Is the "more is better" approach to big events actually ruining them?
in Random / Off-topic ·
I was thinking about this the other day while watching some tournament coverage. It feels like every time a major global event comes around, the organizers try to "improve" things by just adding more volume. More matches, more stages, more roster spots—it's always about expanding the scale.
But I honestly worry we're hitting a point of diminishing returns. When you stretch a competition out too far, it stops being about peak performance and starts feeling like a test of who can survive the most physical punishment without breaking. I've seen so many talented people get sidelined just because the schedule was too grueling, and then the quality of the actual show drops because the top-tier talent isn't even on the field anymore. It feels less like a showcase of excellence and more like a survival marathon.
Does anyone else feel like these massive expansions actually dilute the prestige of the competition, or is it just a necessary evil to deal with the physical toll?
But I honestly worry we're hitting a point of diminishing returns. When you stretch a competition out too far, it stops being about peak performance and starts feeling like a test of who can survive the most physical punishment without breaking. I've seen so many talented people get sidelined just because the schedule was too grueling, and then the quality of the actual show drops because the top-tier talent isn't even on the field anymore. It feels less like a showcase of excellence and more like a survival marathon.
Does anyone else feel like these massive expansions actually dilute the prestige of the competition, or is it just a necessary evil to deal with the physical toll?