BuzzerBeater Forums

Then make it tougher. Only the 1-4 Team in each Conference goes to the Play Offs. The rest have to trudge through Relegation. Yes, your 5th Seed in an 8 Man Conference could then get Relegated.

Or say 1-3. 1 gets a Bye on Opening Game, plays the Winner of 2 V 3 in the first week. It played that week, so it pays salaries.

Only 6 Teams in a Division would get a chance to win the PO, and the reward for your Season is getting that Bye. Injuries, Game Shape and Enthusiasm would all be impacted, playing the Top Seed who is Fresh. Of course, if one Conference sends the 3 and the other Conference sends the 1 then the 3 is at a huge disadvantage as it probably used all the Enthusiasm in the 2 games already played and put the best players in for long minutes. Makes it really hard for the 3 to win it all. But then, winning it all shouldn't be easy for the lowest seed in a Play Off.

It really hurts teams that dress 3 to train... especially if they catch an injury. They walked through a weak division with 3 Studs and No Names to get the #1 or #2 Seed... then get bounced early.

The problem with making Short Play Offs (4-8 Teams Total) is that the Deeper the Play Offs, the more money to be made.

Different ideas ...

(1) Offseason Salary Free for Teams 1-5, no matter if they play additional games or not.

(2) Instead of starting the season on a Saturday, start the season on a Tuesday. Why does that change anything? Because the first playoff game would be a Saturday now - the teams going out there under the current system would be in a no-worse position than the current 5th, just that they get one more money game. 5th play each other that Saturday. Teams advancing to the 2nd round get a tuesday´s game training, a money game and have a more or less serious shot at finishing first. The finals contenders play there series Saturday - Tuesday - Saturday instead of Tuesday - Saturday - Sunday, the "final Sunday" is the new day of New Season processing, so it´s done till Tuesday.

(3) Forced Friendly Income League Pool

The "Forced Friendly Exhibitions" played on Saturdays by eliminated or relegated teams generate income, which is evenly distributed between the teams still in the playoffs during that week as a "league revenue" special rate.

So the Income from the Saturdays Game #8 vs #8 and #5 vs #5 and of those exiting in the Tuesdays Games goes to all teams in the playoffs, Week Two Saturdays Income goes to the Finals Contenders.

(income of four friendlies devided between 8 teams, income of 8 friendlies devided between 2 teams)

Others to follow ...

Last edited by LA-seelenjaeger at 10/23/2011 6:04:54 PM

Oh and another final attempt ...

(4) Revised Playoff Format - this format guarantees at least 2 games for the teams finishing 1st and 2nd, opens up some new tactical ways of going for the "homecourt in the finals", and should improve the chances of a no. 3 or 4 seed to sneak into the finals and (even holding home court advantage, if things work out fine) getting away with a "steal" for the promotion. It also improves the significance of finishing 3rd instead of 4th.
The format is not entirely new, it´s already in place for several sports, so this might actually might be worth a thought.



Playoff Format


Tuesday

Red Group
game a) Teams Finishing 2nd at Team Finishing 1st
game b) Teams Finishing 4th at Team Finishing 3rd

Blue Group
game e) Teams Finishing 2nd at Team Finishing 1st
game f) Teams Finishing 4th at Team Finishing 3rd


Saturday

game c) Winner Game B at Loser Game A
game g) Winner Game F at Loser Game E
game X) Winner A - Winner E (neutral place, winner takes 2/3 of the price money which is 3x TV revenue for the league)



Sunday

game d) Winner Game C at Winner Game A
game h) Winner Game G at Winner Game E

Tuesday
Finals Game 1) Winner D - Winner H (Homecourt determined by Winner Game X, Red Groups wins, Red Group has HCA, Blue Group Wins, Blue Group has HCA)


Saturday
Finals Game 2) Winner H - Winner D (Homecourt revised)


Sunday
Finals Game 3 / Decider: Homecourt determined by Winner game X


Last edited by LA-seelenjaeger at 10/23/2011 6:57:34 PM

Now you are penalizing teams for not making the Play Offs. Relegated teams are now paying for Play Off Teams when Relegated Teams obviously need money to build... the weak get weaker. Play Off Teams are collecting money from teams not in the Play Offs, sharing it... so the deeper a team goes the more money it gets from those lesser teams. The strong get stronger.

I'm not seeing how the teams giving that money up to be divided are making anything.

I'm all for League Sharing, but it should be fair. Every team in the Play Offs could share, with those advancing getting a bigger piece. Same for the Relegation League.

There are a million ways to put in Profit Sharing (not that any are easy to code). None should force a 0 Profit for teams and divide that amongst another group (say Play Off Teams as a group benefitting).

If you want to Profit Share you can have 3 Sets. Season, Relegation and Play Off. Every Home Team gives 10% of the Game, to be divided among all teams equally.

In Season this means every team would share in the Pool, equally. Or perhaps you go off last seasons standings giving more to the lower teams. I like keeping it even myself. This does hurt teams that draw big crowds, as they won't get all of the Gate... they will only get (in my League for an example) 1/16th of that 10% back. Still, the 90% of the Gate will still be enough that even after Profit Sharing the team that brings in the most will still make the most. It gets more extreme if you move to say a 50% Profit Share.

Relegation Teams would only share in the Relegation Pool, and as those are usually bad record teams they will draw lesser crowds, so they share in a small pool while...

Play Off Teams would only share in the Play Off Pool. A nice, bigger pool for the big kids to play in.

Still, never should Profit Sharing be used to Punish Teams for not making the Play Offs... how can we ever expect them to build into a contender if we take a means to improve from them?

There are ways, like changing the First Day of the Play Offs, or a Play Off System where every team plays on the First Day, to force Salaries to be paid.

Here's an idea, simple make All Teams play Salary every Week... regardless of if they played or not. The players are under contract, right? A contract is for a Season... so just assume all contracts are for the entire Season as long as the player is on the Roster. Every Week you pay, so it's in your best interest to put your team in position to get a Paid Game every week. No more Tanking for 5th.

Huh? You know that you don´t get any income from your forced friendly, don´t you?

So by "taking away" money from those friendlies from the teams out of competition, nobody is losing.

And of course this is about "penalizing" the non-playoff teams. If you want to improve the position of the teams having success, it will always tend to widen the gap between those and the ones not making it, therefore "punishing the weaks".

Nevertheless, all of the different concepts are just random thoughts ... the only one I´d like to have some kind of a true response to would be the different playoff format, as I do think this would be a real change for the better (by making the third place more interesting than the 4th, the second better than the third, creating revenue for the top teams and to some degree eliminating the problem of homecourt-advantage by schedule advantages and by walkovers). It would also make coaching and roster building alot more key, as you´d have to most likely play 3 competitive games a week for a possible two weeks in a row...


Last edited by LA-seelenjaeger at 10/24/2011 2:34:41 AM

I don't think it's a big deal, because if you reach the playoffs, you will have more fans the following season.

This notwithstanding, I do think that an increase of TV contracts would be realistic, and an automatic increase of ticket prices (without changing the propensity of fans to attend) as well.

Last edited by Stavrogin at 10/25/2011 12:51:35 PM