hot take?

(allat + opinion warning)
I've been watching Worlds recently and the format got me thinking: Single elim Bo5 all the way through playoffs is better for Champs than Double elim Bo3 until the last 2 games.
It's worked for League, it's worked for CS.
The only full lower bracket run we've seen was FPX but that was at a Masters (which I think should stay double elim, I'm talking about Champs here to be clear)

Would:

• Eliminate 7 games
• Allow Riot to move to an Arena for more Playoff games (big topic this year)
• Not change too much, 2/3 years we got a rematch of the upper final, and the one time we didn't the winner of the Upper final (which by the way is a Bo3) won anyways
• Make Champs fundamentally different as a tournament outside just of branding and prize pools

I know people tend to hate change but imo this is worth it. The main critique is that it will lower the chances of the 'best team' winning but esports at its core is built for viewership and I think this would lead to us being better off. What do you guys think? Absolutely not? Maybe? Yeah?

edit: See #4 on how I would deal with the issue of having too few games

also say bye bye to groups, dog shit format, go for swiss system (madrid was not a swiss system, that was a glorified double elim). Run a swiss up to 3 wins or 3 defeats, seed them based on overall strength of opponents, ez pz

I do like Swiss stage better than groups tho
We already have like 5 games in a year
Do you want to make it 3

Denjisideals [#3]

I do like Swiss stage better than groups tho
We already have like 5 games in a year
Do you want to make it 3

I have a separate suggestion regarding that. Use the time from the shorter off season + the shorter hypothetical Champs I'm proposing to do a full round robin split before Masters 2 and Champs (If you insist on keeping kickoff)

Nef0r0 [#2]

also say bye bye to groups, dog shit format, go for swiss system (madrid was not a swiss system, that was a glorified double elim). Run a swiss up to 3 wins or 3 defeats, seed them based on overall strength of opponents, ez pz

A full 16 team Swiss stage to 3 wins would be absolute cinema

Aayan [#4]

I have a separate suggestion regarding that. Use the time from the shorter off season + the shorter hypothetical Champs I'm proposing to do a full round robin split before Masters 2 and Champs (If you insist on keeping kickoff)

I mean sure but then what about Masters 2

Denjisideals [#6]

I mean sure but then what about Masters 2

Wdym? This wouldn't effect Masters 2

Aayan [#7]

Wdym? This wouldn't effect Masters 2

No like Kickoffs for Masters 1 teams and Round Robin for Champs
How would you pick teams for Masters 2

Hyxagon [#5]

A full 16 team Swiss stage to 3 wins would be absolute cinema

cuz it's objectively the most fair format (unless you go for random seeding, then you are just an idiot). With great rule book, it turns into the best format of all. last CS major featured all 8 strong teams in the playoffs, set up 4 great quarter finals and had 3 great teams and 1 underdog in both sides of the bracket

Denjisideals [#8]

No like Kickoffs for Masters 1 teams and Round Robin for Champs
How would you pick teams for Masters 2

full round robin split before Masters 2 and Champs

it's the same as it is now, except for being half groups it'd be a full round robin.
You could move back split 1 and move kick off to become LCQ if you really want but I'm indifferent ab that.

Nef0r0 [#2]

also say bye bye to groups, dog shit format, go for swiss system (madrid was not a swiss system, that was a glorified double elim). Run a swiss up to 3 wins or 3 defeats, seed them based on overall strength of opponents, ez pz

I would fw swiss for champs but then maybe I'd make Masters GSL style just to make it different.
Also Masters 1 defo should be 12 teams imo it should be consistent

.

1243 [#12]

.

See #4

also we will never see a lower bracket run ever

Also actually read what I wrote, I'm not suggesting to change it for masters.

Aayan [#10]

full round robin split before Masters 2 and Champs

it's the same as it is now, except for being half groups it'd be a full round robin.
You could move back split 1 and move kick off to become LCQ if you really want but I'm indifferent ab that.

