BuzzerBeater Forums

Can you give me some numbers on how wide and big the effect of some players not playing as much is for the average team? Do we even know if it has lowered the income? Do less players play in NT-games now then before the change?
Speculating over money lost when we dont really know if and how much is being lost takes us nowhere.

I can't give you numbers. This is the direction this thread had taken (i.e. lopsided minute splits in NT games), but you surely know better than me that there is a direct effect on merchandise depending on both salary and minutes played with the NT in competitive games.

The people who can mostly comment about this with some numbers are the guys in the B3 with several NT players. Like someone has said, if there is an impact on remuneration for managers who train and maintain NT players, the removal of the sub pattern connected to blanks effectively reduces the value of raising and having NT players. Can we all agree on this? Since the merchandise boost is modelled in the code and the BBs are aware of how much a 10 minute swing means in terms of % of salary of the player do we really have a need to extrapolate this number from the economics? Pointing at the problem and asking to rebalance the merchandise so that it's similar to what it was before the change seems logical. Either that or provide the same substitution pattern in another form or shape (or new substitution patterns altogether).

Do less players play in NT-games now then before the change?

Yes, I can gather the data later on this on the top 10 NT teams. From 12 to 10 players it is 2/12=16% fewer players receiving a merchandise bonus.

Do we even know if it has lowered the income?

The problem is not that there is less income gained, but that it is more concentrated in the hands of managers who have starters playing 40+ minutes. Some people are clearly benefiting from this. Again, I haven't raised this point, I'm arguing against those who are trying to dismiss it. Especially because if the problem was the blank line up, the BBs could have kept the sub pattern linked to it and made it available in another form.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 2/23/2015 6:32:34 AM

To your first point: you are may be right with less players. But the NT-coach is not responsible for financial behaviour of managers and just nominating player that clubs can survive is BS. May be there was something wrong before with the clubs. You can't build on merchandise money if you manage your club serious.

Point 2: Maybe you picked the wrong game. Germany vs. Italy have just 11 players played. And game wasn't close at all . We won by 40 points and at one piunt your coach will bring the bench player. In this game was for sure no BLU

People who are competing at the top level do leverage the fact that a percentage of their NT players' salary is paid through extra merchandise. There is a direct relationship between merchandise sold and the number of minutes a player plays in the NT. Basically your merch will be boosted by a percentage of your NT player's salary depending on how much he plays. Example: you have a 250k player, last season he was playing 24 minutes and getting a boost of 20% of his salary (+50k), this season he plays backup because the coach doesn't like him and he can't use blanks. He now plays 8 minutes and the boost to the merch is down to 7% (15k). That manager loses 35k running for each NT game.

Germany played 11 players in a game without injuries and without garbage time (you lost by 40 points). If you can explain how that 11th player has been brought in with a fully set lineup I'm happy to learn something new.

my mistake , we lost by 40 ... i am getting old

if you check play by play you will see Jägermeister and Dieckhoff coming in the same time so I guess the position 4 and 5 were covered this way

PF: Gensberger- Broszeit - Jägermeister
C: Grund - Broszeit - Jägermeister

thats quiet simple and really nothing new. If you change C and PF the same time, what will happen ?

And for the money. That´s possibly true, but still you can´t count on that money. Your salaries rises also through training and you have to make decisions and may be sell players. Thats the game ...

Well when they don't play or play limited minutes (maybe is in the lineup but does not play) the merchandise decreases. If this is a myth invented by managers is difficult to say. There is a lot of noise that goes into that number, because it depends also on team results, PR manager ecc ecc, so if we're talking about a reduction from 36 to 30 it might be difficult to prove and a reduction is 36 to 6 in the same season should be a much rarer event.

We better ask Marin about it. A simple yes or no answer will suffice. As I said he should know the exact amount of the impact and he doesn't need to disclose how it works or how much it is.

for the money. That´s possibly true, but still you can´t count on that money.

Go ask people competing in the BB or for titles in Germany, if they don't count on that money. The game rewards managers who have NT players and rightly so. This change was to remove blanks not to affect the NT and managers with NT players.

This change was not meant to remove a substitution pattern from the game either.

Recapping, the aim was: Removal of blank lineups.
The results are:
1) Blanks are no longer an option. The coach fills starters and backups if they are left empty. This is GOOD and fulfilled the original aim that Marin set for the change.
2) For some reason, the blank lineups came with a more efficient substitution pattern. The aim of this change was NOT to erase this feature from the game as it has nothing to do with avoiding setting a lineup. The change did erase this substitution pattern from the game, therefore this was an UNWANTED result as far as the information we got from the BBs on the topic goes. Unless Marin comes out now saying that the sub pattern linked to blanks was also an aberration which was not intended to be in the game we can assume they just removed a feature without adding anything in its place. My idea on the topic is that the sub pattern we saw with blanks is how LCD is supposed to work. It does not work quite as efficiently with all players selected, compared to blanks, because the depth chart is restricted to a starter and a backup for each position.
My suggestion would be to change LCD so that the coach can pick any of the THREE guys (so include also the reserve slot) set in the depth chart with the same substitution rules that were used for blanks, while Coach Pick from the Depth Chart only picks from TWO slots (starter and backup).
3) NT managers now have to choose who to play. They have more power in selecting a player as starter over another. This impacts the economy of D1 and, more rarely, D2 or D3 everywhere (to be confirmed with absolute certainty by Marin that playing time affects the merchandise money) and any discussion about conflict of interest we had in the past is now several times more relevant. The change in revenue sharing at the NT level was therefore another UNWANTED result which had nothing to do with blank lineups per se.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 2/23/2015 9:40:15 AM

if you check play by play you will see Jägermeister and Dieckhoff coming in the same time so I guess the position 4 and 5 were covered this way

PF: Gensberger- Broszeit - Jägermeister
C: Grund - Broszeit - Jägermeister

So please share with us how Jagerbomb managed to sneak in this game for a few minutes? Was it set like that with LCD? CPfDC (I pretty much can guarantee you it can't happen in CPfDC, since I played with that for like 5 seasons)? If there were no blanks anywhere I'd like to know how the setup was, I will try to replicate playing 11 or 12 players in close games/defeats when I start having scrimmage games in a few weeks.

Check how many players will play for Germany tonight against England in what should be a close game. You'll see no more than 10 will play.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 2/23/2015 8:30:01 AM

I am not a national team gm....
Good D3 teams and higher used this tactic in the US...
so this is more than just a NT issue.
With less mins played the chance of injury decreases. And not only were the substitution patterns superior... the coach actually matched up defensively.
That is gone now... and it was superior.
Can we get that aspect back please?