Unfair!
"Starting in 2025, Ascension slots will be determined by the teams' performance throughout the season instead, shortening the default term length to one year but providing the opportunity to extend it indefinitely."
Does this not just make it more difficult for future teams to ascend? Because if they are still doing a team cap of 2 ascension teams max, it is most likely that the 2 ascension teams will continue to outperform the ascension teams if put in the top 8 scenario. Meaning the only teams ascending would be returners.
Actually while writing this, I thought it through and realized that teams that miss top 8 are just auto-relegated anyway, so they don't stand in the way of that years ascension tournament. Which means that in the scenario they underperform they are bounced out.
In all, relegation is great, but it just feels massively unfair when the burden is placed on the tier 2 system, rather than threatening partner slots (which from a business standpoint, they can't do since they signed off on a franchised system).
It's a good idea, tbh
One year promotion is shit
But there a lot of teams who don't take split1 that seriously and it gets boring to watch because they want to leak their strategies in split1 but show them in split2 and might even win the whole split2
From 2025 the competition will get tough the whole year because you need to constantly stay at the top to get the slot!! And even viewers will enjoy the matches
I am more so arguing that it makes it unfair for the tier 2 system, which has to potentially contend against teams that have already 1. Ascended before and 2. Competed against a higher level of competition for a whole year. The Ascension tournament with a Tier 1 relegation team against it would be a wash. It could feel like the team who were grinding tier 2 for the year in Challengers, did it for nothing.
Also, unfair in terms of Tier 1 franchised partners being safe from relegation entirely, though this has always been the case.