|
|
Post by saintpat on Apr 11, 2019 21:12:06 GMT
Rumours are ridiculous & have nothing to do with this thread. No one has accurate figures for what Royals are paying or if they're actually behind with paying players.
This thread is about the new format, not if Royals can pay their players or not
|
|
|
|
Post by spaghettihoops on Apr 11, 2019 21:37:10 GMT
I would hope the main objective of any format changes is to reduce the number of scheduling alterations. Short-notice fixtures are bad for attendances, and more planning could allow for premium fixtures to be scheduled for broadcast each week. More separation of the different competitions will help. But dead rubbers will be rubbish and I wonder if there was a better way to achieve the same number of fixtures.
Also wonder what rejigging will be required if the league size increases or decreases in future years.
|
|
|
|
Post by davef on Apr 11, 2019 23:20:12 GMT
My understanding is that the logic for the changes Involved some of the following.
1. Maintaining roughly equivalent number of home games (obvious reasons)
2. Going to 3 game play off series (obvious reasons)
3. Improving the competitive integrity of the league by
a. Removing two home one away
b. Ensuring each team has a balanced schedule (eliminating back to backs) which often result in games being played where one team has a significant schedule advantage. Also No more one team having played 13 games when another has played 6.
c. Improving the quality of basketball played towards the back end of the season by proving coaches and players with increased preparation time. No more 4 games in 7 days with 1000 miles of travel in between in April and teams reduced through injuries.
d. Allowing for greater schedule stability and marketing of games
after Xmas this allowing clubs to maximise income as opposed to playing too many games in half empty gyms due to proximity of games.
4. The cup group games are being played during the
period where teams are generally experimenting with rosters and the league starting later should ensure that all teams have settled squads by the time the championship season starts. Also as early cup weeks should be double headers it will allow teams to assess their rosters quickly. Generally coaches like playing lots of games early to allow squads to gel and then as the season goes on and teams become more familiar to each other one game per week should allow for more value to be placed on preparation.
I understand these changes were supported by the majority of coaches and then voted through by the owners. In my view the most important point is to put players into the position where they have the maximum opportunity to perform at their highest level. The second most important is to allow each and every game to be marketed as an event to generate revenue and interest. At the moment the Feb-April schedule allows for neither and I think these changes will correct that.
|
|
|
|
Post by sussexbantam on Apr 12, 2019 7:53:12 GMT
How does this improve scheduling ? The teams are going to be playing (roughly) the same number of games per year so surely the same scheduling challenges will remain ?
It may be that more will be played at the beginning of the season rather than the end but we could presumably schedule the league that way if we wanted to ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 7:58:46 GMT
I guess the group stage and the quarters of the cup already have dates pencilled in which will actually be adhered to. It could, theoretically, mean that teams don't have to reschedule games because of the cup (apart from maybe the semis?)
|
|
|
|
Post by LTFan on Apr 12, 2019 8:09:09 GMT
Let me start by saying I much prefer the ‘best of 3’ Play-Offs approach to the current 2-leg aggregate approach. Having said that…
Does anyone have any insight/thoughts on how the ‘best of 3’ approach will impact certain teams in regard to venue hire. Obviously it’ll be less of a challenge for some teams – such as Riders and Eagles, than others (for obvious reasons) but I’m imaging it being quite an issue for some.
