EPT[CSL+] Free agents in playoffs? - Page 2
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
| ||
|
fanatacist
10319 Posts
On November 12 2009 04:12 Xeris wrote: I was kidding lolz, no need to take offense. The reason for playing CSL is fun. Obviously there are only 3-4 teams with the potential to actually WIN the league. Does that mean the other 49 should just quit? Again, I think that your points make sense if we're just trying to be like "ya everyone can play" - which I think is the end goal of course, to get every school into CSL. Think about what you're saying. You are arguing basically that weak teams need to use mercenaries to compete. Then, what's the point in calling this the "Collegiate Starleague"... someone from TL already ran a "state" league. This isn't the state league, it's a college league. Your entire argument is not what the CSL is. I found it offensive that you would even joke at an offensive position when I approached with nothing but a peaceful proposition and discussion. Collegiate Star League http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/collegiate You have the world collegiate in your title, but you limit your definition to only certain colleges when clearly the world applies to the general college student. Of course your goal is to have a team for every college, but that will never be the case, and with StarCraft approaching the end of its popularity in the college-going age group given the fact that more and more players in college now will have been too young to have played SC when it came out or in the years shortly after it, as well as the upcoming SC2 release, your definition of your own league is biased and flawed in my opinion. What's the point of even having a divisional stage if only those 3-4 teams will come out on top? Might as well break down teams by the same point system I mentioned before, and have matches decided based on who has more points. Then those 3-4 teams will meet in playoffs and we can all watch the inherently overpowered teams play for a title that no one has a chance for except those 4 teams. Hooray! | ||
|
Amnesia
United States3818 Posts
| ||
|
fanatacist
10319 Posts
On November 12 2009 04:18 T.O.P. wrote: I think weak teams getting stomped by inherently stronger teams is a big part of college sports. When USC goes to play Washington State in college football, they go on to win 63-0. I think there shouldn't be a merc system in the first place. Why should someone be able to win matches for a school that they don't' even go to? So, colleges accepting gifted players from across the nation simply because of their football prowess is not the same as mercing? It's unfortunate that colleges can't accept people based on their StarCraft performance. | ||
|
fanatacist
10319 Posts
On November 12 2009 04:13 OneOther wrote: Uhm isn't inequality among teams a natural part of competition? Of course there are "inherently" stronger teams. You will find that in every league and every competition. We don't have to implement an unfair system to fix that. This is a college league, not recruit a good player who goes to another school so you can beat your neighborhood school. It's making the best out of the resources and players that you have. As you said, the skill level happens by chance, which means there will be flexibility in the future. You will lose players and gain different ones. Hypothetically Emory can use a C (I also think this is a very subjective rule. I am almost positive Metal is higher than C by looking at his gameplay) player from Pennsylvania to dominate an equal team in Auburn or whatever. That's not fair. That defeats the purpose of our league. I kind of answered your points in a different post directed at Xeris. Xeris, Duke is undoubtedly the best team in the league, able to field a completely B- and above lineup in playoffs. The difference between C-level, or as you said the average CSL skill of D+, and the B- and above they boast is irreconcilable. EDIT: I am going out, I'll respond to more posts later~ | ||
|
McFly
United States116 Posts
You should not argue the point of whatever your arguing now. Cause I think all of what Xeris said holds true to any sort of competition. | ||
|
fanatacist
10319 Posts
On November 12 2009 04:23 McFly wrote: fanatacist-You should stick with the logic of merc are allowed to participate in non-playoff games therefor should be able to play in playoff games. You should not argue the point of whatever your arguing now. Cause I think all of what Xeris said holds true to any sort of competition. Sticking to only one reason makes a weak argument, if they haven't addressed that point then I will not argue it simply because their lack of response on that statement is indicative of their acceptance of the validity of it. Also, they accepted the mercenary concept pretty late in the process, which makes it a rather weak foundation on which to base an entire argument upon, considering they probably had some of these inhibitions in the first place. I am not out to punish them for making the decision and therefore logically demanding that they continue by inductive logic to accept players in the playoffs, I want to make a logical appeal based on multiple grounds. | ||
