BuzzerBeater Forums

Regarding the economy and extra money for the extra playoff game: I don't see it as an issue, the teams in the playoffs have usually higher expenses.

So?

Extra playoff games give playoff teams an unfair economic advantage and create too much of a gap within divisions.

This is not a reality. It's game. Arguments about reality are irrelevant to some extent.

I don't see how that stretches managers in their team management skills

It is not about what you see or don't see. Or what I see. Owners have different strategies, some are questionable, some are great and some are hard to understand. You cannot argue that different approach shouldn't be considered before a change because you think it is dumb or it is a proof of lack of skill. Owners play the game within limits given by the rules.

I can imagine a team which would rather have a scrimmage and not a (meaningless) play off game. Some teams can be off "win now" mode (as it happens in your beloved reality btw) and still can make play offs (no relegations worries, well reasons can differ, simply it can happen easily). I think there are many motivations in this game which would be surprising for many of us. Taht doesn't mean that this opportunities should be cut only because they are dumb, extraordinery etc.

I think every such a change should be weighted carefully in which it would bring into the game.

OK, fair whack,

but what do you think of my suggestion re the economy??

The GM's could come up with a system where teams not in the finals get a season ending one off payment - call it from the Buzzerbeater balancing fund or something. This could be on a sliding scale or the same amount for each team not competing in revenue games after the last game of the season.


OR

skim a bit off the top of each playoff game and use that as the 'balancing fund'.

That way the teams competing get slightly less per game and don't get the same size economic advantage, and the teams not playing in revenue games in the off season get a one off payment.

Below is a suggested finals schedule
4/11 - round 1 PO
7/11 - round 2 SF game 1
8/11 - round 2 SF game 2
11/11 - round 2 SF Tie Braker
14/11 - Final game 1
15/11 - Final game 2
16/11 - Final Tie Braker

If someone doesn't have a chance to login daily and adjust the tactics for the rest of the series properly? I wouldn't want to be forced to do that - the schedule shouldn't be that tight.

That being said, I prefer the current system.

I am only suggesting that 2 scrimage games in the playoff season, and only for the relevant teams. Teams not involved in the playoffs still get the option of booking a scrimage game if they want to. And the teams that are in the semi finals and/or finals of the playoffs can easily throw a game if they want to by playing the trainees or bench players. There is nothing stopping a manager from using any game, cup, regular, playoff or scrimage, to suit their particular motivation and plans. The only difference with the scrimage games is that they affect nothing, it is a free spin so to speak.

Now we know we are talking about non reality because they never throw games in reality :P

I agree that changes need to be weighted carefully (this is starting to sound like the arguements I had when I was a prosecutor) and the affects they bring into the game both good and bad considered.

I seek out a scrimage game every week because of the training/playing time benefits - but this is not about me...or is it :P

I am after a serious think about it and robust discussion - I think I may have found it :-)

do they care but like god they arent giving things freely or openly feeding you like a baby.

its all there you just have to do what needs to be done to get it.

some people has the effort or ways to get the biggest amount in short time some would take them longer. all im saying is they arent cops to level the playing field always for you or even act like zorro or robin hood that everytime you feel you being afflicted something is done.

sorry mate! as much as im concern as basketball it is, your given the ball, the rim is in front of you, but you got someone defending it . . . . what do you need to do to score. :D

So?

Teams in the playoffs already gain an economic advantage compared to the teams who finish fifth or eighth. BB doesn't focus on balancing divisions anyway so I don't see this as a problem. I've been in a league now the last 3 seasons where my division is vastly superior to the other division. Yet, when the new season starts the weaker teams still remain in the other division. I know this is a little off topic but the point I'm trying to make is that BB doesn't seem to care much for balancing things as is evidenced by how much stronger the best teams keep getting as opposed to newer teams.

When I refer to divisions, I refer to D.I, D.II, etc.

I refer to the Big 8 & Great 8 as conferences.

As far as the teams that make the playoffs already having an economic advantage, that's my point - giving them even more playoff games would exacerbate that.

Maybe there could be some sort of compensation for teams knocked out early? This could create a balance.

This is what I was talking about when I mentioned the balancing fund in one of my earlier posts. A fund where the team who are knocked out and are either not playing in the playoffs and do not have a revenue raising game after the season ends. This could be a fighting fund, a balancing fund, whatever you want to call it. It could be given to the teams on a sliding scale, 5th gets 50K, 6th gets 75K and so on (the figures could be anything, let the BB GM think of it).

It could be a cash injection from the owner, a new sponsors sign on fee, cash injection after a new owner comes on board, whatever.

I simply think that 3 games for the semi finals and finals makes more sense, and that to balance the extra cash (maximum of 2 games) going to the teams involved a cash injection into teams who finished outside the playoffs be set up.

Well, economy aside you took scrimmages from play off teams. That's not good. Scrimmages can be important and be cornerstone of someone's strategy. And there could be major problems regarding game shape. This could even influence bench structure and number of players on roster for some teams. I think it shouldn't.

????

Scrimmages = cornerstones of someones strategy??

How about scrimmages are a complete waste for anything other than training... you risk injury so you might as well play you worst 3 players and no backups.

I would love for scrimmages to be more important but at the moment they are certainly not... (IMO!)