BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

I think 10% would be a good number. In my case I will lose 9k a week. Multiply that by 16 weeks and you still come up with less than I am spending in one week of salaries.

But while they are spreading your loss of tv revenue over an entire season, most teams will see the salary infusion over 1, 2 or 3 weeks. So for these few weeks in the off-season I still think it will impact the sale price, in a positive way, on the TL.

Even if it ends up being say 15% or 20% (or higher) then it will have a negative effect on player value over the entire season. But you technically will see teams with more money, comparatively, in the off-season than they ever have before. So you won't see as much of a player devaluation during that time frame regardless of the amount of the TV revenue drop.

I still think most on here are also not thinking about the loss of revenue associated with not making the playoffs, and/or tanking games, appropriately. It is still much better for your team financially to win games, make the playoffs and collect a playoff game partial revenue than to not have to pay salaries for a couple weeks, in the long run. I haven't seen anyone here make a strong case to show otherwise.

Is this the perfect solution to the 5th/8th place financial inequality and off-season market price drop? Probably not. But it is not a major tragedy either like many are trying to portray it as.

Last edited by Hoosier at 12/21/2010 1:40:42 PM