BuzzerBeater Forums

This makes some sense, but it also removes winning as the singular goal that it should be. IRL teams that promote through a league structure don't get penalized if their arena doesn't keep up witht the teams success. There may be a financial penalty, but nothing that indirectly affects fan support.

Except that it does directly harm their ability to compete in exactly the same way that it does in this game. That's why for example the Arizona Cardinals in the NFL have moved arenas to larger venues. Without a bigger arena, larger ticket receipts couldn't come in and thus they couldn't develop a team as strong as the one they had as Superbowl contenders.

If you look at their ticket receipts in the 2010 season in comparison to the 2009 season (year after Superbowl run), besides a few outliers on rival games, their overall sales have gone down. I'd expect sales this year (if there is one) to be even lower as fans stop showing up every game for a team that's no longer in top playoff contention.

That's a single example, but honestly, I think this mirrors real life pretty well. It takes a half season for burned fans to go "Oh, wait, they've turned themselves around, let's pick up a few cut rate tickets and check them out" again, while the diehards will watch regardless. In the meantime, like the Cardinals, a smart owner in this game can look at the Arena, go "That's a reason we failed", fix it, and come back stronger in a couple seasons.

Last edited by Arislanx at 4/25/2011 9:09:33 PM

I notice that both of you used NFL examples, which aren't really applicable.

In BB, a team like Stajan, a relative upstart that has a great season at II and gets to Naismith, is more similar to a club like Blackpool in the EPL. Neither team is set up for immediate long-term success - arena expansions could come but they'll take time. The point is that the fan support penalty for relegating for a team like that is ridiculous. Fans will realize that it's still a small club, so they won't expect immediate success at a very high level - just an attempt to succeed.

As it stands, it makes financial sense for an upstart II team to intentionally lose in the league finals instead of trying for promotion. This should NEVER be the case.

Last edited by RiseandFire at 4/25/2011 9:20:41 PM

The NFL readily publishes their ticket receipts for every game, so it's VERY easy to look that up. It's also *perfectly* applicable, just a slightly different paradigm. Any team that isn't playoff ready in the NFL is equivalent to a team in relegation standing in this game. The fan reaction to a team failing to make the playoffs shows the same reaction to a team that just can't cut the mustard here. They just don't come to games until the team has shown that they can compete again.

Which is pretty much true anyway when you think about it logically.
Looking at II.2 vs NBBA the TV Contract is 113,698 vs 196,317. 80K more a week there. If you promoted to the NBBA, you've got a roster worth more than 196K anyway. I'm in one of the middling D.III leagues and our average salary is more than that. So that's money in the bank.

If you just promoted, you're going to be filling out your Arena to the brim (assuming you're not overbuilt for the new league already), meaning you can either build out or raise prices. That's more incoming money, even if you raise your prices a very conservative 10%. Even if you try to tank it, assuming you take advantage of the higher league while you're in it, you'll more than make up the loss in fans on demotion by the amount you pocketed in additional TV cash and attendance gates from raised prices.

Over a season:
Raise in TV Contract: +1.12M
Raise in prices by 10% at a conservative 200K Arena income: +280K

Are you telling me that by tanking and gaining 1.4M, you're doing *worse* than if you had not promoted? I have a hard time believing that the fans lost by demotion are anywhere near worth the equivalent of a half a season's worth of home games completely lost. I'll be honest, I have no numbers to back up an NBBA->D.II demotion, but I can't imagine that it's *that* harsh.

As it stands, it makes financial sense for an upstart II team to intentionally lose in the league finals instead of trying for promotion. This should NEVER be the case.

I'm not sure I understand this point. If you look at revenue gained over a 2 season period, you would want to be the team that promotes 10 times out of 10. First, Stajan got a $1 million bonus for promotion. Secondly, profits are larger (even with a smaller arena) than in div.2, even if his player costs are higher. Third, if he tanks, he'll get a high draft pick. The only downside is the season he goes back into div. 2, he has a lower fan survey for 1 of the questions.
Am I missing something?

Yes. You're missing that it's still financially beneficial for him to tank (just barely scraping by the salary floor) than it is to try and field a competitive team, even if the effort is futile. Using a CT here and there, etc. Just trying to take some wins back with him.

In the EPL structure, the notion of a newly promoted Championship team doing this is rightly ridiculous. But that's because that team won't lose its fan support if it relegates from the EPL, yet Stajan will, whether he tries to win or not.

You're missing that it's still financially beneficial for him to tank.

So you want it to be less financially beneficial if he tanks? It seems to me like your concern is just fan survey and not the player salaries floor at all, but I may be wrong here.

Last edited by Fresh24 at 4/25/2011 11:55:01 PM

Yes.

Last edited by RiseandFire at 4/26/2011 12:00:18 AM