BuzzerBeater Forums

I think one thing people aren't considering is with all the extra cash from not paying salaries, the bids on the off-season TL will rise to a certain extent. This may reduce the off-season deflation of player values we seem to always experience. So the benefits of the proposed day trading scenario may not be as great as they would be at first glance.

My only gripe is the current system rewarded solid financial planning for the off-season. Now that big part of the strategic side of the game is gone.

I see good and bad with these changes.

This change is the worst for common champions/finalist. Because they won't cut any costs and in addition they lost money from TV contracts. All teams lost these money, but they cut wage costs so finally their economy should be healthier, but the one of finalist probably won't be.
So fight for title is only for glory and B3 spot?
I hope there will be 50k bonus for each win in group play of B3, so that there is some potential bonus for winning the title. Or some bonus could be involved for winning the level 1 title.

Last edited by rwystyrk at 12/21/2010 6:59:15 AM

This change is the worst for common champions/finalist. Because they won't cut any costs and in addition they lost money from TV contracts. All teams lost these money, but they cut wage costs so finally their economy should be healthier, but the one of finalist probably won't be.
So fight for title is only for glory and B3 spot?
I hope there will be 50k bonus for each win in group play of B3, so that there is some potential bonus for winning the title. Or some bonus could be involved for winning the level 1 title.

when you loose money in the economics, tthe salarys would drop. And i don't think that you have to go more kamikaze then before for the title, when they are teams in your league who makes "-" for glory, they will do it independent from the system and more depending on the "-" they currently made.

Look at the GM's and BB's defending a decision made amongst themselves. Why not put the idea out there and let us vote on it...At least the supporters. 5th isn't boring in the old system it is safe. Finish in 6th and risk being demoted...

when you loose money in the economics, the salaries would drop.

It's not clear it's global lost, it could be lost for someone and profit for someone else. So impact on salaries is not clear, but impact on salaries is similar for everyone, so no advantage or disadvantage for anyone in this area. So in my eyes your arguments fail.

Still, having a system in which it's economically preferable to finish fifth rather than second in most cases doesn't seem all that great.

As with the previous system, it's not unless your view is limited to this two-week period. If you could win the same number of games in the same order and by the same margins, yet magically finish fifth instead of second, it's possible you could get more revenue from it in the present season. Otherwise, you lose money by losing wins, because your fans aren't happy.

If the fans were equally happy and supportive in the upcoming season regardless of whether you finished second or fifth, it's possible you'd get more revenue from it. They aren't.
.

Where have I heard this before? hehe. It seems alot of people are posting here without reading, and the complaints are becoming quite redundant. In order to finish 5th if you should be 2nd, 3rd, or 4th you must purposely tank, which will lose you revenue, in many cases more than you would gain in the long haul by skipping one weeks salary. I dont think people want to look at the whole economics of this, prefering instead to look at just the one week salary vs the playoff loss revenue. If this was the only thing tanking games would effect you all would be right in your '5th place is better' argument. It's not. Tank away and see how much extra cash you get for it, lol.

Well, the way I read into the post from BB-Charles, this change is designed to take money away from the teams that play for the championship and also teams that play a relegation series. Nothing else. Why do I say that:

1) He said it was not to fix the 5th place issue.
2) They could have simply removed salaries for all teams during the off-season and adjusted the TV revenue accordingly (which they did not do).
3) If you look at the net change, the biggest losers are the winners of each conference. After that, it is the teams in the relegation series (maybe someone can do the math and figure out the exact dollars and cents in play here).

If I look in my crystal ball all I see this doing is inviting more people to tank.

Also, this solution seems pretty convoluted. Why not remove salaries for everyone during the off-season and not tie playoff wins to attendance? Make winning a playoff series a fixed prize. To me that seems less confusing than what is coming down the pipe.