1. Algonquin College 2. Appalachian State University 3. Arizona State University 4. Auburn University 5. Baruch College 6. Berklee College of Music 7. Binghamton University 8. Boise State University 9. Boston University 10. Brandeis University 11. Brigham Young University 12. British Columbia Institute of Technology 13. Brock University 14. Brown University 15. Butler University 16. California Institute of Technology 17. California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo 18. California State Polytechnic University Pomona 19. California State University Fullerton 20. California State University Long Beach 21. California State University Sacramento 22. California State University San Marcos 23. Carleton College 24. Carleton University 25. Carnegie Mellon University 26. Case Western Reserve University 27. Central Michigan University 28. Chapman University 29. Clarkson University 30. Clemson University 31. Colgate University 32. Colorado School of Mines 33. Colorado State University 34. Columbia University 35. Concordia University 36. Cornell University 37. Creighton University 38. Dalhousie University 39. Dartmouth College 40. DePaul University 41. Drake University 42. Drexel University 43. Duke University 44. Earlham College 45. East Carolina University 46. Eastern Washington University 47. École de technologie supérieure 48. Elon 49. Emory University 50. Florida Atlantic University 51. Florida State University 52. George Fox University 53. George Mason University 54. George Washington University 55. Georgia Institute of Technology 56. Georgia Southern University 57. Grand Valley State University 58. Grande Prairie Regional College 59. Grant MacEwan University 60. Hamilton College 61. Harvard University 62. Harvey Mudd College 63. Hendrix College 64. Humber College 65. Indiana University 66. Iowa State University 67. James Madison University 68. Johns Hopkins University 69. Kent State University 70. Kettering University 71. Lawrence University 72. Louisiana State University 73. Malone University 74. Manitoba 75. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 76. McGill University 77. McMaster University 78. Mercer County Community College 79. Miami University 80. Michigan State University 81. Michigan Technological University 82. Monroe Community College 83. Montana State University 84. Neumont University 85. New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology 86. New Mexico State University 87. New York University 88. North Carolina State University 89. Northeastern University 90. Northern Arizona University 91. Northern Illinois University 92. Northern Kentucky University 93. Northwestern University 94. NYU Poly 95. Oakland University 96. Oberlin College and Conservatory 97. Occidental College 98. Old Dominion University 99. Oregon State University 100. Pacific Lutheran University 101. Pennsylvania State University 102. Peralta Community Colleges 103. Polytechnique de Montreal 104. Princeton University 105. Purdue University 106. Queen's University 107. Randolph College 108. Reed College 109. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 110. Rice University 111. Robert Morris University 112. Rochester Institute Of Technology 113. Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology 114. Rutgers University 115. Ryerson University 116. Saint Olaf College 117. San Diego State University 118. San Francisco State University 119. San Jose State University 120. Santa Rosa Junior College 121. Seneca 122. Simon Fraser University 123. Slippery Rock University 124. South Dakota School of Mines and Technology 125. South Dakota State University 126. Southern Illinois University 127. Southern Methodist University 128. Southern Polytechnic State University 129. Stanford University 130. Stevens Institute of Technology 131. Stockton College 132. Syracuse University 133. Tarleton State University 134. Temple University 135. Texas A&M University 136. Texas State University 137. Texas Tech University 138. The College of New Jersey 139. The College of William and Mary 140. The Ohio State University 141. The United States Air Force Academy 142. The United States Military Academy at West Point 143. The University of Arizona 144. The University of North Carolina at Greensboro 145. Thompson Rivers University 146. Towson University 147. Trinity University 148. Truman State University 149. Tufts University 150. Tulane University 151. UC Berkeley 152. Universite de Montreal 153. Universite de Sherbrooke 154. University at Buffalo 155. University of Alabama 156. University of Alabama at Birmingham 157. University of Alabama Huntsville 158. University of Alberta 159. University of Arkansas 160. University of British Columbia 161. University of Calgary 162. University of California Davis 163. University of California Irvine 164. University of California Los Angeles 165. University of California Merced 166. University of California Riverside 167. University of California San Diego 168. University of California Santa Barbara 169. University of California Santa Cruz 170. University of Central Florida 171. University of Chicago 172. University of Cincinnati 173. University of Colorado 174. University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 175. University of Connecticut 176. University of Dayton 177. University of Florida 178. University of Georgia 179. University of Guelph 180. University of Hawaii 181. University of Houston 182. University of Idaho 183. University of Illinois at Chicago 184. University of Illinois at UC 185. University of Iowa 186. University of Kansas 187. University of Kentucky 188. University of Louisiana at Lafayette 189. University of Louisville 190. University of Mary Washington 191. University of Maryland Baltimore County 192. University of Maryland College Park 193. University of Massachusetts Amherst 194. University of Miami 195. University of Michigan 196. University of Minnesota Twin Cities 197. University of Missouri 198. University of Nebraska at Lincoln 199. University of Nevada Reno 200. University of New Mexico 201. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 202. University of North Carolina at Charlotte 203. University of North Carolina at Wilmington 204. University of North Dakota 205. University of North Texas 206. University of Notre Dame 207. University of Oklahoma 208. University of Ottawa 209. University of Pittsburgh 210. University of Regina 211. University of Rochester 212. University of Saskatchewan 213. University of South Alabama 214. University of South Carolina 215. University of Southern California 216. University of Southern Mississippi 217. University of Tennessee 218. University of Tennessee at Martin 219. University of Texas Arlington 220. University of Texas Austin 221. University of Texas Dallas 222. University of the Pacific 223. University of Toronto 224. University of Utah 225. University of Victoria 226. University of Virginia 227. University of Washington 228. University of Waterloo 229. University of Western Ontario 230. University of Windsor 231. University of Wisconsin Madison 232. University of Wisconsin Stout 233. UOITDurham College 234. Ursinus College 235. US Naval Academy 236. Utah Valley University 237. Virginia Commonwealth University 238. Virginia Tech 239. Washington State University 240. Washington University in Saint Louis 241. Wentworth Institute of Technology 242. Western Illinois University 243. Western Washington University 244. Whitman College 245. Wichita State University 246. Wilfrid Laurier University 247. Winona State University 248. Worcester Polytechnic Institute 249. Yale University 250. York University
The Collegiate Starleague is the premiere collegiate gaming league, with over 220 universities participating this year. The CSL is sponsored by Twitch.tv and Tt eSports! In addition to the league, we run contests, tournaments, and work with universities to host and promote LAN events across North America. Check out www.cstarleague.com for more info!
On September 07 2011 17:44 NB wrote: 3 days till division release. Make it a Live stream event with booth girls and shit like fifa soccer(football) yo!
