BuzzerBeater Forums

haha beat you to it ;)

I agree that there is a problem with the seedings off-season time income.
Let's take a look:
1-st seed makes the most money usually as he get's 3 hc games (sometimes 4) 2 1/3 (+2,3) arena income so this gives you a 14 arena income season.
2-nd seed makes roughly 1 arena income 12 arena income season.
3-rd and 4-th seed make 1/3 arena income (note 4-th seed usually makes more as the nr1 team usually has the biggest arena income)
5-th seed zip
6-th seed 1 (+2/3) arena income
7-th seed 1 (+1/3) arena income
8-th zip
Now we can argue what is the best considering competition. Giving the lower end teams more money so they could compete or give champions more money because they have deserved it? I will leave it open for BB's to decide.
I think we can agree that the biggest losers are 3-rd, 4-th and 5-th seed. No good chance to win and crappy income. This has been countered by BB's with relegation threat. I know that many just promoted teams, would love that 5-th spot. As we all know relegating is the biggest income cut that can actually happen.
I agree there is no great solution here. I don't think giving everyone one time income based on their position and then playing playoffs with no attendance income would be the way to go.
Perhaps we should change the income distribution to 1/2 per team, the only advantage being the HC.
This takes us to 2,5 arena income to teams that get into the finals and play a Tiebreaker.
2-nd seed still get's his 1 arena income. 3-rd and 4th get 1/2 + no relegation bonus :) 5-th get's no relegation bonus.
6-th and 7-th seeds arena attendance should be minimized (none really want to see their team relegate) so that 3 games would give them roughly 1/2 arena income (teams battleing there usually have smaller arenas so this evens it up with 3-rd and 4-th) or play relegation games with no arena income. I believe relegation threat is still there even if you get the 6-th spot. Different sides of one league might be stronger + you can add players just before playoffs (I have seen both 6-th placed teams relegate in one season in my league, so it's not actually a foolproof plan to go fishing for 6-th instead of 5-th in a high competition league). 8-th should get relegated and no income for being weak.
Still the point remains. There are 14 weeks in a season and 11 guaranteed arena incomes. We can't really evenly spread it out to 14 weeks for players to make it easyer to calculate (the income also fluctuates so that's another problem). So it all comes down to who can and who can't manage.

First of all, thanks for all of your answers. I am happy to see, that its not only me who see a problem here. I just want to add another thing that came to my mind just a few minutes ago.

If I undertand the BBs right the economy is self tuning and based on the profit of the teams. Now lets assume, everybody would save the money, he needs to get through the off-season, during the regular season. What would be the result? I guess that this will lead to higher salarys of all players, since the teams are making profit each week...I dont really think that we want this to happen, do we?


edit: I just talked with some friends of mine in Skype about this problem and we came up with the following idea:

As long as a team has any competitive game (playoff or relegation) during a week he has to pay the full salarys for his player. The manager who havent got any of these games have to pay half the salary. This would lead to the following scenario.... for the best teams there wouldnt be a change at all... the 3rd and 4th placed teams have to pay at least one week of full salarys but also have the chance to advance in the playoffs. The 5th placed team wouldnt have to sell any of his players to survive (same for 8th team, but he has to sell players anyway because of relegation).

For me this scenario would change my priority on how to finish a season to 1-->2-->3-->4-->5-->6-->7-->8 and thats how it should be in my opinion. Right now me priority list looks like this: 1-->2-->6-->7-->3-->4-->5-->8 ....

On top of all this you can change the income from 1/3 <-> 2/3 to 50/50 (this has been suggested before in this thread)

So waht you think of this idea?



Last edited by Yoginger at 8/23/2010 7:27:32 AM

Another way to get through the income-less weeks is to fire all your staff and just train FT and Stamina training with automatically assigned Level 1 staff.

Another idea: How about cutting player salaries in half during the offseason, and only when a team has no income generating games? So 5th and 8th seed will immediately see a drop in their salaries, while other teams see drops when they are out.

Strange idea: When teams have gone fishing.... give them income for every fish they catch!!

I think the biggest problem is for those teams who finish the regular league with "away games" (my last 2 games will be away games), finish 5th or 8th, and start the new league with another away game. You really need to start saving money right now if you think you can end up in that situation.

My opinion is: Leave it as it is. If you're a good manager, you'll manage. Be creative and find ways to deal with this situation.

My solution: you get money from your season ticket holders in the off-season via season ticket sales. Then that money is subtracted from your gate revenue during the season (the season ticket holders already paid for their seats).

The no off-season salaries idea works, but injects more money into the BB economy. Maybe that is a good thing, I don't know.

My opinion is: Leave it as it is. If you're a good manager, you'll manage. Be creative and find ways to deal with this situation

Agree 100%.

There are more important problems on the economy than this.

it's good to see the numbers,agree completly,altough I never finished in 5th

the problem here is with the fair aspect of the game,is it fair that the 5th get the worst economic situation in the off-season?I'm not puting the 8th cause hes already relegated

maybe giving one time the league's average arena income would be enough

the problem here is with the fair aspect of the game,is it fair that the 5th get the worst economic situation in the off-season?I'm not puting the 8th cause hes already relegated

Again, my season ticket holder suggestion could be somewhat of a remedy to this. Just make sure the 6th and 7th positions get a big hit to the $ brought in from selling season tickets. Make the difference high enough that the majority would still want to finish 5th in order to avoid demotion.

(Also note that many people, myself included, still avoid 6th or 7th place if it can be avoided. Demotion is pretty unfriendly to the bottom line.)

(Also note that many people, myself included, still avoid 6th or 7th place if it can be avoided. Demotion is pretty unfriendly to the bottom line.)

I'm in this "many people" category as well

your sugestion may be the best possibility,hopefully the BBs see it as an issue as we and other people do

or at least they can give some clues why its not a problem