|
As many of you know, the current situation is that people from other colleges who do not have a CSL+ team can play in the divisional stages for other local teams as long as they are of C rank or lower. However, these same players cannot play in the playoffs because of the precautionary rule that the CSL+ management set forth. Here is what I think about the issue:
Reasons for the precaution (or what I perceive them to be):
- Unfair teams
Because certain colleges are in closer proximity to others, there will be more free agents in certain colleges than others.
- Unfair concept
Because certain colleges would thus stand a better chance of winning, many colleges will look for more free agents, thus detracting from the purpose of having college-specific teams.
Reasons why the precaution is unnecessary:
- The rule that allows only players of C level or below to join college teams other than their own ensures that there is a cap on the skill of people who enter a team through the free agent system.
- The players who have played have already left an impact on the team and therefore division, so the teams that are going to be in playoffs are already dependent on the players on their team, whether they are free agents or not, and in general the number of free agents is not so significant that it affects that outcome.
Reasons why the rule should be removed for the playoffs:
- Unfair to the teams that would otherwise not be eligible:
Riverside is one example of a team that would not be eligible to play in the playoffs if they were to make it that far, simply because they lack the number of players in the college itself. It punishes both the players who were free agents and the entire team in general, despite their success and hard work.
- Unnecessary in light of the level of competition:
Many of the teams that made it to the playoffs have at least one, or multiple, B- players and above. Teams have Assem, Nony, MasterAsia... Would having a few C level players do anything but make the competition a little more intense, so that colleges who relied on them do not have to field D- players who are just learning through being on the team? Teams are clearly relying more on players from their college more than on those C level players in the playoffs, because the skill cap does not apply to them.
- Unfair to the players whom the rule affects:
Of course I am biased in this as a player who is affected by this rule, so take this with a grain of salt. I have worked hard to practice for matches, to help my team practice, to get to the division finals/playoffs. Should my work be all for naught if we are hindered by this rule? I think that it's unfair that players such as myself were given a taste, an opportunity to play in CSL+, and upon having success should be punished by not being able to go further. It is not our fault that our colleges do not have an SC community or enough SC players, why should be limited from playing in playoffs due to this fact?
Considering this information, what do you objectively think is the best solution?
*Note: This is by no means an official poll, I just want to see what other, perhaps less biased people think about this. I am not affiliated with CSL+ management and their decision to change or not to change any rule is not affected by this poll... I'm just hoping that maybe next season this poll will be taken into consideration
Poll: Should free agents be able to play in playoffs?
(Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
PLEASE POST YOUR REASONING FOR CHOOSING EITHER SIDE IF YOU HAVE TIME KTHNX
|
If you say yes or no, I think it would be great if you guys post your reasons - I want to see any additional thoughts on either side, and I think the CSL+ management does as well. Thanks!
|
ofc they should.
it's not like them playing on the team during the regular season affects other schools any more than during the play-offs.
I think the best way to balance free agents is to just make sure the free agent is actually a college student and that the school they play for is fairly close to their actual school.
It's a very pointless rule to exclude them from the play-offs.
|
Do you want to look at this from a college sport level or from a community just looking to have fun?
Or a little of both?
Because I think if this is truly CSL that you should only be able to have a team if you have players from your college. There is enough teams out there to get this going with or without free agents.
I would take it as a gift they allowed free agents to come in and play as is and wouldn't argue with the current format/rules.
|
Thanks Ideas (: I agree with your reasoning obviously.
I want to hear more from the nay-sayers, because in this case I find it hard to find reasons for the opposition due to my bias, but I know that they are there.
|
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.
|
(I'd just like to make a note that our best player is in fact a Princetonian.)
|
+ Show Spoiler +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.
Said it better.
I feel the main point though is if your a college gets beat by a merc, although legal, feels like you were just shafted.
Does CSL have nonaffiliate refrees? Such as the dreaded KESPA!
|
I've been thinking that it kind of sucks that I haven't been able to participate in CSL because I go to a community college in Riverside, CA. 
|
WAIT WTF -- Riverside Community College even has a team? (Just read Xeris' post). WTF? Where?
|
I think they meant New River CC. Sorry.
|
Oh. Lame.
|
United States10774 Posts
Voted no. For the exact reasons Duran covered.
What kind of *collegiate* starleague would this be when Emory's (in Georgia) by-far best player goes to a school in Pennsylvania? I know they probably won't make it to the playoffs, but I am completely against using players from other schools in general. This is a college league. Mercing defeats the purpose. It really sucks for people whose schools don't have teams, but we can't satisfy everyone. I would rather have the league stay true to its purpose and definition
|
Indeed. Let me also add by saying this. There are a few individual cases in which it sucks, but the goal as an administrator of an event is not to make every single person happy (this is impossible), but to make the most people happy possible.
Since this is, by its very nature, a restrictive event (I.E, we denied 1-2 high schools that had enough people to form a team, and there are tons of other college students whose schools don't have enough to form a team).. it's impossible to please everyone. Our best bet is to make as many people as possible happy.
Next, your post (fana) doesn't even consider the probably hundreds of people who aren't even playing CSL because their schools don't have enough people.