On September 07 2011 17:44 NB wrote: 3 days till division release. Make it a Live stream event with booth girls and shit like fifa soccer(football) yo!
we have a shortage of cute girls tho. aka none.
What are you talking about, Kacper is very pretty!
On September 07 2011 16:17 CollegiateStarleague wrote: The second half of the season will feature inter-division play, where a team will play a randomly selected team from the same region of every rank: ranks 1-5 will not play a rank 10 team, and ranks 6-10 will not play a rank 1 team.
Here are some examples: My school finished 8-1 in the first half of the season, and sits at Rank #1. In the second half of the season, we will be playing a team (randomly selected from the teams in the same region) from Rank 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
What does this mean, practically speaking? The divisions will not change, we are simply adding inter-division play to allow teams to play other schools in their same region. We are randomly selecting by rank so to ensure that teams are playing an even set of skilled teams (I.E. no one team is playing multiple of #1 ranked teams).
Can we get some clarification on the inter-division play, this part seems ambiguous/inconsistent. The example says that the first place team can play anyone 1st through 9th, however, the explanation says that 6th through 9th cannot play first, am I reading that wrong?
Also, will the playoffs be based only on overall record (including inter-divisional play)? If so, that seems like it could have the potential to be unfair with a 50% random schedule. Imagine the first place team had to play the 4 other first places and 4 other 2nd places, and the 2nd place team from their division had to play only 8th and 9th place teams, surely the records would not be indicative of the better team.
On September 07 2011 16:17 CollegiateStarleague wrote: The second half of the season will feature inter-division play, where a team will play a randomly selected team from the same region of every rank: ranks 1-5 will not play a rank 10 team, and ranks 6-10 will not play a rank 1 team.
Here are some examples: My school finished 8-1 in the first half of the season, and sits at Rank #1. In the second half of the season, we will be playing a team (randomly selected from the teams in the same region) from Rank 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
What does this mean, practically speaking? The divisions will not change, we are simply adding inter-division play to allow teams to play other schools in their same region. We are randomly selecting by rank so to ensure that teams are playing an even set of skilled teams (I.E. no one team is playing multiple of #1 ranked teams).
Can we get some clarification on the inter-division play, this part seems ambiguous/inconsistent. The example says that the first place team can play anyone 1st through 9th, however, the explanation says that 6th through 9th cannot play first, am I reading that wrong?
Also, will the playoffs be based only on overall record (including inter-divisional play)? If so, that seems like it could have the potential to be unfair with a 50% random schedule. Imagine the first place team had to play the 4 other first places and 4 other 2nd places, and the 2nd place team from their division had to play only 8th and 9th place teams, surely the records would not be indicative of the better team.
Thanks in advance for the clarification!
If you have questions you should join us on Saturday, Sep 10 12:00am GMT (GMT+00:00)! Here is the stream: http://www.twitch.tv/cstarleague
On September 07 2011 16:17 CollegiateStarleague wrote: The second half of the season will feature inter-division play, where a team will play a randomly selected team from the same region of every rank: ranks 1-5 will not play a rank 10 team, and ranks 6-10 will not play a rank 1 team.
Here are some examples: My school finished 8-1 in the first half of the season, and sits at Rank #1. In the second half of the season, we will be playing a team (randomly selected from the teams in the same region) from Rank 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
What does this mean, practically speaking? The divisions will not change, we are simply adding inter-division play to allow teams to play other schools in their same region. We are randomly selecting by rank so to ensure that teams are playing an even set of skilled teams (I.E. no one team is playing multiple of #1 ranked teams).
Can we get some clarification on the inter-division play, this part seems ambiguous/inconsistent. The example says that the first place team can play anyone 1st through 9th, however, the explanation says that 6th through 9th cannot play first, am I reading that wrong?
Also, will the playoffs be based only on overall record (including inter-divisional play)? If so, that seems like it could have the potential to be unfair with a 50% random schedule. Imagine the first place team had to play the 4 other first places and 4 other 2nd places, and the 2nd place team from their division had to play only 8th and 9th place teams, surely the records would not be indicative of the better team.
Thanks in advance for the clarification!
If you have questions you should join us on Saturday, Sep 10 12:00am GMT (GMT+00:00)! Here is the stream: http://www.twitch.tv/cstarleague
I will be moving from Cincinnati to Columbus at that time. Is there no other way to get clarification on the rules? I feel like maybe it should be documented or something? Is there at least a way to ask questions without being in the stream chat?
On September 07 2011 16:17 CollegiateStarleague wrote: The second half of the season will feature inter-division play, where a team will play a randomly selected team from the same region of every rank: ranks 1-5 will not play a rank 10 team, and ranks 6-10 will not play a rank 1 team.
Here are some examples: My school finished 8-1 in the first half of the season, and sits at Rank #1. In the second half of the season, we will be playing a team (randomly selected from the teams in the same region) from Rank 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
What does this mean, practically speaking? The divisions will not change, we are simply adding inter-division play to allow teams to play other schools in their same region. We are randomly selecting by rank so to ensure that teams are playing an even set of skilled teams (I.E. no one team is playing multiple of #1 ranked teams).
Can we get some clarification on the inter-division play, this part seems ambiguous/inconsistent. The example says that the first place team can play anyone 1st through 9th, however, the explanation says that 6th through 9th cannot play first, am I reading that wrong?
Also, will the playoffs be based only on overall record (including inter-divisional play)? If so, that seems like it could have the potential to be unfair with a 50% random schedule. Imagine the first place team had to play the 4 other first places and 4 other 2nd places, and the 2nd place team from their division had to play only 8th and 9th place teams, surely the records would not be indicative of the better team.
Thanks in advance for the clarification!
If you have questions you should join us on Saturday, Sep 10 12:00am GMT (GMT+00:00)! Here is the stream: http://www.twitch.tv/cstarleague
I will be moving from Cincinnati to Columbus at that time. Is there no other way to get clarification on the rules? I feel like maybe it should be documented or something? Is there at least a way to ask questions without being in the stream chat?
It is also going to be available in VOD afterward.
On September 07 2011 16:17 CollegiateStarleague wrote: The second half of the season will feature inter-division play, where a team will play a randomly selected team from the same region of every rank: ranks 1-5 will not play a rank 10 team, and ranks 6-10 will not play a rank 1 team.
Here are some examples: My school finished 8-1 in the first half of the season, and sits at Rank #1. In the second half of the season, we will be playing a team (randomly selected from the teams in the same region) from Rank 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
What does this mean, practically speaking? The divisions will not change, we are simply adding inter-division play to allow teams to play other schools in their same region. We are randomly selecting by rank so to ensure that teams are playing an even set of skilled teams (I.E. no one team is playing multiple of #1 ranked teams).