|
RebirthOfLeGenD
USA5860 Posts
Anyway, I agree with Duran. The only reason I would make an exception would be if you are from the town of the school but couldn't get into it maybe. Which I believe is your case. Outsourcing like states away is stupid, as much as I would love to join the Rutgers team now (I am most likely going there in a year anyway) I can't because I live in NY and that isn't fair. When and if I actually end up going to Rutgers I would be happy to stomp on people for them :O But seriously, Artem if you want to play for a team make a team at whatever college you go to. I bet you can find 8 ragtag players that you can pull into the playoffs, it can't be that hard. | ||
|
RebirthOfLeGenD
USA5860 Posts
On November 12 2009 04:21 fanatacist wrote: So, colleges accepting gifted players from across the nation simply because of their football prowess is not the same as mercing? It's unfortunate that colleges can't accept people based on their StarCraft performance. You ignore a big fact here. While colleges do scout players across the nation to play football or some other sport for them, they also allow them to learn from their school as well. Which your Merc system does not. While that is due to colleges not actually caring about their starcraft team is another issue in itself. Which is how to make ESPORTS popular and mainstream. | ||
|
fanatacist
10319 Posts
On November 12 2009 04:29 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: Sorry Fanta, I had to vote no. I didn't even know you were a Merc, I thought you went to Rutgers. Anyway, I agree with Duran. The only reason I would make an exception would be if you are from the town of the school but couldn't get into it maybe. Which I believe is your case. Outsourcing like states away is stupid, as much as I would love to join the Rutgers team now (I am most likely going there in a year anyway) I can't because I live in NY and that isn't fair. When and if I actually end up going to Rutgers I would be happy to stomp on people for them :O But seriously, Artem if you want to play for a team make a team at whatever college you go to. I bet you can find 8 ragtag players that you can pull into the playoffs, it can't be that hard. I don't live in New Brunswick, but I do live in East Brunswick (bordering city) and I did get into Rutgers but due to college complications at Cornell/Ithaca I am now going to Middlesex Community College in the Rutgers transfer program (you go to Rutgers after a certain amount of credits at a certain GPA). I never advocated people from NY joining NJ teams - I specifically mention LOCAL colleges. Also, no, there are no StarCraft players in MCC. Literally. Raithed was the only one to both of our knowledge, and he has left. | ||
|
fanatacist
10319 Posts
On November 12 2009 04:32 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: You ignore a big fact here. While colleges do scout players across the nation to play football or some other sport for them, they also allow them to learn from their school as well. Which your Merc system does not. While that is due to colleges not actually caring about their starcraft team is another issue in itself. Which is how to make ESPORTS popular and mainstream. So because colleges don't accept players based on their StarCraft prowess but based on athletic prowess, having players from other states/schools playing for a certain college is more reasonable for basketball or football, but not StarCraft? It's not our fault that StarCraft doesn't generate enough hype to give scholarships or provoke people to transfer schools, and it simply will never be the case. We should accept that, and work accordingly. | ||
OneOther
United States10774 Posts
On November 12 2009 04:20 Amnesia wrote: A pre-congratulations to Duke on winning the CSL if free agents are not allowed to play in the playoffs! Uh, this is simply not true. Yes we are a good team but don't act like it's a given. We practiced hard to be ready against Georgia Tech in the midst of all the school work. Teams like Georgia Tech, UToronto, UT Austin and etc can take us down if they get favorable lineup and prepare strong strategies. Also fana, college teams are flexible because students leave and join every year. This is ridiculous. What kind of collegiate competitions allows other players to win matches when they don't even go to the school? Do you see teams recruiting non-affiliated players to beat USC at football? Rutgers smashes everyone in their division using mercs and now they want to continue using them in playoffs lol. Whatever, I am against the entire idea of using mercs in a collegiate league. I don't understand how it even feels right to win with using players that don't even go to your school. Welcome to college sports. Where inherently strong teams and weak teams exist. | ||