I mean, mercing already (potentially) screwed some otherwise deserving teams out of playoff spots. How do you sleep at night fana? You cry about injustice while completely ignoring your own injustices.
|
I see valid logic in most of your points, Xeris, and I agree that the perspective I have taken is selfish. However, I also stated that I am biased in this and therefore that is to be expected.
I have to argue with your point of the unfairness of the mercenary system. Every school has potential to gain mercenaries from other colleges that do not have a team in their region - it's a matter of networking, and chance (in the sense that those colleges will not have a team, but will have SC players on their team), just like the Duke team has many skilled players almost by chance. However, you say that the 600+ players who have not benefited from the mercenary system to the point of approaching play offs are therefore treated unjustly should this decision come to pass. I think of it in a different way - how many players could not join a team because their college does not have one, and because there are limitations on the mercenary system? Considering that StarCraft has been around for over a decade, I expect that there are many more than 600 students in the American continent who play at a C level or above but were not able to play in CSL+ due to poor networking or insufficient player numbers at their school of choice, despite the mercenary system. I don't know the actual numbers, but I suspect that the total amount of mercenaries is a lot lower than the amount of registered players that actually go to the college that they represent. The fact that these mercenaries have had an effect on the standings as they are is a consequence of not the mercenary situation, but the distribution of teams as they are. Of course the teams with mostly D+ players have lost to teams that gained C- mercenaries, but that divide is not as great as it would be if there were no mercenaries at all, and teams that were inherently advantaged such as Duke would stomp EVERYONE regardless, making us ALL part of the losing numbers. When thinking about the mercenary principle, I think of the following - what if SKT could not field Bisu in the playoffs, because he was purchased from MBC? I understand that CSL+ revolves around colleges and not progaming licenses, but the injustice would be the same if not greater. Just because a player has vowed allegiance to a different college that is not his own due to the absence of a team (as opposed to Bisu who could have played in the playoffs if MBC had made it) at his college, he should therefore be prevented from playing in the play-offs?
I think that your fears about the mercing precedent are unrealistic, simply given the C rule. A team with D+ players is not likely to make playoffs regardless, like I said before, and is definitely not going to win the entire league. Mercing is what gives teams that are disadvantaged the step up they need to compete with teams such as Duke and Georgia Tech. It is a process that allows equal opportunity for all schools to locate players that would increase their chances of winning despite the poor showing of their own home teams, unlike the inherent increase in chance of winning given to schools that by chance have a stronger team.
I must also present the argument that you have to admit your own bias, given the fact that Team Xeris is also inherently capable and did not have to benefit from the mercenary system to advance. The concept of a non-merc CSL, I find, is a linear system of who is rich and who is poor. Each team would then be allocated a set amount of resources to play against other teams - let's say a D player is 1 point, C is 2, and B is 3 points. So teams like Duke with 5 B- or above level players have a set amount of resources in any A-team match, with 15 points. That team will always crush a team that has 7 or 8 points. The mercenary system is a controlled system (by the level of skill of the mercenary) that allows players to increase their resources by a system that any other team can use, if it is advantageous to them (like I said, it would NOT be advantageous to already strong teams, only the weaker ones). Should teams with good networking be punished for having the ability to use the system by not being able to use the resources they've gained against superior teams? I think not. The lack of a mercenary system would make teams very static, changing based only on people leaving or entering a college, with a statistical improbability of ever progressing or digressing too much from their current skill level within a 3-4 year period.
I don't think the point of CSL should be whichever college has the most players that are B level or above wins. I of course say this as a subjective and powerless observer, but it just seems to be less fair to other teams who do not have that privilege. Why play if you know that you don't have any B players? You won't win anyway. Not without the mercenary system giving the teams that are lacking the advantage they need to take on the heavyweights, an advantage that can be garnered by all.
I propose a different solution:
1. Mercenary usage is limited as follows - the amount of players you can have on your team that are mercenaries cannot be greater than 2 or 3 or 4 (depending on what your management decides), unless a greater number is necessary to start a team at a college (if Riverside does not have enough players on its own to start a team, they need X amount to do so, and that X amount should be allowed).
2. The max level of mercenaries should still be C level, which does not hurt the strong teams who have B level players, and presents an equal opportunity basis for other colleges to acquire said mercenaries.
3. The area in which mercenaries could be accepted from should be limited to being within the state in which they are (with exceptions for either small states like Delaware and Rhode Island, for example, and colleges that are near a border to another state and would like to acquire mercenaries from the nearest college of that bordering state).
|
On November 12 2009 03:59 Xeris wrote:
Indeed. Let me also add by saying this. There are a few individual cases in which it sucks, but the goal as an administrator of an event is not to make every single person happy (this is impossible), but to make the most people happy possible.
Since this is, by its very nature, a restrictive event (I.E, we denied 1-2 high schools that had enough people to form a team, and there are tons of other college students whose schools don't have enough to form a team).. it's impossible to please everyone. Our best bet is to make as many people as possible happy.
Next, your post (fana) doesn't even consider the probably hundreds of people who aren't even playing CSL because their schools don't have enough people.
I mean, mercing already (potentially) screwed some otherwise deserving teams out of playoff spots. How do you sleep at night fana? You cry about injustice while completely ignoring your own injustices.