Can we get some clarification on the inter-division play, this part seems ambiguous/inconsistent. The example says that the first place team can play anyone 1st through 9th, however, the explanation says that 6th through 9th cannot play first, am I reading that wrong?
Also, will the playoffs be based only on overall record (including inter-divisional play)? If so, that seems like it could have the potential to be unfair with a 50% random schedule. Imagine the first place team had to play the 4 other first places and 4 other 2nd places, and the 2nd place team from their division had to play only 8th and 9th place teams, surely the records would not be indicative of the better team.
Thanks in advance for the clarification!
If you have questions you should join us on Saturday, Sep 10 12:00am GMT (GMT+00:00)! Here is the stream: http://www.twitch.tv/cstarleague
I will be moving from Cincinnati to Columbus at that time. Is there no other way to get clarification on the rules? I feel like maybe it should be documented or something? Is there at least a way to ask questions without being in the stream chat?
It is also going to be available in VOD afterward.
I assumed that would be the case, but I also assume I can't ask questions to the VOD. How do I make sure they answer my question?
On September 07 2011 16:17 CollegiateStarleague wrote: The second half of the season will feature inter-division play, where a team will play a randomly selected team from the same region of every rank: ranks 1-5 will not play a rank 10 team, and ranks 6-10 will not play a rank 1 team.
Here are some examples: My school finished 8-1 in the first half of the season, and sits at Rank #1. In the second half of the season, we will be playing a team (randomly selected from the teams in the same region) from Rank 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
What does this mean, practically speaking? The divisions will not change, we are simply adding inter-division play to allow teams to play other schools in their same region. We are randomly selecting by rank so to ensure that teams are playing an even set of skilled teams (I.E. no one team is playing multiple of #1 ranked teams).
Can we get some clarification on the inter-division play, this part seems ambiguous/inconsistent. The example says that the first place team can play anyone 1st through 9th, however, the explanation says that 6th through 9th cannot play first, am I reading that wrong?
Also, will the playoffs be based only on overall record (including inter-divisional play)? If so, that seems like it could have the potential to be unfair with a 50% random schedule. Imagine the first place team had to play the 4 other first places and 4 other 2nd places, and the 2nd place team from their division had to play only 8th and 9th place teams, surely the records would not be indicative of the better team.
Thanks in advance for the clarification!
If you have questions you should join us on Saturday, Sep 10 12:00am GMT (GMT+00:00)! Here is the stream: http://www.twitch.tv/cstarleague
I will be moving from Cincinnati to Columbus at that time. Is there no other way to get clarification on the rules? I feel like maybe it should be documented or something? Is there at least a way to ask questions without being in the stream chat?
It is also going to be available in VOD afterward.
I assumed that would be the case, but I also assume I can't ask questions to the VOD. How do I make sure they answer my question?
On September 07 2011 16:17 CollegiateStarleague wrote: The second half of the season will feature inter-division play, where a team will play a randomly selected team from the same region of every rank: ranks 1-5 will not play a rank 10 team, and ranks 6-10 will not play a rank 1 team.
Here are some examples: My school finished 8-1 in the first half of the season, and sits at Rank #1. In the second half of the season, we will be playing a team (randomly selected from the teams in the same region) from Rank 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
What does this mean, practically speaking? The divisions will not change, we are simply adding inter-division play to allow teams to play other schools in their same region. We are randomly selecting by rank so to ensure that teams are playing an even set of skilled teams (I.E. no one team is playing multiple of #1 ranked teams).
Can we get some clarification on the inter-division play, this part seems ambiguous/inconsistent. The example says that the first place team can play anyone 1st through 9th, however, the explanation says that 6th through 9th cannot play first, am I reading that wrong?
Also, will the playoffs be based only on overall record (including inter-divisional play)? If so, that seems like it could have the potential to be unfair with a 50% random schedule. Imagine the first place team had to play the 4 other first places and 4 other 2nd places, and the 2nd place team from their division had to play only 8th and 9th place teams, surely the records would not be indicative of the better team.
Thanks in advance for the clarification!
Hi! Sorry for the confusion. It should be:
rank 1 teams will not play rank 10 teams (and so rank 10 teams will not play rank 1 teams).
All teams will have to play one of every rank. No team will play multiple rank 4's or multiple rank 1's.
On September 07 2011 16:17 CollegiateStarleague wrote: The second half of the season will feature inter-division play, where a team will play a randomly selected team from the same region of every rank: ranks 1-5 will not play a rank 10 team, and ranks 6-10 will not play a rank 1 team.
Here are some examples: My school finished 8-1 in the first half of the season, and sits at Rank #1. In the second half of the season, we will be playing a team (randomly selected from the teams in the same region) from Rank 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
What does this mean, practically speaking? The divisions will not change, we are simply adding inter-division play to allow teams to play other schools in their same region. We are randomly selecting by rank so to ensure that teams are playing an even set of skilled teams (I.E. no one team is playing multiple of #1 ranked teams).
Can we get some clarification on the inter-division play, this part seems ambiguous/inconsistent. The example says that the first place team can play anyone 1st through 9th, however, the explanation says that 6th through 9th cannot play first, am I reading that wrong?
Also, will the playoffs be based only on overall record (including inter-divisional play)? If so, that seems like it could have the potential to be unfair with a 50% random schedule. Imagine the first place team had to play the 4 other first places and 4 other 2nd places, and the 2nd place team from their division had to play only 8th and 9th place teams, surely the records would not be indicative of the better team.
east and west, you guys gona have same set up as red and blue last season or there will be more division on west? as far as i know most(majority) of the registered team are on west coast right?
East is crazy concentrated. You have no idea. West didn't step up their game this season D:
The regional breakdown looks something like: West, Central, East/Southeast, and North. You will probably see more teams in the Central and East/Southeast regions (>60 while others are <60) because the regional LANs are located in those areas.
ranks 5,6,7 by ELO all in the same division (Kimeran). Tough break for schools like UC Irvine and UC San Diego. They both are top teams but neither will be able to be first in their division.
On September 17 2011 13:13 hazelynut wrote: What's wrong with the sorting? I'm not sure if I'm seeing the same thing...
The sorting only sorts the entries on the current page instead of every entry. For example if I wanted to find someone with the character ID 'zyzyz', I should be able to do reverse sorting by character and have it pop up at the top, however ZestyPickle appears at the top, with no other Characters that start with Z, so in order to find zyzyz, I have to do a sort in every single page until I find it.
