I agree that hosts having too much power (and in my case clearly not wanting that power) is a problem, but I see the TD idea potentially just passing that power off to another authority and if anything it leaves a ton of room for really nasty power struggles if hosts and TDs disagree. I don't want to pass powers off to more failable people, I want the policies to be transparent. I think the logical conclusion is having a more open group of people vet and come up with rules, and then hold hard and fast to the rules throughout a tournament in a way that does not overly rely on the biases of any sort of authority.

And well, THIS very thread, now 11-pages long, started out as that very group of people that were meant to vet and come up with rules. This very thread saw no support of bo3 over bo1 until after the tournament started, even though it should have been assumed bo1 was the default still in place because it was the default last year and from my understanding is the default of many other team tournaments. Furthermore, when discussion on a specialized bo3 slot was proposed, it was shot down and no discussion on making bo3 the default elsewhere occurred.

Personally I don't think the advantages that drap listed above for a bo3 default / bo1 optional set-up outweigh the advantages of the reverse. I do not believe that the number of different teams to impact usage stats from one format to the other would be significant and the bo3 default would put a burden on scheduling, and I tend to support the people who have the biggest burden on scheduling and want to create environments that limit this burden, as seen as in my thoughts about allowing speedy subs. The extra time and commitment to build, test, and ultimately play your opponent with multiple teams is a deterrent to some players. The whole reason why many PLs don't have bo3 default is because the matchups are already quite heavy across the team. CAPTT IV is essentially already a bo5 by default. I get that some of you might live and breath CAP and you just wanna play as much as you possibly can, but not everyone is in that category and not everyone has the time to play that much. Some people have a limit of how much time they have to commit and for some bo3 and its extra steps exceeds that limit. Why I support bo1 default bo3 optional is because everyone who has the capabilities and desire to do bo3 also has the capabilities to do bo1, but not everyone with the time capabilities and desire to do bo1 has the time capabilities to do bo3. It's not an issue of how many people WANT to do more, it's an issue of cutting out or putting a burden on the people who can't do quite that much. bo1 default/bo3 optional lowers the required burden, b03 default/bo1 optional raises the required burden. Yes yes I realize to many of you playing more CAP is not a burden and it's a desired thing, but there is a clear increase in time and preparation needed from bo1 to bo3.

I'm completely open to furthering this discussion, as clearly there are many issues that have been talked about without a clear consensus or without proper representation. I just ask that you guys can respect that not all of these topics are seen as clean-cut, open-shut issues. You've all been included in the convo to plan many things about CAPTT, your voices matter, and I seriously wish you would have voiced your concerns about certain issues beforehand. I think we all want what is best for the CAP community, and I think there's a myriad of interesting perspectives here (and perhaps in the broader CAP community) that will get us closer to what actually is best.