Those otherwise deserving teams would only get stomped by inherently stronger teams because there is no flexibility in the available skill level of a team due to your proposed limitations on the mercenary system.
Also, no need to be offensive.
|
On November 12 2009 03:56 OneOther wrote:
Voted no. For the exact reasons Duran covered.
What kind of *collegiate* starleague would this be when Emory's (in Georgia) by-far best player goes to a school in Pennsylvania? I know they probably won't make it to the playoffs, but I am completely against using players from other schools in general. This is a college league. Mercing defeats the purpose. It really sucks for people whose schools don't have teams, but we can't satisfy everyone. I would rather have the league stay true to its purpose and definition.
I don't think that it's fair that a student all the way in Pennsylvania can play for a team in Georgia. I think that is an abuse of the rule that mercenaries have to be from the area surrounding the college for which the way to play for. There are more people who lose due to the lack of a team in their college than those that benefit from it. There is no point to being strict to a college-based league if only students at that college can play, because then colleges would be inherently overpowered (hello, Duke, your team by the way) for the next few years over every other college and would thus be like a superteam of Jaedong Bisu Flash and a few other S-class gamers in the ProLeague. People would lose interest in PL if every season it would be a near-guaranteed win for Los Galactagos, the JBF superteam, or in this case Duke.
|
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.
|
United States10774 Posts
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.
|
Also I think you are vastly over-estimating the strength of Duke. It's not like they're in instawin team.
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
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?
|
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!
|
A pre-congratulations to Duke on winning the CSL if free agents are not allowed to play in the playoffs!
|
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.
|
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~
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On November 12 2009 04:21 fanatacist wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
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.
|
On November 12 2009 04:32 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 04:21 fanatacist wrote: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. 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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
On November 12 2009 04:20 fanatacist wrote:Show nested quote +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/collegiateYou 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.
|
On November 12 2009 04:43 vAltyR wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On November 12 2009 04:37 OneOther wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Upset from Assem / JF plz =] (I dont know UT's powerhouse players)
|
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
|
On November 12 2009 04:49 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +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..
|
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.
|
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).
|
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 05:13 vAltyR 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. Well, we were. >_> We wouldn't have been playing at all without the merc rule.
Yes, your situation is a bit unique.
|
Xeris you should let high school kids play in CSL. In whatever team they want. D:
|
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.
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 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.
Read my posts please. This is NOT a "for fun" league in the sense that it is a competitive league also designed with fun in mind. I mean, it is clear that there are teams who are LIKELY to win this, but there are over 50 teams participating. The REASON they're playing is because it's fun, and they enjoy to play BW.
Many hundreds of players are having a lot of fun due to our efforts, mercing is generally a bad idea and sets a bad example and encourages the use of mercs to gain a competitive advantage, and is unfair to the legit teams that just aren't good.
Again as I've explained multiple times already. We made the merc rule as it stands now because we were not anticipating that mercs would be playing integral roles on playoff teams. That's our fault for not predicting such an outcome. If I thought this would be an issue later on I would have totally disallowed mercs.
|
On November 12 2009 05:21 DaisyP wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.)
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
|
+ Show Spoiler +On November 12 2009 05:13 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Pfft, you'll never get a serious competitive SC atmosphere unless you're in Korea =P Only Koreans turn games into serious business ya know :D Besides, only kids in Korea skip school to go pro in SC ^^ (I'm Korean btw so I have a right in making fun of my own people, and its a joke)
+ Show Spoiler +Just to make the mood lighter... cuz I'm having a bad day
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?
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
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?
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.
|
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?
|
United States10774 Posts
fanatacist, I just looked at your team's matches. Out of five, both of you played in four of the matches. That's nearly half of all the 1v1s that take place. Clazz played in the fifth week as well. Am I really being ignorant when Rutgers' mercs play almost HALF of 1v1 matches? No.
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?
Because fanatacist's school is clearly very dependent on mercs and knows Rutgers would have a difficult time winning without them lol. Take a look at this:
Week 5 Match-
Rutgers University vs Johns Hopkins University
Hyung K. Oh (T) > Andy Tien (P) Outsider
Artem Dedov (P) > Billy Shin (Z) God's Garden
Kishan Pandya (P) > Edward Choi (P) Heartbreak Ridge
First two Rutgers players don't even go to the damn school lol.
|
On November 12 2009 05:26 T.O.P. wrote:Show nested quote +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? 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.
I think not, I mean what about Machine? =P Oh wait bad example...
|
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?
I actually suggested something like this internally before the season started. =P
|
As the aforementioned merc on the Princeton team, I feel obligated to chime in.
Let me first acknowledge that this is a very difficult issue and there is no easy answer.
I, too, would love to participate in playoff games, and Fanatacist's argument speaks to me on an emotional level. However, emotions alone are not enough to base a decision on.
Honestly, I feel that the "mercenary" system creates too many headaches for the league. For example, we have a rule that demands each ringer/merc to be of C level or lower. How are the CSL+ admins to verify each and every player's actual ladder rank, especially since many players use aliases in CSL+? What is stopping these players from smurfing or in some way obfuscating their true ladder rank? It's a nightmare and I foresee many exploitations of the system as more and more teams participate in CSL+ and begin to take the league more seriously.