Whose idea was it to sort schools by region... there is some huge discrepancy in competitiveness between the divisions. This would not fly in a real tournament.
On September 18 2011 04:37 adrenaLinG wrote: Whose idea was it to sort schools by region... there is some huge discrepancy in competitiveness between the divisions. This would not fly in a real tournament.
Can you name me a pro sports league in America whose divisions are NOT sorted geographically?
Is it too late to make a CSL team at my school for this season? I realize the deadline has passed and completely understand if it's too late. I just found out the UPenn team is suspended. I've met with some people who would be interested in playing, and we would accept a forfeit for the games already played.
I realize it's a huge hassle for you and not very likely, but I just wanted to make sure. Thanks!
Edit: I sent you guys an email as well but you don't have to respond to both that and this. Either is fine. Thanks again.
"Lineups for Sunday Divisions are due Thursday night, 11:59pm PST" Has that officially been changed to Tuesday 11:59pm PST? The deadline still says Tuesday when I try to submit line-ups for the second week.
On September 18 2011 04:37 adrenaLinG wrote: Whose idea was it to sort schools by region... there is some huge discrepancy in competitiveness between the divisions. This would not fly in a real tournament.
Can you name me a pro sports league in America whose divisions are NOT sorted geographically?
Pro Sports Leagues are played in-person, not online. I'm sure if travel convenience was not a priority, they'd do it differently.
On September 18 2011 04:37 adrenaLinG wrote: Whose idea was it to sort schools by region... there is some huge discrepancy in competitiveness between the divisions. This would not fly in a real tournament.
Can you name me a pro sports league in America whose divisions are NOT sorted geographically?
Pro Sports Leagues are played in-person, not online. I'm sure if travel convenience was not a priority, they'd do it differently.
There are in fact regional LANs, so travel is a priority here too.
Have you guys thought about adding CSL matches to the TL calendar? Not a separate event for each match, but one event during each of the Thursday/Friday/Saturday/Sunday match times, so casters from the schools can list their streams under the event and get more people watching/interested in the CSL.
On September 18 2011 04:37 adrenaLinG wrote: Whose idea was it to sort schools by region... there is some huge discrepancy in competitiveness between the divisions. This would not fly in a real tournament.
Can you name me a pro sports league in America whose divisions are NOT sorted geographically?
Are you kidding me? I'm all for "e-sports" but this is like pitting the Little League against the Mariners.
Compare for example, Andromeda Division and Nova Division.
Andromeda Division has no single school with a grand masters, and the majority of schools have one or none masters players.
Nova Division has two schools with two grand masters, and the majority of schools have an entire roster of five or more high masters players.
I don't care about geographical distribution for emulating "real sports" when it's creating huge gaps in fair skill play and making it unfair whereby some divisions are way competitive than others. Making it Top 4 in one division means beating out Grand Masters players -- where other divisions, it means just beating diamond players. You call this making it an "e-sport"?
And even if it was based on geography, why is Kwantlen Polytechnic University in the Andromeda when every other Western Canadian school is in Nova?
On September 18 2011 05:17 shindigs wrote: A lot of schools requested they be sorted with nearby schools.
Well let me formally request not to be sorted with nearby schools.
On September 19 2011 23:18 Kinky wrote: "Lineups for Sunday Divisions are due Thursday night, 11:59pm PST" Has that officially been changed to Tuesday 11:59pm PST? The deadline still says Tuesday when I try to submit line-ups for the second week.
All lineups are due Tuesday. This info will be corrected soon, thanks for pointing it out.
On September 18 2011 04:37 adrenaLinG wrote: Whose idea was it to sort schools by region... there is some huge discrepancy in competitiveness between the divisions. This would not fly in a real tournament.
Can you name me a pro sports league in America whose divisions are NOT sorted geographically?
Are you kidding me? I'm all for "e-sports" but this is like pitting the Little League against the Mariners.
Compare for example, Andromeda Division and Nova Division.
Andromeda Division has no single school with a grand masters, and the majority of schools have one or none masters players.
Nova Division has two schools with two grand masters, and the majority of schools have an entire roster of five or more high masters players.
I don't care about geographical distribution for emulating "real sports" when it's creating huge gaps in fair skill play and making it unfair whereby some divisions are way competitive than others. Making it Top 4 in one division means beating out Grand Masters players -- where other divisions, it means just beating diamond players. You call this making it an "e-sport"?
And even if it was based on geography, why is Kwantlen Polytechnic University in the Andromeda when every other Western Canadian school is in Nova?
On September 18 2011 05:17 shindigs wrote: A lot of schools requested they be sorted with nearby schools.
Well let me formally request not to be sorted with nearby schools.
Only half of the season is played within your division, while the second half is played with schools in other divisions. Your total score and playoff qualifications are based off your performance within your division and also against schools outside your division. This is meant to balance such skill gaps.
For example, say a school in a division with no masters players gets top of their division. They are then pitted against other schools in other divisions (Rank 1-9) in the second half of the season. Schools from all divisions will be playing other schools of all skill levels. A perk of this format is when we make divisions, we can have these divisions where schools won't be frustrated getting 3-0 every week.
We're balancing competition and accessibility, and we feel the format is a good compromise.
On September 18 2011 04:37 adrenaLinG wrote: Whose idea was it to sort schools by region... there is some huge discrepancy in competitiveness between the divisions. This would not fly in a real tournament.
Can you name me a pro sports league in America whose divisions are NOT sorted geographically?
Are you kidding me? I'm all for "e-sports" but this is like pitting the Little League against the Mariners.
Compare for example, Andromeda Division and Nova Division.
Andromeda Division has no single school with a grand masters, and the majority of schools have one or none masters players.
Nova Division has two schools with two grand masters, and the majority of schools have an entire roster of five or more high masters players.
I don't care about geographical distribution for emulating "real sports" when it's creating huge gaps in fair skill play and making it unfair whereby some divisions are way competitive than others. Making it Top 4 in one division means beating out Grand Masters players -- where other divisions, it means just beating diamond players. You call this making it an "e-sport"?
And even if it was based on geography, why is Kwantlen Polytechnic University in the Andromeda when every other Western Canadian school is in Nova?
On September 18 2011 05:17 shindigs wrote: A lot of schools requested they be sorted with nearby schools.
Well let me formally request not to be sorted with nearby schools.
Hey dood. To answer your question:
1) Schools voted to have divisions sorted geographically. We tried our best to accommodate everyone as much as possible. Obviously this wasn't 100% possible, some people got left out, etc.
2) This means that there might be some skill imbalance in divisions because there are regional skill imbalances.
