EPTRemove the idea of 'team-based play', introduce strict policies to uphold professionalism and accountability rather than relying on a team image to buffer professionalism. Other than this, I can see the idea of having teams as a good way to get a greater variety of players. Although sometimes I'm tired of seeing the same superstars facing off, you have to ask yourself, are you aiming for this to be a high level tournament or not?
NASL and Teams: What's the Deal? - Page 10
| Blogs > Liquid`Tyler |
|
Xyik
Canada728 Posts
Remove the idea of 'team-based play', introduce strict policies to uphold professionalism and accountability rather than relying on a team image to buffer professionalism. Other than this, I can see the idea of having teams as a good way to get a greater variety of players. Although sometimes I'm tired of seeing the same superstars facing off, you have to ask yourself, are you aiming for this to be a high level tournament or not? | ||
|
felizuno
United States164 Posts
The main problem I have with the limit, and to a lesser extent the team requirement, is that it clashes with what I understand to be the point of the league- to showcase the top 50 players in the world. In the extreme, if all 50 of the "best" players in the world were all on one team, would the NASL really want 5 of them plus 45 people that obviously don't measure up? The only way to showcase the top 50 players with the current ruleset is if those 50 players are already magically distributed across AT LEAST 10 [qualified] teams... so yeah, not going to happen. I can see it working in a world with 20+ high-dollar SC2 teams though, because you need to prevent the "Yankees" affect. I think what we have now, and what this rule prevents, is a situation like baseball- there are lots of teams but all the good players go to the Yankee's because they pay the most. Now consider the NFL - all the top quarterbacks naturally spread out because you would rather be the star on a crap team than be the backup on a good team. Also, the best players on each team make about the same $$ anyways, so players prioritize being the best player on the team versus joining the team that is the best to begin with. In a world where people will leave Liquid or EG because they can get better deals from other teams there won't be the talent stacking we see today so you wouldn’t need this rule. I think that to create this environment we need more money flowing into the SC2 community to "motivate diversity", not a rule that forces it. EDIT: Obviosly I am ignoring any motivations or team preferences that might come from team based competition. If I wanted to have the most world series rings I would join the Yankees. | ||
Daigomi
South Africa4316 Posts
On February 24 2011 08:18 ScarletKnight wrote: + Show Spoiler + To play Devils advocate here for a second: There seems to be a lot of opinions that every team in SC2 can front a 5 man team with each player capable of taking the NASL. I disagree with this. Liquid is more the exception rather than the rule. If we want, lets go through all the players of the bigger teams out there that could realistically be considered "the best" and be favored to win the NASL. Liquid: Tyler, Huk, Jinro, Ret, TLO I'm sorry, but in my own opinion, Haypro has done nothing to prove to be capable of winning a tournament of this caliber. While an excellent player he is, I myself don't believe that he could win an NASL as it stands considering the kind of competition we should see there. So realistically Liquid could front the 5 man limit and still have a favorite to win the whole thing in each division. Lets move on to the other teams now. EG: Demuslim, Idra EG only has 2 players who could legitimately be a threat at the start of the tournament that could be favored to win it all. Way below the 5 man limit. Mouz: Morrow, Naama, Mana, Strelok Again, these are the only players on Mouz i see being legitimate threats at winning the whole thing. Still below the 5 man limit. Root: QXC, Kiwikaki, Minigun Only ones that have shown capable of really competing and winning big tournaments. Still below the 5 man limit. Dignitas: Select, Sjow, Naniwa Again, we're talking about the "best" players. Still under the 5-man limit. fnatic: Sen, Fenix I could go on. The amount of realistic competition from each team does not reach the 5 player limit, other than team Liquid. Seeing this 5 man rule as an anti-Liquid rule is being judgmental without foresight or a bias against the creators of the NASL. Liquid has just as much of a chance, if not more, to win this thing than any other team. The 5 man limit does have it's drawbacks. Limiting expansion of teams such as Liquid is a problem. Although more parity in eSports could be good for the community as a whole rather than having one powerhouse team with all the money and talent. Think of it this way using this analogy to real sports: The New York Yankees, the Boston Red Sox, the Philidelphia Phillies and the LA Dodgers are the richest teams in baseball, in money and in history. They can literally throw money willy nilly and get pretty much any player they want. This creates powerhouse clubs in the MLB with little parity and expected winners out of maybe 3-4 teams in the league. In comparison, the NHL has a salary cap, which withholds the amount of money you can spend on your teams salary. This creates more parity throughout the league and allows for teams with less of a budget to be just as competitive as teams with larger