The Case Against Grand Prixs
It seems in recent times that Wizards has really pushed Grand Prixs as the main platform of the professional experience. While this might be more budget friendly for Wizards I believe it is a disappointing development for fans of the game and for the borderline tournament player. To me, Grand Prixs fail in regards to the competitive balance of the Pro Tour and in regards to providing valuable tournaments for low level players
The Competitive Case
When Tomoharu Saito won his Player of the Year title in 2007 he became the first player of the year to not have either won a Pro Tour or top 8 multiple Pro Tours. He really powered his way to the title by grinding through the Grand Prix circuit, as have both Shuuhei Nakamura and Yuuya Watanabe in the two following years. I feel this damages the competitive integrity of the player of the year race in three main ways. First is the differing number of Grand Prixs top level pros attend. The second is the wild fluctuation between the play quality and the number of players in different Grand Prixs. The third is the seemingly random distribution of Grand Prixs that can play a significant role in players’ success.
Hi ho hi ho
Most sports have taken the opinion that quality matters much more than quantity. As an example take Tennis. A few years back Serena Williams was obviously the best active female player. However because she didn’t prioritize playing in small events the rankings dropped her out of the top spot. But there was a large outcry and the rankings were tinkered with so that she would hold the number one rank that everyone knew that she deserved. Magic however has done no such tinkering to make sure that Grand Prix grinding isn’t the best way to win the player of the year title. While Yuuya Watanabe did play fantastically last year and is a very worthy winner of the Player of the Year title, it’s hard not to take note of the fact that while he played almost every tournament down the stretch in an attempt to gather up points Gabriel Nassif who finished fourth in the race couldn’t even be bothered to attend the Grand Prix held in his home country. Would things have played out differently if Nassif had competed in all the same tournaments that Watanabe did? Possibly. But the fact that the system is set up in such a way that every year we have to contemplate such things is a big problem.
Conversely any big name pro who wants to be considered the best in the world will attend all Pro Tour events, in much the same way that Serena Williams competed in all the major tournaments or a golfer like Tiger Woods will make it a point to play in a tournament like The Masters. Tournaments with all the best players provide more valid results and should provide the backbone for determining a player of the year.
Spanning the Globe
2224. 517. The first is the number of players who competed in Grand Prix Madrid. The second is the number of players that competed in Grand Prix Kuala Lumpur. Just looking at those numbers and you can tell that there’s no way those two tournaments should be treated equally. Rich Hagon has written up a very nice article at StarCityGames.com laying out these problems. As he stated providing the same points is unfair to the player who can only play in Madrid because they have to perform much better to earn the same amount of points, but increasing the number of points depending on the number of players puts a cap on the amount available to players who happen to attend smaller events which is unfair to them. The only fair solution is to much closely monitor the number of players in each tournament so that they are as close to each other as possible. Even if you were willing to follow Rich Hagon’s example a 1000 player Grand Prix is still significantly different than one of 517. Pro Tours however do a much better job of providing consistency. The largest was 417 and the smallest was 381, a difference of just 36 players. Those tournaments are much more worthy of having the same point distribution.
One other problem is a difference in the player bases who attend. If one country or region has a higher level of player than another then even if the numbers are roughly the same the difficulty of two events could be quite different. Certainly there are some Grand Prixs that have higher level of players than others. Conversely the difference between players at Pro Tours should be very small. The core pro players fluctuates very little and since regions have roughly similar amounts of PTQs for each Pro Tour those players will be close to each other in play skill. While there will be differences in the quality of the field between Pro Tours, they won’t be that large once again making them a fairer competition to play a role in determining a yearly champion.
Luck of the Draw
A third flaw with Grand Prixs is in the way actual tournaments are distributed. Lets say you’re a Japanese pro who is better at limited player than constructed. What limited events do you have in Japan this year? None. How about other Asian Grand Prixs? Nothing. If you’re committed to playing a ton of events that’s not a problem but if you’re on the fence you might not even have a chance to get your run for Player of the Year started. And yet two Grand Prixs that were relatively nearby for him were exactly how the 2009 player of the year started his ascension. Without them he might not have felt he had a chance to win and began traveling the world to earn extra points from Grand Prix. Even though it seems that Wizards does a fairly good job of balancing the formats available at Grand Prixs on a world scale, the regional balance can still be very disruptive.
