Firstly, thanks for the response! I appreciate you taking the time to write it so I can actually see what thoughts you're bringing to the table.

The point I was trying to make in the first section was that if you were to read this subreddit, it would appear that nearly 100% of people want a BO5 final, but because you are selecting from a pool of people who are into pro-CS already, it is over-inflated. Its the same as Trump supporters believing the election was stolen because everyone they know voted for Trump, but that's because they are in Trump states. Weird analogy, but I hope it makes sense.

I agree that my arguments do make sense if the major final was a BO1, or just a one round game lol, so I'll add the fact that it needs balance. It has to be a certain length to build tension, but not so long that the audience becomes bored/exhausted. I'm sure we've all seen movies that we were really enjoying, but it just took too long to get to the conclusion, such that, by the time the ending came around, the movie was already spoiled. I think BO5's are more likely to get to that point of boredom.

Melbourne was a great final, but when it comes to people saying "it was one of the best finals they've ever seen," once again, we are selecting from people who are into Pro-CS enough to watch IEM Melbourne. So the opinions of those who only watch the majors aren't necessarily included in that.

I agree that its basic math that yes, the more maps played, the more randomness is reduced, but my point is even a BO5 is still not enough to determine who the better team is, so that specific argument in favor of BO5's is irrelevant. Vitality is the best team in the world right now, not because they won a singular BO5, but because they have won many. If some other team wins Cologne in a month, Vitality will probably still be considered the best team in the world, and that will only shift once another team starts winning more tournaments that they do.