Well, like I said in the article, T1 coming of age means that it will lose lots of the casual players who played it for years. I'll shed no tears.
How can you say something like that if the type one community shrinks it affects everyone. Losing passionate players because of a predictable metagame that goes in cycles as you mentioned earlier is bad news to everyone. The tournaments at type 1 events are made up of many players at different skill levels playing verious decks. This helps the dealers keep tournaments going if only the best players showed up they'd be drving four hours to play with 12 people that should shed you some tears. You need people in the type one players like you need water in your body to keep the format going. And if the metagame is turning people off for whatever reason you should be worried about tournament turnouts where people wanna play their best decks even if they don't win. The loss of the casual player can hurt much more than you over simplified.
That would be a concern--if tournament attendence didn't keep steadily rising.
2001: You have insular, stagnant metagames where 10 people show up to each tourney and play the same decks every time. Getting enough people to have 5 rounds was a big deal.
2004: You have large tournies every month with over 100 people at them.
Personally, if you like that sort of format, that's your perogative and I'm not going to tell you to change. The problem just arises when you are trying to draw conclusions about the format AS A WHOLE using your black box. Because nobody else gets to look inside it to see what sort of basis your statements have with regards to the metagame, deck construction, and so on, nobody else can tell if your conclusions are logical or not, and thus your "intuition," "gut experience," and "anecdotal evidence" has to remain just that, rather than becoming "fact" or "a conclusion draw from hard data."
