BuzzerBeater Forums

Now, to start translating this in BB terms, I think we find that the basic economic model is rather inside-out. How can BB get a grasp of fan interest in a country? Well, the closest thing we probably have is from looking at the total number of teams registered in each country. Baseball fans in Japan are very dedicated to the game, perhaps more “interest per capita” than in the U.S., yet the U.S. baseball league is larger and generates much more revenue. (I’m not going to start a debate on where the best baseball players are playing these days as it related to Japan.) So it should make sense that countries with more teams should generate more revenue in total, especially in the top leagues in those countries. However, in BB we find that a team in a country with only a few teams can make as much money as a team in country with thousand of teams. Where is the logic in that? Now I understand that to make countries with fewer registered teams “poor leagues” may discourage participation from those countries, particularly with regard to international tournaments and private leagues. But what negative side effects could this create? Well, for one, it means that teams in large countries that need to kick and claw their way into the top leagues (it really ain’t easy!) just to make those big top division gate receipts that come so easily in countries with few teams in them, have a really difficult time participating in the Transfer List auctions. Every time a D.II team from the U.S. or Spain or another country with many many teams loses a bid to a team from, say, Panama (no offense to Panama, where there are 40 teams, and more than player one with a $140k salary!), like has happened to my team many times, I wonder how hard that other team worked to stockpile the cash to outbid my team with only my D.II income. And if the worst that could happen to some teams in these countries with fewer teams is to relegate as far down as a D.II (while in the U.S. a team could sink as low as D.V), it’s a fairly quick recovery for these teams back to elite status and being able to bite back in to the TL again.

So maybe this whole post gets morphed into the Suggestions area if we come up with something. I would suggest there should be a country modifier to every league’s attendance, merchandise, and TV revenue, one that should reflect the overall interest in the BB leagues in the country, as measured by the total number of teams. (It should be an exponential formula to temper the modifier so that the larger countries are too extreme in augmentation of revenue.) The goal isn’t to bankrupt the smaller countries, but rather to make sure that a team in the 10th percentile in one country is at the very least on par in terms of revenue with another team in the 10th percentile of any other country, and for revenues to be a little closer to reality while blunting the negative affects the current system has on the Transfer List.

Okay, folks, let’s find ways of constructively agreeing or disagreeing with my thoughts on this matter. I’ve been thinking on this stuff for a while, and I don’t think my thoughts are fully cooked, but I wanted to get them out there while the subject is heating up here in the Forum.

They must keep some balanced. Already the bigger countries have more income. But if that deference be larger then the small countries we are in a big trouble. The prices of good players will go even higher, and the small countries will end up with worse players in general. So rich getting reacher. You know in NBA how the draft works. They are giving the chance to weaker teams to get the best player and be some kind of balance.

An other benefit that large countries have is the draft. As Cyprus we have 16 players 18 y/o in our database, and 3 of them with save them from the bot teams inviting them to our NT. So for us is harder to find local good players,(less merchandise income) and our NT is much weaker than the bigger in general.

I dont think that you want the game to be a game for USA/Germany/Greece/Italy and 3-4 more countries with strong base.

You have to think of the model in a different way. Think about it more like: the level of fan interest is about the same in every country. There is only enough interest in every country to support 16 division I teams, 64 division II teams, etc. The only difference is that more people want to own teams in Italy and the USA, for example. Maybe that's because they get tax breaks for owning teams or something. Lucky bums. ;-)

merchandise, and TV revenue,

There is already something like this in place for merchandise and TV revenue to some degree. Perhaps you would like to see it pushed further, but that's another story. There is also an advantage for bigger countries as they have a bigger pool of home grown talent to pick from, which gives another bonus to merchandise.

However, it should not really be a big issue for you. Unless you play in the B3, you are only playing against teams from your own country and only have to compete with them to get to the top.

To be honest, I’m not so sure that wouldn’t be so bad, to have the countries with the largest number of teams also be the source of most of the wealth. It certainly would add a bit of reality to the situation, no? I think that if players were less likely to play abroad (i.e. the salary difference for a player playing in his home country vs. playing abroad should be much bigger than it is since I think the average player should want to either play where there is potential to make a whole lot more money or to stay home), then player development in countries with fewer teams would also be more in line with reality.

Another way to look at it in terms of reality is that a country where there is fan interest in a particular sport would develop more players for that sport. The U.S. can develop many basketball players since many people in the U.S. follow the sport and so they like to play the sport, too. But there aren’t so many soccer fans, so good athletes in the U.S. do not become soccer players, hence the U.S. does not produce so many great soccer players. However, there are enough U.S. soccer players to get a decent league going (MLS), and even some players from outside of the U.S. who maybe can’t get a job that pays better or has better prospects in a better league will play in the U.S. league, too.

If a country has just a few teams, but they are all on par with each other in terms of income, then that would create a competitive league, which should be plenty interesting. If income is reduced, so what if the teams there can’t attract the world’s most expensive players, the league will be just as competitive. In fact, they’d be more competitive since the older teams won’t be able to stockpiles hoards of cash and pricey players ready to stomp newer teams. The only negative is that teams will be disadvantaged in the international tournaments. But these teams then are more likely to develop local players and this actually could help the national teams.

