BuzzerBeater Forums

Doesn't seem right that losing on purpose is more cost effective
Finishing higher in the standings should have a monetary reward

I sit 4th in my league
If I finish there, I'll get 1/3 of the first round road gate
but since I'll have to pay salaries,
If I lose, and I will,I won't make a cent

If I finish 5th - I won't pay salaries
I'll lose a training day
but'll I'll make more than $160,000

If I finish 6th - I'll be the home team in relegation
does this mean I get 2/3 of attendance?
and then at least 1/3 of road attendance in game 2?
I'll make at least $125,000
Not to mention the salary I'll save by dumping players

and don't get me started on what will happen if I tank game 2 of relegation and play another home game

Does this all add up to you
There should be a premium for 4th place to give incentive not to tank

Actually, common sense is that you might hold the short end of the stick on the short run, but you may (and should) get more money in the long run if you finish 4th instead of 5th, as the next seasons earnings (via ticket selling and merchandise) exceed those for beeing 5th by more than he saves in that one week.

In addition, you may make it to the next round getting another payday, and of course you´re in the competition to get promoted.

Nevertheless, there are numerous proposals trying to tackle that topic - some of the based on a success-related pay-day, others by more radically changing the whole playoff format / schedule thingy. Maybe you want to share your opinion on the other topics aswell.

There should be a premium for 4th place to give incentive not to tank

you get a boost in attendance the next season, which should be higher then the one week salary depending on the words of the BB's.

you get a boost in attendance the next season, which should be higher then the one week salary depending on the words of the BB's.

Two problems. First this is like the Arabia Felx, everyone has heard of it but no-one has actually seen it.

Second even if it was true that you get a substantial income raise each week, maybe $20,000 a week, which I don't believe at all.

But even if it was true which would you rather have?

$200,000 right now that you can see and invest in arena seats, new staff, players for the next season etc.

or

$20,000 a week maybe coming in next season assuming your arena is very well organised.

I think every single non-noob player in the game knows without a doubt that unless you have a reasonable chance of upsetting the top seed that 5th is better than 3rd or 4th. Why is 5th so clearly better than 3rd or 4th?

An example:

These are the league averages from my league ABBL this week.

League Averages from Last Week Expenses Revenue
Player Salaries: $ 613 052 Attendance: $ 498 453
Staff Salaries: $ 63 667 Merchandise: $ 89 906
Scouting: $ 4 687 TV Contract: $ 201 476
Total: $ 681 406 Total: $ 789 835
League Average Net Income: $ 108 429

So teams spend roughly $600,000 a week on salaries and get back roughly $500,000 per home game.

The week they come 5th they save $600,000 but don't get the $500,000 game income. So it is $100,000 BETTER than a normal week.

The week they come 3rd or 4th they pay their $600,000 salaries and get 1/3 of the $500,000 revenue or about $170,000 so they are $330,000 WORSE off than usual.

So the team coming 5th in the ABBL is $430,000 better off right away. The team coming 3rd or 4th has the assurance from the BBs that somewhere down the line they will have some improved income...maybe.

I guess what I don't understand about these suggestions is...since the BBs say that you get more back the next year, (and they know its true, since they have the code...?) then why would they implement this suggestion?

You point out a problem (a sincere thank you)
they note the solution is already implemented, just that it is very subtle.
You come up with an alternate solution (again, a sincere thank you)

Unless your solution was a better solution than the one already implemented, the BBs are going to stick with theirs, I would assume.

You are totally right about that it is needed to be seen also in the immediate money.
But, I can tell you that I really believe (and kind of seen it on myself) that the place one ends has crucial affect on the Arena income at the following season.

I believe that the proper solution is to divide this "affect" into two parts - one substantial that can be seen "right away" (AKA price money upon place a team is ending), and the second as it is now - affect on audience income.

I'm not saying adding the price money affect, to the already affect on the audience, but to divide current affect value into two parts - one that is obscure" and one that is "known".

The only problem with that suggestion of having any definition on the price money receiving upon the place a team finishes is that different leagues (and more precisely different teams) has different income from audience, and hence it is hard to define "price money" that will be proper to all leagues.

Maybe it just need to be upon average audience on that league throughout the season.

That´s what the money-distribution of the Post-Season Overall Income is all about which I had proposed in another thread. Usng a system like that, having a big arena STILL works positive for your (offseason) audience-related income, but also finishing ahead of others will pay off.

I would like to make it clear - The total affect of finishing higher should not be changed.
The same money should be involved.
The only change is that some of it will be "seen" as a "price money" of some kind.