ones in larger markets. I think of a team like Liquid as the Yankees of the SC2. A powerhouse with the best players who could all conceivably win a tournament on their own. And I think of this 5-man limit as a salary cap. It creates more competition throughout the league and in more competition comes more excitement. If EG or Liquid could sign say, some players from other teams like Sen, or Sjow, or Naniwa, or what have you, then it would be unfair to the other, "lower" teams like VT, or Root, or vVv or any others. Tyler brings up good points though and should definitely be looked at in all seriousness. I feel that the guys behind NASL are different than the ones from MLG or GOM in that they are already infused with the community and understand that criticism will come and react accordingly. To make a huge deal and call the NASL an "embarassment" or a "worthless organization" is jumping the gun and a huge lack of vision in the big picture. Just my 2 cents. I don't think it's possible, for any tournament, to invite 50 players who have a reasonable chance of winning the whole thing. From the top 6 international teams, you mention 19 players who have the best chances. If teams like EG have only two feasible players, where is the tournament going to find the remaining 31 players with chances of winning the whole thing? The question is not if player #50 has a feasible chance of winning the tournament, but rather if player #50 has a better chance than any unchosen players of winning the tournament. Continuing the Haypro example, he definitely has a better chance than most players in Europe. If we assume that he didn't have a better chance, then there would be no need for such a limitation, since he wouldn't be invited then. I really don't think Liquid has more money than the other teams. In fact, I'm fairly sure EG has way more money than Liquid. Liquid didn't simply buy the top players, they made top players by spotting an opportunity in Korea, and through the dedication of their players. A money cap makes sense in certain sports where teams have a geographical advantage, but the cap was never intended to prevent teams from training the best players and using them.A money cap is simply not relevant in esports. All teams start on equal footing and the only advantage teams get is through their own skills. If EG has the most money then more power to them. They didn't get the money because they were based in New York rather than Green Bay, they got it because of their manager's skills. | ||
|
LittleAtari
Jordan1090 Posts
On February 24 2011 08:18 ScarletKnight wrote: To play Devils advocate here for a second: There seems to be a lot of opinions that every team in SC2 can front a 5 man team with each player capable of taking the NASL. I disagree with this. Liquid is more the exception rather than the rule. If we want, lets go through all the players of the bigger teams out there that could realistically be considered "the best" and be favored to win the NASL. Liquid: Tyler, Huk, Jinro, Ret, TLO I'm sorry, but in my own opinion, Haypro has done nothing to prove to be capable of winning a tournament of this caliber. While an excellent player he is, I myself don't believe that he could win an NASL as it stands considering the kind of competition we should see there. So realistically Liquid could front the 5 man limit and still have a favorite to win the whole thing in each division. Lets move on to the other teams now. EG: Demuslim, Idra EG only has 2 players who could legitimately be a threat at the start of the tournament that could be favored to win it all. Way below the 5 man limit. Mouz: Morrow, Naama, Mana, Strelok Again, these are the only players on Mouz i see being legitimate threats at winning the whole thing. Still below the 5 man limit. Root: QXC, Kiwikaki, Minigun Only ones that have shown capable of really competing and winning big tournaments. Still below the 5 man limit. Dignitas: Select, Sjow, Naniwa Again, we're talking about the "best" players. Still under the 5-man limit. fnatic: Sen, Fenix I could go on. The amount of realistic competition from each team does not reach the 5 player limit, other than team Liquid. Seeing this 5 man rule as an anti-Liquid rule is being judgmental without foresight or a bias against the creators of the NASL. Liquid has just as much of a chance, if not more, to win this thing than any other team. The 5 man limit does have it's drawbacks. Limiting expansion of teams such as Liquid is a problem. Although more parity in eSports could be good for the community as a whole rather than having one powerhouse team with all the money and talent. Think of it this way using this analogy to real sports: The New York Yankees, the Boston Red Sox, the Philidelphia Phillies and the LA Dodgers are the richest teams in baseball, in money and in history. They can literally throw money willy nilly and get pretty much any player they want. This creates powerhouse clubs in the MLB with little parity and expected winners out of maybe 3-4 teams in the league. In comparison, the NHL has a salary cap, which withholds the amount of money you can spend on your teams salary. This creates more parity throughout the league and allows for teams with less of a budget to be just as competitive as teams with larger ones in larger markets. I think of a team like Liquid as the Yankees of the SC2. A powerhouse with the best players who could all conceivably win a tournament on their own. And I think of this 5-man limit as