no content
AdBlocker active?
It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting redzoneaction.org.
The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site.
Thank you very much!
| Main / Suggestions / Change the way Supercup is structured? Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< 2 > >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Harbaughcalypse
|
posted: 2012-02-01 22:50:36 (ID: 26753) Report Abuse |
|
I really like the Supercup (it's much more interesting than the Regional Cup of that other game
 ) but I have some ideas that I think can make a good thing even better.
Harbaughcalypse wrote:
Right now this is how it's set up: 1: The 768 teams are divided into 48 Supercup divisions which have 16 teams each. 2: The division a team plays in is re-assigned every season randomly. 3: Each team plays all the other teams in its division once each for a total of 15 regular season games. 4: 48 teams qualify for the playoffs based on overall standings. The top 16 playoff teams get a first-round bye and the other 32 playoff teams are wild cards. 5: All playoff teams are re-sorted after each round randomly and regardless of playoff seeding, which is based on overall standings. 6: Teams that did not qualify for the playoffs (an average of 15 out of 16) and the teams eliminated from it both get 0 prescheduled games during the playoffs, and friendlies scheduled on those days cost 5 credits. 7: The playoffs take 6 weeks to run for a total of 21 total weeks in a complete Supercup season. It's a well-balanced system, but I don't think that's enough playoff teams and a lot of the games just feel irrelevant. It would be tough to just add more spots though, because the way this is now it would take way too many weeks to run. So, what I think should be done is to reorganize the structure a bit first, and then even more changes can be applied afterwards if we want. Harbaughcalypse wrote:
My idea of a reorganized Supercup would go like this (changes in bold): 1A: The 768 teams are divided into 96 Supercup divisions which have 8 teams each. 2A: The division a team plays in is re-assigned every season randomly. 3A: Each team plays all the other teams in its division twice each in a home-and-away series for a total of 14 regular season games. 4A: 128 teams qualify for playoffs based on division rank first and then by overall standings. No playoff teams get a first-round bye and all 128 playoff teams are wild cards. 5A: All playoff teams are re-sorted after each round based on playoff seeding, which is based on overall standings. 6A: Teams that did not qualify for the playoffs (an average of 5 out of 6) and the teams eliminated from it both get 0 prescheduled games during the playoffs, and friendlies scheduled on those days cost 0 credits. However, if a team plays friendlies on both the supercup playoff day and the league playoff day in the same week, that team must pay 5 credits and not their opponents. 7A: The playoffs take 7 weeks to run for a total of 21 total weeks in a complete Supercup season. If it's done like this, I think it would keep things interesting for a lot longer throughout the entire 21-week season while still being fair to all teams. I do have more ideas to modify this even further, but first I'd like to hear input from you guys about what I have here to start with. As always, feel free to ask questions if you don't understand something.  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sfniner08
|
posted: 2012-02-02 02:03:27 (ID: 26780) Report Abuse |
|
I love it.
It doesn't lengthen the total season! It gives more teams playoff opportunities! Makes the division more meaningful! Provides more potential income in the playoffs! Sounds like an awesome idea! |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Swordpriest1
|
posted: 2012-02-02 06:22:22 (ID: 26792) Report Abuse |
|
+10
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Bovice
|
posted: 2012-02-02 06:34:47 (ID: 26794) Report Abuse |
|
+10 interwebs
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Grzymisław
|
posted: 2012-02-02 11:13:13 (ID: 26809) Report Abuse |
|
It will mean too much money for the best teams and later some not really top guys will cry again that someone paid not 40, but 70 millions for draft player on transfer market. With weaker ones losing half of their income from regular season.
