Where are the Minor Leagues? - Page 7

Pull your head out of your ass. Just because you think "OH MAN WE COULD SAVE DYING SC2 WITH ACADEMY TEAMS!!!" doesn't mean it's actually a feasible, sustainable, or even logical idea to implement.

vVv has an academy team too ;p: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=380400

On November 07 2012 03:13 VirgilSC2 wrote:
Here, let me break it down for you:

People don't care to watch "Up & Coming Players" unless it's in the middle of (or right after) a deep run in a major tournament.

There is no RoI on supporting players that have the potential to be great outside of putting them on an academy team (see coL.Academy) and hoping they do well.

You're drastically underestimating the cost of getting exposure for the academy players, not to mention the time it takes to generate content, which is a valuable resource in eSports.

You're asking for one of two things:

Either

1. The existence of teams that create players that become popular/extremely good down the road (These already exist)

OR

2. The creation of academy teams by Major Teams to directly draw players from after training. (This is a model nobody outside of coL uses because of the drawbacks compared to option 1 which already exists)

Pull your head out of your ass. Just because you think "OH MAN WE COULD SAVE DYING SC2 WITH ACADEMY TEAMS!!!" doesn't mean it's actually a feasible, sustainable, or even logical idea to implement.

The viewership for online cups has dropped dramatically with the oversaturation of live events. Combine that with the fact that less than 5% of the viewer base for SC2 actually has interest in watching unknown talented players as opposed to already major players and you have absolutely no incentive to train up players yourself as a Major team when someone else is already doing it for you, otherwise said Major team has to shoulder the financial burden of getting the players to their first LAN events and hope they do well, rather than letting Minor teams (which do exist) shoulder that financial burden and then reap the rewards afterwards offering said player benefits the Minor team cannot, after said player has already established some sort of potential RoI on the investment.

On November 07 2012 05:28 Zennith wrote:




vVv's academy is a great thing, no doubt. But none of those players are close to the caliber we're talking about here.

On November 07 2012 05:28 Zennith wrote:



Really? That's definitely what I'm saying. Hell, for the record, I don't think that SC2 is dying at all. I just do think there's a lack of a clear avenue for top tier talented players to show their stuff outside of lucky breaks at MLG. The whole idea of a thread like this is to ask "What would make it feasible?" Just shooting things down with incessant negativity does nobody any good.

You're saying there's no RoI. Maybe not initially, but that's not the point - the fact that Complexity is able to actually make it work shows that at least on some level the idea is feasible. You aren't looking for an RoI on every single player - you're looking to develop a new Suppy, a new Idra, a new Scarlett. Players who will enhance the team globally, and then once you have a success story you can point to the academy and say - oh hey! Look at that! They came from us and are a product of our training.

Honestly, Goswser is a great example. He's been tearing it up, and actually played pretty damn well at MLG. If he continues to improve at this rate, he'll be a great success story for Col. to point to.





vVv's academy is a great thing, no doubt. But none of those players are close to the caliber we're talking about here.

On November 07 2012 05:33 chadissilent wrote:

Do you think EG developed Suppy? Do you think Acer developed Scarlett? Do you think coL developed goswser?

Like I said on the last page, you're welcome to put up the $6000-10000 it will require to develop players over 6-12 months and then sell their contracts to large teams or strike an affiliation deal. If you're a good judge of talent and have good marketing skills, you should succeed should you not?

Please, tell me. Will you put up that money to develop the players?

On November 07 2012 05:33 KiF1rE wrote:


Well then what do I have to do as a player to even join a mid tier team? or even get on a mid tier teams radar. My goal is obviously to go pro, But I would also just love to be in a team type environment. But thats the thing, what is success? From a competitor standpoint, ive won every lan ive attended in michigan this year which is around 6 total. which I would consider the lower minor leagues of pro gaming, But my MLG runs are always cut short by players like vibe. And this is where I feel trapped, No matter what I do, I cant get on a current existing academy team, Or get connections to join a smaller team that wants to try to grow that I feel comfortable with.

I dont understand the cost of allowing a player practice with a decent team, and allow them to get out to events on their own money, I dont understand how that is a financial burden. And where is option 1 that already exists? I would like to join one of those.

On November 07 2012 05:38 Zennith wrote:



Obviously Acer didn't develop scarlett... good lord. Stop pulling numbers out of your ass. I personally don't have the finances of a major team, and there's absolutely no way it costs 10K to have a player practice with a team in an academy setting (we're not talking team houses or mlg's generally until they've proven they can hang with the highest level players. That's the whole point).

On November 07 2012 05:49 chadissilent wrote:

You'd be surprised how small the budgets for most teams are. EG is a completely different beast, but at that point, they can just buy whatever talent they want.

I'm not pulling numbers out of my ass, this is how much it costs to get players out to events and give them experience in a tournament setting. It's not $6-10k for 1 player for one event. It's that much for a group of players for multiple events. All of our players can hang with the highest level players (hell, most of them practice daily in the private complexity in-house practice sessions), but at this point they are not at the level where a top team would sign them. Why? They don't have the exposure or results yet. How do they get exposure/results? Events.

You can market the hell out of a bunch of sub-par players that will never go anywhere, but nobody will care. Look at the vVv Academy.

If you don't want to put up the money, what makes you think someone else would? If your idea is a surefire bet, take out a loan for it. It's a sure thing, right?

On November 07 2012 06:02 chadissilent wrote:
Hugs, high fives and good feelings aren't what drive business. That is what teams are, businesses. No player is going to stick around your team for years if you they aren't being rewarded. This is NA, not Korea. Some mid-level team will swoop in and offer the player a little of something, and the player bolts. What benefits did Millenium reap from EG signing Stephano once his contract expired? Most mid-level teams that are developing players want to become larger teams. They aren't in it to develop players for other teams, but what other choice do they have when the larger teams offer these players a contract once they get noticed?

I don't think you're understanding the concept of most teams. If you want a bunch of people that play and practice together and have fun, then it is a clan. If you want a group of competitive players striving to be the best and getting good results in tournaments, then you have a team and must treat the players as such.

Every team has started off venture capital (owners' investment) until sponsors come along. Sponsors don't care about up and coming players, they don't care about players at all. They want exposure and marketing benefits. They don't care which game, which players, etc. They just want the marketing, since that's all sponsorship really is.

On November 07 2012 06:08 chadissilent wrote:
Why would EG care to develop players? It's a waste of their time and doesn't follow their marketing strategy.

On November 07 2012 06:09 Zennith wrote:


Because it's always cheaper to develop from within than it is to sign a free-agent.

On November 07 2012 06:11 chadissilent wrote:

That's true. Players developed from within NEVER become free agents, right? NHL superstars never get signed by other teams, or ask for raises from their current team.

On November 07 2012 06:16 chadissilent wrote:
It seems like you are asking for larger teams to extend an olive branch to random players in hopes of them becoming good. Maybe if you list some of the next up and coming players that not many people know about, teams will find it beneficial to pick them up?

I know we would be more than willing to pick up some up and coming players and develop them with our existing team. We had 2 players finish in the top 50 at MLG (jookTo finishing 21st) and all 5 attendees finished in the top 80 IIRC. We can offer a home for the players to practice and develop, as well as benefits once they start performing well.

On November 07 2012 06:34 MonkSEA wrote:
but in the end it's people that are going to watch these tournaments and if there isn't enough people to watch then the scene is just going to keep stagnating as it is till there's nothing left.

On November 07 2012 08:57 VirgilSC2 wrote:

That's one of the points I've been trying to make this entire time.