"From a performance perspective, C9 was the weakest of the three LCS teams and MAD was the best of the three LEC teams."

How was C9 the weakest ? And if it is the weakest, doesnt it give more credit to MAD for qualifying againnst TL who is supposed to be better ? This is far from an undisputable take.

​

"Personally, I think results based analysis isn't very useful...."

I think so too ! Except looking at this thread, it's exactly this kind of analysis everyone is using to justify LCS being on par with LEC. Result based analysis of one tournament (and only the group stage).
Just look at RyanRuin22's reply he did to my message. Pure result based analysis, "both teams 3-0, so only thing to say is KR better".

I would actually say that when I presented MAD as having played better in quarters than C9, it was based on eye test and how I saw their performance in game, which would be the opposite of results-based.

For the rest of your rankings, it is very subjective. First of all, the wording you use to compare TL and MAD (equal strength), while saying C9 is slightly better than rogue is kinda biased. By sheer coincidence, the close match were NA wins is a pertinent result (with C9 better than rogue) while the one where EU wins is a close match where the winner could have gone either way. Buuut, as we said, result based blablabla. I mean, when I say that MAD showed a better performance than C9 in quarters, It is also quite subjective I guess.

Aaaanyways; wasn't even trying to argue that EU was better or not last worlds. I agree that it was a good showing for NA and a bad one for EU, which resulted in btoh region with a prety similar level.

What I was mainly disagreeing with is the NA logic being used to say that NA was clearly and objectively better, while using bad argumentation to prove their point. Like using only groups result and not saying anything about quarters.