Why?
No surprise that my second defense of tiering didn't get nearly as much response as the first one.... But it did get a little bit of response. One of the things that became clear as I read the second wave of responses was that I never really made clear my reasons for advocating a tiered system. Sure, I made some comments here and there about protecting newbies and such, but I never came out with a single clear statement of my intent.
If you've read me long enough you know that I've not only suggested tiering, I've also suggested a base set-only format, and I keep harping on the idea of Collegiate Magic.
So you might wonder: Why does this wacko keep coming up with wacky ideas? Why can't he leave well enough alone? Can't he see that the current system isn't broken?
In reverse order: The tournament system in Magic isn't so much broken as it is incomplete. While this is always trundling around in the back of my head somewhere it took Ken Collier's recent commentary on tiering to make me realize what it was that was bothering me so.
While Ken was largely concerned that the world of Magic has become too competitive, he also pointed out that in the world of tournament Magic there is Friday Night Magic and PTQs and pretty much nothing else in between. Yes, there are the State tournaments that are somewhere in between, but they are only once per year - hardly enough to fill the void in any meaningful way. And that's the problem.
There are competitors out there that want something more than FNM and less than PTQs.
Every year we hear complaints that the State tournaments don't mean anything. Of course,"Don't mean anything" is a gross overstatement, which might better be phrased something like,"Don't fit well in the existing tournament structure."
Winning a State title, or even making the Top 8, is an accomplishment that most players can, and should, be proud of. But once you've won, what then? Do you go on to compete in a national championship? No. Do you get a slot at the Pro Tour? No. Do you get a bye at some future PTQ? No. Because the State tournaments are something out there all by themselves. They don't"get you" anything.
The tournament structure for Magic is incomplete. There is a jump from FNM to PTQs - with nothing in-between. States doesn't count, because they are too infrequent and really exist as freestanding entities.
So, how many people who attend a PTQ actually believe that they truly have a shot at qualifying for the Pro Tour?
Clearly some do, perhaps even most. But a lot of the folks who attend aren't looking to qualify; they are looking for some decent competition. A tournament that is less casual than FNM where they can test their skill.
They go to the PTQs because, for many of them, that is the only opportunity for the more formal, competitive type of play. Or they raise the competitive level of FNM events because there are no other alternatives. All because the current tournament structure is incomplete.
Ideally, the tournament structure for Magic would include additional layers between FNM and the PTQs. I've already suggested Collegiate Magic as one possibility and High School Magic along with city leagues have been mentioned by myself, or others, as part of that discussion. Perhaps we need something along the lines of sub-PTQs that would take place more frequently than PTQs, in more locations. These could tournaments could be structured so that you would be required to make T8 or T4 in one of these events in order to qualify for the PTQ.
I'm not sure if these are what is needed, I just know that something is needed, and I put ideas out periodically to keep pushing the issue. I hope that the DCI has been examining the tournament structures used in Go, Chess, Backgammon, figure skating, or any other individual based competitive activities, to see what can be learned that would improve the health of tournament Magic. (I've seen no evidence that they have, but I can hope.)
Anyway, I thought you all deserved to know where I was coming from with all this weirdness that I have inflicted on the Magic community.
Bonus Side Rants:
I don't want to get into the Extended controversies too far, but I can't resist a couple of comments.
In general I side with those who want to know what the plans for Extended are. My understanding of Extended in 1997 was that it was designed to provide a slower rotation of sets so that players who have been in the game for a while can play their ex-Type 2 cards for a while longer. Based on the materials that Wizards was putting out on Extended five years ago certainly leads me to believe that Extended would see a more-or-less constant rotation out of sets.
However, they have never described how the decision to rotate sets would be made. Time? Health of the Extended environment? Whether or not Phil sees his shadow?
It seems to me that the players have a right to know what the future of Extended holds.
I really like the idea of playing with my cards after they rotate out of Type 2 - I like not having to trash my entire"investment" in cards every year as an old set rotates out.
But, is the new player, the player who started in 1998 or 1999 really competitive in Extended using merely their old Type 2 cards?
Um, no.
Folks who started playing with Urza's block, and who probably bought some Rath block (circa 1997) cards for their Type 2 decks still have to trade for or buy a number of Ice Age and Mirage block cards in order to be competitive in Extended. I'm not upset about the cost of adding these cards to one's collection - I'm concerned that this violates the spirit of Extended.
Ice Ages was released in the fall of 1995 and rotated out of Type 2 in the fall of 1997. It has been with us for over six years now - a pretty decent run, really. The question is how far back do we have to go to balance the desire to let folks play with their older cards a bit longer and allowing folks to buy cards that were two or three years old before they started in order to be able to play their old cards?
This, of course, is exactly the question with dual lands. Painlands are clearly inferior to the true dual lands. The player who started in 1998 is going to have to purchase, or trade for, cards that haven't been printed since 1994 in order to play with their"old" cards.*
That doesn't seem to fit with the spirit of Extended as I understood it in 1997.
Perhaps I misunderstood.
Or perhaps, Extended isn't really meant for"new" players - that is, players that have started since after Ice Age rotated out of Type 2.
I guess I, too, am curious about the exact future of Extended.
Later,
Michael Granaas
* - This is not a self-serving complaint, I have all the dual lands, and so I can play happily in Extended with my older cards.
| 
