But feel free to tell me how the post TI shuffle is going to happen. You seem well connected.
What are you even talking about
My main issue with Navi is that they have literally only won two recent tournaments and nothing else for two years. Even qualifying for a major is an achievement IMO, and yes - I think there is some Dendi/Navi Fanboy bias there. When you go as far as getting a guy to dress up in a costume just to get him into an All Star Game when his team didnt even qualify for last year's TI, its clear to all. I feel that the Navi direct invite was a complete waste, likely complete fan service and statistically only defendable due to winning two relatively lower level (in comparison to Majors) recent tournaments.
Navi and Fnatic's recent records as of their last member joining, for reference:
Navi
Fnatic
You could easily make the case that Fnatic should have been invited (many have), but I wouldn't say Navi's case is only "statistically defendable" through fanboy bias. They won two big majors, but also did very well against top teams throughout the year.
I would say that for Fnatic, what hurt them was a lack of participation at majors and yes, perhaps a Western bias.
So explain why is it dumb?
here's what I think should happen. Valve has already addressed the fact there is too much team instability and too many majors. This is why they're scaling back to three majors (including TI7) and specific team movement windows (for "leavers" and "joiners"). I think they should have global rankings and regional rankings for tiered tournaments on a points system for all four regions. Have that ranking system consider the results and earnings of the teams for that past calendar year (so to actually reward consistent high placings).
When it comes to a Major, the top 1 or 2 teams then get an automatic invite because of recorded, legitimate achievement over the past year. Then have the rest of the teams in the regional top 8s go onto regional qualifiers and two placings for open qualifiers. Publish the rankings and show movement. Give actual statistical justification for each direct invite. That way there is more legitimacy for it.
Rankings only work when there's enough consistency throughout the year. In your case, Secret's victory at Shanghai would have earned them an invite through points. And if they lost that invite because of roster changes, then what is the point of the ranking system? I'd actually wager Valve has some semblance of a ranking system for teams already, but like everything else they do, they don't publicize it. I'm not sure what your visible system does that the current system doesn't besides letting teams know where they stand (which, I admit, would be useful). My guess would be that Valve keeps it hidden so teams aren't don't see a dismal string of performances on an official record and start looking to jump ship before majors (even more than they already do, anyway).
I'd like to hear how you think this should all be done to avoid any doubt and debate. I'm honestly interested. I don't see how you do it without some kind of points ranking system.
Like I said, there's probably already a ranking a system, just not a visible one. And there's no solution to a situation where roster changes are so common that won't leave room for doubt. The core issue is that there's not much Valve can do to stop teams from switching rosters if the teams feel they'll have a better team after having one, And Valve wants to orient their invites around players, not teams.
They're going to change the system every year, just like they change the game every year. The most sly thing Valve did to reinforce their goals was encourage more team play in the game itself so teams who play as one (as opposed to just having five good players thrown together) are more predisposed to win.
