I want to define competition by videos showing a good competitive match. If you show me a video of a final in which the outcome is an easy 3-0 win then I wouldn't call that competition. If you show me a final where the outcome is 4-3  (looking at reb and vis) then I would say it was competitive. We can argue all day about which one has more competition and we wouldn't get anywhere. If we argue based on videos we still wouldn't get anywhere, but at least there would be a case for people opinion.
My all-time favorite match was actually from mix, the first 5 round final between lia and US came down to ares winning the 5th match by .5. I have watched other mixed matches and I don't recall anything being competitive. people that do the mix have a better chance of putting competitive matches, so then I could understand why they think the way they do. |
The problem is that even though the top tier mixed teams are better, Alumni still will typically win 2-0/3-0 or 3-1. Put Apostles vs. Blackout and nobody could predict the winner with confidence. Alumni is an anomaly in that sense. What Thallen said about ranking teams regardless of which tournament they're in also helps to prove my point here. I'd imagine it'd be something like:
Alumni
Apostles
Blackout
Silver Lion
Predation
Demon
*insert like 6 idev teams here*
GTEAM
*insert a few more idev teams*
And that's the rough picture. While the very top are mixed teams, there are more contenders for idev than there are for mixed.
On a side note, I'd love to see the separate tournaments removed, seeing as how they were made because iDevs at the time trembled to spar vs. PC and how that fear is supposedly gone now.