a salary cap. It creates more competition throughout the league and in more competition comes more excitement. If EG or Liquid could sign say, some players from other teams like Sen, or Sjow, or Naniwa, or what have you, then it would be unfair to the other, "lower" teams like VT, or Root, or vVv or any others. Tyler brings up good points though and should definitely be looked at in all seriousness. I feel that the guys behind NASL are different than the ones from MLG or GOM in that they are already infused with the community and understand that criticism will come and react accordingly. To make a huge deal and call the NASL an "embarassment" or a "worthless organization" is jumping the gun and a huge lack of vision in the big picture. Just my 2 cents. I think that when you look at that way as like 'well only these people are capable of taking the whole tournament,' it gets a little short sighted. 1st, I think SC2 is still too young to pin down who cannot take a big tourney. Honestly, people just pop winning first in tournaments every now and then who may not have done well before. We've seen this happen multiple times. Yes, we have people who we can consider stable powerhouses, but I don't feel like we can rule out that many players as not being able to come out and destroy a tournament. 2nd, even if a player doesn't have what it takes to take on the entire tourney, that player still has the potential to get far and represent their team and sponser alongside the rest of their team. 3rd, I think a big issue that I'm seeing in a lot of the arguments for the 5 person team rule is that they're only taking into account foreign teams. They're not thinking about Korean teams. This is a tournament with a big prize pool. While it maybe uncommon for foreign teams to have more than 5 players, the Korean teams are packed with way more than that. 4th, I heard on SotG that some of the NASL guys had talked to Nazgul about being able to split his team 3-3 or 2-2. If you're going to allow that, then what's the point of a rule like this? 5th, the label of a team in SC2 can mean different things. Look at oGs-TL. Yea, we know that the teams are not officially merged but are just partners, but can you honestly tell me that the TL guys living with oGs feel like the teams are THAT seperate? At this point, they're closer to each other than a lot of other teams who are officially just one team. | ||
|
ReachTheSky
United States3294 Posts
I'm disappointed in the direction this so called 'esports' is heading. Hopefully you get your act together. User was warned for this post | ||
|
Ghardo
Germany1685 Posts
If I was the NASL organization I would listen to what certain people such as Naz and others have to say here : / Can't run a 400k $ tournament with amateurish ideas. | ||
|
Azuroz
Sweden1630 Posts
However this is possible for any players co-operating, you dont really have to be in a team to do something like that. | ||
|
artoo[
United States22 Posts
On February 24 2011 08:38 ReachTheSky wrote: They really need to stop calling this thing a league. Its more like an invitational minus one spot(what a fucking joke). sigh. Whats funny is that this league was never about making esports big. It was about how one person saw how they could make a shitload of money. Yet its for esports!!! rofl what a joke. ALL the players and this community make up esports. Having a purely invite tourny does not benefit esports as a whole. GSL/KPGA/OSL/MSL all had prelims. Prelims that allowed EVERYONE to try their heart out. This is nothing but selection just so you folks can try and make dough. ;/ I'm disappointed in the direction this so called 'esports' is heading. Hopefully you get your act together. YUP, join me in boycotting giving any money to these guys. We have plenty of good quality content in GSL and MLG on a regular basis, not to mention the Dreamhacks and others.... I'm really disappointed that idra and incontrol are so behind this... | ||
|
dredd276
United States80 Posts
On February 24 2011 08:18 ScarletKnight wrote: To play Devils advocate here for a second: There seems to be a lot of opinions that every team in SC2 can front a 5 man team with each player capable of taking the NASL. I disagree with this. Liquid is more the exception rather than the rule. If we want, lets go through all the players of the bigger teams out there that could realistically be considered "the best" and be favored to win the NASL. Liquid: Tyler, Huk, Jinro, Ret, TLO I'm sorry, but in my own opinion, Haypro has done nothing to prove to be capable of winning a tournament of this caliber. While an excellent player he is, I myself don't believe that he could win an NASL as it stands considering the kind of competition we should see there. So realistically Liquid could front the 5 man limit and still have a favorite to win the whole thing in each division. Lets move on to the other teams now. EG: Demuslim, Idra EG only has 2 players who could legitimately be a threat at the start of the tournament that could be favored to win it all. Way below the 5 man limit. Mouz: Morrow, Naama, Mana, Strelok Again, these are the only players on Mouz i see being legitimate threats at winning the whole thing. Still below the 5 man limit. Root: QXC, Kiwikaki, Minigun Only ones that have shown capable of really competing and winning big tournaments. Still below the 5 man limit. Dignitas: Select, Sjow, Naniwa Again, we're talking about the "best" players. Still under the 5-man limit. fnatic: Sen, Fenix