Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Mac Attack
And absolute BS at that. It now is really pointless to try and bust your ass to make a Top 4 seed.



Not at all BS. It's how the NFL does it. And I imagine it will only be a split of the ticket sales, with the lion's share still going to the home team. And the home team will get to keep concession sales.

And then there's the whole, highest seed gets to play the worst playoff team. Plenty of reasons to bust your ass for a top 4 seed.

Originally posted by kgarlett
Originally posted by Mac Attack

And absolute BS at that. It now is really pointless to try and bust your ass to make a Top 4 seed.



Not at all BS. It's how the NFL does it. And I imagine it will only be a split of the ticket sales, with the lion's share still going to the home team. And the home team will get to keep concession sales.

And then there's the whole, highest seed gets to play the worst playoff team. Plenty of reasons to bust your ass for a top 4 seed.

Exactly--let's be reallistic. This would never fly in a professional sports league where the number one seed gets $10,000,000 in revenue for hosting the game and their opponent doesn't get enough to cover salaries for the day. I figure a 2 to 1 or even 3 to 1 revenue split for the hometeam is fair. Besides chances are the home team is going to advance and make even more money. We don't have a draft. Things need to be done to make it fairer for the teams at the bottom. We're not a team that has ever given ridiculous deals fcr free agents and we've spent every available cent expanding our stadium yet we can't afford to give our players their full level 32 equipment. When we get to level 40 this will be even more lopsided. I'm in leagues with some players already where half the games end 255-0. I don't want to be in more leagues like that.

If GLB was "realistic" then yes, it would matter getting to play a lower seeded opponent. But how many times does the #7 seed beat the #2 seed vs. how often that crap happens in the NFL?

It happens time and time again where teams coast through the regular season on GLB and then actually game plan for the playoffs and win.

And the biggest thing here. . . . don't ever compare GLB to anything having to do with "real life". Nothing about this game simulates real football.

Originally posted by Mac Attack
If GLB was "realistic" then yes, it would matter getting to play a lower seeded opponent. But how many times does the #7 seed beat the #2 seed vs. how often that crap happens in the NFL?

It happens time and time again where teams coast through the regular season on GLB and then actually game plan for the playoffs and win.

And the biggest thing here. . . . don't ever compare GLB to anything having to do with "real life". Nothing about this game simulates real football.



You think the postseason favorite always wins in the NFL? Then I have a team in New England I'd like to sell you.

Playoff revenue sharing is the fairest way to do things. I suppose for the guys who don't want it to be fair, even a little, this would be a problem. For everyone else it's an improvement.

And I speak as an owner who clinched the top seed in the playoffs in each of the last two seasons. The amount of money we made from the playoffs in season 1 as an expansion team made it next to impossible for anyone to challenge us in season 2. And they didn't. We benefited greatly from the old system, but it wasn't fair. Revenue sharing with the home team still getting a bigger piece of the pie is better for GLB, all comparisons to the NFL notwithstanding.

As owner of Bonn, I'm fine with revenue sharing. We didn't get any playoff money until Season 3 and we've only hosted 4 home playoff games. As long the home teams still a good majority I don't have a problem with it. It seems like so many teams get sold back, if the bar to keep your team competitive was lowered a little bit where making those 5-8 seeds still gave good benefits then I'm all for it. It will help the overall health of the GLB game.

Originally posted by Mac Attack
If GLB was "realistic" then yes, it would matter getting to play a lower seeded opponent. But how many times does the #7 seed beat the #2 seed vs. how often that crap happens in the NFL?

It happens time and time again where teams coast through the regular season on GLB and then actually game plan for the playoffs and win.

And the biggest thing here. . . . don't ever compare GLB to anything having to do with "real life". Nothing about this game simulates real football.



And you play it because...

Teams getting sold mid-season or abandonned, complete roster turnover midseason, new plays and strategies coming out weekly, little competitive balance, free agents signing with another team midseason--it very much simulates the early days of pro football.

I'm a late-comer to this discussion, but the NFL doesn't revenue share in the playoffs. Each team gets a set bonus, with the conference (or division, can't remember) leaders getting an additional bonus. The bonus increases as a team advances in the playoffs. Home teams are required to turn over all ticket revenues to the NFL. As far as I can recall, they get to keep concessions revenues.

I understand teams not wanting to share revenues because they think they worked harder than teams seeded 5-8 to get home-field advantage. I understand, but I disagree with such a ridiculous, baseless position--and I can cite numerous examples from Zeta Conference over the past 4 seasons that absolutely and definitively undermine that argument.

Regardless, I don't think it matters now. Too late. Teams who hosted playoff games in the past three or four seasons are so far ahead of those teams who didn't that it's almost impossible to catch up (maybe not as bad in WEAA, but check out some of the other leagues--there are some teams in other leagues that have $50+ million while other teams in the same league have less than $5 million at any given point in time). It is so bad that I've considered finding less-than-obvious ways to throw all of Dublin's games so we can drop down to WEA and maybe spend a season or two making up some of those revenues. But I haven't, because that wouldn't be entirely fair.

While technically that may not be revenue sharing in the NFL playoffs, by virtue of the fact the league takes the revenue from ticket sales and then doles out bonuses to all playoff teams (division winners get more than wildcard teams, extra for later rounds, etc) the revenue is being shared. Semantics.

And in the regular season the home-team only keeps 2/3 of ticket sales while the other 1/3 goes to the league where it is then split among the rest of the league.

The home team keeps all other revenues generated - parking, merchandise, concessions, etc.

But your point is well made. And the rest of your post is spot on. The current GLB system has contributed to the growing inequity among the haves and the have-nots, and in the long run that can only be bad for the league. Not to mention that it's bad business for the admins. Why would I pay for a team that is hamstrung by finances and has little or no hope of ever closing that gap?

Revenue sharing is good for GLB, it's good for competition, and definitely a good idea, assuming it's carried out intelligently.

Sorry...I meant that the NFL doesn't revenue share between playoff teams in the playoffs. I should have been clearer about that. They take the money made during the playoffs and pay it out to all teams according to the league revenue sharing agreement, giving scheduled bonuses to playoff teams.

In one of the pro leagues, there's a team whose GM was one of the most vocally against revenue sharing in the playoffs. Whenever a thread on the subject popped up, he was always there arguing heavily against it. His team's owner bailed and now his team will probably barely scrape into the playoffs under the new owner. Suddenly he supports some kind of revenue sharing. Amazing how that works, isn't it?

It's the same idea with position nerfs. Never mind if it's good for the league and better for the realism of a football sim, if you had a guy with a great speed and nothing else, you were firmly against the speed nerf.

Too many guys looking out for themselves and trying to protect the loopholes and advantages that benefit them. No thought at all of the big picture.

I think the reason everybody in Zeta loves Bordeaux so much isn't just because of Cedo though he's a great owner. We also know how terrible that franchise was once and how difficult it is to build them into a great team. Our financial problems stem from me taking an expansion team in a new leauge--another team moved out and trying to make them competitive. In year one we finished 5-11 with many of the same players we still have, but I had to pay salaries for level 4-7 players. If I had tanked the games with the CPU I'd be much better financially. Our problems aren't horrendous, but the more expensive equipment exacerbates the problem. With level 32, we were finally unable to pay for a full set of equipment for our players.

fwiw Oslo does not still play in Dublin

Originally posted by carnitastaco
fwiw Oslo does not still play in Dublin

Duly noted. FWIW Oslo is not in Iceland if that's what you were thinking.

True. But I have no idea where the hell Edingurgh is.

Originally posted by driftin079
True. But I have no idea where the hell Edingurgh is.

Duh, It's in Scopland.