BuzzerBeater Forums

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

In first division if you know you don't have the best team the 5th place is the best strategy you can choice. Imo the 5th place must earn less than the first 4th position, the last one is the worst one so he must pay for his weakness it means no money to him.

Next season the 5th place will give me 600k gratis, it means more than 2 home games income, it's really easy to imagine the hard battles on the last game tournament to be in 5th position, wow...

Got to say the salary decision is just plain weird.

We all know that the structure and rules cannot mimic real life despite the fact we all want to have rule changes that mirror a truer reflection of the real game of Basketball.

So its strange to read of a new rule change that says - some teams some weeks will pay their players wages whilst some teams won't pay player wages. There must be a better way to revise the numbers that doesn't have to deviate down this very strange route.

The BB3 rule changes seem to be what most were crying out for which I think was inevitable. The randomness of the draw will be fun and eliminate some favourites but the final 32 will contain enough quality that the best team will rise to the top to win the trophy.

We all know that the structure and rules cannot mimic real life despite the fact we all want to have rule changes that mirror a truer reflection of the real game of Basketball.

NBA players get paid every two weeks during the regular season. Their whole salary is paid during that time. That looks a lot like the new BB. And I mean, a lot.

I think NBA players get paid per game. Hence the whole "suspended without pay" system.