treadstone Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 (edited) With the strong possibility that not all "G7" members will actually be in the top 7 this year - since the G7 concept (which I don't agree with) has not yet been initialized - it does not seem logical (based upon the case they make for the G7 concept) to keep the original members if something changes this year. For example, currently the Blue Stars are heavy crowd favorite and 7th in the rankings to SVC's 8th. Were that to be the case at finals, and in consideration that G7 is still more of a vision (their vision) than a reality - should Blue Stars finish over SVC within the 7 - they should have a "seat at the table". Also, within the "7" the top 3 should get more money throughout the following year. As long as we're going to "eat our young" let's do it right! Jason Edited August 6, 2010 by treadstone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustyboo Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 With the strong possibility that not all "G7" members will actually be in the top 7 this year - since the G7 concept (which I don't agree with) has not yet been initialized - it does not seem logical (based upon the case they make for the G7 concept) to keep the original members if something changes this year. For example, currently the Blue Stars are heavy crowd favorite and 7th in the rankings to SVC's 8th. Were that to be the case at finals, and in consideration that G7 is still more of a vision (their vision) than a reality - should Blue Stars finish over SVC within the 7 - they should have a "seat at the table". Also, within the "7" the top 3 should get more money throughout the following year. As long as we're going to "eat our young" let's do it right! Jason It's about who they want in the group. Phantom was not top 7 last year but is included in the G-7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyboardGuy Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 They are taking the recent past champions and high-finishers, plus the recent "contenders". In other words, as Dusty said... "who they want"... With the strong possibility that not all "G7" members will actually be in the top 7 this year - since the G7 concept (which I don't agree with) has not yet been initialized - it does not seem logical (based upon the case they make for the G7 concept) to keep the original members if something changes this year. For example, currently the Blue Stars are heavy crowd favorite and 7th in the rankings to SVC's 8th. Were that to be the case at finals, and in consideration that G7 is still more of a vision (their vision) than a reality - should Blue Stars finish over SVC within the 7 - they should have a "seat at the table". Also, within the "7" the top 3 should get more money throughout the following year. As long as we're going to "eat our young" let's do it right! Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 With the strong possibility that not all "G7" members will actually be in the top 7 this year - since the G7 concept (which I don't agree with) has not yet been initialized - it does not seem logical (based upon the case they make for the G7 concept) to keep the original members if something changes this year. For example, currently the Blue Stars are heavy crowd favorite and 7th in the rankings to SVC's 8th. Were that to be the case at finals, and in consideration that G7 is still more of a vision (their vision) than a reality - should Blue Stars finish over SVC within the 7 - they should have a "seat at the table". Also, within the "7" the top 3 should get more money throughout the following year. As long as we're going to "eat our young" let's do it right! Jason and....this further dissension. say Phantom and SCV arent top 7. yet they signed their name on the document...now, oops, you suck, you're out.yeah that will go over well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler C. Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 With the strong possibility that not all "G7" members will actually be in the top 7 this year - since the G7 concept (which I don't agree with) has not yet been initialized - it does not seem logical (based upon the case they make for the G7 concept) to keep the original members if something changes this year. For example, currently the Blue Stars are heavy crowd favorite and 7th in the rankings to SVC's 8th. Were that to be the case at finals, and in consideration that G7 is still more of a vision (their vision) than a reality - should Blue Stars finish over SVC within the 7 - they should have a "seat at the table". Also, within the "7" the top 3 should get more money throughout the following year. As long as we're going to "eat our young" let's do it right! Jason And they're quickly catching Phantom, only .4 back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soccerguy315 Posted August 7, 2010 Share Posted August 7, 2010 actually... the 7 corps who signed the document... can just vote to keep themselves in the G7 no matter what happens. cool huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazymello Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 Didnt the powerpoint say it was top 7 retroactive to 2008? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 Maybe some who are in the top 7 don't WANT to be a part of it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.