I have a novel idea that can change League for the better, can you guys give me an honest shake?

First things first, read this carefully and consider it's possible implications. I will be including a FAQ at the end, and I would greatly appreciate your opinions and general feedback on this suggestion.

THE PROBLEM: In games, particularly solo queue for ranked, organization poses a difficult hurdle to overcome.

Often teams run into organization problems and sometimes throw games attempting to organize. At the end of the day, someone HAS to lose just as someone gets to win. But what if we only ever lost because the enemy team was flat out better than us? I don't know about you, but I feel much better losing games, I myself----> 'lost', rather than lose because of team coordination problems and poor shot calling.

You know what I'm talking about: that one player who doesn't understand their responsibilities and drags the team down because of their ignorance:

It could be the .... Jungler: Who doesn't know to help ward mid early (enemy wraiths and solo bushes in river) Mid: Who quote, "Doesn't need wards mid cuz he knows jungler paths, but forgets that he/she controls the center of the map (most important warding areas early to mid game) Support: Who doesn't realize the lane match up, or hasn't established a preferential laning style with his random ADC partner bottom, thus either baiting his ADC, or his ADC raging because the Support was too passive, or in the heat of games forgeting to ward here or there or doesn't realize the most optimal build. Top: Who either doesn't know when to use their TP, doesn't pay attention to enemy jungler movements- which can often lead to great snowball potential plays, or doesn't understand how to freeze a lane or just try to gain levels when they can't trade well. ADC: The player whose DPS you depend on but facechecks all the bushes, or flashes for the KS instead of saving it for the escape.

All of these are generic and aren't huge factors, but little pilings of these and many other problems can arise that ultimately cost your team what could have been an easy win. Some of you reading may even be guilty of some of these things, I know I am. It's not your fault if you don't know better, but if you had the opportunity to learn you would right?

On rare occasion- we have the ultimate tryhard, that guy who refuses to surrender, and makes every attempt to motivate his or her team to victory. Sometimes it works- and we all honor them because they are Gods, but most of the time they end of spending so much time trying to organize our clusterf*ck of a team that they miss out on cs, get killed while typing and otherwise fail to do what they need to be doing.

I have a tentative solution to propose WHAT IF: We introduced a 6th player to ranked 5's? Not a 6th PLAYER per say, but instead a spectator in real time for each team. Their role would be to oversee their team's progress and offer advice and to shotcall objectives.

The 6th player would always be higher elo (perhaps a tier or more) (Though for the highest tiers we'd have to do something different- since there are no elo's higher than the best haha) than their teammates.

They would receive a different amount of LP based on their 'leadership grade' which each teammate would be required to give, the same being true for losses.

CHANGE can be scary- and if this idea were implemented in the form of a choice, (hop into que and choosing to coach instead of play) 90% of players would choose to play instead. This is a logical conclusion to draw until you see the difference having a real leader can make.

I would recommend this: A player would be randomly selected from que for this position and players in their series or bronze would not be eligible. After a trial of about 2-3 months this could easily become a choice 40% of players would be okay with making.

**FAQ: **

Q: I don't know how you could measure leadership since he could just afk and not do sh-t A: *obviously leadership grading would be numeral or alphabetical and subject to each teammates opinion on their contribution to the win or loss *

Q: The 6th person isn't needed and it would just be another way of Elo boosting unless you made it a separate Elo A: It is easy to say such things without having tried it. It's my opinion that a coach for every team would keep players focused on winning and improve general skill. Additionally it cannot be boosting if the 'boosted' player was higher elo than you to begin with, also, if they only get elo based on their total score awarded them by their teammates- isn't it impossible for them to gain elo unless they earn it?

Q: What if instead of a gain of elo, the coaches got a 'coaching elo' instead? ( A separate elo altogether) A: the idea of a coach elo is very appealing- and would reflect on a player's ability to lead his or her team, far better than the fickle banners we rarely see these says, however I would rather see both elo gains and alternate 'coach elo gains' combined as an incentive to get players to engage with their teams. DISCUSS?