[CSL+] Free agents in playoffs? - Page 4

On November 12 2009 05:13 vAltyR wrote:

Well, we were. >_> We wouldn't have been playing at all without the merc rule.

On November 12 2009 03:35 Xeris wrote:
I am voting no. Here are two background reasons:

A) You are biased because you are a merc.
B) The other people in management (Mona and Yang) are from Princeton, whose top player is also not a Princeton student.

Now, here are my anti-points to your reasons why the rule should be removed.

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.

2) I think this post is flawed. Think about what the average skill level of CSL is (between D and D+). You, as a merc who is above C- level are better than probably 90% of the league. This gives Rutgers a really unfair advantage. Look at Princeton. Their merc player is 4-0 (or 4-1). Would Princeton have been able to get those 4 crucial points if they weren't using a C- player who doesn't even go to Princeton? Would they be in a playoff position without him?

You can't use the argument that because there are good teams that will own you anyways - mercing should be allowed. Think about it from the other team's perspective. How do you think other teams feel losing to Rutgers because they used players who don't even go to the school? Let's say I'm some newb at Binghampton (sorry), getting pumped up to play vs Rutgers, only to be beaten by someone who doesn't even go to that school. My thought: "shit we lost to Rutgers, oh wait, no we didn't we lost to some random kid, GO CSL!"

So while in essence your point is true that since the top teams (who you will be playing in the first round) have B- players, and your C- merc skills can't beat them... think about the people you have denied a playoff opportunity because your C- merc skills were too good for their D rank players.

3) This is again a good point, but think about it from this perspective. You're probably a lot better than the players you've played against (let's be honest, your division is really weak). So you mercing for Rutgers is in fact just as "unfair" as someone like Nony beating up on newbs. It's no fun for D players to get owned by C players, especially those who don't even go to the school they're playing for.

From the standpoint of having a fun experience playing the CSL, I agree wholeheartedly. But from the standpoint of actual competition, I think it's totally unfair to allow mercing. Again, because teams that have relied on mercs and make the playoffs are not representative of the actual skill level of the school, and as such, are unfair from a competitive standpoint. It's just a coincidence that many B- players happen to go to Duke, you're essentially saying that Rutgers requires mercs to have even a slim chance at competing against Duke... but then that'll create a big cycle of shit.

I.E, newbs at Binghampton want mercs to compete with Rutgers, then everyone wants some mercs to compete with everyone else, and eventually every team has mercs, and the entire POINT of CSL is destroyed.


----

SO. Despite the fact that I think it's unfortunate that you've worked hard to get your team to the playoffs and had a lot of fun through the whole process of the CSL, it sets a really bad precedent to allow mercs like this. It will set off a cycle of mercing and trying to stay competitive that will be detrimental to the league.

This is not a friends league. CSL teams aren't clans of friends who are competing together. It's a league for college teams, and having players on your team who don't even go to your school just defies the whole point of the league. It's like... say you're some white kid who <3's Korea... no matter how much Korean you know, or how many of your friends are Korean, and how much of their culture you try to imitate, you will never actually be Korean.

Furthermore, I think your entire argument and post is really selfish. You're only looking at the teams above you and not the 37 other teams who are NOT making the playoffs. So for a few select teams, your argument makes a lot of sense. For the vast majority of the ~600 people who are registered CSL players, your argument is baseless and selfish.

For this reason, despite the fact that I feel bad for you and a few other teams like Princeton, whose success has been based off of mercing, I'm going to have to argue against you.

On November 12 2009 05:18 PiSan wrote:
Xeris, while I agree that changes the rules mid-season will likely be more trouble than it's worth, this discussion is worth having now for the benefit of later seasons.

If the CSL is a "for fun" league, you should encourage participation as much as possible, and allowing mercs is a great way to let motivated players who happen to be non-Starcraft school play. If the CSL is a collegiate competition, then allowing anyone other than enrolled students to represent your team seems to violate the principles of the league. As it stands, the merc rule seems to switch the purpose of the league midway, which makes little sense to me.

On November 12 2009 05:21 DaisyP wrote:


While I would agree that rules should not be changed until after the season (and thus, mercers should not be allowed to play in the playoffs), I think that xeris' post is absolutely pointless. It seems to me that he completely disagrees with the mercing system, but the fact of the matter is that it exists. There seems to be an inherent flaw in logic or values to, on the one hand allow mercing, but on the other hand not allow it only in the playoffs due to the reasons that xeris brings up. (What I mean to say is that Xeris' arguments against mercing apply to both the regular season AS WELL as the playoffs. However, clearly the current majority opinion by the people that run the csl is that they somehow don't apply only to the regular season. As a result, something about what Xeris is saying is wrong in the eyes of the majority opinion of the administration.)

On November 12 2009 04:58 fanatacist wrote:
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?