I mean they could go the full league format
It doesn't sound too bad

Aayan [#13]

See #4

also we will never see a lower bracket run ever

Also actually read what I wrote, I'm not suggesting to change it for masters.

fuck this.

1243 [#15]

fuck this.

I mean even if they go the League route where there are like double round robin ever split, playing twice each week, I think that would be pretty cool too
We don't need an msi since we already have two masters

why is single elim so weird for valorant fans? like every major tournament has it, i love the group stages for champs though, it would be good if we increase the number of teams so we can have more number of groups directly to a single elim bo5

idkmanwth [#17]

why is single elim so weird for valorant fans? like every major tournament has it, i love the group stages for champs though, it would be good if we increase the number of teams so we can have more number of groups directly to a single elim bo5

Nah
16 is good no?

Denjisideals [#18]

Nah
16 is good no?

i mean, if single elim bo5's decrease the number of games, you can just add more teams so that playoffs are 10-12 teams instead of 8

Low-key I agree but not for champs rather for masters make it top 3 teams going to both masters and then 4 get eliminated in the first half through Swiss and then playoffs through 8 teams BO5 but champs remains as it is maybe change the group stage into something else but keep double elim in playoffs

idkmanwth [#19]

i mean, if single elim bo5's decrease the number of games, you can just add more teams so that playoffs are 10-12 teams instead of 8

I think 8 in Playoffs is fine. For a single elim bracket 10-12 won't work (mathematically), and seeding is probably not a great idea if it's single elim since you're basically awarding a match win which is too far imo.
As others have suggested maybe swiss for 16 teams could be cool for groups

Denjisideals [#16]

I mean even if they go the League route where there are like double round robin ever split, playing twice each week, I think that would be pretty cool too
We don't need an msi since we already have two masters

I mean their msi is equivalent to the masters

1243 [#15]

fuck this.

I see where you're coming from. But I think another Masters would have some significant drawbacks (mainly that if you squeeze in an extra Masters it eats in to the time of the regular season + it is very expensive it probably just isn't worth the investment if you're in Riots shoes). I think an extra full round robin split as I suggested in #4 is the perfect compromise. Yes you will see more of teams that maybe you don't like, but you will also see the teams that you do like. Sure they may not be the best but mibr and furia are still orgs that need to pay their players, more time to play will let them get sponsors to stay afloat, and who knows maybe down the line that money can be used to develop talent/buy better players.

not a hot take but they should reduce the time window of reevaluation for franchised teams. wdym next time won't be until 2027 how long has it been.

Aayan [#21]

I think 8 in Playoffs is fine. For a single elim bracket 10-12 won't work (mathematically), and seeding is probably not a great idea if it's single elim since you're basically awarding a match win which is too far imo.
As others have suggested maybe swiss for 16 teams could be cool for groups

swiss works for league because they have one tournament (msi) with groups and one with swiss (worlds), imagine this, you go from watching swiss in masters1 - watching swiss in masters 2 - watching swiss in champs, in the long run it would get really really boring to watch (just my opinion, it might differ with others), if swiss is added to champs it'll simply be masters 3

idkmanwth [#25]

swiss works for league because they have one tournament (msi) with groups and one with swiss (worlds), imagine this, you go from watching swiss in masters1 - watching swiss in masters 2 - watching swiss in champs, in the long run it would get really really boring to watch (just my opinion, it might differ with others), if swiss is added to champs it'll simply be masters 3

Yeah I agree, I addressed that in #11 (and tbf I should've mentioned it in #21, but that wasn't really the point of this post at all)

No team that has won has played more than 1 game in lower (except FPX)
SEN-never went to lower
GMB-no lowers
ACE-no lowers
OPTIC-played 1 game in lowers
FPX- the reason FPX were in the lower bracket to begin with was because they didnt have their full roster till the lowers and with full roster prob would have dominated (as they did in lowers)
LOUD-never went to lowers
FNC-no lowers
FNC-never went to lowers
EG-played 1 game in lowers
SEN-played 1 game in lowers
GENG-never went to lowers
EDG-never went to lowers