|
vAltyR
United States581 Posts
On November 12 2009 03:35 Xeris wrote: 1) By Riverside do you mean New River Community College? It is an unfortunate circumstance that some teams have been driven by their merc players. Think about it from this perspective. If a team gets to the playoffs solely because it used players who aren't even from that school, does that school really deserve to be in the playoffs? That just seems counter-intuitive. Next, I think you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. Think less like professional sports, and more in terms of NCAA and other college-level competition. Let's say I am a basketball player at UCLA. I <3 USC's basketball team, I'm good friends with all the players, train with them, etc. But can I play for their team? No. I'm bound by the school I actually go to. It totally defies the point of college sports to have a team be good ONLY because outsiders are playing on that team (this is why college teams don't have ringers). Sorry if this sounds harsh but if Rutgers or whatever team has only gotten to the playoffs by using mercs, you probably shouldn't be in the playoffs. Out of curiosity, how many schools are in this situation? I know New River is, but are there any others? And I don't mean individual players would be unable to play, I mean the team would not be able to play because they lack the personnel. Back on topic, I completely agree with your point here. Referring specifically to our situation with Georgia Tech, I think they deserve the playoff spot more than we do, even if we win against them. They're a much stronger team than we are, and to be honest, even if we were able to use all our players in the playoffs, we'd most likely still lose in the first round. It's difficult to make a blanket statement, though. I mean, there's teams where the free agent is carrying the whole team, but what if it was a team of five where the weakest two were free agents? Should they be kept out of the playoffs because of lack of players, even if their free agents are just filling slots? | ||
|
DarthThienAn
United States2734 Posts
On November 12 2009 04:13 OneOther wrote: Hypothetically Emory can use a C (I also think this is a very subjective rule. I am almost positive Metal is higher than C by looking at his gameplay) player from Pennsylvania to dominate an equal team in Auburn or whatever. That's not fair. That defeats the purpose of our league. I think I remember looking into this -_-...didn't the CSL management decide that he was eligible, and not above C? Clarifying hazel's note about Princeton: Magneus has the best record on our team, but loses to our best player who's CSL record is trash in comparison (lol), but who's the highest rank and beats the rest of us the majority of the time. It could be that he chokes under pressure, or that he played relatively better players. Who knows. It happens. Anyway, this is part of what I told my fellow management: "The reason why we allow mercs in the first place is solely for the mercs who would not be able to play otherwise because their school doesn't have enough interest. It is not for the benefit of the host school - it is so that an SC-loving-merc player can enjoy CSL as much* as everyone else." Fana, your argument that we should allow mercs to continue into playoffs doesn't follow through - if you're addressing consistency, then we are being consistent with the rules we implemented at the beginning of the season. Changing the rules would be inconsistent, obviously. Also, Duke might be a lot better than the rest of us, but so be it. They have the players, we don't. That's how college sports work. Not to mention their whole lineup could get swine flu or something, and then they have to field like D level players. teehee (I doubt this though - I feel like Duke's depth is pretty intense as well). I have to agree with Xeris - his arguments are much more logical than yours, and yours are mostly emotional IMO. Mercenaries should instead be saying, "Thank you for allowing me to play for the long time that you have allowed me to play." (5-6 matches) But yea, I know you're just trying to get opinions fana, I think it was worth discussing and analyzing all of the reasons. This way, we can clarify everything and clear the air. | ||
|
Xeris
Iran17695 Posts