3) Inter-division play is one measure that we're taking to help alleviate this.
There is no perfect way to do it, but we feel like this is most reasonable for what we're trying to accomplish. Thanks for your concern though!! We want to make the CSL as enjoyable as possible for everyone
adrenaLinG, In addition to the points that Xeris made, you might want to consider that over half of the teams will make the playoffs. If you are a championship level team, there is no way you'll be missing the playoffs unless you lose several games against teams worse than you. (In which case I think we could all agree, such a team would not deserve to be in the playoffs.)
I seem to have misplaced certain info in my head. Alas, the pointer is gone. Anyhows, when exactly is the first lan? I recall it being in November but not whether or not it conflicts with MLG Providence (Nov 18-20).
lol talk about geography imba... on left hand side is fox division with waterloo #2 NA with whole bunch of new schools. Mean while on right handside UCDavis and UC Berkley fighting with guns and blood
On September 20 2011 09:03 NB wrote: lol talk about geography imba... on left hand side is fox division with waterloo #2 NA with whole bunch of new schools. Mean while on right handside UCDavis and UC Berkley fighting with guns and blood
On September 19 2011 23:18 Kinky wrote: "Lineups for Sunday Divisions are due Thursday night, 11:59pm PST" Has that officially been changed to Tuesday 11:59pm PST? The deadline still says Tuesday when I try to submit line-ups for the second week.
All lineups are due Tuesday. This info will be corrected soon, thanks for pointing it out.
Can I ask why it's being changed to Tuesday? This makes it so that schools that play later in the week have less time to decide their line-ups. Sunday divisions have only a little over 2 days to decide the line-ups which, in my opinion, isn't a very comfortable frame of time.
On September 19 2011 23:18 Kinky wrote: "Lineups for Sunday Divisions are due Thursday night, 11:59pm PST" Has that officially been changed to Tuesday 11:59pm PST? The deadline still says Tuesday when I try to submit line-ups for the second week.
All lineups are due Tuesday. This info will be corrected soon, thanks for pointing it out.
Can I ask why it's being changed to Tuesday? This makes it so that schools that play later in the week have less time to decide their line-ups. Sunday divisions have only a little over 2 days to decide the line-ups which, in my opinion, isn't a very comfortable frame of time.
So I just learned that it's Tuesday for now, but we'll adjust it back to the original lineup deadline schedule (due 3 days ahead of match time). Currently its not supported/coded into the website, and our web dev (who is amazing) is currently travelling to Poland and will be back on Wednesday so it won't be implemented into the site right away.
We know its a bit of a rush but it should be fixed up soon. If you have any more questions feel free to PM on TL, or email us.
On September 19 2011 23:18 Kinky wrote: "Lineups for Sunday Divisions are due Thursday night, 11:59pm PST" Has that officially been changed to Tuesday 11:59pm PST? The deadline still says Tuesday when I try to submit line-ups for the second week.
All lineups are due Tuesday. This info will be corrected soon, thanks for pointing it out.
Can I ask why it's being changed to Tuesday? This makes it so that schools that play later in the week have less time to decide their line-ups. Sunday divisions have only a little over 2 days to decide the line-ups which, in my opinion, isn't a very comfortable frame of time.
So I just learned that it's Tuesday for now, but we'll adjust it back to the original lineup deadline schedule (due 3 days ahead of match time). Currently its not supported/coded into the website, and our web dev (who is amazing) is currently travelling to Poland and will be back on Wednesday so it won't be implemented into the site right away.
We know its a bit of a rush but it should be fixed up soon. If you have any more questions feel free to PM on TL, or email us.
Does that mean there will be a standings page soon too?
On September 19 2011 23:18 Kinky wrote: "Lineups for Sunday Divisions are due Thursday night, 11:59pm PST" Has that officially been changed to Tuesday 11:59pm PST? The deadline still says Tuesday when I try to submit line-ups for the second week.
All lineups are due Tuesday. This info will be corrected soon, thanks for pointing it out.
Can I ask why it's being changed to Tuesday? This makes it so that schools that play later in the week have less time to decide their line-ups. Sunday divisions have only a little over 2 days to decide the line-ups which, in my opinion, isn't a very comfortable frame of time.
So I just learned that it's Tuesday for now, but we'll adjust it back to the original lineup deadline schedule (due 3 days ahead of match time). Currently its not supported/coded into the website, and our web dev (who is amazing) is currently travelling to Poland and will be back on Wednesday so it won't be implemented into the site right away.
We know its a bit of a rush but it should be fixed up soon. If you have any more questions feel free to PM on TL, or email us.
Does that mean there will be a standings page soon too?
Yeah, standings/schedule, match ticker, replay packs will all return this weekend.
Is there any way to fix any errors caused by the site? I submitted my line-up today [Concordia University verus. McGill] and it only registered 3 of the 4 people I lined-up.
It told me I was missing one, so I added the last guy in applied.
Now I go to check and it says I'm still missing one and the submissions are closed. But I made sure I put in that 4th guy, especially when the site told me that I was missing a 4th...
On September 28 2011 16:43 Torte de Lini wrote: Is there any way to fix any errors caused by the site? I submitted my line-up today [Concordia University verus. McGill] and it only registered 3 of the 4 people I lined-up.
It told me I was missing one, so I added the last guy in applied.
Now I go to check and it says I'm still missing one and the submissions are closed. But I made sure I put in that 4th guy, especially when the site told me that I was missing a 4th...
Ugh, now I can't even submit our 4th guy.
Send an email, we'll look into it and help you out. Sorry you're having troubles!
On September 30 2011 02:33 Kinky wrote: Is there a way to fix the mass charmanders on my team page without having everyone add their profile link?
This is a secondary bug that we're going to be working on fixing once all the site features are updated and running once again!
To expand on this (I actually came up with the Charmander idea on a separate CSL stats aggregator that was then implemented in a better way into the CSL page), the problem is that when one registers an account on the CSL page, it only asks for username + id.
Now, it used to be back in October 2010 or so that with that information alone you could find a user's profile on bnet. However, as of aound November-December 2010, Blizzard hid the ability to do this - so it is not usable anymore. However, SC2Ranks had associated username+id with player profiles already, and in its API included a function to find someone's profile by providing username and id as parameters. This doesn't work for everyone - there was some other change in the underlying representation on the Blizzard end of things, so at that time only about 80% of people could be found with this data, which went down over time due to a variety of factors.
As far as I know right now, just having a username and id # most of the time will not allow you to find someone's battle.net profile page. As such, this information is usually insufficient - and results in Charmanders. The only reliable method I know atm is to have the URL link to the player's battle.net or sc2ranks page.
