BuzzerBeater Forums

You are totally right about that it is needed to be seen also in the immediate money.
But, I can tell you that I really believe (and kind of seen it on myself) that the place one ends has crucial affect on the Arena income at the following season.

I believe that the proper solution is to divide this "affect" into two parts - one substantial that can be seen "right away" (AKA price money upon place a team is ending), and the second as it is now - affect on audience income.

I'm not saying adding the price money affect, to the already affect on the audience, but to divide current affect value into two parts - one that is obscure" and one that is "known".

The only problem with that suggestion of having any definition on the price money receiving upon the place a team finishes is that different leagues (and more precisely different teams) has different income from audience, and hence it is hard to define "price money" that will be proper to all leagues.

Maybe it just need to be upon average audience on that league throughout the season.

That´s what the money-distribution of the Post-Season Overall Income is all about which I had proposed in another thread. Usng a system like that, having a big arena STILL works positive for your (offseason) audience-related income, but also finishing ahead of others will pay off.

I would like to make it clear - The total affect of finishing higher should not be changed.
The same money should be involved.
The only change is that some of it will be "seen" as a "price money" of some kind.

Reading this made me feel confused, but happy. +1!

Even in real sports, the teams at the top often lose money, or make less money because they choose to invest more money into players.

Salary dumps and tanking are common occurances in professional sport. If your team is not good enough to win a championship then it makes perfect sense to focus on making money.

At least that 4th spot has an outside shot of going all the way.

In this case they try to win both sides.

I didn't see any team that in one season played with bad roster (and low salary), and then made a run for the title.
Again, at the same season.

In addition in real BB, a team that is playing around like that, are suffering a lot from their audience.

Another thing that is needed to be changed, for making it more real, is the salary floor.
Yes, the TV is expecting to pay upon a minimum floor, but what about a league definition?
Why not defining the floor upon the average salaries of that league (for example, above 80% of the average)?

You need to watch more professional sports. Happens alot.

San Antonio did it but there were some special and very good reasons and they were rewarded for their season of tanking with Tim Duncan who they added to David Robinson "The Admiral" and didn't just attempt a championship but actually won three as a direct result of that season of tanking.