desert eagle
New Member
It is a legitimate comparison because the NFL has one thing that Pokemon does not.
Parity.
GREAT parity.
The difference b/w a top team in the league and a cellar dweller is usually a couple of plays in a couple of close games. The talent level across the board is roughly equal. There is no "haves" and "have nots" over an extended period of time. Eventually, all of the dynasties fall due to a combination of factors. Age, experience, coaching, ownership, all are variables that determine a team's outcome. You can assume that, if you're playing in the NFL, you are at the very least a good player. It's just a comparison between players at that point.
Good drafting, and good management of a team is what makes a team good. Teams like the Pats and the Colts have much better management, and can build better teams. That's where there isn't parity. Sure every player in the league is an NFL-caliber player, but good trading and drafting is why the pats are 9-0 and the dolphins are 0-8. Drafting/Trading is similar to deckbuilding in pokemon, and does play a huge part.
In Pokemon, however, there is very little parity. There is a very clear distinction between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots", and the latter group is usually a LOT bigger than the former. Because of this, you have to adjust how you determine a borderline player when there is much less parity. The difference in skill (playing, trading, deckbuilding) between your average 7-2 and your average 2-7 in Pokemon is MUCH greater than the difference between your average 12-4 and your average 2-14 in the NFL. Why? The bulk of the 2-7 players simply do not have the same resources as the 7-2 players. Same with the 3-6, the 4-5, and the 5-4. Remember, there is nothing resembling a Salary Cap in this game. The people that are 7-2 have generally simply spent more money on the game than those with lesser records. They're not necessarily better than them. They just have more access to good cards and are able to netdeck well. Those that are 8-1 and 9-0 are certifiably great players because they are able to create great decks from a large card pool, can play them well, and can overcome their difficulties with relative ease.
This is not true at all. 7-2 could mean you started with 2 completely unplayable hands, which isn't unlikely at a big event. Two people can have the exact same deck, and one can go 9-0 and another like 5-4 simply because of hand variance. If Pokemon had no luck at all, then this would be true, but it does so you can't blame someone for going 7-2. Some of the best players in the world went 6-3, 7-2 (Pooka, Seena, Jason, Moss), and there's no way you can call them "netdeckers wwho have resources".
I appreciate that the guys at PUI recognize this. X-2 in an open tournament really is NOT good enough. You should be sweating it out on X-2 in an open tournament. Again, I've missed the cut in a 5 round tournament with one loss. No sour grape wine and cheese coming out of this player, either.
7-2 should be good enough. There's no way they can run the biggest tournament in the world and say "you have to be good AND pretty lucky to make top cut today". 7-2 is when just good is usually enough (although a case can be made for 6-3 can be made). 8-1 needs some degree of luck. Has there ever been a deck built that can not have a bad start in 8/9 games?
When Pokemon Nationals has similar parity to any other good comparison, then I will support increasing the cut at Nationals to include ALL X-2s. However, it's because of the complete and utter lack of parity in this game that the X-2s need to sweat it out.
Above all, this needs to be said. Win your games, and then you have nothing to worry about. Plain and simple.
I think the BEST possible solution is running it like Magic: a 3 day tournament.
Day 1: 9 rounds - all 6-3 and above move onto day 2
Day 2: 6-7 round - top 32 cut
Day 3: Top cut.
That would, for the most part, get the most legit top 32