Of course I haven't looked into this for some months, but this is probably mostly still true.
hmm the charmander bug is bc the desync between CSL and sc2ranks i think. It looks like CSL leech data from sc2ranks once a day and anything has a long response time they gona return charmander?
There should be a way to leech data directly from user battle.net webpage i think, those guys from wellplayed has been using it since the very beginning.
also people should try to live stream UWaterloo vs York this weekend, its gona be exciting.
On September 30 2011 03:17 NB wrote: hmm the charmander bug is bc the desync between CSL and sc2ranks i think. It looks like CSL leech data from sc2ranks once a day and anything has a long response time they gona return charmander?
There should be a way to leech data directly from user battle.net webpage i think, those guys from wellplayed has been using it since the very beginning.
also people should try to live stream UWaterloo vs York this weekend, its gona be exciting.
On September 30 2011 03:17 NB wrote: hmm the charmander bug is bc the desync between CSL and sc2ranks i think. It looks like CSL leech data from sc2ranks once a day and anything has a long response time they gona return charmander?
There should be a way to leech data directly from user battle.net webpage i think, those guys from wellplayed has been using it since the very beginning.
also people should try to live stream UWaterloo vs York this weekend, its gona be exciting.
That's not the reason, read above ^
EtherealDeath outlined the problem pretty well. There is an additional problem w/ timeouts because the sc2ranks site has been particularly slow as of late. As Xeris said, we will play around with some fixes once the todo list reaches that point :|
On September 28 2011 16:43 Torte de Lini wrote: Is there any way to fix any errors caused by the site? I submitted my line-up today [Concordia University verus. McGill] and it only registered 3 of the 4 people I lined-up.
It told me I was missing one, so I added the last guy in applied.
Now I go to check and it says I'm still missing one and the submissions are closed. But I made sure I put in that 4th guy, especially when the site told me that I was missing a 4th...
Ugh, now I can't even submit our 4th guy.
Send an email, we'll look into it and help you out. Sorry you're having troubles!
Sent, all is fixed. Although the site still thinks we're missing one despite it manually put in.
On September 28 2011 16:43 Torte de Lini wrote: Is there any way to fix any errors caused by the site? I submitted my line-up today [Concordia University verus. McGill] and it only registered 3 of the 4 people I lined-up.
It told me I was missing one, so I added the last guy in applied.
Now I go to check and it says I'm still missing one and the submissions are closed. But I made sure I put in that 4th guy, especially when the site told me that I was missing a 4th...
Ugh, now I can't even submit our 4th guy.
Send an email, we'll look into it and help you out. Sorry you're having troubles!
Sent, all is fixed. Although the site still thinks we're missing one despite it manually put in.
On September 30 2011 02:33 Kinky wrote: Is there a way to fix the mass charmanders on my team page without having everyone add their profile link?
This is a secondary bug that we're going to be working on fixing once all the site features are updated and running once again!
To expand on this (I actually came up with the Charmander idea on a separate CSL stats aggregator that was then implemented in a better way into the CSL page), the problem is that when one registers an account on the CSL page, it only asks for username + id.
Now, it used to be back in October 2010 or so that with that information alone you could find a user's profile on bnet. However, as of aound November-December 2010, Blizzard hid the ability to do this - so it is not usable anymore. However, SC2Ranks had associated username+id with player profiles already, and in its API included a function to find someone's profile by providing username and id as parameters. This doesn't work for everyone - there was some other change in the underlying representation on the Blizzard end of things, so at that time only about 80% of people could be found with this data, which went down over time due to a variety of factors.
As far as I know right now, just having a username and id # most of the time will not allow you to find someone's battle.net profile page. As such, this information is usually insufficient - and results in Charmanders. The only reliable method I know atm is to have the URL link to the player's battle.net or sc2ranks page.
Of course I haven't looked into this for some months, but this is probably mostly still true.
I provided a bnet url but it still makes me a charmander.... strange
On September 28 2011 16:43 Torte de Lini wrote: Is there any way to fix any errors caused by the site? I submitted my line-up today [Concordia University verus. McGill] and it only registered 3 of the 4 people I lined-up.
It told me I was missing one, so I added the last guy in applied.
Now I go to check and it says I'm still missing one and the submissions are closed. But I made sure I put in that 4th guy, especially when the site told me that I was missing a 4th...
Ugh, now I can't even submit our 4th guy.
Send an email, we'll look into it and help you out. Sorry you're having troubles!
Sent, all is fixed. Although the site still thinks we're missing one despite it manually put in.
On September 28 2011 16:43 Torte de Lini wrote: Is there any way to fix any errors caused by the site? I submitted my line-up today [Concordia University verus. McGill] and it only registered 3 of the 4 people I lined-up.
It told me I was missing one, so I added the last guy in applied.
Now I go to check and it says I'm still missing one and the submissions are closed. But I made sure I put in that 4th guy, especially when the site told me that I was missing a 4th...
Ugh, now I can't even submit our 4th guy.
Send an email, we'll look into it and help you out. Sorry you're having troubles!
Sent, all is fixed. Although the site still thinks we're missing one despite it manually put in.
Hmm by chance in the database, for individual sets, are the player entries by username rather than a unique player id#? Asking because my record shows up as 4-2 overall, but I have many more games played than that (assuming that this goes into previous seasons since iMpEndymion is at 20-3). Now, I did change my username late last season, so if the stats page is searching by username, that would explain the discrepancy.
On October 13 2011 04:05 EtherealDeath wrote: Hmm by chance in the database, for individual sets, are the player entries by username rather than a unique player id#? Asking because my record shows up as 4-2 overall, but I have many more games played than that (assuming that this goes into previous seasons since iMpEndymion is at 20-3). Now, I did change my username late last season, so if the stats page is searching by username, that would explain the discrepancy.
I have a question, how do they determine playoffs, seeding and how many teams get in. I have looked on the csl website but couldn't find the information I was looking for.
bumping this thread, perhaps I can spark a productive debate.
As we head into playoffs, a topic of discussion has been whether or not to implement Bo7 or Bo9 (the regular season was all Bo5). The main argument against it is that it hurts smaller schools. I wrote a post on the CSL website detailing my thoughts on the matter, and I would hope that any of you who agree with me please let CSL know that you support a change to Bo7 for the playoffs on Twitter or Facebook.
The post, as follows:
I don't agree with the argument that Bo7 hurts small schools in playoffs. An integral part of any collegiate sport is PUBLICITY and HYPE. I guarantee that at least 6 people at your school have laptops capable of running starcraft 2 and can afford to buy the game. If you go to a small school, try to go to all of the tech/game related clubs and show people some sc2 pro matches and explain why it's a game worth playing.