As Xeris mentioned, we need to re-examine exactly what we're trying to accomplish with CSL+. If we want to emulate legitimate NCAA-style collegiate athletics, "ringers" or "mercs" should be completely disallowed. Sure, college teams engage in recruiting, but most recruits are scouted in high school, and any recruit must first be a registered student before joining the team to compete.
In the future, and this is still very much a hypothetical future, isn't it reasonable to imagine players like JianFei get noticed in high school then get recruited to go play 'Craft in the collegiate leagues? If StarCraft had the mainstream clout of something like Basketball or Football, this would already be going on today. Unfortunately for us, eSports are not as well-accepted as we would like, and so the days of D1 StarCraft are still long away.
Is there a compromise? We currently have a compromise in the form of the "mercs in season play, but not in playoffs" rule. It serves as a safety valve, meant to prevent mercenary players from carrying a team "too far." Just imagine if sandbaggers who have snuck past the C-level restriction bring a team all the way to the grand finals. I don't imagine ANYONE would be happy about that.
A better question is: should we compromise?
It kills me to write this, but no. I acknowledge that "free agents" or "mercenaries" are unfair and undermine the integrity of the league. I fully realize that if our goal is to build an honest collegiate league, following the example of NCAA athletics, we need to lay the right foundation to make our vision happen. Sadly, the first step in forming that foundation should be to ban mercs entirely.
What to do with players such as Fanatacist and myself? Not much, sadly, other than encourage them to found their own teams at their own schools (Like Fanatacist, I've tried and failed, but maybe I'll try again). Sure, it will be hard to raise the players, and even if they do, they won't win as much as if they'd been playing for an established school. But for the ones who succeed in raising a team, they'll have the pride of founding and coaching a team of nooblets, and maybe, just maybe, one day they'll look back on their program and proudly watch them go to playoffs.
Although I've loved every single minute of my time with Princeton SC (<3 all of you), I don't think it's fair to allow mercing. If the league rules to ban mercenary/free agent players from the CSL+, I will stand down to honor the will of the league.
To the CSL+ admins: Keep doing a wonderful job. Let's make sure this league is still around when we're grandparents.
Best of luck in the rest of the season, everyone.
-[pu]Magneus
|
On November 12 2009 05:23 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 05:21 DaisyP wrote: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.
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.) 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
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 05:13 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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 05:32 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +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? I actually suggested something like this internally before the season started. =P
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 05:42 PiSan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 05:32 Xeris wrote: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? I actually suggested something like this internally before the season started. =P 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.
In case you didn't notice, this idea wasn't implemented for those exact reasons 
|
On November 12 2009 05:38 DaisyP wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 05:23 Xeris wrote:On November 12 2009 05:21 DaisyP wrote: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.
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.) 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 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.
If you're talking about consistency, how about read the rule we have on mercing, which CLEARLY states "allowed in season, but not in playoffs" . That is consistency, because we're following it
|
On November 12 2009 05:41 duckett wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 05:13 Xeris wrote: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. 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."
Just because he can't play in the playoffs doesn't mean he can't still be a part of the team atmosphere. And despite the fact that the poll has more yes votes, almost the entire discussion has favored 'no'
|
United States10774 Posts
On November 12 2009 05:41 duckett wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 05:13 Xeris wrote: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. 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."
I completely understand what you are saying about Magneus. But the disadvantages and potential problems outweigh unique situations like that (many were discussed in Magneus himself's post). That is why I am against mercing.
The reason why this league has been successful and alive is the competition. People want to win. Teams care. They dedicate the time to prepare strategies in order to take home the victory. All of us Duke students were yelling and having tons of fun against Georgia Tech because we wanted to BEAT them. We loved the competition for the number one spot in our division. Have you ever played a basketball game where it's just for "fun"? It is worthless.
If you take that competitive aspect out of the league, I don't see it going anywhere. Teams sign up because they want to FUN, but in the end, the competition is what keeps this as strong as it is now. It's important to create the right balance of competition and fun.
EDIT: Xeris brings up a very good point. Magneus can still do all of the things you listed even if he can't play in the matches themselves. He's still part of the team and the atmosphere.
|
On November 12 2009 05:50 OneOther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 05:41 duckett wrote:On November 12 2009 05:13 Xeris wrote: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. 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." I completely understand what you are saying about Magneus. But the disadvantages and potential problems outweigh unique situations like that (many were discussed in Magneus himself's post). That is why I am against mercing. The reason why this league has been successful and alive is the competition. People want to win. Teams care. They dedicate the time to prepare strategies in order to take home the victory. All of us Duke students were yelling and having tons of fun against Georgia Tech because we wanted to BEAT them. We loved the competition for the number one spot in our division. Have you ever played a basketball game where it's just for "fun"? It is worthless. If you take that competitive aspect out of the league, I don't see it going anywhere. Teams sign up because they want to FUN, but in the end, the competition is what keeps this as strong as it is now. It's important to create the right balance of competition and fun. EDIT: Xeris brings up a very good point. Magneus can still do all of the things you listed even if he can't play in the matches themselves. He's still part of the team and the atmosphere.