Maybe the strongest example – London Lions and the Copper Box, they don’t own the venue and presumably it’s the most expensive venue to hire in the league. How are Lions going to approach the possibility of hiring the venue for a potential 3rd game? Presumably they’d need to tentatively book the venue… and then cancel that booking at short notice if it’s not required. But I can’t see GLL (owners of the Copper Box) going for that. It’s a venue that’s in relatively high demand these days, I can’t see them reserving it for Lions and potentially then having no booking. Maybe teams will have to pay for venue hire regardless – which would be extremely costly if they’re getting no return (i.e. no tickets sales). Maybe they’ll have to pay, and potentially forfeit a deposit – again, costly. Thoughts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 8:19:28 GMT
I'm working on the assumption that the owners of clubs like Lions have approached their venues and had that discussion. Of course, that may not be the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by saintpat on Apr 12, 2019 9:01:08 GMT
My understanding is that the logic for the changes Involved some of the following. 1. Maintaining roughly equivalent number of home games (obvious reasons) 2. Going to 3 game play off series (obvious reasons) 3. Improving the competitive integrity of the league by a. Removing two home one away b. Ensuring each team has a balanced schedule (eliminating back to backs) which often result in games being played where one team has a significant schedule advantage. Also No more one team having played 13 games when another has played 6. c. Improving the quality of basketball played towards the back end of the season by proving coaches and players with increased preparation time. No more 4 games in 7 days with 1000 miles of travel in between in April and teams reduced through injuries. d. Allowing for greater schedule stability and marketing of games after Xmas this allowing clubs to maximise income as opposed to playing too many games in half empty gyms due to proximity of games. 4. The cup group games are being played during the period where teams are generally experimenting with rosters and the league starting later should ensure that all teams have settled squads by the time the championship season starts. Also as early cup weeks should be double headers it will allow teams to assess their rosters quickly. Generally coaches like playing lots of games early to allow squads to gel and then as the season goes on and teams become more familiar to each other one game per week should allow for more value to be placed on preparation. I understand these changes were supported by the majority of coaches and then voted through by the owners. In my view the most important point is to put players into the position where they have the maximum opportunity to perform at their highest level. The second most important is to allow each and every game to be marketed as an event to generate revenue and interest. At the moment the Feb-April schedule allows for neither and I think these changes will correct that. Very informative, thanks. Although if a club gets to the cup final & trophy final then they will still have games to re-arrange (as Lions did this year) which not only effects that team but also the opposition, I'm not sure how this helps massively unless there are weekends left completely free for the cup & trophy semi-finals & finals. It's a possible 6 extra games to fit in the teams schedule, surely that would have an effect on games towards the end of the season, until every club has its own venue anyway. The question about clubs going into Europe still remains - how will that work, or will clubs be expected to play on a weekday and then possibly twice at the weekend at the start of the season? That will make being competitive in Europe even more difficult than it already is! Or will clubs who go into Europe not play in the Cup? I really can't see that as Or has Riders foray this year put everyone off doing it again? |
|
|
|
Post by spaghettihoops on Apr 12, 2019 9:08:41 GMT
My understanding is that the logic for the changes Involved some of the following. ... Thanks davef, I really appreciate the explanation. I don't know why the BBL itself wouldn't do something like an interview video or a Q&A on Twitter/WhatsBev for those of us who are interested, without it impacting their press release to the wider world. It sounds to me like the decisions were largely for (good) basketball reasons rather than commercial. I'm not saying the two things have to be mutually exclusive, but providing the teams with more rest/less intensive travel/more preparation time is difficult to get a casual/new fan or broadcaster to notice. I'm still struggling with what I think about the Cup dead rubbers issue. It's hard to devise a good format where the objective is to give each team a minimum number of games without penalising teams for progressing quickly. Maybe it would work to have four groups of three and playing each opponent twice, but then you end up playing the same team a minimum six times in a season while others only twice. On the other hand, I'm also not sure if these dead rubbers are so different to some of those that occur in the regular league season. Also just to put it in black and white if no-one has already: the finalists play 14 games in the Cup compared to 22 in the league. |
|
|
|
Post by spaghettihoops on Apr 12, 2019 9:13:53 GMT
Does anyone have any insight/thoughts on how the ‘best of 3’ approach will impact certain teams in regard to venue hire. Obviously it’ll be less of a challenge for some teams – such as Riders and Eagles, than others (for obvious reasons) but I’m imaging it being quite an issue for some. This must have been the reason for not doing it in previous years and I doubt that's changed, but seen by the league as a whole to be a necessary evil for the playoffs to be taken more seriously. Interesting to see what kind of attendances the clubs can manage to get. It's hard to enough to sell one play-off leg at short notice, never mind two out of three in a short space of time. |
|
|
|
Post by massiveridersfan on Apr 12, 2019 9:17:36 GMT
