Rito why? Team franchising failing the fan base?

DrkNinja·Nov 23, 2017·3 votes·1,313 views

I just would love to understand why it is Riot has turned their backs on some of the orgs that made the LCS what it is. As a follow up question why choose orgs that have never played a MOBA before? I feel like this was a sleight to not only the fans and players, but to the orgs that built their foundation on league. I'll discuss specifics below.

The orgs I feel were quintessential to the LCS are of course Immortals and Dignitas.

Immortals came in two years ago, four splits ago, and became one of the most formidable teams in the LCS leading to a record split of 17-1 which has yet to be broken to date. Immortals was also one of the first teams to be formed through a venture capitalist investment. Their formation changed the way LCS teams were viewed and their CEO Noah Winston was a big part influencing the eventual franchising of the LCS.

Dignitas is a team that is both very new and very old, but more importantly has a long history with the LCS even before it's formation into the LCS we know and love. Dignitas was an old team that was well known for taking risky Baron plays, and were home to the likes of Voyboy, imaqtpie, Jatt, Shiphtur, and Scarra. They were then bought out my the Philadelphia 76ers and enjoyed some measure of success over the last 3 splits.

Now with that said, Riot have a very vague answer of, and I'm paraphrasing, "these teams don't have a strong enough brand nor the capital to comfortably provide the entry fee without crippling the org." Now I'm not sure about you but I believe the likes of the Philadelphia 76ers, Linkin Park, the Lionsgate Games president, and a chairman of Machinima.com can handle the financial investment required by Riot. As far as weak branding is concerned Immortals and Dignitas have a fat from weak brand, I don't even think it's worth entertaining.

Lastly let's talk about some of the new teams mainly Optic Gaming and 100 Thieves. Now being an ex amateur call of duty player I love both these orgs. Optic has one of the strongest brands in the entirety of esports and has won multiple call of duty world championships. 100 Thieves was founded by an ex Optic player Nadeshot, who led Optic to one of those world championship wins, so he is well aware of what an org needs from both the player and org perspectives. Now, neither of these orgs have ever been in an effort that wasn't FPS meaning they lack love for the game and the experience of playing the game. More so 100 Thieves failed to create a lasting COD team and has been serving as a brand for apparel as admitted by Nadeshot himself in his announcement video. Now I don't doubt that they will put every effort forward to make incredible orgs however they will never fully comprehend the game as the org owners have never played it or been apart of it's community. This is a lack of understand and passion for the game that Dignitas and Immortals would not have lacked.

Finally I want to address the coincidence that Immortals had just recently secureda spit in the Overwatch League as the Los Angeles Valiants. This some people have theorized is the specific reasoning behind Riot's dismissal of Immortals as they believe that Immortals could not accurately sustain being a franchised team in both games. I however believe Riot may even have a more petty reasoning behind their dismissal; with Immortals launching teams into DOTA 2, a competitor to LOL, and Overwatch maybe Rito doesn't want an org that directly sports it's competitors?

Either way as a huge Immortals fan I have been severely let down by Riot and seem to continue to be let down by them with their continual changes to appeal to the masses and not it's loyal fan base.

Thoughts? Comments? Concerns?

Are you disappointed in the franchising choices as well? Wish another team would have made it? Comment down below! <3

12 Comments

Miror BNov 23, 20174 votes

The problem with franchising that I can see is two things:

A) The player salaries are going to reach a point in which they become almost "nonsensical" (that potentially being the case if we are to believe that steve is paying impact 1 meeeleon dollars a year)

B) Regions "out of the loop" when it comes to franchising are going to become barren wastelands of talent, EU slowly becoming this with Zven/Mithy apparently heading to richer waters and their former team replacing them with a botlane from the 6th-best EU team.

DrkNinjaNov 23, 20171 votes

I agree with point A but to be fair players have really short careers so I believe it's totally fair that they get paid plenty of money so they have something to fall back on.

To point B , maybe... But I think it'll give orgs the ability to actually build up Challenger players into a full fledged pro player.

III BAKURYU III Nov 23, 20171 votes

Most players are also in school/taking online classes. I mean, they're on the computer all day, every day. So, one would assume they will be fine if not reaping the $ once they do in fact retire. But I get where you're coming from. I think topic A.) is more around if the "House" pays the players X amount of money and the water-hole becomes dry from it type of situation. Or that's what I think topic A.) is alluding.

Topic B.) is again, something that needs to be checked because it's no secret NA pays players very well, it's no secret that's why so many imported players come to NA to get that $ as well as a given starter spot right from the start. NA already has franchising as well as "challenger" players/teams for each 10 NA LCS teams as that was a requirement to be apart of the NA LCS. So, your " it'll give orgs the ability to actually build up Challenger players into a full-fledged pro player". Is again in NA's favor.

III BAKURYU III Nov 23, 20171 votes

I brought up point A a while back ago with someone and the statement I got from that person was " If the players earn it, pay them" paraphrasing I am but something along like " If the $ is there the players should get what's owe to them". Now, I understand paying players but at the same time I honestly just see something from NWO from the WCW wrestling promotion being mighty similar if Riot isn't careful with paying these players butt-loads of money. Is EU even franchised?