Yeah of course you would talk about basketball, cuz thats what they're only good at apparently =P j/k
I <3 you Ray ^^
|
On November 12 2009 05:47 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 05:38 DaisyP wrote:On November 12 2009 05:23 Xeris wrote:On November 12 2009 05:21 DaisyP wrote: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.
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.) 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 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. If you're talking about consistency, how about read the rule we have on mercing, which CLEARLY states "allowed in season, but not in playoffs" . That is consistency, because we're following it
So then, in this strand of thinking, it comes down to a consistency in rules vs a consistency in values. The decision seems an arbitrary one. I don't think you're in a spot to be an asshole, and belittle the problems other people have with your errors in administration, dismissing them as "whining."
|
I think if this is a truly collegiate competition, mercs shouldn't be allowed at all. I don't know all that much about the CSL, but if friends and city-dwellers are allowed to play it might as well be the "city starleague". The point of dividing teams by college is that people go to those colleges.
The positive side of this being fan-run is that rules can be adjusted for niceness or fairness or whatever, but a 'HARDCORE LEGIT CSL' would have no mercs.
|
It's not as if we're flipping some magic switch, kicking him off the Princeton campus and telling him to go find his own team. 
So let's summarize:
1) All the admins support either the current rule, or a complete removal of mercing.
2) Most of the discussion (aside from the amount of times I've posted) favors 'no'
3) Most of the votes say 'yes' (but aren't vocal supporters, probably just reading the op post and voting yes)
4) Prominent players who are mercs are even supporting the 'no' option.
|
Voted yes. If you allowed them in the regular season they should be allowed in the playoffs. If you don't want people playing for universities they don't attend, then don't allow this 'free agency' rule in the first place. It's incredibly inconsistent to just do a 180 and change the policy for the playoffs.
|
I'm more interested in what the coordinators / schools / players have to say, since I speak from a somewhat biased (and, in a cheesy way, blessed) position of having the fortune to meet our own free agent.
What I don't like about the current rule is that it's a rather crude safety valve that activates at Ro16, kicking out any teams that have depended on outside recruits. The safety valve should probably activate sooner, and in a finer way.
|
On November 12 2009 05:59 Dknight wrote:
Voted yes. If you allowed them in the regular season they should be allowed in the playoffs. If you don't want people playing for universities they don't attend, then don't allow this 'free agency' rule in the first place. It's incredibly inconsistent to just do a 180 and change the policy for the playoffs.
This is a valid point - however in sticking with consistency it would be a bad idea to change the rule... and what will I hope happen is a total elimination of mercing next season because it's caused too many problems.
|
Point of interest: why is this discussion being held here as opposed to at cstarleague, or even by email amongst coordinators and schools?
I personally like the idea of having free agents/mercs, because it allows more people to play that wouldn't have a chance to do so otherwise. It's possible for someone to be dedicated to a team and yet not participate in it, but the strongest bonding/friendship/team unity happens when you actually have players that have a common mission, and who cheer each other on and are cheered for. From a community-building perspective, I'd rather be able to see that continue than not, as it simply brings the SC community closer.
My simple suggestion is as follows: if free agents are recruited to a school, you can only field at most 1 free agent per week, limited to playing 1 set.
|
1. The rules regarding free agents shouldn't be changed when we are almost finished with the season.
2. As for future seasons, either keep the current system or don't allow free agents at all. Having free agents in the playoffs would completely undermine the spirit of a collegiate league.
|
Xeris brings up a good point in the cycle of mercenaries playing for their teams in the playoffs. In a coordinator position, I would want to get the best players as possible to instill a winning atmosphere; nobody likes losing. I could have gotten a few players from another nearby school that are about C level, but I did not register them, knowing that they would be disallowed for the playoffs, and our team crashing out of the first round would be such a big letdown to the whole team, while the mercenaries couldn't do anything about the situation.
No one can determine a person's iCCup rank if they don't ladder much, don't have an account, or has multiple accounts that the person will not tell the administrators about. Even if the person divulges all information, mercenaries play a big role in whether a team makes the playoffs or not; a situation like this was not thought of by the administrators. A mercenary is probably the better player than their fourth member of the school team.
Also, I do not like the fact that schools sign up many players, but only play a select few players play every week, but that is just a pet peeve of mine, nothing to be concerned about here.
|
I think we need to just re-examine the way we do free-agency.
I guess it's too late for this season, but for next season (assuming there will be one) I suggest a different system.
First of all I think we can all agree that any college student in North America, no matter what skill level, deserves a chance to play on a CSL team.
Perhaps instead of having players be "free agents" when their own school does not have enough players to fill out a lineup, I propose we allow different schools to bond together and form joint teams. This is basically what we already do, but we just need to look at it in a different light.
For instance if School A has 3 people who want to play in the CSL and school B has 2 people who want to play, then they would form a joint "School A/School B" team, instead of "players from school B are playing for School A".
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding exactly how free agents such as fana are handled, but I think the way we should do it is that if a school has more than 4 players(maybe 5?), they should not be allowed to combine with another school for a team. After we have a list of schools who are large enough, we can (and by we I guess I mean CSL admins LOL) have remaining schools with under 4 players join together by region to form new teams (and of course, every player on any team would be allowed to play in the play-offs).
