BuzzerBeater Forums

actually this break is not so long, it's only 2 weeks...

My last game was on saturday 19th, thats 3 week betwenn the game and the next week game because i got 2 saturdays without a serious game.

Since we all know in advance it will be 2 weeks without incomming money

i got enough money to get through this time, but that won't change that it was boring especially if you had to loose your scrimmage to max the maximum of your training if you don't like to train your team.(blowout rule)

And what is when you start one week before you had to wait 3 weeks till you get your first real game, and those teams got problem with money too.

My main problem ain't the money, but in this phase i loose around 300.000$ and the 5th and 6th teams come along with +/- 0€ - so that it another unfair thing ...

Edit: i forgot the extra training, which was money too ;9

Last edited by CrazyEye at 5/1/2008 8:43:43 AM

correct.

In my opinion it should be the playoff teams that only play 2 games a week during playoffs, for two reasons.

One, with playoff teams getting more training time isn't that making the spread between poor teams and good teams wider? Second, Playoff teams, at least in real life, would be far too pre-occupied with PLAYOFF games to play a scrimmage match.

Just my opinion.

i like the idea of 5th playing 8th in your own conference, then the following week play the 5th and 8th teams from the other conference.

or maybe their could be a new clause in the players contract stating that the players only get X% of their salary on weeks that they do not play a competitive game. X could be 60% or so

or maybe their could be a new clause in the players contract stating that the players only get X% of their salary on weeks that they do not play a competitive game. X could be 60% or so

I totally do not see why this would be necessary...

8th place: you perform bad this season, there is no reward in money, and you get regelated, pure punishment!
5th place: Your team did not perform well enough to make the finals, but you are safe from relegation, this cost you, no income for your team, but you are safe.
Relegation game teams: you have a chance to be relegated, your team could not make the play-offs, but it has chosen to take some income and risk relegation, you are not safe, and therefor can earn some money. Note this money will not be that much since teams that ended low are playing each other and this does not bring so many spectators afterall!! It is falsly thought by 5th ending teams they make tons playing those few games, well they are not...

Seems prety okay to me.

That is weird.
You know the income for my semi finals game was 29k ??

I guess in leagues where everyone has big arenas the income might be a lot, but tell me... how much are there around? 10? I think not even that much. So in most cases....
;)

That is weird.
You know the income for my semi finals game was 29k ??

But you played in a pretty small stadion with standard prices, i think with home court you would earn 200 a game too ;)

And i think the size of the arena corresporents with the salarys you pay for ... i'm pretty sure i got some Problems with a 5000 Arena and my rooster.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 5/3/2008 12:13:16 PM

correct, but when a team needs to buy a player, the whole world can bid, so then it stops being relative. Also when you want to expand, the price is the same for everyone, so less money is less.
But then again a player you can buy for 500k would probably have the same value as a 75k player he can buy, which is obviously not going to strengthen your, or his team, so in the end it stays little money...

But we are drifting away again. It always comes to the same point, 5th placed teams do not get revenue and find it highly unfair.
When I started playing I got a team in 5th place and the season just ended. So I know how 5th teams feel, but it is just the way it is...

Don't get me wrong I won't mind if they change it, for suggestions: see numerous posts all over the forums where I repeated myself over and over about good solutions for this 'problem'.
But also understand me if I tell that I don't see anything realy wrong with the way it is now... Teams that 'need' this money to keep their head above water, teams that need wages to be payed back because they loose to much money when they don't get revenue for 2 or 3 weeks, are obviously doing something wrong economically, and changing the way the play-off season works now is not going to solve that problem.