GeminiRuneNov 23, 20171 votes

I think I'll laser towards the point in B. It's been pretty shown that talent in regions like EU and China often sprout outta nowhere. Granted China is embarking on a franchising system of their own but the reason they are so out of the topic is from said natural talent on top of pure difficulty for any import to play and settle there. Back to EU though; even if star players leave for better ground, that just gives those many aspiring players time to shine.

Hjarnan and Wadid were indeed on the debatable 6th best team in the league (actually 7th) and are potentially having to fill in the shoes of an iconic duo in League esports period but how much of that was from the overall team dynamic in Roccat?

I just wouldn't call it an inevitable barren wasteland more than I keep calling it the next challenge despite how minimal the massive changes continue to seem to be. Bjergsen didn't ruin Europe with the NA pickup and neither did the likes of Froggen, Ryu, Huni, RO, or Jensen who wasn't even in the league. And that's just a few; Loulex, Kirei, Selfie, Jesiz have/had NA time (a few more less acknowledged off the top of my head). Zven and Mithy won't be the factor that warps all reality in my opinion.

Miror BNov 24, 20171 votes

I guess I'll rephrase a bit then: it isn't so much a "wasteland" as a farm, in that although it grows stuff it rarely ever keeps it there. If this talent was able to stay in EU without worrying about being massively underpaid (as from what I can understand, thanks to the "Franchising gap" between the two regions, NA players are making about 5-6 times more than their EU counterparts right now), we could in turn see a bigger gap grow between the two regions instead of this whole "1 EU team and 1 NA team out of groups". I guess what I'm saying is that franchising isn't so much forcing players to decide on competition and wanting to get better, but more about wanting to get paid as much as humanly possible.

Oh, and I don't think you got my point on the roccat to g2 thing. If the #1 team in EU is being forced to use less talented players on the roster, in what way does the region as a whole benefit off it?

Kledy McKledFaceNov 23, 20172 votes

Because inverstors didn't want to go for IMT or DIG ? Here you have 3 NBA franchises wanting to invest in esports versus a poor man's company.... I'd go all the way tith the Knicks owners, the Houston Rockets owner and the Golden State warrior owner...

Also, in China, they will be testing City located teams. If it works they'll implement this ideology to other region (like in NHL/NBA/MLD/NFL etc...).

So you gotta find owners that have already strong finance + maybe locate a team in the near future (probably 2019). IMT and DIG both lives in LA just like most teams right now but if you take a stronger team, take CLG or TSM and ask Madison Square Garden manager to pick a team to invest and support throughout season 8, who would you go for? TSM C9 CLG or IMT DIG? This wasn't a single year decision, its a 5-10 year decision.

DrkNinjaNov 23, 20171 votes

The investors are the teams though, each teams entry fee will be combined and used to be the foundation of the players union-esque thing, for production, and org help (player salaries, etc.). Sponsors aren't investing into specific teams they are donating the league as a whole. Example: Coke wants to sponsor the league, they sponsor it's entirety not just TSM and CLG.

ChompyWulfNov 23, 20171 votes

Gonna first squash the city talk first. Riot hasn't really shown any inclination for doing that kind of localized representation yet, so frankly that is irrelevant.

Second, both DIG and IMT were backed by pretty strong venture capitalists, of the two DIG also had more sponsors. At this point, the new Esports franchises are similarly vastly backed by venture capitalist dollars. It kinda weakens the argument that Riot was worried about VC money disappearing. Furthermore, the most glaring g issue if you want to talk long term viability is 100 Thieves. This organization in reality has been non-existent for the past year after being formed and going bust the SAME YEAR in 2016, and in an Esports community that leader knew in FPS...while having no meaningful ties whatsoever in MOBAs. You really going to try to say that looks better for a 5-10 year plan than a team like Immortals surely on the rise and very possibly going to start gaining more sponsors as they have more teams in more Esports? Or even more glaringly, NV which has been around longer than LoL itself and surely far ahead of anything 100. Thieves will piece together?

hotarseNov 23, 20171 votes

No one ever reads between the lines these days. They take everything for face value cuz no one teaches critical thinking skills anymore. Riot's move against those orgs are entirely to do with personal squabbles that we are not and never will be privy to. We at least, well those who bothered to be educated on the matter, got to see evidence of the squabbly nature of Riot through the Riot-Monte interactions of which several emails were leaked proving Riot's grudge against Monte for even wanting to maintain a friendly relationship with another person that Riot hates and maintains a grudge against. The company is stupid. People who support the company are stupid. It is a cult. It is no better than EA. People just don't see it yet because there aren't any figure heads saying this for the dumb masses to follow.

SupersmartyNov 24, 20171 votes

They're franchising because as the fanbase grows, the infrastructure needs to grow with it. Franchising seems bad at first, but I as a fan say its a guarantee people who's team left will no doubt latch on to another team, due to the fact they'll be around for as long as league survives which from what I'm seeing will be at least the next 20 years.