Again I'm not exactly sure how free agents are handled in CSL ATM because my team has never dealt with them, but I think this model or something like it would be the best way to handle players on schools without a large enough team.
I still believe that as long as you let free agents play on teams during the regular season you should let them play in the playoffs. Perhaps it is "wrong" the way free agents are handled ATM, but as long as they are allowed to participate in the regular season there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed in the play-offs. By playing in the regular season they already messed up "true" teams from reaching the playoffs. I don't know about everyone else, but I personally would be more upset to see the team I lost to in the regular season lose horribly in playoffs because they can't use their best players than to see them win in the playoffs with their good players.
Not letting them play in the playoffs is just some sort of half-assed rule to somehow regulate "free agency abuse." It doesn't stop teams from putting good players not from their school on their lineup and then it just screws over teams that clearly ARNET abusing it by not even letting them in the playoffs.
CSL is a blast, and every brood war playing student should be able to participate.
|
Korea (South)11573 Posts
I am a free agent / mercenary for New River Community College. I came into the league knowing that even if New River makes it to the playoffs that I would not play. For me, it's a fun league that allows me to meet new people in my local area who like playing starcraft, and I get to play competitive games (yay!)
I have no problem not playing in the playoffs if we magically beat Georgia Tech. I think everyone on my team (Valtyr, MorningMusume11) knew that we'd play in the groups and just play to improve our skill and make friends in the area in a game we all love. Winning CSL isn't as important, sure winning one game or two was the goal, as winning is just... fun! Anything else is well, a bonus.
Georgia Tech will advance no matter their match with us.
I think teams should allow mercenaries. But they should not be able to participate in play offs, such as the rule is now. I think if Starcraft was more defined as an e-Sport and there were official teams/games that the university/college accepts and supports then it would be a different situation. But the way it is now, I think merc. should be allowed to play, but not in playoffs.
|
On November 12 2009 06:35 Ideas wrote:
First of all I think we can all agree that any college student in North America, no matter what skill level, deserves a chance to play on a CSL team.
I don't agree with that. Of course it would be great if everyone could play, but if a school can't put together a team it's reasonable to not allow players from that school to participate.
Also I'd like to add that I don't have a problem with the current system. I think it's a decent compromise.
|
I winced at the merc rule when I first read the CSL+ rules and I think it should be gone next season. That said, let the current mercs play in the playoffs. The current teams have specific stars and identities that shouldn't be changed for the playoffs, the best team in a season should win, but they should remake the league without mercs next season.
|
Voted "NO." Wow, I didn't even know this merc system was allowed. I have to say, I feel somewhat robbed knowing that I lost to someone who doesn't even go to that school. Seriously, where do we draw the line? I guess I'll just apply all my Korean fob friends who don't go to my school and see how well we do.
|
I feel a better question for the OP to have asked would be: Is the current system flawed.
It's easily seen by the discussion so far that the entirety of the discussion participants would've voted yes. Therefore, I believe that the discussion should begin floating away from the topic of should current free agents be allowed to play in the playoffs (which apparently is being answered with a resounding no, even though I feel that if New River beat us they should have a legitimate chance to play in the playoffs due to their special circumstances) to what should the free agent rule be next year. I know the discussion has already begun getting forced into that direction, but I feel as though I should reinforce this idea.
I personally agree with Ideas, we need a system which allows at least the vast majority of collegiate Starcraft players a chance to play in this league. And when I say play, I mean to actually participate. As someone who has yet to play a game in the CSL this season due to my inability at the game of Starcraft, I know that it is still fun to go to a centralized location and root on people that are your friends (or enemies, in the case of Ideas... ) as they try and beat another team. However, it is obvious that teams that cannot field enough players will unfortunately be left out of the league. While allowing collections of two schools to play under one banner would probably be the best way to maximize the number of players, I feel it would be a great injustice to the players who are "mercing" to be placed with a team that is farther away from their current school. This means that they have less personal contact with the other players on the team and less fun overall.
Of course, not allowing "mercing" lowers the participation in the CSL to only schools where an existence of a decent Starcraft talent pool is. I feel that the rule to allow smaller schools to play should also include the condition that the schools be close enough for the players to meet at a face-to-face basis to increase the feeling of representation within the league. Of course, I would also have to agree with the fact that there should probably be a player restriction on "mercing" that way extremely skilled players from two schools don't take up the place of some lesser skilled players (like if we [Ga Tech] merged with Emory, there would never be any hope of some players on Ga Tech playing).
So what I am proposing is to try and aim the discussion at: - maximizing player base to allow everyone a chance to at least participate in the CSL,
- maximizing player interaction with their team by increasing the capability to meet by lowering the distances between schools, and
- limiting the potential for extreme powerhouses by disallowing two teams with deep player pools from combining to create a superteam.
If the CSL admins can find a way to efficiently and fairly implement these three ideas, I feel as though this "mercing" debacle will turn into a system that is fair and allows everyone an equal chance to participate without putting TOO much importance on winning (although winning is definitely fun).
|
I'm confused as to why this mercing system exists in the first place. Yes, it sucks to not have enough people at your school interested in the game to start a team. I go to the wonderfully non-StarCraft oriented University of New Haven. I'm literally a block around the corner from Yale who had a team last year (not sure if they do this year), and I talked with one or two of the guys from the Yale team last season (Hi Dullahan). But I'm not going to go over and try and play for Yale because my school doesn't have the people necessary to form a team. It's the same as a team sport. My school just got football back this year, but if we didn't it's not like the guys could've gone over and tried out for Yale. It just doesn't work that way.
