|
On November 12 2009 04:45 DarthThienAn wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
No offense but I don't care how well someone plays in practice games. Practice games don't mean ANYTHING. If he can't win when the games count, he's not your best player. Nobody gets accolades for playing well in practice.
|
On November 12 2009 04:51 DarthThienAn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 04:49 Xeris wrote:On November 12 2009 04:43 vAltyR wrote: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? 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..
Ya... it's a kinda lame situation. When the league started, I was against the concept of mercing. I finally gave in SPECIFICALLY because of Fana's weird situation... but again, I wasn't aware that mercs would be the ace players for their teams.... I really don't mind if a team is using a merc who's just a normal dude... but if teams are winning ONLY because of their merc player, then it draws fairness into question.
I mean, this is a capitalist society - Duke is good because good players chose to go to Duke.
|
Neither I nor Clazz are our team's Ace.
So, college sports are inherently biased due to the amount of money they have that they can spend on scholarships to players from across the nation, so you decided to make a league that reflects that by making it COMPLETELY up to chance as to which team gets better players with no flexibility within a season? I guess I was under the wrong impression about the goals of CSL+ and I apologize for making a big fuss about that. That leads me to another argument about whether or not this is the right method to take, but that is not your concern as a collegiate organization and therefore I will not present them as they are irrelevant.
|
I'm not sure what changes in the transition to playoff games which alters the arguments for allowing mercs in the first place. If the league is truly collegiate, I don't see how allowing mercs in the group stage makes sense. The fact that rules were in place to allow people who are not enrolled in their representative college to participate led me to believe the CSL was a fun and friendly competition. Now that the group stages are over, disallowing mercs does not suddenly make the CSL a legitimate "collegiate" competition.
So is the CSL a fun competition which promotes participation, or a way for schools to represent themselves? To switch rules (and the underlying philosophy behind them) halfway just makes no sense to me. Since mercs were allowed to participate at the start, they should remain until the end.
|
s'ok, Duke is going to be a lot weaker next year when two of their players graduate
But I agree with not allowing mercs in the playoffs. Next season we will look into revising the free agent system, but for now it simply doesn't make sense for a college league to allow outside players to help them win games.
|
PiSan, just to clarify, the rule that mercs were not allowed in playoffs has been an element ever since the mercenary system was inducted. Although, I agree with your logic of continuation.
|
I'm a "merc" too, I should've organized a Va. Tech team but decided to play for New River because:
1. My friends are playing for them (Valtyr, CaucasianAsian (who goes to Radford))
2. I thought the point of CSL is to just to try to have fun playing other people in SC in different colleges because we enjoy the game right?
Coming into this thing I didn't care about getting into the playoffs really. This is just something I really wanted to do before I graduated and I'm having fun + getting better in SC in the process. I'm like the 2nd best player in the team too, and honestly, despite breaking a keyboard and a pair of headphones because of playing real bad, I'm just thankful that I even got to play at all.
|
On November 12 2009 05:00 azndsh wrote:
s'ok, Duke is going to be a lot weaker next year when two of their players graduate
But I agree with not allowing mercs in the playoffs. Next season we will look into revising the free agent system, but for now it simply doesn't make sense for a college league to allow outside players to help them win games.
Then why allow mercs in the first place? It would make playoffs almost a farce because some teams that make it that far have been at least partially reliant on mercs, and therefore will be far inferior in playoffs against teams that don't have that necessity.
|
If you actually read the rule (which you didn't)... the rule has been from the start... that Mercs would be allowed during the season, under special circumstances... and NOT in the playoffs. That's how it has been since day 1.
And I regret not arguing more against it and just giving in to fana, because now this drama has started. Again, I don't see why you didn't argue these points 8 weeks ago when the season was starting. :p
The CSL is both - it promotes participation and competition. But again, if you look at it from an administrative point of view (which so many people seem to be incapable of doing) - when trying to organize and run a league it is absolutely impossible to make everyone happy. By disallowing maybe 2-3 players who are mercing in the playoffs, is that really limiting participation that much? No.
Sure it sucks if YOU are one of the few mercs who gets shafted by the rule (I.E fana), but a large majority of the players are not affected. But again, as already mentioned by many people... allowing mercs sucks for the competition. If there are natural imbalances that occur due to schools just happening to have better players, so be it - that's the nature of competition in sports. But, to have teams recruiting outside players is unfair.
