|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
