BuzzerBeater Forums

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

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.

That's the best! The fans of the 6th team that played play-outs won't be as satisfied as the 5th team fans are (who 'll be relieved that they're team is not in danger). But also, the fans of the fourth team will be more satisfied than the fifth team ones because they simply had a chance to celebrate promotion. Also, TV channels would like to sign a contract with a middle-table team than with a team that is risking its stay in the division.

This is going to be addressed as part of the offseason changes. However, we really do not see it as poorly balanced; 5th place teams have no chance of being relegated. Would any 5th place teams truly prefer to risk relegation in order for an extra game's payout?

Yes and I'm not the only user who thinks that.

i wanted to avoid the relegation games & won my way to 5th after last round results went my way. i am sure that i am not the only user who thinks this way either, so where do we go from here?