BuzzerBeater Forums

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....

Again I benefitted greatly from this...

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

To quote noted philosopher Descartes, or maybe it was Butthead, "Just because something sucks doesn't mean something else doesn't suck."

The 5th vs. 4th problem was a massive imbalance. The problem with fourth place being structurally doomed to be a losing financial proposition even if they won in the playoffs, while first place was guaranteed profitable if they got out of the first round, that's also a problem that needed addressing. It may be treating a cut above the eye after casting a broken arm, but it's still an issue that needed fixing.

I wasn't saying 4th seed shouldn't profit. There was a nice suggestion to double revenue for play off games.
So 4th get 2/3 while 1st get 4/3 and so on..
But I strongly believe 1st should profit a way more than 4th. 4th can get 6th, 7th draft pick easily and in many leagues it's a very decent pick. 1st will get nothing in the draft.
Why should the 4th seed be entitled to the same revenue as the 1st? This is absurd!

doubling playoff income would rip apart competivity, the strong would profit, while the "weak" are given not much of a shot of catching up. so you´re entitled to your opinion while missing the point about the 4th team not making the same money as the first for various reasons, the most obvious beeing the importance of HCA and the possibility of a 2nd game in the first playoff week, or even 2-3 games in week two. nuff said then?

Last edited by LA-seelenjaeger at 2/26/2013 4:44:24 PM

I wasn't saying 4th seed shouldn't profit. There was a nice suggestion to double revenue for play off games.
So 4th get 2/3 while 1st get 4/3 and so on..
But I strongly believe 1st should profit a way more than 4th. 4th can get 6th, 7th draft pick easily and in many leagues it's a very decent pick. 1st will get nothing in the draft.
Why should the 4th seed be entitled to the same revenue as the 1st? This is absurd!

First should be able to profit way more than fourth assuming they take care of business and win their playoff games. I suppose the difference is that I think the playoffs should be more about determining a champion, and that the financial footing for the playoffs should be fair for all teams, and then let the additional revenue go to those who earn it by winning postseason games. I can only assume that you believe that the postseason is there to give a bonus to teams for finishing in the top spot, and if they should so happen to actually have playoff games to crown a champion that shouldn't get in the way of rewarding the top team.

In the top league of any country, the 1st place team will get more money than the others. This is not good for game balance. In the lower divisions, the top teams promote out anyway; there is nowhere for them to go in Div. 1.

In the top league of any country, the 1st place team will get more money than the others. This is not good for game balance. In the lower divisions, the top teams promote out anyway; there is nowhere for them to go in Div. 1.

A good point! But the top teams in the top division still have to withstand new promoted teams which have tons of cash and which just surfed on a promotion wave from the lowest division.
It seems hardly plausible though to adapt the rules to one league out of hundreds, be it the top one. Maybe there should be a different set up in the top league compared to the rest..
and again, even if it's more likely the 1st seed reaches the final rather than the 4th, one cannot build a system on likelihood.
You want to build your arena if you know you're getting 2/3rds of the revenue. If you know you have to give a half away to a team with an arena half as big and who spent the money on the play-off monster hires instead, you won't bother. and you feel injustice :)

You want to build your arena if you know you're getting 2/3rds of the revenue. If you know you have to give a half away to a team with an arena half as big and who spent the money on the play-off monster hires instead, you won't bother. and you feel injustice

Yeah, good point. Maybe we need to see if BB can change the rules so the new seats you build don't disappear at the end of the playoffs.

Why is there a talk of "people tanking from 1st to 4th"? You don't have to tank, you just don't invest as much in your team. You earn a lot of cash by having to maintain much lesser salary. While top teams just break even, you can earn 100-200k a week. Then you buy a couple of monsters just before the play offs with the cash you earned. + you get as much or even more revenues thanks to the new system.
The fact that 5th place became less attractive, has nothing to do with the fact that 1st has become unjustly less attractive.

Why is there a talk of "people tanking from 1st to 4th"? You don't have to tank, you just don't invest as much in your team. You earn a lot of cash by having to maintain much lesser salary. While top teams just break even, you can earn 100-200k a week. Then you buy a couple of monsters just before the play offs with the cash you earned. + you get as much or even more revenues thanks to the new system.
The fact that 5th place became less attractive, has nothing to do with the fact that 1st has become unjustly less attractive.

You're talking about $42353 per home game. A team in fourth place probably has had lost more than that amount in their gate receipts after a loss - heck, I was in second or third pretty much all season, but once my win streak wore out I lost that much in gate receipts PER GAME the rest of the season.

And please, if someone's going to buy monsters based on pulling $127059 from your stadium for a playoff game, they're doing so because they are planning on winning it - and they would have done so for the $84706 they would have gotten from the old system.

But please, show us these teams that are earning the 100-200k per week by coasting on your coattails. Well, not yours, since neither of your fourth-place teams in III.6 would fit into that category. It's almost as if you're not identifying this as a problem because it exists, but because you're not getting quite the sweetheart deal that #1 used to get. Show us the fourth-placed teams abusing the system, the teams who are avoiding first because it's "unjustly less attractive", prove that it's a problem for the game and not just for you.