I voted "No." because on principle, if Yale, for example, makes the playoffs on the back of a merc, it's not really Yale in the playoffs, it's that merc.
|
|
|
This would be so much easier in a high school league lol Students that do not have a certain sports team in their school are allowed to go play for another school as long as they go to a school in the area, which fana would qualify for if this was high school but o well
|
|
|
On November 12 2009 07:19 vx70GTOJudgexv wrote:
I'm confused as to why this mercing system exists in the first place. Yes, it sucks to not have enough people at your school interested in the game to start a team. I go to the wonderfully non-StarCraft oriented University of New Haven. I'm literally a block around the corner from Yale who had a team last year (not sure if they do this year), and I talked with one or two of the guys from the Yale team last season (Hi Dullahan). But I'm not going to go over and try and play for Yale because my school doesn't have the people necessary to form a team. It's the same as a team sport. My school just got football back this year, but if we didn't it's not like the guys could've gone over and tried out for Yale. It just doesn't work that way.
I voted "No." because on principle, if Yale, for example, makes the playoffs on the back of a merc, it's not really Yale in the playoffs, it's that merc.
The system exists because some people DO want to have that team atmosphere. Despite the name, a community college rarely has a strong community behind it - SC or otherwise - and so allowing mercs is a matter of being able to draw people into your community. It should be up to the players in question and the teams to work out whether or not they're comfortable having some other guy around playing in their matches in the first place... but it's up to CSL to draw the line where participation stops and carrying starts as long as free agents are allowed.
|
Mercs should not be able to play period imo. They inflate a team's strength. If you use Mercs, then the University of Texas is at a disadvantage. We only have 4 members this year, but we are still making ends meet. I believe that mercs should only be used in division play if the team has less than 4 players. Some teams have mercs and have more than 4 players. How does that make the weaker player that goes to the school feel?
Please do not allow mercs in the team. Defeats the point in a "College" SL, just rename it to Geography SL.
|
While we are discussing the rules, any team that used a free agent from a completely different state should be disqualified. Part the rule states,2. The other university is reasonably close geographically.
If some team in Georgia used someone from Pennsylvania, when Pennsylvania has at least one team in this csl, they should be disqualified because that is a direct violation of the rule.
If we want to talk about consistency, the staff apparently thought it was ok to bend the rules and allow that player to play for a team down in Georgia. I do not see why they can't bend the rules for the playoffs.
|
What was the point in allowing mercs to play in the first place if they weren't allowed to play in the playoffs? They'll have a huge influence on the league with their impact felt by every team. You suddenly take out the mercs and some teams probably don't deserve to be in the playoffs while other teams didn't qualify without using mercs. Changing the rules will ruin the integrity's league this point in the season. Learn from your mistakes, finish out the season in a consistent manner, and make the needed changes for next season.
|
CA10825 Posts
maybe i should just go north 1 mile to koreatown and recruit all the koreans to play for USC in CSL.
|
Read my other posts about that Scott. Although I agree with you that it was a mistake. I'm not going to repeat for a 5th time why we made this rule in the first place.
|
On November 12 2009 08:04 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 07:19 vx70GTOJudgexv wrote:
I'm confused as to why this mercing system exists in the first place. Yes, it sucks to not have enough people at your school interested in the game to start a team. I go to the wonderfully non-StarCraft oriented University of New Haven. I'm literally a block around the corner from Yale who had a team last year (not sure if they do this year), and I talked with one or two of the guys from the Yale team last season (Hi Dullahan). But I'm not going to go over and try and play for Yale because my school doesn't have the people necessary to form a team. It's the same as a team sport. My school just got football back this year, but if we didn't it's not like the guys could've gone over and tried out for Yale. It just doesn't work that way.
I voted "No." because on principle, if Yale, for example, makes the playoffs on the back of a merc, it's not really Yale in the playoffs, it's that merc. The system exists because some people DO want to have that team atmosphere. Despite the name, a community college rarely has a strong community behind it - SC or otherwise - and so allowing mercs is a matter of being able to draw people into your community. It should be up to the players in question and the teams to work out whether or not they're comfortable having some other guy around playing in their matches in the first place... but it's up to CSL to draw the line where participation stops and carrying starts as long as free agents are allowed.
If people want a team environment, then they have two options:
1) Do what I'm doing - try and spark interest in their school and get a team together to compete next season (if any of you bastards reading this go to the University of New Haven, show your damn faces - I'm easily accessible, I have to listen anyways, I'm a USGA Senator, ffs).
2) If you do not want to do that, and your college has no team, find another event - try and revive NASPT/L or w/e it was abbreviated to. That was only limited by border lines, and merging of teams was easier.
imo, ofc.
|
I voted no. Fundamentally, it's unfair to have mercs play in the playoffs, since it is a college league afterall.