Think about it more like: the level of fan interest is about the same in every country. There is only enough interest in every country to support 16 division I teams, 64 division II teams, etc.

I disagree with this. I think the number of teams that are registered does reflect an abstract metric of fan interest relative to BB.



Last edited by JohnnyB at 1/27/2010 2:02:58 PM

Yes but again the champion/tournament winner playing on BBB too. Why not have the chance to be competitive?

About the reality. Hellas is relative small country (around 10-11M) but Greek NT's (youngsters too) are very successful internationally. (Last summer where 2nd on U18 world, 1st in Europe U19). Dont forget that Greek NT has won USA in Japan without having a single NBA player on the squat.

Actually the best team in Europe last 15-20 years (Euroleague winers, Final 4 etc) its a Greek team (Panathinaikos).

So the reality its not what you are saying.

Think about it more like: the level of fan interest is about the same in every country. There is only enough interest in every country to support 16 division I teams, 64 division II teams, etc.

I disagree with this. I think the number of teams that are registered does reflect an abstract metric of fan interest relative to BB.

My country have only 800.000 population, 70+ teams USA has 300M. So by percentage the interest in my country about the game is bigger than yours.

So, I can not understand how the TV/merchandising/arena incomes are the same in Spain and in a country with only 23 teams.

I also do not know why there are no teams from Spain in the top 10 of the world. Sure, competition is tougher, but the USA got 2 teams, also being one of the best and largest countries. Germany got one, Hellas got one. Portugal got one. Those are all big countries. Maybe it's not the system, maybe it's the manager's culture. We saw Italian teams being dominant a few seasons ago, but then their competition got tougher. This lead to managers strengthen their line-ups, instead of expanding arenas. Germany was doing the opposite, and increased their revenue by a lot, they caught up with Italy in no time.

Managers culture????

I lost by one, 104-105, to the Number 1º of the world in his court with my entire team in respectable game shape. (19970605)
I had that game shape because I didnt want to lose ACBB league, and if I want to be competitive in the B3, Im forced to pass cup games, wich means that Im forced to overplay my guys resulting in demential game shapes.
There is one way to play the B3 in good game shape and be able to win it, playing the relegation PO of my league. But if this happens I wont have the incomes that people from easy leagues has, and I will be less cometitive for the future.

They can TIE all their league/cup matches, they can train what they want and they have huge incomes because they have always positive records (most of the time full wins). Also they are not forced to pay huge salaries while they dont play B3 and they can spend the rest of the year saving money.

You are playing with maxed out prices in a sold out 11k arena in Spain, I guess that's where you lack of income comes from. You might start to expand your arena.

If he invest in stadium he goes straight to the 2nd division, he has to sell actives to do it. Our current money is close to 0 (huge competition forces us to spend all we have to remain competitive). I know that playing in Cyprus with a roster that costs weekly less than 150k while you save money allows you to build your stadium in 2 seasons but this doesnt happen in Spain, where most of the top players started in a Vth division.

If a great player starts in a small paradise and optimizes his strategy with the training and his wages the time he doesnt play the B3 he will be able to dominate easily the game. Luckily we dont have lots of elite managers in little countries, is easier to see them in huge comunities, we are more, statistically we have more type of players, but if a guy optimizates his strategy in a little country we could say good bye to the B3 for 10-15 seasons in a row (until he gets bored).

Also the HCA in 1/4 finals or 1/8 finals is something that I really cant understand. Today, most of the top teams can easily beat anyone of the world in his court. I really thought that this year I had a team to fight for the B3, but in this conditions is imposible for me, unless I have court advantage in key matches and good game shapes (not compiting in my country league).

I had that game shape because I didnt want to lose ACBB league, and if I want to be competitive in the B3, Im forced to pass cup games, wich means that Im forced to overplay my guys resulting in demential game shapes.

I don't follow here - B3 games are in arcade mode, so why would that impact anything?

I’m not sure your examples are exactly apples to oranges, but I do think they actually support what I am saying. The European countries you are referring to are doing an excellent job of developing a significant portion of the next generation of great basketball players. Young players are (and should be) more likely to play in their home countries than in other countries. But once these players are good enough to play in elite leagues, they can find more money in the NBA and likely to make the jump if they are good enough to star there. Not all players go these days since leagues in Europe are now paying decent salaries, which helps keep players from jumping oversees. But let’s face it, winning the Euroleague championship is not like winning an NBA championship, which is won with many many international players nowadays.

U21 leagues are not comparable to BB since in the U.S. U21 is essentially college, and the best U.S. college players generally don’t play on U21 teams. (The college players in the U.S. from other countries do, though, like Dogus Balbay from Turkey paying at the University of Texas.)

And read my point about player development in local countries again. I was making the argument that making it harder for countries with fewer teams to be able to buy the best talent from the world would actually make it more likely for these countries to develop their own players, hence bolstering their NTs.

Why not give teams from countries with few teams a shot in the BBB? Could you see the Euroleague champions beating the Los Angeles Lakers in a best-of-seven series? The Lakers aren’t just the US NT, they have some top talent from around the world, too (Gasul, Vujacic, Mbenga).

Game shape and enthusiasm counts in B3 matches. We need them at the top to be competitive.