To be fair the press release said 12 teams, didn't say which 12. Also why hasnt Ashley Hamilton been playing as of late??? as one of the two rumoured highest paid players and what I’ve heard in gueasing he is one of the players that has not been paid. I heard him and MBA are on 70grand a year. WTF!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by LTFan on Apr 12, 2019 9:29:50 GMT
I'm working on the assumption that the owners of clubs like Lions have approached their venues and had that discussion. Of course, that may not be the case. I just can’t see the likes of GLL allowing the Lions to ‘reserve’ the Copper Box for a game that might never happen… and allowing Lions to cancel the booking with just days’ notice, which would result in the venue sitting empty – effectively costing GLL money. Surely, in this example, Lions would at least lose a deposit if not the entire cost of hiring the venue – with absolutely no financial return. Like I’ve said, I like the ‘best of 3’ format, but I can’t see how some teams aren’t going to lose quite a bit of money… money they can’t afford to lose. |
|
|
|
Post by blueskies99 on Apr 12, 2019 9:54:53 GMT
as one of the two rumoured highest paid players and what I’ve heard in gueasing he is one of the players that has not been paid. I heard him and MBA are on 70grand a year. WTF!!!! Is that 10 months @ 7k per month? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 10:00:33 GMT
I'm working on the assumption that the owners of clubs like Lions have approached their venues and had that discussion. Of course, that may not be the case. I just can’t see the likes of GLL allowing the Lions to ‘reserve’ the Copper Box for a game that might never happen… and allowing Lions to cancel the booking with just days’ notice, which would result in the venue sitting empty – effectively costing GLL money. Surely, in this example, Lions would at least lose a deposit if not the entire cost of hiring the venue – with absolutely no financial return. Like I’ve said, I like the ‘best of 3’ format, but I can’t see how some teams aren’t going to lose quite a bit of money… money they can’t afford to lose. Your logic is bang on. I'm inclined to agree with it. I'd assume (again, possibly wrongly) that the change in culture may be due to teams like Riders, Eagles, Wolves not being in that position anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by LTFan on Apr 12, 2019 10:10:06 GMT
I just can’t see the likes of GLL allowing the Lions to ‘reserve’ the Copper Box for a game that might never happen… and allowing Lions to cancel the booking with just days’ notice, which would result in the venue sitting empty – effectively costing GLL money. Surely, in this example, Lions would at least lose a deposit if not the entire cost of hiring the venue – with absolutely no financial return. Like I’ve said, I like the ‘best of 3’ format, but I can’t see how some teams aren’t going to lose quite a bit of money… money they can’t afford to lose. Your logic is bang on. I'm inclined to agree with it. I'd assume (again, possibly wrongly) that the change in culture may be due to teams like Riders, Eagles, Wolves not being in that position anymore. Absolutely, it’s less of an issue than it’s probably ever been before. But it’s still an issue for some teams, and that’s what concerns me slightly. This feels a bit prejudice against teams who don’t own their own venues – which is still the majority. The BBL isn’t an organisation where it’s teams can afford to be throwing money away like that. I’m sure this was discussed between the board members (team representatives) and the fact that these changes were approved, even if just by a majority vote, must mean there was a general acceptance… but I would have been interested in hearing that discussion. In a worst case scenario we could see a situation where, perhaps Riders and Lions are playing, and Lions are supposed to have homecourt advantage for the deciding ‘game 3’… only for Riders to end up having homecourt advantage because the Lions couldn’t afford to risk hiring the Copper Box and not using it. But I do like the ‘best of 3’ as a format, believe me. I’m just conflicted. |
|
|
|
Post by saintpat on Apr 12, 2019 10:22:21 GMT
Your logic is bang on. I'm inclined to agree with it. I'd assume (again, possibly wrongly) that the change in culture may be due to teams like Riders, Eagles, Wolves not being in that position anymore. Absolutely, it’s less of an issue than it’s probably ever been before. But it’s still an issue for some teams, and that’s what concerns me slightly. This feels a bit prejudice against teams who don’t own their own venues – which is still the majority. The BBL isn’t an organisation where it’s teams can afford to be throwing money away like that. I’m sure this was discussed between the board members (team representatives) and the fact that these changes were approved, even if just by a majority vote, must mean there was a general acceptance… but I would have been interested in hearing that discussion. In a worst case scenario we could see a situation where, perhaps Riders and Lions are playing, and Lions are supposed to have homecourt advantage for the deciding ‘game 3’… only for Riders to end up having homecourt advantage because the Lions couldn’t afford to risk hiring the Copper Box and not using it. But I do like the ‘best of 3’ as a format, believe me. I’m just conflicted. I believe that Vince has wanted a best of 3 play-off for a long time, I think he will have readily agreed to this change & the logistics of it will just follow on. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 10:42:17 GMT
Is that 10 months @ 7k per month? £8k p/month. 8.5-9 months depending on play-offs. that's the rumour, and I have no reason to disbelieve my source on that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 10:44:34 GMT
Whether they're "Exciting format changes for next season" or not. it's certainly livened up WB. And given me something to write about. There's even a bit of inside info in there. |
|
|
|
Post by davef on Apr 12, 2019 11:12:15 GMT
Re Saintpats query
I understand semi finals will be played midweek and wil not disrupt league games.