I could go on. The amount of realistic competition from each team does not reach the 5 player limit, other than team Liquid. Seeing this 5 man rule as an anti-Liquid rule is being judgmental without foresight or a bias against the creators of the NASL. Liquid has just as much of a chance, if not more, to win this thing than any other team. The 5 man limit does have it's drawbacks. Limiting expansion of teams such as Liquid is a problem. Although more parity in eSports could be good for the community as a whole rather than having one powerhouse team with all the money and talent. Think of it this way using this analogy to real sports: The New York Yankees, the Boston Red Sox, the Philidelphia Phillies and the LA Dodgers are the richest teams in baseball, in money and in history. They can literally throw money willy nilly and get pretty much any player they want. This creates powerhouse clubs in the MLB with little parity and expected winners out of maybe 3-4 teams in the league. In comparison, the NHL has a salary cap, which withholds the amount of money you can spend on your teams salary. This creates more parity throughout the league and allows for teams with less of a budget to be just as competitive as teams with larger ones in larger markets. I think of a team like Liquid as the Yankees of the SC2. A powerhouse with the best players who could all conceivably win a tournament on their own. And I think of this 5-man limit as a salary cap. It creates more competition throughout the league and in more competition comes more excitement. If EG or Liquid could sign say, some players from other teams like Sen, or Sjow, or Naniwa, or what have you, then it would be unfair to the other, "lower" teams like VT, or Root, or vVv or any others. Tyler brings up good points though and should definitely be looked at in all seriousness. I feel that the guys behind NASL are different than the ones from MLG or GOM in that they are already infused with the community and understand that criticism will come and react accordingly. To make a huge deal and call the NASL an "embarassment" or a "worthless organization" is jumping the gun and a huge lack of vision in the big picture. Just my 2 cents. If you're right then the 5-player-max rule wouldn't actually do anything since no team would get more than five invites (assuming they're inviting the best players). So then why have the rule at all? | ||
|
ScarletKnight
United States691 Posts
On February 24 2011 08:29 Talin wrote: Be that as it may, the spot that Haypro would get would eventually go to a player on a semi-pro team that's leagues worse than Haypro, and if Haypro doesn't seem to be capable of winning a tournament of this caliber, a player who gets "his" spot would have much less of a chance to even get out of his online division. So you automatically substitute a better player with a worse one. I suppose my point is that while Haypro isn't as impressive as other TL members, or maybe even as many players from other teams, he will still be a Bonjwa compared to some of the players that will inevitably get an NASL spot if you enforce the limit. As for parity between teams and salary cap analogies, you can't really force it in the current situation. You will just make it harder for the extra players on good teams, even though their talent itself should earn them a spot in the league. Starcraft 2 scene being as frail as it is, we shouldn't be trying to limit powerhouses like TL in any way, but to encourage their further growth because they offer their players the best working conditions a professional player can get outside of Korea. They make it possible for the players become the top players in the world (see oGs partnership and Jinro for results). You can't just tell a 6th TL guy to leave TL for another team so he could compete, it would be a massive step back in his career either way. Again, Starcraft in the west isn't really about teams at all, it's about PLAYERS. What's the point in making life difficult for some of the best players we have on the scene? While I agree with your argument on Haypro, he is indeed better than most players on other teams, it is his own perogative to be on Liquid and if he wants to participate in the NASL then maybe it's in his best interest to leave the team. Not because he doesn't deserve to be on Liquid mind you, but because for his career maybe it's better to be on a team where he can be "the guy" and not be seen as the 6th string odd man out. Again I take the analogy to real sports. A guy like Andrew Ladd of the Atlanta Thrashers played last year for the Chicago Blackhawks and won the Stanley Cup with them. He played on the 3rd line and was seen as not the best player on the team although he has tons of skill and didn't see much ice time throughout the season. He was traded to Atlanta over the off season and is now the captian of the team and getting more ice time. This has led to a career year in points and he is now widely more recognized for his skill and leadership. This could be a situation Haypro could be in if he were to switch teams. While I do not advocate it, or think he should, it's just something to think about. Although realistically I don't see Jinro leaving his Code S place in the GSL to come to the US to compete here, so he may get a spot in the NASL anyway. I don't see how letting a powerhouse team run wild is a good thing. It will do nothing to encourage competition between teams if one team holds everything. If Liquid wins everything