ALTERNATE replaces iG in Hanover
The Chinese team iG had their visa application rejected and will not be able to travel to the World Championship. The replacement will be Team Alternate.
The German team placed 13th in the Intel Extreme Masters Season 2011/12 ranking, one rank short of qualifying for Hanover. Now the current German ESL Pro Series champion will have their chance against the best teams in the world from the 6-10th of March in Hanover.

Explanation why ALTERNATE is a head of Against All Authority

The reason why ALTERNATE has been ranked above the French team Against All Authority and subsequently was first in line to replace iG is based on the tie-breaker rules that apply in such a case:

If two or more teams have the same amount of points, there is a ranking for the different Global Challenge events that comes into play. This ranking is based on all the points that all the teams at a certain event collected throughout the season.

For this case it means that the teams who participated in the Global Challenge Cologne collected 680 throughout this Intel Extreme Masters season while the teams who where present at the event in Kiev collected only 550. Therefore ALTERNATE is a head of Against All Authority in the ranking despite both teams having 15 points.

ALTERNATE will take iG's spot in Group A where prominent names such as CLG, fnatic or World Elite are awaiting them.

Group A
World Elite
Team Dignitas

Intel Extreme Masters World Championship 2012
6th - 10th of March at CeBIT (Hall 23)

1380923, Tuesday, 28/02/12 07:53
CeBIT Travel FAQ
comments (55)
What rule would you suggest, jackiee?
It is very hard to find a rule, which is applicable in every case. For example, a decider match rule wouldn't really work, when an American and Chinese team are tied or any other constellation, where ping/internet wouldn't work (well).
Rule should be common sense or a bo3 to decide which team goes to the event. It's as simple as that.
just not only reward points to teams, but also to players...
Common sense is not a rule. It is far more biased and subjective than any rule. It doesn't matter what you find fair if those are the rules everyone agreed upon when entering the competition.

How much I like to see aAa play as well, I can understand the decision ESL had to make based on rules all parties agreed upon when participating. They can't change any rules during the process or even worse, afterwards when scores are set and won. Only thing they can do is learn from this to make adjustments to the rules for the next season to cover more quirky cases.
If I was Bad Mannered, I'd say :

"15 points in a 550-points event are worth more than 15 in a 680-worth event... I mean there are more people able to get 15 points out of 680 than 15 out of 550...

Therefore, it was harder to get 15 points @Kiev than 15 points @Cologne...
Hence aAa performed better than Alternate during the season.

aAa got 2.73% of the points of one event
Alternate got 2.21% of the points of another event.

So, according to your rules:

aAa goes to Hanover, better bench Alternate.
Seems legit."

But that would only be IF AND ONLY IF I was BM...
Oh?!... Wait, I am.
1 edits
  • info write comment not allowed