On November 12 2009 04:20 fanatacist wrote: I found it offensive that you would even joke at an offensive position when I approached with nothing but a peaceful proposition and discussion. Collegiate Star League http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/collegiate You have the world collegiate in your title, but you limit your definition to only certain colleges when clearly the world applies to the general college student. Of course your goal is to have a team for every college, but that will never be the case, and with StarCraft approaching the end of its popularity in the college-going age group given the fact that more and more players in college now will have been too young to have played SC when it came out or in the years shortly after it, as well as the upcoming SC2 release, your definition of your own league is biased and flawed in my opinion. What's the point of even having a divisional stage if only those 3-4 teams will come out on top? Might as well break down teams by the same point system I mentioned before, and have matches decided based on who has more points. Then those 3-4 teams will meet in playoffs and we can all watch the inherently overpowered teams play for a title that no one has a chance for except those 4 teams. Hooray! You've basically turned this into a petty argument that is essentially saying "boo hoo I have no chance to win the CSL, this is unfair, and mercing will fix the disparity". You seem to have never played any sort of competitive sport. Think again about college (I don't know why you keep referring to pro-gaming because the situations are totally different) sports. Just because USC is a powerhouse football team and there are only about 3-4 teams that are favored to win, does that mean everyone should just quit? I mean your whole argument just doesn't make sense man. Clearly the shitty football programs don't just STOP because they can't win, they continue. Do you think players who won't go to the NFL or NBA just STOP playing because they have no shot? No. They do it for the fun and competition. You're just sounding like you are whining and have an inferiority complex. You have no chance to win CSL. Probably neither do I. Am I gonna quit? No. | ||
|
Xeris
Iran17695 Posts
On November 12 2009 04:43 vAltyR wrote: Out of curiosity, how many schools are in this situation? I know New River is, but are there any others? And I don't mean individual players would be unable to play, I mean the team would not be able to play because they lack the personnel. Back on topic, I completely agree with your point here. Referring specifically to our situation with Georgia Tech, I think they deserve the playoff spot more than we do, even if we win against them. They're a much stronger team than we are, and to be honest, even if we were able to use all our players in the playoffs, we'd most likely still lose in the first round. It's difficult to make a blanket statement, though. I mean, there's teams where the free agent is carrying the whole team, but what if it was a team of five where the weakest two were free agents? Should they be kept out of the playoffs because of lack of players, even if their free agents are just filling slots? I think you're the ONLY school in this situation. | ||
|
DarthThienAn
United States2734 Posts
On November 12 2009 04:37 OneOther wrote: Uh, this is simply not true. Yes we are a good team but don't act like it's a given. We practiced hard to be ready against Georgia Tech in the midst of all the school work. Teams like Georgia Tech, UToronto, UT Austin and etc can take us down if they get favorable lineup and prepare strong strategies. Also fana, college teams are flexible because students leave and join every year. This is ridiculous. What kind of collegiate competitions allows other players to win matches when they don't even go to the school? Do you see teams recruiting non-affiliated players to beat USC at football? Rutgers smashes everyone in their division using mercs and now they want to continue using them in playoffs lol. Whatever, I am against the entire idea of using mercs in a collegiate league. I don't understand how it even feels right to win with using players that don't even go to your school. Welcome to college sports. Where inherently strong teams and weak teams exist. Upset from Assem / JF plz =] (I dont know UT's powerhouse players) | ||
|
DreaM)XeRO
Korea (South)4667 Posts
that is impressive. Kudo's to the management even if it is a little flawed CSL is becoming more and more organized i cant wait | ||
|
DarthThienAn
United States2734 Posts
On November 12 2009 04:49 Xeris wrote: I think you're the ONLY school in this situation. Correct, as far as it's been reported anyway. Any other schools must not realize it or consider it important enough if they exist. Anyway, are there any mercs who ARENT their teams ACEs or something similar? I think those people would be closer to what we envisioned mercs as in the beginning.. | ||
|
DarthThienAn
United States2734 Posts
On November 12 2009 04:50 DreaM)XeRO wrote: CSL has a Free agent system as well? that is impressive. Kudo's to the management even if it is a little flawed CSL is becoming more and more organized i cant wait Not really close to the PL free agent system at all, if I recall what that is correctly. lol. | ||
| ||
