The current LCS format, where teams can change every split, doesn't facilitate team loyalty

SixSixTrample·Aug 7, 2014·5 votes·1,374 views

I'm wondering if anything is going to change for LCS Season 3(Season 5). Right now, with the way it's set up any team could potentially not be back in the LCS for the next split. This makes it really, really difficult for middle of the road teams to have fans that are with them through thick and thin.

A lot of people love Complexity and EG, but it's entirely possibly that you will see neither of them in the next LCS split.

How can we have those die hard fans when the league changes so often? Why is the system not more akin to any other professional sport? Riot (as The League) names and those organizations or people who wish to become owners. Those owners can draft PLAYERS to their teams, make trades, drops, etc.

This means your favorite players are actually on teams that you know will stick around for the entirety of the LCS. Sponsors can sponsor an owner/manager for the team, but Riot controls the number of teams still. I don't even care what the team names are. Stick with TSM/Cloud9 or go crazy and have the 'Logitech Ligers'...doesn't matter. I'll be able to follow my team until the LCS stops, not just until they have a bad split.

TLDR: Riot needs to manage the team names/owners so we don't have relegation matches of whole teams, but rather challenger players are drafted up by team owners. Teams need to be consistent across all splits of the LCS for a real fan base to develop outside of the super well known teams.

13 Comments

12talesAug 7, 20141 votes

I mean, if you end up with a situation like we had last split where an absolutely terrible team (Coast) had two really good players (Zion and Shiphtur), I can't really think of a more elegant solution than the one already in place. The team gets replaced with a better team, while other organization's players are replaced with better players. In an alternate reality where Coast got to stay in the LCS - can you imagine the scene being better for it?

SixSixTrampleAug 7, 20141 votes

Yes, I can imagine the scene being better. The team would have needed real management and to trade for new players, or get in some fresh blood from the challenger scene, but the TEAM would still be there. This is the exact problem, there is no loyalty to the teams.

A functional league has great teams, middle of the road teams, and bad teams. Every single one of those teams fans. Like every major sport there are fans for every team. If you actually have set teams you allow the building of a dynasty that outlasts the career of a single player. You create a sense of loyalty and investment into the identity of the team, not just how did they do this season.

DokmazingAug 7, 20141 votes

have you not heard of TSM or CLG?

SixSixTrampleAug 7, 20141 votes

Yes, and this is my point.

Those teams have a dynasty and fans that have been around because they have been around for a long time, but the LCS has almost entirely taken over the league scene(which is great!), and if one of those teams somehow got relegated, what would happen to the fan base? They'd have nothing to watch or cheer over. If the team names and management were concrete though, the fans would be clamoring for a trade, new management or something. They'd still be able to stand behind their team.

This also elevates the best players from challenger by actively encouraging drafting and trading.

12talesAug 7, 20142 votes

Like, I get that having dynastic teams would be cool. You can't brute force that without compromising the scene, however. You need eight actually competent teams (and organizations) before giving teams carte blance won't result in a less competitive split. Retaining a team like Coast or an organization like Lemondogs is actively detrimental to the competitive nature of the LCS and the well being of the players involved in it.

My ideal system would be one in which the teams in the league are all competitive, and the challenger scene largely serves as a platform for nurturing new talent to the point where it can overtake and replace the individual underperformers. I don't think the scene is currently capable of sustaining such a dynamic without suffering for it, however. Maybe someday.

SixSixTrampleAug 7, 20143 votes

I agree 100 with needing organizations. That is what I am saying. The structure behind these teams is not in place nearly at all, and as such we are left with entire teams dropping and the inability to build a loyal fan base across seasons.

Professional sports have proven that this works. If your team is bad, you will draft new players, change management, etc., but you are still the same team.

If the correct structure existed, the owner/management of the last place team would be drafting better players and taking an active role in the team management rather than saying 'I hope we are even in the league next year'.

12talesAug 7, 20141 votes

If the correct structure existed, the owner/management of the last place team would be drafting better players and taking an active role in the team management rather than saying 'I hope we are even in the league next year'.

And I would love it if this was the case. I just don't think it's a realistic possibility at the moment.

There's also something to be said for the challenger team's fanbase. Ninjas in Pyjamas is a relatively good example - I'm pretty certain that if NiP and CW faced each other in relegations, there would be a lot more people rooting for NiP. So, you kinda limit team loyalty by preventing teams like NiP from joining the LCS.

DamnNewbieAug 7, 20141 votes

"If the correct structure existed, the owner/management of the last place team would be drafting better players and taking an active role in the team management rather than saying 'I hope we are even in the league next year'." - posted by sixsixtrample

And I would love it if this was the case. I just don't think it's a realistic possibility at the moment.

12TALES, if you are like the author (and I think you are) and really like the LCS, you want the league to stick around and mature. I merely think the author is saying that for longevity's sake the format needs to change (ie have more structure).

There's also something to be said for the challenger team's fanbase. Ninjas in Pyjamas is a relatively good example - I'm pretty certain that if NiP and CW faced each other in relegations, there would be a lot more people rooting for NiP. So, you kinda limit team loyalty by preventing teams like NiP from joining the LCS.

If you don't have long standing teams, it makes Rivalries less fun. The challenger teams don't have to go away anymore than AAA baseball teams or college football teams do. Many people follow college players throughout their career. Even when pros switch teams people follow them. Lebron James fans are buying new jerseys as we speak. Adding permanent structured teams doesn't take away from this.

However, people do not change the team they route for easily. I have been a Milwaukee Brewers fan my whole life, even though they aren't great it is still my team. Players come and go, good and bad seasons are had, but no matter what you always route for your team.

Fans who did not pick one of the successful teams from the start are left looking for a new team to route for next season. That is my issue with LCS. Whether or not Riot has the resources to make this change does not impact the discussion about what fans would like to see. I believe it is needed, even if some people believe it is unrealistic at this point. :)

dinoFUNKAug 11, 20141 votes

The team would have needed real management and to trade for new players, or get in some fresh blood from the challenger scene

Coast had every opportunity to do all those things before. It's not like they hadn't been struggling for a while. The last time Coast was really relevant was the Spring S3, and even then it was a whirlwind run in the playoffs that they never really capitalized on. Not like they were tearin' it up in the Split.

Sorry, but if you're not going to make any effort to improve as a team and organization, I have a hard time sympathizing.

Earl EulrichAug 7, 20141 votes

While i really like complexity and EG and hope they´ll win their relegation matches...i don´t think savety like that has any value in competetive sports. The best teams should perform on the highest league, not the teams with the most popular names. Though i could imagine the League involving more teams, so beeing middle of the pack is still fairly save.

Serpents EmbraceAug 7, 20141 votes

Isn't this the sane way pro sports works? :\ I don't follow it but I was at a baseball game the other week and my mother kept having to stop herself from cheering for a player that used to be on our team but was on the opposition the game we went. It might not facilitate team loyalty but that seems like more of a lack of localization for teams rather than a player one.

Taric Rework Suggestions

ExecutiveRageAug 9, 20141 votes

YOU PLAY MTG!!!

KapiAug 9, 20141 votes

If Loyalty existed, then the "Challenger Series" Teams would get a huge boost of fans, As we see in Europe for example there is starting to be big names attempting to rise up with a new team back into the LCS. I think it would be good for competitions sake to make a "2nd League" as exiting as possible to make "Promotions to the Main League" more interesting.

Quiet frankly I would even make it the 2/3 Last teams of the LCS drop immediately, and are replaced by the top 2/3 "Challenger Series/2nd League's" Teams.