For me current format is ok. Maybe 64 teams in play-offs could be ok, but 128 is too much(8 play-off games for finalists - about 50 extra millions in their budgets). Changing something good can sometimes make it much worse. This change won't help solid teams, but the best, just wanted to tell you. Last edited on 2012-02-02 11:14:38 by Grzymisław |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sfniner08
|
posted: 2012-02-02 14:09:38 (ID: 26823) Report Abuse |
|
I totally disagree. How will the "top" teams bring in more money but other teams won't? I don't see any logical reason to support that statement.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Grzymisław
|
posted: 2012-02-02 14:17:11 (ID: 26824) Report Abuse |
|
sfniner08 wrote:
I totally disagree. How will the "top" teams bring in more money but other teams won't? I don't see any logical reason to support that statement. I didn't read whole suggestion careful enough, sorry for that. But still it's that way - weaker teams 14(including 7 at home where is still very often less seats) games instead of 15. Top teams 14 regular season matches and then 8 games in play-off(for finalists) instead of 6-7 with an ticket income is 1,25 of normal income. I believe that author thought about giving new and weaker teams bigger chance, but it helps more the best ones. Of course there is a possibility of sensational run for someone making through 2 rounds, but not very big. Only this free friendlies on supercup days are helpful. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sfniner08
|
posted: 2012-02-02 14:25:10 (ID: 26825) Report Abuse |
|
Grzymisław wrote:
sfniner08 wrote:
I totally disagree. How will the "top" teams bring in more money but other teams won't? I don't see any logical reason to support that statement. I didn't read whole suggestion careful enough, sorry for that. But still it's that way - weaker teams 14(including 7 at home where is still very often less seats) games instead of 15. Top teams 14 regular season matches and then 8 games in play-off(for finalists) instead of 6-7 with an ticket income is 1,25 of normal income. I believe that author thought about giving new and weaker teams bigger chance, but it helps more the best ones. Of course there is a possibility of sensational run for someone making through 2 rounds, but not very big. Only this free friendlies on supercup days are helpful. Those home and away games could be switched to the biggest venue. That would solve that issue. Of course those big teams would still have to play at smaller stadiums if you didn't make the change and they would make less as well. So, a few good teams would get one more game, yes, but 80 other smaller teams get at least one more game. So it benefits smaller and bigger clubs, but more so for the smaller. Last edited on 2012-02-02 14:26:33 by sfniner08 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
NYDOGS
|
posted: 2012-02-02 14:36:44 (ID: 26829) Report Abuse |
|
The idea is good! However there will still have the problem with the expansion of the game with 3.X divisions... But this formula seems good right now with the current number of teams...
Concerning the current structure of the Supercup (which is fine too IMO) the only thing we could do would be to have 64 teams in Playoffs without bye week... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Grzymisław
|
posted: 2012-02-02 15:09:56 (ID: 26831) Report Abuse |
|
sfniner08 wrote:
Grzymisław wrote:
sfniner08 wrote:
I totally disagree. How will the "top" teams bring in more money but other teams won't? I don't see any logical reason to support that statement. I didn't read whole suggestion careful enough, sorry for that. But still it's that way - weaker teams 14(including 7 at home where is still very often less seats) games instead of 15. Top teams 14 regular season matches and then 8 games in play-off(for finalists) instead of 6-7 with an ticket income is 1,25 of normal income. I believe that author thought about giving new and weaker teams bigger chance, but it helps more the best ones. Of course there is a possibility of sensational run for someone making through 2 rounds, but not very big. Only this free friendlies on supercup days are helpful. Those home and away games could be switched to the biggest venue. That would solve that issue. Of course those big teams would still have to play at smaller stadiums if you didn't make the change and they would make less as well. So, a few good teams would get one more game, yes, but 80 other smaller teams get at least one more game. So it benefits smaller and bigger clubs, but more so for the smaller. I understand "home and away" as there is no possibility to change venues. 80 smaller teams one match more? Mostly really strong teams(now finishing with 14-1 or 13-2 records) not this ones who started at the half of season II. And for only some of them one match more because there would be one less in regular season. 64 teams is quiet ok(prefer current format), but 128 too much. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< 2 > >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / Change the way Supercup is structured? | |