But seriously the rules clearly stated that mercs can't play in the playoffs, and us mercs knew that going into it, so why complain now?

On November 12 2009 05:26 T.O.P. wrote:

It's not up to chance at all. Universities accept students based on high school grades and test scores. Duke is a demanding university, maybe there's a correlation between hard working/high iq students and starcraft skills.

On November 12 2009 05:26 Zona wrote:
For next season, why not have a special team in each region to combine players from small colleges (set a enrollment size limit here, as well as max 2 players per college on the team, if more, form their own team) rather than have a mercenary system?

On November 12 2009 05:23 Xeris wrote:


Actually every CSL admin agrees with me. On top of that, azndsh and Darthienan have even posted their agreement here, and we've been discussing it internally and they agree with me.

So I'm not sure what your post is trying to say :p

On November 12 2009 05:13 Xeris wrote:


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 05:32 Xeris wrote:


I actually suggested something like this internally before the season started. =P

On November 12 2009 05:42 PiSan wrote:


While that would fix the current issue, it still doesn't support the CSL as a collegiate competition. Nothing short of requiring that every player in an official match is enrolled in their representative school will do that. Imagine how much a "collegiate" league would be undermined if a random grouping of students placed first. If you just assume that the "collage college" wouldn't be competitive enough to matter, we'll be having this very same argument next season.

On November 12 2009 05:38 DaisyP wrote:


Sorry. Let me rewrite what I meant to say without guessing what other people are thinking:

If this is how all of the csl administration is thinking (i. e. your reasoning in the first post), then it was obviously a HUGE mistake to allow mercing in the first place. However, since mercing was in place this season, there seems to be a legitimate argument for allowing mercing in the playoffs (due to consistency).

I'm not arguing here out of a desire to win, and I actually don't think that the rules should be changed within this season. However, I don't believe that you (Xeris) should be writing as you are, pretending you are somehow completely in the logical right, while Fana's arguments are simply "whining" (in your own words). There is a completely legit basis on which to argue that the system this season is currently contradictory, because it seems to me like it is, and nothing you've written so far alleviates this.

On November 12 2009 05:41 duckett wrote:


The guy you keep mentioning as Princeton's ace who doesn't go to Princeton is Magenus, aka Dave. Of the 8-10 people associated with the starcraft team at Princeton, Dave is one of the most dedicated; he comes to every practice psyched and ready to engage, he watches opponents' reps and helps us put together strategies, and he's always willing to participate in a long email conversation about the details of drop locations on outsider, or any other mundane matchup specific issue.

He's put a lot of time and a lot of spirit into our team, even though he doesn't go to our school, and I see him more than a lot of the people on our team (im looking at you yang >.>). I think it would be kind of ridiculous to exclude people like him just because he goes to school 5 minutes away.

I thought the purpose of this league as "collegiate" was less a matter of school spirit and pride and more a matter of a few shared characteristics of our lives that happened to encourage the creation of a really communal group of gamers. We all go to college, and we have some time to spend playing; we all are rooted each team to a few square miles of territory, so we can get together really easily; and we all really enjoy this game. CSL for me and I'm sure a ton of other D+ players like me means getting together with the magical materialization of an online community that shares your (somewhat obscure) interest...denying this aspect to a few people based on college pride smells like bullshit. I'm glad the poll is tilting so heavily toward inclusion.

On a related note, I think we should open a new thread with a poll on changing the name to "collegiate funleague."

On November 12 2009 05:41 duckett wrote:


The guy you keep mentioning as Princeton's ace who doesn't go to Princeton is Magenus, aka Dave. Of the 8-10 people associated with the starcraft team at Princeton, Dave is one of the most dedicated; he comes to every practice psyched and ready to engage, he watches opponents' reps and helps us put together strategies, and he's always willing to participate in a long email conversation about the details of drop locations on outsider, or any other mundane matchup specific issue.

He's put a lot of time and a lot of spirit into our team, even though he doesn't go to our school, and I see him more than a lot of the people on our team (im looking at you yang >.>). I think it would be kind of ridiculous to exclude people like him just because he goes to school 5 minutes away.

I thought the purpose of this league as "collegiate" was less a matter of school spirit and pride and more a matter of a few shared characteristics of our lives that happened to encourage the creation of a really communal group of gamers. We all go to college, and we have some time to spend playing; we all are rooted each team to a few square miles of territory, so we can get together really easily; and we all really enjoy this game. CSL for me and I'm sure a ton of other D+ players like me means getting together with the magical materialization of an online community that shares your (somewhat obscure) interest...denying this aspect to a few people based on college pride smells like bullshit. I'm glad the poll is tilting so heavily toward inclusion.

On a related note, I think we should open a new thread with a poll on changing the name to "collegiate funleague."