In general Grand Prix do a poor job of providing the basis for the Player of the Year race. That’s one big strike against them. However I don’t think that is there only flaw.
Any coverage is good coverage?
From a fans perspective the difference between coverage at the varying levels is very different and kind of random. American Grand Prixs have recently become the best events to watch as you can actually watch them thanks to the live coverage of matches by ggslive.com. However outside of American GPs, following the GPs is a painful process. At European Grand Prixs there are the match right ups, which come up a good deal late and the standings, which are incredibly hard to follow and are incredibly delayed, but at least they often provide podcasts, which are good for something. Non-European Non-American GPs are in that state but without podcasts. And while Pro Tours do have some of the same problems, because they are high priority events there is much more coverage, including video features and deck techs, podcasts, some special articles that vary from Pro Tour and the live top 8 coverage. Hence because of the prestige and special care given to Pro Tours their coverage is more enjoyable.
Getting in the Game
The greatest thing that Grand Prixs would seem to have going for them is that they are high level events that everyone can take part in. I will admit that Grand Prixs are great tools for low level players if you get to attend but for people who are fans of the game they often don’t work out. For example, for me and my group of friends, we will attend pretty much any event within about a 3 hour radius. Unfortunately, in the past four years only once has a Grand Prix been held within that area. And that’s the case despite having a city of a million people (Hiroshima) well within that radius. Grand Prixs fall in the unenviable space of being neither local nor global events. Local events are easy to attend and readily available. Global Events, i.e. Pro Tours, usually provide a lot of support for the people who earn the right to compete in them. Because of their in between status they fail to fit the participatory needs of players who are fans of the game. I believe that they do well for the hardcore PTQers who will travel far to attend, but they shouldn’t be pushed as a key part of the Wizards tournament play spectrum because being able to attend them is just too undependable for many players.
In closing
In too many ways Grand Prixs simply fail to provide for the needs of fans of Magic. From providing more valid results to a more enjoyable tournament viewing experience to more opportunities to play tournament level via PTQs, Pro Tours are pretty much all around much better than Grand Prixs. I think Wizards made a big mistake reducing the number of Pro Tours and would really like to see them increase the number of Pro Tours and decreasing the number of Grand Prixs. If economic reasons prevent that from being a viable solution then there are a number of things they could do. Things like the Magic Online Championships show a path that could be used to level the competitive playing field. I think having tournaments on Magic Online for the super-elite could bring a better balance to the Player of the Year race. And better support for local events is a better use of Wizards money than Grand Prixs are, at least as far as the rank and file are concerned. I’m sure the smart people at Wizards can come up with any number of good solutions but I wish they would stop pushing Grand Prixs as a key part of their organized play provisions.
With respect to the author for putting a solid, well thought out opinion out there to the Magic community; I have to categorically disagree with what this article is trying to push.
As a Magic player who is trying to make that push to Pro status, Grand Prix’s are the single best opportunity and it provides that taste of large scale competitive Magic that you can’t get anywhere else. Lets look at the arguments against: The Competition as it refers to the PotY. What the author cites as negatives, I see as positives. I find it refreshing that the PotY is not required to come out of the Pro Tour elite. I feel that currently the GPs have helped to broaden the net with which the PotY year can be cast. Being a PotY is about consistency and success. This is achieved by volume. It requires a name and face that is out there in the public eye many times accompanied by success. What made the PotY names cited worthy and deserved is that I saw their names pop up in many tournament reports, coverage articles, forums, and just about everywhere else. To me, those names were legitimate because I could recognize them and could see that they were out there in the trenches of tournament play doing what they can. Sure, access to events is important, but attending more events than other players shows the sort of dedication to the game that I want out of my PotY. Just as you won’t see an NFL MVP be a player who only played 7 out of the 17 weeks of the season, or (to draw comparison to the Pro Tour) a player who only did well in the playoffs…we shouldn’t see our PotY determined by only a few events that they did well in.
