Forrest “Var1ables” Campbell continues the stuff we need articles with “we need to reorganize” about the current state of tournaments
Counter-strike needs to reorganize itself. Even if the tournaments itself do not want to be organized under one sanctioning body we need to make a system which truly determines whose the best int he world for the game of counter-strike. For most of it’s lifetime we’ve been essentially a disjointed body of tournaments, and most of them claiming that their winner was the “world champion.”
Kode5, WCG, ESWC, IEM and the now defunct CPL all claimed that the winner of thier tournaments would be the world champion, meaning any given year you could have 5 different world champions. For example 2008, a year clearly dominated by mTw with it’s wins at Kode5 and WCG, will have an asterisk next to their name as they share their title with MYM/Vitriolic/wicked/AGAIN/Frag eXecutor who won ESWC and Mousesports who won IEM2 that same year.
We either need a body which - like FIA, NASCAR, PGA, or the BCS - allocates points to the tournaments that are held and crowns a certain team world champions or we need to have one truly final event with the top4 or the top8 teams in the world - again according to a point system - that will have a invitational tournament that allows these teams to play it out one last time for all the marbles.
Now that being said their are very obvious problems with such a system. How would all the tournaments been allocated points? How would you give an extremely prestigious tournament like WCG point in comparison to lets say an invitational tournament like eStars or even the much younger Arbalet Cup tour?
That’s a pretty easy thing to settle really: Tennis already did it for us. Lets take the system from tennis, four grand slams, how ever many masters, and then regional and national tournaments to decide who gets what. Obviously the Grand slams are worth more than the masters, the master more than the regional and the national more then a city tournament.
In counter-strike it’d look something like this:
4 Grand slams(30 point events):
Kode5, ESWC, WCG, IEM
6 masters(20 point events):
WEM, eStars, Arbalet cup, IEM GC’s, Dreamhack winter/summer
Regional/continental tournaments(15 point events):
IEM CF’s, WCG panam, Samsung european championship
National tournaments(10 point events):
ESEA, EPS, WCG nationals etc
Now there are obvious problems with this system, but this is a simply mock up which can, and should, be debated and argued upon by journalists, organizations and other important members of the community, but simply put we need it. First it allows us to have a definitive world champion and not have asterisks next to team names in the history of counter-strike and second it could add so much drama to the scene, and more so than simply contract disputes and team maneuvers ever could. Anyone who has watched sportscenter and heard of the anywhere from 4 to 11 point lead going into the final race of the NASCAR season or someone who follows F1 and saw the only 24 point difference between the top 3 competitors goin into the last race could see that .
Counter-strike needs to reorganize itself. Even if the tournaments itself do not want to be organized under one sanctioning body we need to make a system which truly determines whose the best int he world for the game of counter-strike. For most of it’s lifetime we’ve been essentially a disjointed body of tournaments, and most of them claiming that their winner was the “world champion.”
Kode5, WCG, ESWC, IEM and the now defunct CPL all claimed that the winner of thier tournaments would be the world champion, meaning any given year you could have 5 different world champions. For example 2008, a year clearly dominated by mTw with it’s wins at Kode5 and WCG, will have an asterisk next to their name as they share their title with MYM/Vitriolic/wicked/AGAIN/Frag eXecutor who won ESWC and Mousesports who won IEM2 that same year.
We either need a body which - like FIA, NASCAR, PGA, or the BCS - allocates points to the tournaments that are held and crowns a certain team world champions or we need to have one truly final event with the top4 or the top8 teams in the world - again according to a point system - that will have a invitational tournament that allows these teams to play it out one last time for all the marbles.
Now that being said their are very obvious problems with such a system. How would all the tournaments been allocated points? How would you give an extremely prestigious tournament like WCG point in comparison to lets say an invitational tournament like eStars or even the much younger Arbalet Cup tour?
That’s a pretty easy thing to settle really: Tennis already did it for us. Lets take the system from tennis, four grand slams, how ever many masters, and then regional and national tournaments to decide who gets what. Obviously the Grand slams are worth more than the masters, the master more than the regional and the national more then a city tournament.
In counter-strike it’d look something like this:
4 Grand slams(30 point events):
Kode5, ESWC, WCG, IEM
6 masters(20 point events):
WEM, eStars, Arbalet cup, IEM GC’s, Dreamhack winter/summer
Regional/continental tournaments(15 point events):
IEM CF’s, WCG panam, Samsung european championship
National tournaments(10 point events):
ESEA, EPS, WCG nationals etc
Now there are obvious problems with this system, but this is a simply mock up which can, and should, be debated and argued upon by journalists, organizations and other important members of the community, but simply put we need it. First it allows us to have a definitive world champion and not have asterisks next to team names in the history of counter-strike and second it could add so much drama to the scene, and more so than simply contract disputes and team maneuvers ever could. Anyone who has watched sportscenter and heard of the anywhere from 4 to 11 point lead going into the final race of the NASCAR season or someone who follows F1 and saw the only 24 point difference between the top 3 competitors goin into the last race could see that .
No comments:
Post a Comment