So we aim to do both, promote participation and competition... and thus far I feel we've done a good job - to my knowledge, everyone has been happy with the CSL and had fun. If people weren't happy with the rules, they should have complained about them BEFORE. Not only is there no way we're going to change rules so fundamentally mid-season, but it's just needless drama to complain about rules after-the-fact.
|
United States10774 Posts
On November 12 2009 05:03 fanatacist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 05:00 azndsh wrote:
s'ok, Duke is going to be a lot weaker next year when two of their players graduate
But I agree with not allowing mercs in the playoffs. Next season we will look into revising the free agent system, but for now it simply doesn't make sense for a college league to allow outside players to help them win games. Then why allow mercs in the first place? It would make playoffs almost a farce because some teams that make it that far have been at least partially reliant on mercs, and therefore will be far inferior in playoffs against teams that don't have that necessity.
Nope, hardly any teams were dependent on mercs as much as Rutgers was on you. Won't make a difference.
|
Only posting this now : I wasn't aware of the rule until like 2-3 weeks afterwards and I decided not to start shit when it wasn't yet relevant, given that I had brought upon the initial discussion in the first place. I think that my case WAS special from other mercenaries, and that is all I was pushing for. However, since you made the broad stroke of the brush, I figured that it was indicative of your openness. Once again, was not aware of this stubborn allegiance to what a "college" "sport" means.
|
On November 12 2009 05:03 fanatacist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 05:00 azndsh wrote:
s'ok, Duke is going to be a lot weaker next year when two of their players graduate
But I agree with not allowing mercs in the playoffs. Next season we will look into revising the free agent system, but for now it simply doesn't make sense for a college league to allow outside players to help them win games. Then why allow mercs in the first place? It would make playoffs almost a farce because some teams that make it that far have been at least partially reliant on mercs, and therefore will be far inferior in playoffs against teams that don't have that necessity.
Not really, if you end up playing GTech in Round 1 - you'll get buttraped regardless of whether or not you play. And again, we allowed the merc rule because we didn't envision mercs playing critical roles for their teams and getting them to the playoffs. So, you got to the playoffs largely because of mercs, Rutgers really isn't a playoff team, so you'll lose and that loss will be representative of the actual skill of the team.
|
On November 12 2009 05:06 OneOther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 05:03 fanatacist wrote:On November 12 2009 05:00 azndsh wrote:
s'ok, Duke is going to be a lot weaker next year when two of their players graduate
But I agree with not allowing mercs in the playoffs. Next season we will look into revising the free agent system, but for now it simply doesn't make sense for a college league to allow outside players to help them win games. Then why allow mercs in the first place? It would make playoffs almost a farce because some teams that make it that far have been at least partially reliant on mercs, and therefore will be far inferior in playoffs against teams that don't have that necessity. Nope, hardly any teams were dependent on mercs as much as Rutgers was on you. Won't make a difference.
We have 2 mercs, neither of which ever played an ace match with Clazz going 3-2 so far iirc, and 3-4 RU students on our lineup that have been regularly there. If you're going to be ignorant, at least don't be a dick about it.
|
On November 12 2009 05:09 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 05:03 fanatacist wrote:On November 12 2009 05:00 azndsh wrote:
s'ok, Duke is going to be a lot weaker next year when two of their players graduate
But I agree with not allowing mercs in the playoffs. Next season we will look into revising the free agent system, but for now it simply doesn't make sense for a college league to allow outside players to help them win games. Then why allow mercs in the first place? It would make playoffs almost a farce because some teams that make it that far have been at least partially reliant on mercs, and therefore will be far inferior in playoffs against teams that don't have that necessity. Not really, if you end up playing GTech in Round 1 - you'll get buttraped regardless of whether or not you play. And again, we allowed the merc rule because we didn't envision mercs playing critical roles for their teams and getting them to the playoffs. So, you got to the playoffs largely because of mercs, Rutgers really isn't a playoff team, so you'll lose and that loss will be representative of the actual skill of the team.
Refer to my previous post. Rutgers is not completely incompetent without mercs. It just would rely on them to take on an inherently superior school like Duke or GTech in playoffs due to the Bo7 format. But, once again, this is not relevant due to this being a "college sport."
|
On November 12 2009 05:01 MorningMusume11 wrote:
I'm a "merc" too, I should've organized a Va. Tech team but decided to play for New River because:
1. My friends are playing for them (Valtyr, CaucasianAsian (who goes to Radford))
2. I thought the point of CSL is to just to try to have fun playing other people in SC in different colleges because we enjoy the game right?
Coming into this thing I didn't care about getting into the playoffs really. This is just something I really wanted to do before I graduated and I'm having fun + getting better in SC in the process. I'm like the 2nd best player in the team too, and honestly, despite breaking a keyboard and a pair of headphones because of playing real bad, I'm just thankful that I even got to play at all.
