TL;DR
- cvMax transformed Griffin from promotion team to LCK champions but was forced out before Worlds 2019
- Manager Cho Kyu-nam systematically undermined cvMax’s authority and claimed credit for team success
- Internal conflicts included streaming bans, draft criticism, and questioning coaching decisions
- Former players confirmed cvMax’s crucial role in Griffin’s success despite management denial
- The case reveals critical esports management pitfalls and team dynamics challenges
Kim “cvMax” Dae-ho’s abrupt exit from Griffin ahead of the 2019 League of Legends World Championship sent shockwaves through the esports community. During a revealing stream session, the former head coach detailed how internal organizational conflicts forced his departure, contradicting the team’s official narrative of a mutual agreement.
Under cvMax’s strategic leadership, Griffin achieved one of esports’ most remarkable Cinderella stories. The team surged from the LCK 2018 Summer Promotion tournament to dominate both spring and summer splits, ultimately securing Korea’s second seed at Worlds despite falling to SK Telecom T1 in playoffs.
Despite these extraordinary achievements, cvMax found himself pushed out in September 2019, just as the team prepared for the world stage. The timing proved particularly damaging, disrupting team cohesion during critical preparation periods.
Management Power Struggles and Forced Departure
The official separation announcement described an amicable parting, but cvMax’s stream revelations painted a starkly different picture. According to translated accounts from Reddit users, team representative Cho Kyu-nam engineered circumstances that left cvMax with no viable alternative but resignation.
Cho delivered multiple damaging messages to cvMax, including assertions that the coach’s contributions were merely fortunate circumstances rather than strategic mastery. This systematic devaluation created an untenable working environment.
The management’s approach followed a troubling pattern: initial demands for cvMax’s departure after LCK summer finals, followed by reversed decisions requesting he remain through Worlds. This inconsistency demonstrated poor leadership planning and created unnecessary instability.
Perhaps most damaging were reports that Griffin players relayed messages suggesting the coach was expendable to their success. Such player-management collusion against coaching staff represents one of esports management’s most destructive dynamics.
Cho’s reported statement—”We would have won with any other coach” and “Griffin is not your team”—reveals fundamental misunderstandings about successful team building in competitive gaming.
The Credibility Battle: League Knowledge vs Management Authority
The conflict between cvMax and Cho wasn’t an isolated incident but reflected deeper organizational dysfunction. Multiple Reddit sources documented Cho’s systematic efforts to undermine cvMax’s authority through various tactics.
Management imposed streaming restrictions on cvMax, limiting his ability to build personal brand equity and connect with the broader League community. This control extended to criticizing strategic drafts and questioning in-game decision-making despite Cho’s limited League expertise.
Former Griffin trainee ADC “DdangWoo” corroborated cvMax’s account during his own stream, affirming the coach’s instrumental role in the team’s competitive ascent. This player testimony directly contradicted management’s narrative.
The credibility conflict reached its peak when Cho, possessing only superficial League knowledge, attempted to discredit cvMax’s strategic understanding. The manager frequently referenced his StarCraft coaching background when asserting superiority over cvMax’s League-specific expertise.
This expertise disparity highlights a critical esports industry challenge: management professionals without game-specific knowledge attempting to override technical experts. Such dynamics inevitably damage team performance and coaching effectiveness.
The cvMax-Griffin case study offers invaluable lessons for esports organizations worldwide. Establishing clear role definitions and respecting expertise boundaries proves essential for sustainable success.
Successful team management requires balancing strategic oversight with technical autonomy. Coaches need authority over game-specific decisions while management focuses on organizational infrastructure and resource allocation.
Common management mistakes include micromanaging technical decisions, failing to recognize coaching contributions, and creating divisive player-management alliances against coaching staff.
Organizations should implement structured communication channels that prevent unilateral decisions undermining coaching authority. Regular performance reviews should involve multiple stakeholders to ensure balanced assessment.
For teams building competitive rosters, understanding these dynamics proves as crucial as mastering game mechanics. The Complete Guide to successful team management emphasizes these principles across different esports titles.
Action Checklist
- Establish clear role boundaries between management oversight and coaching authority
- Implement transparent performance evaluation systems involving multiple stakeholders
- Create structured communication protocols that prevent unilateral decisions undermining coaching staff
- Develop expertise recognition systems that value game-specific knowledge
- Build conflict resolution mechanisms that address power struggles before they damage team performance
No reproduction without permission：Games Guides Website » cvMax airs internal problems at Griffin, dispute with manager Cho Inside cvMax's controversial Griffin departure: Power struggles, management conflicts, and esports team dynamics