the scene will stagnate and become boring as we see the same people winning again and again. Parity is something that is needed for a league to survive and stay interesting. I really don't think Liquid has more money than the other teams. In fact, I'm fairly sure EG has way more money than Liquid. Liquid didn't simply buy the top players, they made top players by spotting an opportunity in Korea, and through the dedication of their players. A money cap makes sense in certain sports where teams have a geographical advantage, but the cap was never intended to prevent teams from training the best players and using them.A money cap is simply not relevant in esports. All teams start on equal footing and the only advantage teams get is through their own skills. If EG has the most money then more power to them. They didn't get the money because they were based in New York rather than Green Bay, they got it because of their manager's skills. The money thing was more of an analogy. Liquid itself may not be richer but it definitely has more prestige to it than other teams out there which makes it more attractive to players looking for teams. That's more of what I was getting at. | ||
|
Motion
Germany183 Posts
On February 24 2011 08:31 Talin wrote: Hold on, so Nazgul beat Idra in a BO3, and your problem with that is... ? Nothing, no problem at all. I only suggest that a 10 player team in a 50 Player Pool would be to Powerful, cause they can train together to arrange or abuse the bracket or ladder to there own best, thats all. So from that point of view, cutting it to 5 Players makes sense. | ||
|
Ikuu
United Kingdom97 Posts
On February 24 2011 08:18 ScarletKnight wrote:Liquid: Tyler, Huk, Jinro, Ret, TLO I'm sorry, but in my own opinion, Haypro has done nothing to prove to be capable of winning a tournament of this caliber. While an excellent player he is, I myself don't believe that he could win an NASL as it stands considering the kind of competition we should see there. So realistically Liquid could front the 5 man limit and still have a favorite to win the whole thing in each division. Lets move on to the other teams now. So what happens if Haypro decides he no longer wants to play SC2 anymore and retires, because of this limit Liquid can't go out and recruit an NASL calibre player as they'd have to take a spot away from one of their existing players. I don't see why an individual league should be influencing team decisions like this. | ||
|
cristo1122
Australia505 Posts
secondly any collusion in the group stage could be mitigated by using the group formula that the gsl uses which prevents players from colluding in order to shut out opposing players as to delberity lose a game cause great personal disadvantage again this is an individual tournement not a team tournement it doesnt help an inidividual in any way to collude as long as the tournement is set out correctly and is properly montirored. | ||
|
lucasesper
Brazil181 Posts
To avoid collusion, you have to assume that gamers are going to game the system, no matter what. Whenever player A is playing player B and each has a different expected value out of the victory, collusion may arise. ie: player A can't make playoffs, where player B can. Winning makes no difference for player A. So player A might concede because they are teammates, or maybe because they were buddies from BW, or went drinking at a LAN, or because players A is tired and wantes to sleep or even because they have a side-compensation. There are infinite other reasons, really, being teammates is only one of them. A league-into-playoffs system is the most collusion prone system and is not ideal when collusion is a concern. The most reliable way to prevent collusion is making sure both players have the same expected value from the match. This can be obtained by having pairings defined by a modified swiss system (used in chess or mtg tournaments), or by having single/double elimination matches within different brackets. In other words, when a win means the same for both players, the system eliminates any incentive for collusion. This, allied with harsh rules, should be enough. | ||
|
Barett
Canada454 Posts
Will deffinitly read later though, GJ Nony. | ||
|
aru
183 Posts
| ||
|
BAMK
United States117 Posts
I think this discussion suffers from two issues (that are possibly related): 1) it's taking place on the TL forum, where many members love and support Team Liquid and tend to see the issue through the eyes of Team Liquid. Team Liquid obviously has many strong players and might well suffer from these rules by being unable to send a deserving 6th member to NASL. 2) most posters have a fantastically in-depth knowledge of competitive starcraft and e-sports, and as a result, they assume everyone has this knowledge and view the issue rather narrowly. They know that the best players go to the best teams, they know which good players are on which good teams, and they know how people get sponsored and join a good team. I think what's missing here is the issue of appearance. It's not enough for the NASL to actually BE fair by the standards of the most knowledgeable fans of starcraft. It must appear APPEAR fair to less knowledgeable fans also, to a more casual gamer. It might well hurt the e-sports scene if it ends up that, for example, almost all players in NASL are on 2-3 teams. It would give a hard time to fans because, based on evidence from how people decide their allegiances to pro sports teams, they often pick a