The point IS to have fun playing other people in different colleges. But another point is also to have a competitive college sporting atmosphere... in which case mercing is totally pointless.
This is a collegiate starleague, not a collegiate funleague, not a state-league, not a friends-league. Starleague implies a certain element of professionalism and competition that we're trying to uphold. And yes, as I said before - we didn't envision mercing to be a huge issue and that mercs would be fundamental to the success of a team. We thought it would be just a few players mercing for a few teams due to special circumstances (I.E Fana's crazy situation with Rutgers/Cornell/Ithaca)... now Fana's even twisted his initial argument and is arguing to just have a net inclusion of mercs for the sake of equalizing competition, when in fact mercing has noticeably affected the standings adversely (I.E, Rutgers makes playoffs due to mercing, Princeton possibly makes playoffs due to mercing), when in a non-merc situation your team would NOT have made the playoffs.
|
On November 12 2009 05:06 OneOther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 05:03 fanatacist wrote:On November 12 2009 05:00 azndsh wrote:
s'ok, Duke is going to be a lot weaker next year when two of their players graduate
But I agree with not allowing mercs in the playoffs. Next season we will look into revising the free agent system, but for now it simply doesn't make sense for a college league to allow outside players to help them win games. Then why allow mercs in the first place? It would make playoffs almost a farce because some teams that make it that far have been at least partially reliant on mercs, and therefore will be far inferior in playoffs against teams that don't have that necessity. Nope, hardly any teams were dependent on mercs as much as Rutgers was on you. Won't make a difference.
Well, we were. >_> We wouldn't have been playing at all without the merc rule.
|
United States10774 Posts
On November 12 2009 05:09 fanatacist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 05:06 OneOther wrote:On November 12 2009 05:03 fanatacist wrote:On November 12 2009 05:00 azndsh wrote:
s'ok, Duke is going to be a lot weaker next year when two of their players graduate
But I agree with not allowing mercs in the playoffs. Next season we will look into revising the free agent system, but for now it simply doesn't make sense for a college league to allow outside players to help them win games. Then why allow mercs in the first place? It would make playoffs almost a farce because some teams that make it that far have been at least partially reliant on mercs, and therefore will be far inferior in playoffs against teams that don't have that necessity. Nope, hardly any teams were dependent on mercs as much as Rutgers was on you. Won't make a difference. We have 2 mercs, neither of which ever played an ace match with Clazz going 3-2 so far iirc, and 3-4 RU students on our lineup that have been regularly there. If you're going to be ignorant, at least don't be a dick about it.
You are 3-1. Clazz was 3-2. You both pretty much played every week. My point stands: no team is as dependent on mercs as Rugers and therefore playoffs are legitimate. Don't make a general statement that playoff is somehow farce now because there are inferior teams that used mercs.
EDIT: Oh I forgot New River. But honestly, Georgia Tech is...much, much better than you guys. Even if you guys could continue playing it wouldn't make a difference. So therefore playoffs are not farce.
|
I just need to ask this question. . . I live in Riverside, CA, go to Riverside Community College (who has no team), and live literally 5 minutes away from UCR, but I can't participate in CSL?  Make sure I've got this right!?
|
On November 12 2009 05:14 Rayzorblade wrote:I just need to ask this question. . . I live in Riverside, CA, go to Riverside Community College (who has no team), and live literally 5 minutes away from UCR, but I can't participate in CSL? Make sure I've got this right!?
You can participate in CSL with the UCR team by applying as a merc, but you're not allowed to play in playoffs. That's the story.
|
On November 12 2009 05:09 fanatacist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 05:06 OneOther wrote:On November 12 2009 05:03 fanatacist wrote:On November 12 2009 05:00 azndsh wrote:
s'ok, Duke is going to be a lot weaker next year when two of their players graduate
But I agree with not allowing mercs in the playoffs. Next season we will look into revising the free agent system, but for now it simply doesn't make sense for a college league to allow outside players to help them win games. Then why allow mercs in the first place? It would make playoffs almost a farce because some teams that make it that far have been at least partially reliant on mercs, and therefore will be far inferior in playoffs against teams that don't have that necessity. Nope, hardly any teams were dependent on mercs as much as Rutgers was on you. Won't make a difference. We have 2 mercs, neither of which ever played an ace match with Clazz going 3-2 so far iirc, and 3-4 RU students on our lineup that have been regularly there. If you're going to be ignorant, at least don't be a dick about it.
who are your mercs? you and Nexus? your combined records are 7-2. does Rutgers make the playoffs without that? who knows.
or... you + clazz , 6-3... again as OneOther said... your mercs played literally every single week (often times taking up 2 of the 4 1v1 slots).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
