Actually a little known fact about the NCAA Basketball finals tournament. 65 teams are entered into the tournament and teams 64 and 65 play the ceremonial opening game that feeds into the match against the 1 seed. The theory behind it (and NASL) is that ASSUMING (yes i know flack will occur because no one likes assumptions) that the BEST players were in NASL, the top 16 finishers will be better than any open person who has to qualify separately. Therefore, that player is theoretically the weakest, and has to play the 1 seed. I agree that the open winner is going to be a beast no matter who it is, but i feel like the difference between playing the Open winnder and the 15th seed instead will not be a ginormous difference.

Risen

United States7927 Posts

June 09 2011 02:42 GMT

#24

On June 09 2011 11:34 seiferoth10 wrote:
So the winner of the first seed vs open winner wins and we move on. I don't see an issue here. Surely you're not trying to argue that the open winner will be vastly superior to seeds #2-15?

I will make the argument that the winner of a 1024 open tourney will likely be as good as, if not better than, then 15 seed.

h3nG

46 Posts

June 09 2011 02:47 GMT

#25

I understand why NASL made the rule, but I truly believe there's an oversight in their decision.

My concern is guys like SeleCT, July, Morrow, etc... will end up facing guys like MMA, Losira, in the first round. If I were in the position to grab first, aka SeleCT, I would rather face someone in the lower seed as oppose to the Open bracket winner. So imo, the rule doesn't reward being first seed.

As a spectator, I would not be happy to see July vs someone like MMA in the first round, and see the first seed get knocked out...

AndAgain

United States2621 Posts

June 09 2011 02:48 GMT

#26

Yeah, I think OP makes a good point. It would be better to have the higher seeded players pick who they want to face.

ronpaul012

United States769 Posts

June 09 2011 02:48 GMT

#27

I disagree with you, I think it's okay. If you watch football much, you would know that often times a wild card team that has to win the last 3 games of the season to get into the playoffs stands a good chance at making a run to win it all. Same with winning the open bracket. By the time you get to the top 16, all the players are great.

Hunterai

Thailand842 Posts

June 09 2011 02:50 GMT

#28

Now that you mentioned this, I actually agree. Open winner should get 6th seed (right after the 5 group winner) or maybe even 11th seed (right after 1st and 2nd of group). But I like the 6th seed more IMO.

sc2guy

291 Posts

June 09 2011 02:51 GMT

#29

On June 09 2011 11:28 Kraznaya wrote:
This just underlines NASL's stupidity in general. They invited people like Artosis, Grubby, Painuser, etc. when they clearly weren't the top 50 players in the world, and now you have problems like these.

Read NASL.

h3nG

46 Posts

June 09 2011 02:53 GMT

#30

The only reason I brought this up is because I truly believe that MOST (i know not all) will agree that this rule is silly. NASL has made some bad decisions and they have done a fantastic job fixing all the issues. This is one they can fix before it happens!

oniman999

United States169 Posts

June 09 2011 03:00 GMT

#31

Wont the top 16 part of the tourney be a live in person event? That means the odds of incredibly good Koreans attending will probably be low. It could very easily still happen I suppose, but the reason MMA, MC, Losira, Moon, and July were able to make it to MLG was because their expenses were paid for. Without the clash of the house or MLG-GOMtv partnership, the players would have to pay their own way to the live event and so I don't the division winners will have too much to fear from the open tourney. I could have this all wrong though, NASL finals information is confusing O.O

h3nG

46 Posts

June 09 2011 03:02 GMT

#32

On June 09 2011 12:00 oniman999 wrote:
Wont the top 16 part of the tourney be a live in person event?

Read the article. If you win the open tourney, all your expenses are paid. The Koreans have done poorly (relatively) in NASL because, as Idra pointed out, the latency disadvantage. They will make a stronger showing at the live event.

Fugue

Australia253 Posts

June 09 2011 03:05 GMT

#33

I think it is a valid point, but I'm not so sure NASL would make this change mid-season. Actually, they might hold their breath on changing it. Devil's advocate here.

After all, this is the first season of NASL, and the invites were sent to top players with the caveat that they would have to be playing online through the season and be available to travel for the finals. I can imagine with all the tournaments running, there may have been players not willing to take a punt on that kind of commitment.

But if competitive SC2 in the US keeps on expanding (and/or if latency between regions somehow becomes less of an issue), it may become the place to be for top tier pros, and then the ruling would make a lot more sense.

Every change to the league hurts its stability, so while a lot of changes make sense for now and the future, not every change that makes sense now does.

SanguineS

32 Posts

June 09 2011 03:06 GMT

#34

Standard tournament rules.

I don't see the big fuss. The best player gets the easiest first game. The lowest seeded player gets the hardest first game. If you didn't get an invite you are the lowest seed.

It wouldn't be fair to seed a player winning out of the open bracket above the player who were actually INVITED to play in the league.

oniman999

United States169 Posts

June 09 2011 03:08 GMT

#35

On June 09 2011 12:02 h3nG wrote:

Show nested quote +

Ahh didn't know about the expense paid trip. Yeah that changes everything haha

rsvp

United States2266 Posts

June 09 2011 03:11 GMT

#36

On June 09 2011 11:31 iNcontroL wrote:
fantastic post kraznaya

Would you like to comment on the OP, who brings a valid point, instead of responding to trolls?

I agree 100% with the OP, the winner of the open bracket is certainly going to be a really good player, much better than the lower seeds. Right now it seems like you're punishing the #1 seeded player.

LegendaryZ

United States1583 Posts

June 09 2011 03:11 GMT

#37

On June 09 2011 11:51 sc2guy wrote:

Show nested quote +

Read NASL.

How does the "NA" part even apply as an argument when you already have Europeans and Asians playing in the league anyway. They were clearly poor choices (well, maybe not PainUser at the time) and chosen primarily for their star power rather than any merit of skill. There were most definitely better people that could have taken those spots from both the foreign and Korean communities.

PtM

89 Posts

June 09 2011 03:13 GMT

#38

I think this is a valid point. The motivation behind this kind of seeding is to pair the strongest player with the weakest player, the second strongest player with the second weakest player, and so on. As OP suggests, it's unlikely that the open tournament winner will be the weakest player. Indeed, it is very likely that a top player will make it through, so the seeding probably won't achieve its goal.

However, I also want to emphasize that I don't think this is some devastating issue for the league. It's kind of silly that this even needs to be said, but I think that this is a minor oversight for an otherwise well-designed tournament.

McKTenor13

United States1383 Posts

June 09 2011 03:15 GMT

#39

Not the smartest OP in the world....but you are supposed to assume that everyone in the NASL is the best. They are the 50 in NA or the world or whatever. Whoever wins that open bracket isn't going to be better than the top of the NASL. So therefore it's smart to put open bracket vs. top seed.

And the people bitching about Artosis, Grubby, Painuser, etc. Are you serious? I mean really now. Please read how the freaking tournament works before you start bitching about it. The bottom 16? or 20? or whatever do not make it into the next season. The weaker players will drop out and the stronger ones will come in.