team based on a particular moment they saw or a particular player they love or where a certain player lives/comes from. But once they pick this team, they STICK with it 100%. If no one from several teams that people like are represented, there would be nothing to look forward to for some percentage of the fans. I realize that the team concept in pro sports teams is not the same as in e-sports (because pro sports teams actually play team sports), but people find it easier to support teams rather than individuals (for whatever reason) and thus they would like to see their favorite teams represented. Basically, it would suck if their marketing campaign was "featuring players from....TWO different teams!" I think they're trying to (and it's a great idea to) promote a collection of smaller but more tight-knit teams and broaden appeal. Another issue is that the league does not want to APPEAR to be colluding or favoring any particular team. Moreover, the league does not want to give overwhelming power to any particular team. Imagine if 2-3 teams eventually came to dominate NASL (whether because those teams gained fame from winning or caught a big sponsorship deal and were able to support more players or whatever), and then they threatened to boycott the league over a certain rule they want/didn't want. The league is caught between an uncomfortable position of losing its biggest draw (the best team and a bunch of great players) and becoming subservient to the needs of a single team. The last issue is that it might seem like, to a more casual gamer, that in order to become a professional gamer, you absolutely need to train hard enough to be able to join a team first and then be able to dedicate 10 hours a day to practice before you can even compete in a major tournament. It takes away the romance of an underground player with humble beginnings but immense talent rising to the top as only the most well-established players on the best teams will have a chance to compete (I'm not sure how easy it is to put a team together as currently defined by the NASL, so perhaps this last issue is not a problem). | ||
|
ScarletKnight
United States691 Posts
On February 24 2011 08:44 Ikuu wrote: So what happens if Haypro decides he no longer wants to play SC2 anymore and retires, because of this limit Liquid can't go out and recruit an NASL calibre player as they'd have to take a spot away from one of their existing players. I don't see why an individual league should be influencing team decisions like this. I don't see how that's relevant. It's Haypros own perogative to determine what team he plays for. And why would Liquid recruit someone just to have them sit there and do nothing? Jinro is not leaving Korea any time soon it seems, considering he is still in Code S and is doing well out there. I don't know if Huk or Ret would come back to the US in order to compete either, as they are still trying to compete in the GSL. To be completely realistic, the players Liquid would send to the NASL as it stands now would be Tyler, TLO, and Haypro. Which is below the 5 man limit. But as it is an invitiational rather than a qualifier I don't know how the selections process will be done. But as I said before, if we're talking about the "best players" the 5 man limit should have no hindrance for the teams that would be able to send players to play. | ||
|
Daigomi
South Africa4316 Posts
On February 24 2011 08:42 ScarletKnight wrote: The money thing was more of an analogy. Liquid itself may not be richer but it definitely has more prestige to it than other teams out there which makes it more attractive to players looking for teams. That's more of what I was getting at. Any prestige Liquid has is prestige that they earned in a fair and open field. As I mention, the "cap" that they include in many professional sports is because certain teams have unfair advantages. New York has an advantage because they have a "guaranteed" 15,000,000 supporters. They didn't earn those 15,000,000 supporters. Liquid has no such advantage. You could try to argue that because of the forums, we have more supporters, but the team built these forums, just like Vile could build their own forums. Every advantage that Liquid hasm they earned in an equal playing field, and that's the way its supposed to be. | ||
|
x_plorer2
Canada5 Posts
Basketball is a team sport where many players are subbed in an out, and player's chief source of income is their salary - not their tournament winnings. If Kobe doesn't see court time he's no worse off in the greater scheme of things. If TLO doesn't get to compete in the NASL that is a potentially huge loss to him. Going with the analogy - lets say the Lakers lose a starter. He's slumping or injured. No big deal sub in a worthy replacement. What happens if Haypro, mid-tournament, starts playing horribly? Can they sub in Nony or TLO? No. Haypro has to stay on the court - having depth to a team really doesn't matter in this instance as it does in team sports. Russ said that if you're a good player then you should start looking for a team. Well what if you've found a team thats willing to pay you to play SC2 but they've already got 5 amazing players? You're out of luck! They would have made great practice partners, it would have been nice to not have to work a full time job, etc. but you have to turn down that opportunity because your best bet at money is to win tournaments and playing for that team would mean your tournament play isn't guaranteed. | ||
| ||
