BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

Honestly guys, this is annoying. All day long people were crying that 5th place was sooooo overpowered. Now that is fixed to -SOME- degree, and of course everything is bad.

It´s not that hard to put things in perspective. The "huge losses" you´ve been talking about and the "4th place is the best place EVER to be, there was nothing better in history than now finishing 4th" picture you try to make up is a big bunch of nonsense. And even if - you´re invited to finish 4th. Best place to keep the league, agreed. Oh wait, if I had a choice I´d love to finish 3rd instead of 4th, just because. Maybe 2nd. If I get it, I´d still take the 1st place...

Over the course of a season you lose money by finishing 4th instead of first. MASSIVELY. Easily up to 500k even in a 2nd or 3rd division. Whether you pick at 12 or 15 is really a wash up and not worth taking into equation, nobody tries to get anything below 5th pick anyways. You have HCA overall on 1st and HCA in the first round on 2nd pick. That´s a bonus no getting a 2nd game. 2nd income. For free. All you have to do is protect your HC to get another income game. Really, 3rd and 4th are so much better.

If something changes, someone HAS to give. The current change takes away from the 5th, takes away a little from the 1st/ 2nd teams if they fail to make it to the finals (it pretty much evens out if you make it to the finals series), which only adds to the competivity of a league overall, and all I do hear is "worst change EVER!!!!!!!" this is the end of dayzzz".

So what´s it? Everything who´s not first sucks?

1st is better than 2nd, 2nd better than 3rd, 3rd better than 4th, 4th better than 5th. Nothing wrong with that so far. "And stop the "BUT..." way of discussing. The old system was bad. Rate the new system by itself. Not by taking the "best" out of the old. The old is GONE. The new one has a clear structure. And it is far more balanced than anything before.

Stop losing the overall concept by overacting on a detail.

Last edited by LA-seelenjaeger at 2/25/2013 11:33:39 PM

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.

It's a small change for first place. It's a significant change to the fourth/fifth place dynamic.

Let's look at the old system for a second, using the #1 seed overall and the #4 that they will play against. If the number one seed wins the conference and plays three games in the finals, they would have paid two weeks salary, and earned three home game revenues - four times 66% for their home games, plus the 33% from game two of the finals. Meanwhile, if the number four does the exact same thing, they pay two weeks salary and earn two home games worth of revenue - four times 33% plus 66% in the home game two.

In other words, the very best case scenario for the #4 team was to "break even" over the two playoff weeks, and that involves earning two wins on the road plus winning one of the first two games in the finals. Meanwhile, the #1 seed has already guaranteed a profitable playoff run once they win their first game, and can end up with a full extra game's revenue.

Or look at it another way: why should the #1 seed who loses his opener end up with the same financial week as the team who beats him and then loses to the #2-#3 winner? It's absurd, but it's exactly the way the old system worked - both teams get roughly 2/3 of a home game.

It's no wonder many teams were actively avoiding third and fourth places in the system and going as far as setting forfeits to clinch fifth. In the old system, fifth was preferable to finishing third or fourth, and that is simply an unacceptable standard. Adding in the half-salary week for fifth helps somewhat, but it's also important that teams in third or fourth have the opportunity to break even if they earn it by winning on the court. If it means that being in first place now is only a little better than second, third or fourth instead of being overwhelmingly better, so be it.

Again I benefitted greatly from this...

But sounds to me like 5th place's rewards need fixing more than the 1-4 did

It´s better to cure the illness than to fix the symptom. The systematic change is a long-term solution, instead of just adjusting here a little and there a little....