Also that the danger of the current system was that it gave clubs with their own venues a disproportionate advantage in that they could potentially choose to reschedule games to their advantage.
There will be doubleheader’s early but once the league starts the aim
Is that the playing field will be entirely level
|
|
|
|
Post by sussexbantam on Apr 12, 2019 12:41:35 GMT
Whether they're "Exciting format changes for next season" or not. it's certainly livened up WB. And given me something to write about. There's even a bit of inside info in there. The more I've thought about it the more I hate it for all the reasons you state here. Other than the best of 3 play-offs (which I like) I can't see any upside at all. What we've done is swap league games for potentially meaningless cup games which will be played in front of empty bleachers. Unless the league grows to 14 teams I think this will be a one season wonder too. |
|
|
|
Post by LTFan on Apr 12, 2019 13:11:45 GMT
Whether they're "Exciting format changes for next season" or not. it's certainly livened up WB. And given me something to write about. There's even a bit of inside info in there. Unless the league grows to 14 teams I think this will be a one season wonder too. If so it'll provide teams with the easiest opportunity to get a Championship title ever.  |
|
|
|
Post by mikevigorfanclub on Apr 12, 2019 13:16:18 GMT
My understanding is that the logic for the changes Involved some of the following. ... Thanks davef , I really appreciate the explanation. I don't know why the BBL itself wouldn't do something like an interview video or a Q&A on Twitter/WhatsBev for those of us who are interested, without it impacting their press release to the wider world. It sounds to me like the decisions were largely for (good) basketball reasons rather than commercial. I'm not saying the two things have to be mutually exclusive, but providing the teams with more rest/less intensive travel/more preparation time is difficult to get a casual/new fan or broadcaster to notice. I'm still struggling with what I think about the Cup dead rubbers issue. It's hard to devise a good format where the objective is to give each team a minimum number of games without penalising teams for progressing quickly. Maybe it would work to have four groups of three and playing each opponent twice, but then you end up playing the same team a minimum six times in a season while others only twice. On the other hand, I'm also not sure if these dead rubbers are so different to some of those that occur in the regular league season. Also just to put it in black and white if no-one has already: the finalists play 14 games in the Cup compared to 22 in the league. I guess the dead rubbers thing happens irrespective of competition. With no disrespect to Leeds last season, every game - League or Cup was a dead rubber. Leeds won 1 game last season, Manchester 4, Plymouth 8....13 in total. This season, the bottom club 5, next to bottom 5, so 10 in total and Flyers 12 - 22 in total with games still left to play. Even in worse case scenario 5 of the 6 group teams ought to get 8 competitive games and even the 5th team will be pushing to beat 6th, for a chance of getting 4th. it dies break the season up a bit, but I do think it gives opportunity to get your squad properly ready for the League and subsequent play-offs. Imagine this season Rocks had started off their bad run in the new cup, they would be really challenging for the League in a 22 game format starting November. My own Flyers , the oppositive, probably top 2 in the group, and looking for cup glory. Change is change, there’s always something to like and dislike. To my mind a league of 16, playing 30, with maybe 4 groups of 4 (2x3 games) in an early season cup qualifier might be the vision, but BBL needs to grow first. Or maybe 14 teams, without two best in Europe joining the cup post the group stages. Gonna have to see how it all pans out. |
|
|
|
Post by notoriousbigz on Apr 12, 2019 13:20:34 GMT
I agree this format will be far better as and when (or if?) the league grows in number - but I do like the concept in the here and now.
Teams can figure out whether they need to retool in the initial cup games and be as competitive as possible for the league. I like that.
As far as I know (and I'd like to say I talk to the right people) there is absolutely no movement for new teams in the next BBL season thus far.
|
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Apr 13, 2019 6:55:51 GMT
Unless the league grows to 14 teams I think this will be a one season wonder too. If so it'll provide teams with the easiest opportunity to get a Championship title ever. It won't suit eagles for league success. They normally start the season well and get worse results as injuries kick in |
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Apr 13, 2019 6:59:22 GMT
Not sure it will suit riders either in the league. We are normally (apart from this season with Europe) well prepared for the start of the league having got our players over early
Other teams just by going out of one competition can use September and October to gel for starting the league knowing what they are doing
Like many have said above - this may change things so that playoffs are deemed more important to win
I guess that's good in some ways as it keeps more teams more motivated right til the end of the season
This season I just view playoffs as a nice to have and a consolation to not winning the league
|
|