Let me first explain why a Bo5 is not good for the growth and longevity of the CSL. It all comes down to what I call the "super-star effect", which is when one player (usually a pro/sponsored player) can carry a team all the way to playoffs and beyond. Now, the super-star in it of itself is actually quite good for everyone, he brings in outside attention and people will want to watch his games. This is good for sponsorship reasons, as well as for inspiring other college students to play more. However, a problem arises when a team completely relies on the super-star to get deep in a tournament. I can't speak for all the CSL pro players, but it's certainly possible for them to never attend a club meeting, never help with campus recruiting, and never coach/train with other team members. In fact, I kind of doubt that they would do all of those things very often because they are sponsored and have bigger things to train for.
Now I know what you're thinking. You're saying, "Well Erik, you handsome devil, there is this PROGAMER_X_ who goes to club meetings all the time and loves his team so much that he gives them all free coaching and even organized a bake sale on campus to raise awareness for the CSL. Super-stars are great and we should support them!"
Well, I would completely agree with that point! And I would also point out that in no way does changing to a Bo7 prevent any of that goodness from happening. All it does is incentivise super-stars to work more closely with their team in recruiting and training other players! You think it's cool when a pro plays in the CSL? Now what if the entire team was handpicked and coached by him. We should encourage teams to be large and deep, and IMO having an active pro-gamer on the roster makes that way more likely to occur.
I understand that a lot of schools are having problems with players not sticking around, and that's understandable since people get busy and things pop up that prevent the playing of SC2. But even holding a private barcraft or club meeting once or twice a month can go a long way in getting people invested in ESPORTS, SC2, and the CSL. Yes, it's hard work to keep people interested when you have small community, but it definitely can be done. If, for whatever reason, your school manages to get to the playoffs but somehow cannot get 6 or 7 people to play, then I think it is completely fair for those schools to forfeit matches they cannot cover. Is it disadvantageous? Of course it is. It is unfair? No, I don't think so. Recruiting and marketing is just part of how the CSL works.
Random side-rant: The fact that there is a 2v2 in the Bo5 means that one player can represent about half of the team's skill (2v2 is way too volatile with the current map pool to be considered serious...). IMO that is way too much. Also, the CSL claims to be helping smaller schools with this format by giving them a chance to win in an unstable matchup. But if they just got rid of the 1v1, then that would actually make it easier for schools with less people to participate in the first place. And there's still a 1/9 chance for PvP, so schools with less skilled players still have the capability for an exciting upset.
TLDR:
Bo7 is the best way to encourage collegiate ESPORTS growth and diminish the "superstar" effect. We need to encourage hype and promotional activities in as many communities as possible. A Bo5 isn't fair to schools that work hard to recruit and train a lot of solid players. A Bo7 or maybe even a Bo9 in the late rounds encourages all schools to vamp up recruiting efforts and training between players. The only negative is that maybe a school with a student body of 5 people will not be able to participate.
In general, I think a change to a more competitive format will increase the legitimacy and popularity of the CSL in a way that greatly outweighs the chance that a few teams might not be able to compete due to not having 6 eligible players.
Im coordinator @ HMC and I have no problems with Bo7 and I think it will be kinda cool.
I must say you are pretty mean for shitting on HMC after all. I mean, last season we had 0 3-2 wins and this season we have 4 3-2 wins (so most of our wins aren't 3-2 wins)
Also, we are a school with 750 people (one of the smallest colleges I'm sure). So we are a small school, where everyone knows everyone and there is no handpicking shit that happens. Stop making up random bullshit when you don't even know anything about our school.
BO5. If BO7, then players who play in 2v2 should be able to play in 1v1, just like last season. I have a hard enough time getting 5 players to show up on Saturday as it is. I'm not the only coordinator with this problem. Just look at the number of match forfeits.
Im coordinator @ HMC and I have no problems with Bo7 and I think it will be kinda cool.
I must say you are pretty mean for shitting on HMC after all. I mean, last season we had 0 3-2 wins and this season we have 4 3-2 wins (so most of our wins aren't 3-2 wins)
Also, we are a school with 750 people (one of the smallest colleges I'm sure). So we are a small school, where everyone knows everyone and there is no handpicking shit that happens. Stop making up random bullshit when you don't even know anything about our school.
kthx cu in playoffs should be fun
never meant to sound mean to HMC, just happened to use your school name hypothetically since you guys house the most famous CSL progamer. Sorry if it came out that way, I was getting kind of exhausted by the end of the rant.
edit: changed it to avoid further confusion. GLHF in playoffs mate!
On March 20 2012 14:14 T.O.P. wrote: BO5. If BO7, then players who play in 2v2 should be able to play in 1v1, just like last season. I have a hard enough time getting 5 players to show up on Saturday as it is. I'm not the only coordinator with this problem. Just look at the number of match forfeits.
Yeah, I think if it were Bo7 then players in the 2v2 should be allowed to play in one other 1v1 set. Either that or get rid of 2v2 altogether.
On March 20 2012 14:14 T.O.P. wrote: BO5. If BO7, then players who play in 2v2 should be able to play in 1v1, just like last season. I have a hard enough time getting 5 players to show up on Saturday as it is. I'm not the only coordinator with this problem. Just look at the number of match forfeits.
Yeah, I think if it were Bo7 then players in the 2v2 should be allowed to play in one other 1v1 set. Either that or get rid of 2v2 altogether.
I completely agree with 2v2 letting the players play in the 1v1s. Maybe it can be like last season where the first 4 sets have unique players and the 2v2 and can play in 5/6/ace.
On March 20 2012 14:59 shindigs wrote: If you let 2v2 players play in 1v1s wouldn't that defeat the purpose of trying to dampen star power?
Not if it's Bo7. And anyway, a star can already play in 2 games (including the ace). If he played in the 2v2 and a 1v1, he's actually making it worse for his team (assuming 2v2 doesn't represent "skill" as well as a 1v1)
On March 20 2012 14:14 T.O.P. wrote: BO5. If BO7, then players who play in 2v2 should be able to play in 1v1, just like last season. I have a hard enough time getting 5 players to show up on Saturday as it is. I'm not the only coordinator with this problem. Just look at the number of match forfeits.
as a fellow coordinator, i can vouch for the difficulty in getting 5 players to show up on saturdays. on top of that, both schools of TOP and i (UCSD and UCR) have relatively large csl groups. on multiple occasions throughout the season a few teams had to forfeit sets because of difficulty in getting all their players on.
