I think that a
6 tier slam is the optimal choice by a huge margin. Playoffs should use a system where the higher seed picks the first tier, lower seed picks the second tier, higher seed picks 3rd, lower picks 4th, and then higher picks 5th. This leaves the only unpicked tier as the lower seed's 3rd choice (or lower). I don't see any competitive disruption caused by expanding to 6 tiers.
I know that people have raised objections to non-5 tier Slam in the past, saying that we used to have it and they hated it. To the best of my knowledge (and correct me if I am wrong), this version of slam had 7 tiers, including Doubles, which is far more mechanically different than LC or any of the tiers in Slam. Playing 7 opens also sounds impossible, whereas 6 feels a bit more realistic. If 2 opens go up per week, it would be similar to how it is now but if you had another open go up at the same time as UU. I'd hate playing in a Slam with 7 opens + Doubles, but I think that 6 tiers is perfectly reasonable.
Ubers seems to be almost 100% in, so i wont discuss them - the Ubers SCL pool was stacked, and I know that a ton of subs (or even undrafted players) for Ubers were high-level, very proven players (such as
Aberforth who did an amazing job working with M Dragon). The community is very active and there's not really a compelling reason for Ubers to be the tier that is excluded.
LC and PU are thus the tiers realistically considered for possible removal from Slam.
The case for a Ubers-UU-RU-NU-PU Slam is that LC is more difficult to pick up and mechanically different from the level 100 tiers, so it is the logical choice for exclusion. It is true that there is a mechanical difference between LC and the level 100 tiers, but at the same time that feels like a really shitty reason to exclude LC. Picking it up requires more effort than the level 100 tiers but still doesnt require that much effort; I just had to explore the calcs for an hour or less, watch teammates' games in a teamtour to see how the standard sequences play out (i.e. what switches into what), and learn the standard spreads that LC mons run. It then felt the same as the level 100 tiers ... and when you pick up a level 100 tier doing the latter two things is good anyways. I couldnt tell u what to switch into Ho-Oh or how much speed Yveltal runs, for instance.
as a tl;dr - the level difference between LC and UU-PU is sort of "a distinction without a difference". Sure, it matters when you first open the calc, but it doesn't suddenly make LC an uncompetitive tier that has no merit. the LC community is really active, and every game I've had in LC teamtours has been competitive, engaging, and unique. (Yes, you can innovate in LC even tho everyone uses Mienfoo. Check out Yveltal's usage in Ubers -- that hasn't stopped them from coming up with lots of unique strategies/archetypes)
The case for a Ubers-UU-RU-NU-LC slam seems to be that PU is less competitive and active than LC; the most competitive tour consists of the five most competitive tiers, so LC should be in over PU. PU's SCL was kinda shaky but I find SCL playerbase quality to be a weird metric for making decisions about a whole tier's inclusion; the top 10 players only make up, what, 4% of the Open signups? (Sniped by ABR) I also cant help but feel that this would be a shitty reason to exclude PU. What could they have done differently: get more signups for their seasonals (which were on par with RU / NU)? Have a few more SCL-level players?
Remember that the primary goal is to have a competitive tournament, not necessary an inclusive one. Solutions that attempt to create a compromise may be feasible, but ensure that they are motivated by us having six solid choices, rather than trying avoid the issue in the name in inclusivity.
I think that we absolutely have 6 solid choices; all of the 5 tiers that were in Slam last year were fine inclusions, it was a competitive tour, and there isn't a justification to remove any one of them. Sure, LC is
different, but I don't think that difference poses a meaningful barrier to the tour's competitiveness -- it isn't that hard to pick up. Sure, PU didn't look great in SCL, but I don't think the top 10 of the playerbase looking below average is a reason to completely cut off the tier's representation in an individual. All 5 tiers are proven to be competitive; the new addition, Ubers, is widely agreed to also be a competitive, worthy addition to the tour. 6 tier Slam wouldn't have any major problems; the picking system described above ensures it doesn't imbalance playoffs, and the complaints about how much 7 tier slam sucked arent rly valid since this doesn't have the albatross of Doubles in a singles tour.
The benefit to the tour of removing any one of these deserving tiers is far less than the cost of cutting off one of these tiers (which are proven to be competitive!) from representation in an official individual tournament. Because all these tiers are deserving and having 6>5 wouldn't affect the competitiveness of Slam, I strongly believe
Slam should be 6 tiers: Ubers, UU, RU, NU, PU, and LC.