There will be no second chances at The Boston Major.

This is because The Boston Major will be the first Valve sponsored event to feature a single elimination bracket. All previous Majors and Internationals featured a double-elimination format, where team's in the upper bracket have a second chance of advancing through the tournament in the lower bracket.

Ahead of The Boston Major, I spoke to a number of pros to gather their thoughts on the format change and what it meant for their teams going into the event.

Do or Die

Under a single elimination format, teams must win every series they play in the playoffs in order to win the event. There is no lower bracket for teams to fall back on, meaning that one mistake could end a team's run before it begins. Not that the lower bracket has helped teams win Valve events in the past. It's important to remember that, as Team NP's Theeban "1437" Siva points out, teams that won Valve events by going through the lower bracket are the exception rather than the rule.

"If I look at teams themselves and at past events, the only teams that came from the lower bracket and won the Valve event was OG at the first Major, Invictus Gaming at TI2 and EG at TI5," 1437 said. "So there's not that many, compared to the eleven or twelve Valve events that already happened."

Even so, the lack of a safety net worries some players. Despite being excited for the tournament Evil Geniuses captain Andreas "Cr1t-" Nielsen said that the format is "not great for us."

"I would say every team that goes into the tournament expecting to win it, you want double elimination simply because it doesn't mean that you lose one best-of-three and you're out," Cr1t- said. "That's just how it is but for the viewers it's good and for the underdog teams it's also good so I can understand why Valve wants to try something else. I'm still excited for the tournament. There's no real excuse to losing even if it's one best-of-three."

That lack of comfort means that players will need to bring their A-game to each playoff series in order to ensure their continued survival. While it is a given that teams should be expected to play at their highest possible level, the format provides little leeway. NP's Avery "SVG" Silverman looked at the positive side of the change, as it forces teams to be more aware of their mentality and mistakes.

"It's going to be hard to tell," SVG said. "The thing is that there's not... fewer matches I guess? The overall matches is still pretty close, there's only like four less or something. But it's just about the Top 8 teams are not going to be as comfortable. You're not going to have this mentality that you can lose and still be in the tournament. It's do or die. So in that sense it's better than double elim in some ways."

One aspect that several players pointed out was that the single elimination format would be exciting for spectators. Though Alliance is not competing in Boston, team captain Jonathan "Loda" Berg looked at it from an outsider's perspective. As a player, he's not a fan of the format, but as a spectator, he understands Valve's decision.

"I'm not a huge fan, but I understand why they would do that as it does make for some more exciting playoffs," Loda said. "When every single game really really matters, it makes the games a bit more enjoyable to watch I think, cause you can really see that teams are doing their everything to win."

Loda's teammate, Linus "Limmp" Blomdin, agrees with Loda, stating that while he would prefer to play under a double elimination format, as a spectator, it will be more fun to watch.

"It's gonna be, for a spectator I think it's gonna be pretty fun to watch, like exciting," Limmp said. "But playing, I think I'd rather have double elimination because it just feels like you get more of a chance to prove yourself, it's more fair in that way I would say. I don't know, I don't mind the change either. It's going to be fun to watch."

Deciding the Best

One common thread that united each players' opinions on the format was that single elimination is not the best way to prove which team is the definitive best. At the Major, the teams that finish in the Bottom 8 have just as much of a chance to win the event as the Top 8 as there are no extra chances to advance.

Because of that, this format should reward teams that prepare and are consistent against a wide variety of opponents. But EHOME's Liu "Sylar" Jiajun believes that this format will reduce the amount of time his team has to prepare. "I think that we won't get as much time as before in single elimination," Sylar said. "We have less time to prepare, so we have to bring our best to each game."

The problem with preparation is that, in the aftermath of TI6, many teams are still struggling to find stability, with no clear leaders as to which team is the best in each region. Take Digital Chaos as an example: apart from competing in Elimination Mode 2.0, they have played a total of seven games together (entirely at The Summit 6 where they compiled a 2-5 record). Despite their poor performance, DC's lack of playtime means that teams do not have much to go off of when they prepare to play them at the Major.

This is only exacerbated by the lack of a lower bracket. SVG notes that while there are a few teams that he would prefer to play against, the format change creates a chaotic environment where seeding matters less than a team's ability to adapt. "The thing with Dota is...there might be one or two teams at Boston that you want to play against as far as seeding goes," SVG said. "But at the end of the day a lot of teams are wild cards in the sense that you don't know how well they will perform at Boston, or how poorly. You need to be prepared for every game."

Of course, the best team doesn't always win the Major, as there is always the looming chance of a big upset. but what concerns Loda however is not that the best team won't win, but that the format will prevent the most consistent team from winning.

"I wouldn't say that there's a risk that the best team doesn't win, but there's a risk that the most consistent team doesn't win when maybe they would have if there was a double-elimination format or something," Loda said. "Some teams have a hard time to get to their top level straight away in a tournament and I think that's just what they'll have to deal with better for this tournament, where you actually really have to be prepared for the playoffs because otherwise you might as well be out."

Clinton "Fear" Loomis echoed Loda's concerns, as he personally prefers the double elimination format used in past Majors and TIs.

"I just think, it doesn't give you the opportunity to see what team is truly the best," Fear said. "Teams definitely match up differently against each other. Like a team you could play that you're strong against you'll beat but that team is only good against you for some reason, if they knock you out right away and they just get knocked out the next round, I don't know it's just like matchup specific. Generally speaking the best team will win, I just, I'm not a huge fan of it."

compLexity Gaming captain Kyle "melonzz" Freedman was much harsher in his criticism of the format, stating that the more games teams play, the more likely chance the best team wins. "I think that group play is the most fair and the more games you have the better," melonzz said. "Because the more games you play the less variance you have and the better teams win overall. And I think that as a Valve event it should be a long, arduous, grueling affair that proves after a marathon that we have a champion. Not, f***ing, one series a day.”

Whether the best team wins The Boston Major remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that Valve is open to changing the format without concern over what players prefer. Now, the only thing that remains to be seen is whether The Boston Major will be an exception, or a new standard for tournaments going forward.

Preston Dozsa is a news editor for theScore esports. You can follow him on Twitter.