


Without playing at all my starting pg (thanks LCD) whom lead the league in assists. Leading the game until the 4th quarter in a back and forth game, ask Texas if he felt I was an easy win...

Advertisement