BuzzerBeater Forums

This "solution" would certanly give more money to the 5th then to the team that loses the 1st playoffs round.

Maybe everyone should just wait and see how it goes,the BBs for sure thinked about more simple ways and yet this strange one was their choice,maybe it showed better results,but who knows,they could be all crazy doing funny stuff.

After the next offseason we and the BBs can see if it worked well,and yes the 5th place issue was big,finishing 5th maybe destroyed a lot of teams while finishing 6th was the s***.

I am still very unhappy with this change, like Yellow cake said there are many other things that would have a higher priority on the users wish list and the 5th place issue could have been solved with simpler methods...

You missed the point. This was not done to fix the 5th place issue. It is only a side effect.

I think I am starting to be on the side of this being a good change, now that I understand it more.

One of the problems I see with the old system was that being good in a league was more or less a self-fulfilling prophecy: strong teams were able to advance further on in the playoffs, therefore had more income, therefore were able to afford more salary, therefore were able to have better players, therefore were able to maintain their relative strength.

This is a vicious circle, in which some teams are stuck in a "good" salary equilibrium, and others -- in a "bad" salary equilibrium.

I agree about the diagnosis, though I'm not sure much will change here at the top division level, since the longer BB (and no direct elimination) means more sustained income across the board for cup and league winners.

I disagree & after digesting the news think the following.

Although you get money for wins I would estimate the top 32 would need to go at least 6-2 possibly and I would imagine some 6-2 with poor point differences will be eliminated.

Considering by week 3 its normal to see 75% of BB3 teams eliminated, we should statistically see more injuries to the top teams as they are all playing 8 games. Replacing key injuries is likely to prove tough unless you have provisions & so I predict that we might end up (but hope we won't) with teams that after just 2-3 weeks know they are out of contention for qualifying and this will lead to many walkovers - why risk setting a line up when there is no upside other than a token $50k to win and the potential of a key injury? Also as soon as you know you can't qualify for the final 32, you can lighten your roster to what you require to compete on a domestic level only.

I think that the idea of the new structure is great but in reality there are likely to be a whole load of meaningless fixtures after the first 3-4 games have been played.

With group games as well there is always more chance of making pacts..... you CT him and I'll TIE then you go to beat him etc. You don't set a team so the maximum win is 25-0 whilst I'm confident of beating the Bahamian champs by at least 50.

All in all - I think that more bad from good will come from the change. We're moving from 1 variable (highest wage monsters trading clubs twice weekly) to a whole new can of worms with potential gamesmanship between managers.

I think this new CBA is attempting to address many issues. I maintain that its sketchy as to how much it will help. But I am willing to give it a chance. Now this is from an average level 3 manager. It seems those from the top have concerns also but that could be just the haves trying to protect what they already have.

I think I heard speak of "bigger issues" that need to be fixed. And then he went on to discuss a game engine glitch. Really? I don't notice these issues much and I watch every one of my games. An occasional glitch is nothing to get ones panties in a bunch over. Most of the time the game engine is right on.

A stacked economy, one that makes it impossible to rise to the top level, will kill interest in new players faster than anything else will. And maybe its not to that point yet but clearly it was a concern or we wouldn't have this fix in place.

I think a better solution does exist but so far I haven't seen one come across in this forum. But I am open to hear more of them.

I agree about the diagnosis, though I'm not sure much will change here at the top division level, since the longer BB (and no direct elimination) means more sustained income across the board for cup and league winners.

I disagree & after digesting the news think the following.

Although you get money for wins I would estimate the top 32 would need to go at least 6-2 possibly and I would imagine some 6-2 with poor point differences will be eliminated.

Considering by week 3 its normal to see 75% of BB3 teams eliminated, we should statistically see more injuries to the top teams as they are all playing 8 games. Replacing key injuries is likely to prove tough unless you have provisions & so I predict that we might end up (but hope we won't) with teams that after just 2-3 weeks know they are out of contention for qualifying and this will lead to many walkovers - why risk setting a line up when there is no upside other than a token $50k to win and the potential of a key injury? Also as soon as you know you can't qualify for the final 32, you can lighten your roster to what you require to compete on a domestic level only.

I think that the idea of the new structure is great but in reality there are likely to be a whole load of meaningless fixtures after the first 3-4 games have been played.

With group games as well there is always more chance of making pacts..... you CT him and I'll TIE then you go to beat him etc. You don't set a team so the maximum win is 25-0 whilst I'm confident of beating the Bahamian champs by at least 50.

All in all - I think that more bad from good will come from the change. We're moving from 1 variable (highest wage monsters trading clubs twice weekly) to a whole new can of worms with potential gamesmanship between managers.

Isnt this a bit off topic? I know the B3 changes are relevant to discussion, but this thread is about the changes to the salary in the postseason, isnt it? Though I find B3 slightly interesting, it is a function for less than 1% of the users. It is my understanding that this thread is about the 99.5% of the people effected by the non-B3 issues.

I'll throw this out there to see what kind of opinion it generates..

Currently in my conference (Italian Div.II), the standings look like this:

1 	Stella Rossa Arenzano    18 	3 	2258 	1509 	
2 	AS Barroom Heroes        17 	4 	2105 	1652 	
3 	Umpa Lumpa               12     9 	2117 	1869 	
4 	Polinia2000turate        12 	9 	1906 	1882 	
5 	desiree                  11 	10 	1773 	1599 	
6 	Audace Pescia '74        11 	10 	1877 	1766 	
7 	Dinamo Talarikiev        10     11 	2151 	1979 	
8 	Revolutionary Panthers   6 	15 	1786 	1998 	

Both 3rd and 4th place teams have already said that if they were to find themselves in the exact same situation ad the end of next season, they would give a walkover in the final match. If I were them, I would too.

Edit: So would the team that is currently 6th (obviously if he were to in the 3rd or 4th place teams' shoes)

Last edited by SpicyMcHaggis™ at 12/22/2010 2:06:59 PM

Apologies - after i saw the B3 thread I re-posted this there.

Well, all of you have the right to choose bad decisions

Is it a draft or a lottery, hard to tell. And not very smart for a team to bank on the draft to make them better.