The quality argument I think is made moot by Wizards decision to make Bye’s available to the best players. Having ample opportunity to win a 3 round Bye or having up to a 3 round Bye based on your Player Level takes the authors numbers regarding GP’s compared to Pro Tour and equalizes them. After Round 3 of a GP there are going to be a decent percentage of the play field that wouldn’t be legible for Day 2, and even more that are 1 loss away from missing out. Yet the Pro is starting fresh. If we were to compare numbers on Round 3 and 4 (which I have not done by the way) I think we’d see ratios closer to what the author stated for Pro Tours. I firmly believe that the quality is still there.
The disparity of event participation is harder to pinpoint. I would acquiesce to the notion that being able to play a smaller event would increase your chances at success than larger ones. I’m not sure though, that it is worth a change in point rewards. Certainly there is some effort given to reduce the disparity by Wizards with their two tiered system of number of rounds and cutoff for Day Two based on attendance. Obviously with the openness of these events, participation really can’t be predicted, and by changing any of the point values or rewards of the smaller GPs would only serve to further expand the gap between them as more players wouldn’t attend the smaller events because they would be seen as not worth the effort, and the larger events would get larger as more people flocked to the larger prize pool. I think that attendance of an open event is just a part of organized event play that has to be accepted. I do agree that locations are key, but speaking as a player who has never had a GP or Pro Tour stop within a 4 hour drive here in the United States, I still take the stance that if you want to play, you make the trip. There aren’t even PTQs within an hour for me in the past couple of years, but I will still be making the efforts to get to what I can. As a primer for the larger events I’ve decided that it’s worth my time and money to drive the 10+ hours to GP Washington; these are the types of decisions that every player has to make when contemplating trying to go/be/or stay a Pro player in Magic. The event coverage is an issue that will sort itself out. Entrepreneurial people will find the ways to provide or take advantage of the coverage. This is still an emerging game/sport and the coverage is still in it’s infant stages. Companies like GGSLive are taking advantage of the chance to get in on the ground level and to help shape what it means to provide coverage. Strategy websites have really set some high standards, and the cream of the crop have emerged as the ones to look at for where the direction of the game is heading. Consolidation and higher standards are increasing all of the time and I think that Wizards is doing a decent job of nurturing that. With companies like StarCityGames taking things into their own hands and organizing events is the first step to creating a wider field of sponsored and organized events that can appeal to more people and help to level the playing field and provide for some of the gaps in what Wizards is able to do single handedly.
While I do think that adding back in a couple more Pro Tour events would be beneficial as well, not at the risk of cutting back GPs. All of the arguments against GPs are equally applicable and I think even more so to PTQs. I would not like to see the role of GPs pushed onto PTQs because they are even less likely to have good locations, equitable coverage, and thorough reporting. For many years PTs have been seen as something afar to watch and hope to one day be a part of without much hope for a chance of actually doing so. GPs bridge the gap between PTQs and PTs for the same rank and file player that the author claims to share his viewpoint with. They serve a vital function in the tournament landscape and I would be opposed to seeing them reduced or taken away.
Good thought out article….
… bad motivation though. I fell that you have been let down by the Grand Prix experince and thus want to encourage others to join you on your thoughts. This is fine except Grand Prixs are one of the best ways to provide a highly competive field for somewhat of an FNM goer. It is good to introduce these players to a “pro tour” style tournament with out actually having to qualify for it. If all the mattered was Pro Tours, well everyone would be complaining that there are no open events. I have to respectfully say that I whole heartily disagree with your article, no matter how well though out it may be.
Very organized and well thought out. Regarding the writing though — I felt the it was a bit too structured and would have liked something that flowed a bit better between paragraphs. Also, I think you should have spent more than a single paragraph outlining your vision of an improved organized play system.
Regarding the article’s arguments, I think your point about recent PoYs not winning PTs or top eighting multiple PTs should be placed more firmly in the context of the reduced number of pro tours, since having less pro tours in which to top eight surely was a big factor. Also, perhaps a summary of how the Pro Tour winners and multiple top eight winners finished in the PoY race would help to illustrate the effects of GP points.
