BuzzerBeater Forums

I like a second round of 3 games.
But I don't like best of five in any way, because imo at least 95% of the cases the winner after best of 3, will eventually also become winner of best of 5.

It might be possible to replace the scrimmage with an extra game for the POs, and maybe have 1 extra game that week, but certainly no more of back to back games! This would disturb the playing minutes to hard. I believe for teams with less then 15 players, who have some diffrence between their starters and back-ups, the 1 extra game will already be realy problematic and would wreck their game shape.

The problems is that majority of owners would have no competitive games during this for a long time. Including just registered players (except those who got a team in semifinals or finals).

Not any more than they currently have. Below is the current finals schedule in my league.
4/11 - round 1 PO
7/11 - Scrimage
8/11 - round 2 SF
11/11 - Final
14/11 - Scrimage
15/11 - Final
16/11 - Tie Braker

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

As you can see there are no additional games, in fact there is a possibility of less. Currently there are 6 games to be played before the final TB (assuming all scrimages are booked). With the new there are 5 games minimum to be played before the final TB (SF won 2 games - 0 and TB not played).

No extra time needed, no extra time waiting around and going broke by teams not involved.

This will make a better final series, especially when the 2 best teams are in the same side of the series. This is the case in my league where the 2 best teams are on the same side of the draw, the 2 best teams currently have a sudden death game, this allows a better test of team management.

What would you suggest concerning the income during playoffs?
Extra games means extra cash for the playoff teams, if counted with normal ticket prices...

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.

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. The only change is that the losing semi finalsits definately gets an extra game, and the possibility of 2 extra games. The final is still best of 3 so there is no change to the income. This could be seen as a detreiment to the teams not involved, I prefer to see it as a reward to the teams involved.

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.

Regarding the losing of scrimages: This is a mangement game, the teams in the finals you would expect to be the better managers in the league. Managing your team, your bench, playing and resting starters, team balance, scouting the opposition and using your whole bench is what it is all about as far as I am concerned. If mangers simply put their starters out every single game, then rest them all in the scrimages, I don't see how that stretches managers in their team management skills. Balancing game shape, having a 2nd string centre in and resting your starter wile playing a team with a focus on outside shooting, playing a different tactic in offence and defence and balancing your team line up to that is what I think the finals is all about.

The finals should be a battle between the best managers and how they use tactics. I know in season 5 I lost a PO game that my players and form would have said I should have won, but my opposition out thought me, played better tactics, managed his team better and won. That is how I beleive this game should be played.

If this game is to reflect in any way the challangs of manageing a basketball franchise, I have never heard of a professional league anywhere in the world, where a scrimage game is played in the middle of the playoff series so starters can have a rest. If there is one please let me know.

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 :-)