BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Cup final in neutral venue

Cup final in neutral venue

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
10473.5 in reply to 10473.4
Date: 12/29/2007 9:43:51 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3737
You misread.

I played CT for only one cup match. You can probably guess which one. The league sacrifices I made had much more to do with resting personnel than enthusiasm management.

It's a choice you made, don't blame BB for it. ;)


To clarify a bit more, the way I see it, there is no rational choice to be made for a top-level team. The Cup as it exists now just is not worth it, so it's a choice I wouldn't make again.



Edited by oeuftete (12/29/2007 10:41:20 PM CET)

Last edited by Mod-oeuftete at 12/29/2007 10:41:20 PM

This Post:
00
10473.6 in reply to 10473.3
Date: 12/29/2007 11:17:21 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
5050
I'm guessing you got my point, but I don't think $35K in general is worth tanking a league game in a top division.

$35k might not be, but the honor and prestige of becoming your country's cup winner (and maybe even pulling off the cup/top league title) would be worth it to me.

I'm certainly one of those managers who is driven more than anything by the competitive spirit. For me, winning is prize enough. I understand not everyone would feel this way. I like the system as it is now. I'm not necessarily saying I'm opposed to a cup prize, but I don't have a problem with how it is currently run.

This season, (although I'm not in the NBBA), I was able to make a deep cup run and stay competitive in my league. The extra income was great. I really don't have a problem with the fact that some NBBA teams chose not to pay much attention to the cup and focused on their league games. It allowed me to advance further than I would of had I run into a top level team early on.

This Post:
00
10473.7 in reply to 10473.6
Date: 12/30/2007 2:59:40 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
9696
Well, giving it a bit more thought I have come up with the following:

maybe BB designed the cup on purpose to not be worth winning economically.
Why? to prevent from the best team to win it all at once.
With this system the lesser teams, can try to take a shot at a 'big' title, because the top teams can't afford to go for it...

When you play games like this I think it's about everyone's goal to get every possible title at least once.

In order to make it as fun as possible it should be difficult to win all the posible titels in 1 season.

Since division 2, 3 and 4 teams have no way at winning their countries title in the competition, they might try to get a shot at the cup. But if the cup is economicaly-spoken very attrctive, the div.1 teams will also try to get it...
So in the end it is not so bad that the cup is there for players trying to clinch it, just to have the trophy, rather than players wanting to make as much money as possible...

They are not your friends; they dispise you. I am the only one you can count on. Trust me.
This Post:
00
10473.8 in reply to 10473.7
Date: 12/30/2007 4:18:17 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3737
I considered this before (in my head), and dismissed it.

BTW, I'm not saying it should be "economicaly-spoken very attrctive" for the I.1 teams. But right now, for a I.1 team, it's completely unattractive economically. Even if you take the risk of going for it all (which is no guarantee, especially with the the chance of getting away games all the way through the final... the original point of this thread), the end result (ignoring the glory) is nowhere near break-even, in my opinion. If you don't even get the glory, it's a complete disaster.

You're suggesting the BB's may have designed the cup here to be something like an even less relevant version of English football's League Cup, where the lesser teams field their best sides, the top teams field their kids and reserves, and no-one seriously cares about who wins. I hope that is not the case.

Edited by oeuftete (12/30/2007 4:18:29 PM CET)

Last edited by Mod-oeuftete at 12/30/2007 4:18:29 PM

This Post:
00
10473.9 in reply to 10473.8
Date: 12/30/2007 8:18:37 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
9696
first off, let's start by telling that I totally would not mind if the money was split 50/50 between the teams, the home team will have some advantage already by playing a home match.

But yes, it might be purposely that the cup might be more attractive for lower division teams... But I also don't doubt that a team who won the championship in first division, but hasn't won the cup yet, might try to get the cup to add to his trophies in the next season...

It is up to the manager to put his lesser players in the cup, just for training and see how far they get, or to put his best in order to win it, or anything in between.

They are not your friends; they dispise you. I am the only one you can count on. Trust me.
This Post:
00
10473.10 in reply to 10473.9
Date: 12/30/2007 10:04:51 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3737
first off, let's start by telling that I totally would not mind if the money was split 50/50 between the teams, the home team will have some advantage already by playing a home match.


The rules don't have anything to say here, but I believe the split is already 50/50. (I heard something about a rules rewrite somewhere else... hopefully the new ones have something to say about the cup.)

It is up to the manager to put his lesser players in the cup, just for training and see how far they get, or to put his best in order to win it, or anything in between.


Completely agree, of course, and never stated otherwise. The problem is that there's only one rational (i.e. ignoring pride) choice for a I.1 team, and that is to ignore the cup.

Edited by oeuftete (12/30/2007 10:05:07 PM CET)

Last edited by Mod-oeuftete at 12/30/2007 10:05:07 PM

This Post:
00
10473.11 in reply to 10473.10
Date: 1/1/2008 11:00:58 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
9696
Completely agree, of course, and never stated otherwise. The problem is that there's only one rational (i.e. ignoring pride) choice for a I.1 team, and that is to ignore the cup.

Edited by oeuftete (12/30/2007 10:05:07 PM CET)


unless it's the manager's goal to get that cup, and he's ready to sacrifice some money for it....
:)

They are not your friends; they dispise you. I am the only one you can count on. Trust me.
This Post:
00
10473.12 in reply to 10473.11
Date: 1/8/2008 9:18:19 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1515
If it was only a sacrifice of money then it might be worth it. What is instead happening is that players are forced to sacrifice their standing in league play to win cup games, and that just makes no sense.

This Post:
00
10473.13 in reply to 10473.12
Date: 1/8/2008 9:29:41 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3737
If it was only a sacrifice of money then it might be worth it. What is instead happening is that players are forced to sacrifice their standing in league play to win cup games, and that just makes no sense.


For me, making a sacrifice is not the issue. You should have to make a compromise to win the cup (unless you're very strong and deep... I bet BC Törööö could have done the double in Canada if he so chose. for example). The issue for me is that even in the best-case scenario (you win the cup), you come nowhere near recouping what you sacrificed.

This Post:
00
10473.14 in reply to 10473.13
Date: 1/9/2008 1:43:56 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
1515
Agreed...it isn't sacrifice I am opposed to, it is sacrificing everything that is the problem. There is no benefit whatsoever to your team in winning the tournament. So this is not a sacrifice one good thing for another good thing, it is sacrificing in just about every other way for nothing tangible whatsoever. Unless you count pride, but lets be serious for a minute.

This Post:
00
10473.15 in reply to 10473.14
Date: 1/9/2008 10:34:20 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1919
There is no benefit whatsoever to your team in winning the tournament.

I'd say the income I received from 9 cup games helped my team somewhat.

Advertisement