Bo7 is definitely the way to go, especially for playoffs. There's no reason why we can't up the ante -- the schools who make it this far are pretty serious about the competition anyway, it's not like they won't have the additional 2 players.
On March 21 2012 10:28 syncopate wrote: Bo7 is definitely the way to go, especially for playoffs. There's no reason why we can't up the ante -- the schools who make it this far are pretty serious about the competition anyway, it's not like they won't have the additional 2 players.
I am pretty sure every school who got past the playoffs has more than 7 players
On March 21 2012 10:28 syncopate wrote: Bo7 is definitely the way to go, especially for playoffs. There's no reason why we can't up the ante -- the schools who make it this far are pretty serious about the competition anyway, it's not like they won't have the additional 2 players.
I am pretty sure every school who got past the playoffs has more than 7 players
actually, the playoffs bracket is going to be pretty big this year in comparison to previous years, so that argument doesn't quite hold
On March 21 2012 10:28 syncopate wrote: Bo7 is definitely the way to go, especially for playoffs. There's no reason why we can't up the ante -- the schools who make it this far are pretty serious about the competition anyway, it's not like they won't have the additional 2 players.
I am pretty sure every school who got past the playoffs has more than 7 players
actually, the playoffs bracket is going to be pretty big this year in comparison to previous years, so that argument doesn't quite hold
It is only double the size from last year. The CSL grew 4 times larger this year. My argument does stand...
On March 20 2012 14:59 shindigs wrote: If you let 2v2 players play in 1v1s wouldn't that defeat the purpose of trying to dampen star power?
Not if it's Bo7. And anyway, a star can already play in 2 games (including the ace). If he played in the 2v2 and a 1v1, he's actually making it worse for his team (assuming 2v2 doesn't represent "skill" as well as a 1v1)
unrelated to all the bo7 talk, this ELO ranking system is very flawed. It rewards the division that played more games. For example, divisions that played 7 games versus 8 games are all in the West region...This obviously favors the divisions that played 8 games.
On March 23 2012 11:41 stalife wrote: unrelated to all the bo7 talk, this ELO ranking system is very flawed. It rewards the division that played more games. For example, divisions that played 7 games versus 8 games are all in the West region...This obviously favors the divisions that played 8 games.
You don't get placed into divisions 2nd half of season. Yet, Berkeley played 9 games and UBC played 7. Seems like a flaw in the scheduling algorithm.
I think best of sevens would hurt many schools. I'm a member of a playoff team that is having trouble fielding 5 players. Our team is very dedicated(we drove 9 hours to the irvine LAN.) but the truth is we only have 6 players in plat+. While I get the feeling alot of schools posting here have more masters than that . Most of these players have jobs and classes. All of the playoff times listed as options in the email we received where late at night. It's hard enough getting 5 of the 6 players to be available for any one time, let alone having enough to cover for people dropping out minute.
Already towards the end of this season most schools we played had to deal with substations due to players dropping. The star effect may help boost some schools, but that's irrelevant. The csl isnt jjust another tournament to most schools, it's more of a community. Getting together on weekends to cheer on your teammates is one of the most awesome experiences. I've met some of my best friends through csl and it's made me actually play/love Starcraft again. I'd say that if a bo7 even eliminated only 10% of the schools it wouldn't be a good idea, and I think it would discourage more, especially teams just starting up.
Tldr: I'd rather have more schools participating than trying to stop star power.
On March 23 2012 11:41 stalife wrote: unrelated to all the bo7 talk, this ELO ranking system is very flawed. It rewards the division that played more games. For example, divisions that played 7 games versus 8 games are all in the West region...This obviously favors the divisions that played 8 games.
ELOs were standardized before Season 5.2 Byes in Season 5.2 awarded ELO
On March 23 2012 11:41 stalife wrote: unrelated to all the bo7 talk, this ELO ranking system is very flawed. It rewards the division that played more games. For example, divisions that played 7 games versus 8 games are all in the West region...This obviously favors the divisions that played 8 games.
You don't get placed into divisions 2nd half of season. Yet, Berkeley played 9 games and UBC played 7. Seems like a flaw in the scheduling algorithm.
It has to do with BYEs. They are not shown on the record, but count towards ELO. There is a bug in the system, it effects overall standings - Ill get around to fixing it before we archive season data.
On March 24 2012 18:32 Blindo wrote: I think best of sevens would hurt many schools. I'm a member of a playoff team that is having trouble fielding 5 players. Our team is very dedicated(we drove 9 hours to the irvine LAN.) but the truth is we only have 6 players in plat+. While I get the feeling alot of schools posting here have more masters than that . Most of these players have jobs and classes. All of the playoff times listed as options in the email we received where late at night. It's hard enough getting 5 of the 6 players to be available for any one time, let alone having enough to cover for people dropping out minute.
Already towards the end of this season most schools we played had to deal with substations due to players dropping. The star effect may help boost some schools, but that's irrelevant. The csl isnt jjust another tournament to most schools, it's more of a community. Getting together on weekends to cheer on your teammates is one of the most awesome experiences. I've met some of my best friends through csl and it's made me actually play/love Starcraft again. I'd say that if a bo7 even eliminated only 10% of the schools it wouldn't be a good idea, and I think it would discourage more, especially teams just starting up.
Tldr: I'd rather have more schools participating than trying to stop star power.
Typed on my phone so sorry for any typos.
Woo, shoutouts to Nevada for their ESPORTS dedication. Great meeting you guys at Irvine THanks for your input
In an ideal world, every school would have a booming StarCraft club on campus and you could find 5 players, or even 7 players, ez pz. But the reality is most people will prioritize school or other life obligations over CSL games (for now...) so for smaller teams it is insanely difficult to coordinate schedules between 5 players if they only have about 10 players in their overall roster.
I'd really like to make playoffs Bo7, but unfortunately we had forfeits even during Bo5 playoffs. Maybe 128 was too much?
Agreed about shindigs point, sadly only a small number of schools have many active members. 128 does seem like a bit of a big pool of schools for playoffs...maybe less would make the regular season more exciting to motivate more schools to try harder and make playoffs?
On April 03 2012 08:07 EtherealDeath wrote: Less qq about elo, more qq if there is not an official stream of sorts for at least some highlighted matches.
Coming up! feel free to recommend matches here as well as the website
On April 03 2012 08:07 EtherealDeath wrote: Less qq about elo, more qq if there is not an official stream of sorts for at least some highlighted matches.
Coming up! feel free to recommend matches here as well as the website
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LPoit.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.cstarleague.com/sites/default/files/KOTH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/300984_117357078368907_100002838470687_80913_657233503_n.jpg)