However, I do support a B-team league or JV CSL, where a limited amount of mercs can participate. It's always good to be more inclusive. Or you could have regional leagues under a college sponsor. I'm all for being inclusive, but mercs in csl is a bit unfair to people who do go to the college and don't get to play. randomKo makes a valid point
EDIT: I think this season, however, we should finish the league with the same rules were mercs can play during season but not in the playoffs. It may be unfair to some, but it is consistent.
Then teams should start training up their team members who actually go to the college with the mercs.
|
Clearly the unspoken supporters of this motion have nothing new to add. The nay-sayers have already put forth most of their reasons, and apparently the CSL+ management has decided upon a conclusion. I guess the initial rule didn't make sense but this decision would make less. I hope that next season CSL+ does not allow mercenaries so that they back up the words they spoke here (about it being a college sport, collegiate whatever, were opposed to the decision in the first place). If not, then I'd be inclined to believe in the mediocrity of the organization in place, and would feel robbed if they say A now but do B later.
Xeris, and mainly OneOther, there was no need to be dicks, as I said 3 pages ago. I approached this calmly. Fuck you.
I would like this topic to be closed but I can see that there might be more discussion on the matter, so I don't know how much my opinion as the op matters.
EDIT: Also, fuck you for demeaning the team in saying that they will get buttraped by someone else when they have never played each other. No need to disrespect actual people, members of CSL+ and TL, like that. Need an ego boost? Go look at some fat porn or something. Don't talk shit about other teams like they are pieces of trash.
|
random_korean, maybe your school has so many players for a B/C team, but not for the many other schools out there...
|
Also, MCC has a RUTGERS TRANSFER PROGRAM where I take classes on RUTGERS CAMPUS for credits in RUTGERS UNIVERSITY. Wtf?
|
Your situation is the only reason I consented to have a merc rule because the case was so unique.
|
On November 12 2009 08:01 randomKo_Orean wrote:
Hell, our top 10 all exceed C/C- ranking.
+ Show Spoiler +and you still lost to irvine~~~~
Real talk though, there's no reason players that don't go to a school should be able to play for it. If students who have no affiliation with a school are allowed to play, then it's absurd that alumni aren't allowed to play as well.
If you attend a school without a starcraft team, start one! CSL+ isn't about concentrating talent in university powerhouses, it's about spreading the love of fair play and competition, and getting new students involved in the game, which is hard to do when a school's good players are fleeing to already established teams.
|
United States10774 Posts
On November 12 2009 09:30 fanatacist wrote:
Clearly the unspoken supporters of this motion have nothing new to add. The nay-sayers have already put forth most of their reasons, and apparently the CSL+ management has decided upon a conclusion. I guess the initial rule didn't make sense but this decision would make less. I hope that next season CSL+ does not allow mercenaries so that they back up the words they spoke here (about it being a college sport, collegiate whatever, were opposed to the decision in the first place). If not, then I'd be inclined to believe in the mediocrity of the organization in place, and would feel robbed if they say A now but do B later.
Xeris, and mainly OneOther, there was no need to be dicks, as I said 3 pages ago. I approached this calmly. Fuck you.
I would like this topic to be closed but I can see that there might be more discussion on the matter, so I don't know how much my opinion as the op matters.
EDIT: Also, fuck you for demeaning the team in saying that they will get buttraped by someone else when they have never played each other. No need to disrespect actual people, members of CSL+ and TL, like that. Need an ego boost? Go look at some fat porn or something. Don't talk shit about other teams like they are pieces of trash.
Hahahaha well this is really funny.
First of all, I didn't want to be a dick about it until you said:
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.
I stated a fact. You and Clazz played 50% of 1v1 matches as mercs. But you decide to call me ignorant and a dick for no fucking reason. Do you want me to respond with respect? No, I am going to call you out on it. I actually went through the matchlist and used numbers to back it up.
I would also appreciate it if you didn't act like the the almighty righteous person. I would never mean to put down any team because I have respect for all the players and teams participating in this league. I simply meant it wouldn't make a difference, which is completely true and something that both sides would agree with: Georgia Tech would come on top of New River if they fielded their best. It's a truth, what do you want me to do about it? Are ESPN Analysts being dicks when they predict one team would beat another team? I am being objective. MasterAsia and Assem alone should be enough evidence. So stop being the Mr.Righteous. If anything, you are the selfish mother fucker considering the other teams Rutgers beat using mercs in half of their matches don't complain about not making the playoffs. "Now that we made playoffs, can we keep using mercs so that we have better chances against superior teams?" Tell that to all the other fucking teams that didn't even make the playoffs.
I am more irritated by you calling the playoffs "farce" just because you and Clazz won't get to play as mercs. And the fact that you guys played in half of the matches suggests your team is heavily dependent on you two. It's a perfectly legitimate playoffs because no other team was as dependent on mercs as yours. It's the truth. Face it.
So please, stop being hilarious. You are killing me.
EDIT: Talk about being god damn sensitive and having inferiority complex. Yes I truly believe Georgia Tech would beat New River no matter what. So do players on New River, as they said in this thread. Just because I say that the whole merc thing won't change the results, I am calling them pieces of trash? I am disrespecting CSL+, the community, and TL? No, no, and no.
I merely reiterated what players on both sides were saying. You, sir, are a lot funnier than I thought. Fat porn much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
