BuzzerBeater Forums

i think the visitors should be connected to the salrys in some way, and maybe a bit less affected by the last game - because visitors would apprecitate quality. This would also reduce the money pot, some first devision of small countrys are(even when a first devision team playing in a premier devision should get more money then the same team in a fourth devision but not so much)

he pays roughly 180k salry which is 550k below the league average but his income is nearly the same then the other teams in our league.in his last homegame he made 505k and i believe he could have sold more cheap tickets because his extension wasn't done at this point, the league average is 511k. With extra 207k for the tv income, he made above 450k profit each week.

This is certainly very unrealistic and it is already making top managers of lower leagues quite bitter, since the following season they need to compete against teams that have made a lot of easy money. Even for these reasons alone, in my opinion something should be done about it.

But my question is, is intentional loosing the desired way of succes?

Another question: Are there examples of teams that are successful through this strategy? I can imagine you could kamikaze yourself to a Cup title by burning the money you have made. That problem is however not limited to teams that follow this strategy. I'm more interested in the long-term effectiveness of this strategy. Do teams turn out into powerhouses after giving up or do they just get some (in my opinion) unfair advantage for a season or two?

I'm more interested in the long-term effectiveness of this strategy. Do teams turn out into powerhouses after giving up or do they just get some (in my opinion) unfair advantage for a season or two?

I think in the long run it is definitely a successful strategy and it certainly helps them in the long run with a big unfair advantage over other teams.

These teams are able to make so much money because they are receiving D1 income while running D2-D3 rosters for a tanking strategy. They have no intent on competing. However, the extra cash will boost them up heaps. We have had some teams doing this in Australia D1 in the past and I believe there is currently one team doing it right now.

In the short term they lose games but in the long term they accumulate the cash to invest in their arena and be able to buy their way back into ABBL after a season back in D2. Teams that get demoted back to D2 are able to buy their way back by simply having more funds to burn through and can afford to make losses every week. E.g The salary cap of a D2 league (my league) is about 450k. Any more and you start making losses every week. I've seen these ex-ABBL teams come into D2 and run payrolls of 600k a week. They can afford to make the loss and the D2 teams can't compete.

This creates a unfair advantage to the genuine D2 teams and creates an bottleneck on true D2 teams as no matter how good your team is, there is no way you can promote (unless wtih a lot of luck) competiting against teams that can have 100-200k more than you in salary.

In the short term they lose games but in the long term they accumulate the cash to invest in their arena and be able to buy their way back into ABBL after a season back in D2.

But are they better off than before the tanking? Are they now contenders in the top league? Bouncing back in one season is still pretty short term and not a huge feat.

1) attendenace shouldn't be affected by salaries as this would be disadvantage for salary-wise players, there are many examples of players where better one earns half a salary. Also training would worth just after the season as salaries stay the same over the entire season.

2) if something like this is implemented it should follow just performances, but where should be the edge where it is this strategy or not? But I think there are already features which affected it, it's just about discussion whether the influence of each one in attendance formula is optimal. I mean:
- I am pleased with the team's performance last season
Isn't the influence on attendance too strong especially in middle and end of the next season?
- I am pleased with the team's performance this season
Isn't the influence on attendance too weak? Is the rating low enough for such a team (I have no idea about this rating for such a team)?
- The team manager is working hard to improve the team
Isn't the rating too high for this team (I have no idea about this rating for such a team)? Isn't influence on attendance too weak even if rating is low enough?

3) if you think this strategy is so powerfull you can try to use it yourself ...

- I am pleased with the team's performance last season
Isn't the influence on attendance too strong especially in middle and end of the next season?

i think this should equalize it over time, because it is also important in the saison after the give up year. But afaik is the difference not really big, betwen a team who tried to stay in the devision and failed through it in comparision to a team which plays scrubs and earned big time money while he got relegated.

- I am pleased with the team's performance this season
Isn't the influence on attendance too weak? Is the rating low enough for such a team (I have no idea about this rating for such a team)?

Personally i think yes, especially in comparision to the last game this one should be more important. But i also think that there should be different sublevels betwen team who loose with 10-20 most games and teams who loose most games with 50+ points. i don't have data for this, but i doubt that there is a big difference because it makes no big difference for the rating of the last game.

3) if you think this strategy is so powerfull you can try to use it yourself ...

i don't like to sell some of my players, else i would have done it after the cup lost last season. But i think it is better, nto have a system where you didn#t think of such decisions and try to be competive.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 3/31/2011 4:47:13 AM

I think you didn't understand my suggestion. It was about ballancing currect fan survey calculation and its effects on attendance.
So it would mean making much more lower attendance with 1 ball or .5 ball of total happiness. Nobody talked about linear effect.

Last edited by rwystyrk at 3/31/2011 9:19:22 AM

maybe he meant my salary suggestion, as i said my solution is far away from perfect but i like to see this problems discussed.

And points like yours seems to be working better in my eyes :)

People have to use this strategy because the difference in income between Div's is to much. In most competitive country's where div's 2 and div's 3 are heavily populated with real managers not bot teams it is pretty much impossible to get to Div 1 and stay there, because the Div 1 teams are way to powerful for a newly promoted team. Most teams that promote to Div 1 get relegated the next season.

Why are they tanking in the first place. They are tanking for a shitload of extra money. When Div 1 teams have 500k+ salaries and Div 2 teams promote with 300k salaries, how else are you supposed to make up 200k salaries to be able to compete with the div 1 team's?

In the Australian div 1 (ABBL) there are about 10 teams that are untouchable to anyone that promotes from div 2.

Close the gap in incomes between the Div's and it will not be as rewarding to do this strategy. The only people that are complaining are people in div 1, they don't want the people in the lower div's to be able to be competitive in Div 1 and want to remain untouchable.