Personally, I agree with you that there are too few Pro Tours. I think four Pro Tours plus Worlds was the best situation (five PTs plus Worlds started to water down the PTs, I felt). I also wouldn’t mind if the point ratio between PTs and GPs were skewed a bit more towards PTs. I think it is important to have GPs be a factor though so that the race is more exciting (for people who follow it).
I see no reason to decrease the number of GPs as long as they are profitable for WotC. I assume Pro Tours lose a ton of money with all the travel pay-outs and appearance fees and so are mainly seen as advertising tools, but GPs might be more cost neutral (2000 players means about $60,000 in entrance fees) and if so I think the more large scale tournaments the better.
Reading through the other response, I have to say that I think the author’s original comparisons to player rankings in golf and tennis are more appropriate than to the determination of MVP in a team sport like football. Also, regarding adjusting GPs for size, surely it would not be too hard to make the PT points payout by percentile rather than place (eg top 30% get 1 point, top 15% get 2 points, etc).
Reading through the other response, I have to say that I think the author’s original comparisons to player rankings in golf and tennis are more appropriate than to the determination of MVP in a team sport like football. Also, regarding adjusting GPs for size, surely it would not be too hard to make the PT points payout by percentile rather than place (eg top 30% get 1 point, top 15% get 2 points, etc).
Good thought out article….
… bad motivation though. I fell that you have been let down by the Grand Prix experince and thus want to encourage others to join you on your thoughts. This is fine except Grand Prixs are one of the best ways to provide a highly competive field for somewhat of an FNM goer. It is good to introduce these players to a “pro tour” style tournament with out actually having to qualify for it. If all the mattered was Pro Tours, well everyone would be complaining that there are no open events. I have to respectfully say that I whole heartily disagree with your article, no matter how well though out it may be.
Reading through the other response, I have to say that I think the author’s original comparisons to player rankings in golf and tennis are more appropriate than to the determination of MVP in a team sport like football. Also, regarding adjusting GPs for size, surely it would not be too hard to make the PT points payout by percentile rather than place (eg top 30% get 1 point, top 15% get 2 points, etc).
Thanks for the feedback everyone.
Arashi,
I don’t have an argument about whether or not GPs are good or bad for aspiring pros. They might well be quite good. My argument was for people who are casual players who like following the pro tour. And I don’t believe they suit that crowd well.
For your statement about not wanting the PoY to come from the elite I totally disagree. I want the best players to win rather than the most determined. Like in other sports I want to see mastery rather than determined workmanship. I’d rather watch Tiger Woods golf than some workman golf player and I’d rather watch a brilliant player like Nassif over players who just grind out points. I think the game suffers because players like Nassif take part in so few events.
“As a primer for the larger events I’ve decided that it’s worth my time and money to drive the 10+ hours to GP Washington; these are the types of decisions that every player has to make when contemplating trying to go/be/or stay a Pro player in Magic.”
Again you’re looking at it from the perspective of being a pro. From the perspective of watching pros 10 hour drives are never going to be worth, nor for attending events just for fun. A lot of the rank and file can make events they can day trip to, but when you start needing hotels and the like they become unmanageable.
Worm and Matt,
I really enjoyed the GP I attended. I’d love to attend more. I’m just not able to. And they don’t provide good experiences from a fan perspective. I’m much better served by things like the Pro Tour or by special events like the invitational as a fan. As for open events, I think PTQs, which a lot more people can attend and events like States and Gamedays are much better things to do than GPs.
As for the writing, thanks for the advice. I’m new to writing articles, so there’s going to be some rough patches, especially with no editing support. And I really would like them to increase the number of Pro Tours and also more local events. I think GPs serve their purpose, but it’s not a huge role.
David and others,
Adjusting for size by paying out by percentile is interesting and might be a nice interim solution. I’d have to check the math on it to see how the records correspond amongst different places at different events. I really liked Rich Hagons view on trying to normalize the number of players in events somehow. It’s just hard to work out the numbers exactly.