Since we are only traveling back in time a brief period--to the PSP vs. AXBL post--we will not be needing Mr. Peabody, his boy, Sherman, or the Wayback machine for this one. This response is too complex for a post comment though and as such defaults into a follow-up post; PSP vs. AXBL, round 2. In the hope of keeping the dialogue chronological and clear I will recap in brief to the point of Raehl's most recent rebuttal and then respond--as I promised to last week in Phoenix--whereupon Raehl will retreat in dismay and embarrassment clutching at his hind quarters, figuratively of course.
The original enquiry. Identified two core issues for the PSP; the uncertain draw at any given event and the continuing struggle to fill the upper non-pro division(s). Neither of these are issues for the AXBL which maintains a consistent tiered league from a regional base with lower level teams playing expressly with the goal of moving up. The question became, Is there anything to be learned here? Why does the one struggle in these areas when the other doesn't?
Raehl's first reply. (I'm leaving out the stuff that isn't, to my mind, responsive to the original post but if Chris or anyone else wishes to drag it back in, in the comments, that's fine.) Raehl suggests any differences that might be viewed as advantage AXBL accrue from proximity--being a regional series it is cheaper and easier to be the AXBL. He further suggests that my allegation that the "team ownership" structure could play a role is silly as he reiterates his proximity is all argument.
Unfortunately for Raehl I had already dealt with his proximity argument before he made it by introducing the CFOA into the original post. If the CFOA can act as a stand-in for the PSP then the regional versus national argument fails immediately because the CFOA struggles with exactly the same issues as the PSP with respect to the topic of the post.
And where I think Raehl may be missing the boat in "team ownership" is his determination to make it solely about the interaction between the league and the team. It is clear that while that basic relationship may be similar it's not the relevant aspect if, in fact, team ownership possesses any relevance.
Raehl's second reply. Raehl adds to his explanation by suggesting it is proximity and a league that requires advance payment in order to participate. And, uh, the format is different. He closes his comment with these statements:
PSP can be every bit as stable as AXBL, as long as they cut their events down to three fields, two days, and don't let anyone play unless they pay for the full season up front.
You're right, dissecting an argument is what I always do, because if your argument is crap, you don't have a point, you have a fantasy. You start with information that isn't true, apply logic that is bunk, and reach a conclusion that is, obviously, disconnected from reality. And before you try and bust out that ad-hominem "psp shill" retort in defense of your non-point again, remember that the NCPA has pretty much exactly the same league structure as AXBL, and had it first, so I'm obviously a fan. I don't think I said anything bad about AXBL; I said that your conclusion as to why AXBL was more consistent was mistaken.
I included that last para just for fun and that's the one I want to start with. It's not really pertinent but so what? But it would be helpful if Raehl could read with comprehension, for a start. I did not call him a PSP shill nor did I accuse him of denigrating the AXBL. I did say he left himself open to that accusation--which has been made before but not by me--when his knee-jerk response is to always defend the PSP even when nobody is on the offensive. It also makes for shoddy thinking as these exchanges ought to demonstrate. Let's list the ways. I did not offer any conclusions about anything. I didn't construct an argument, logically or otherwise. I did provide some salient information which is unequivocally true and correct. And the only place Raehl attacked the information was with respect to "team ownership" but I also provided a definition in the original post--which was conveniently ignored. (Unstated elements of my interest in "team owners" are the commitment required and the numbers of such teams drawn from a relatively small area vis-a-vis the PSP's nationwide draw.)
What I did do was juxtapose what I called AXBL strengths against PSP weaknesses and posed a question or two intended to encourage peeps to think a little bit.
As to the substance of Raehl's second reply there is something to both proximity and the upfront commitment but the example of the CFOA already limits, at the very least, the impact of proximity as the decisive factor. Though using proximity as a filter for cost and time commitment might be productive but again there is the CFOA counter-example. And to suggest the PSP could be as stable as the AXBL if the PSP were to become like the AXBL (a regional closed league) is actually more telling than Raehl seems to realize. Perhaps the question ought to be is AXBL-type stability possible short of becoming like the AXBL?
Meanwhile, the questions remain open. There were some good comments the first time around and I hope a few more of you take a little time to reconsider the original post this time around. The object here isn't (and wasn't) about picking winners and losers. If I have piqued your interest look at the original post one more time. Major league paintball is on rocky ground and needs answers or at the very least some new ideas generated (perhaps) by confronting the old problems in new and different ways.
UPDATE: It has been suggested that the above isn't really an advancement on the original. That is a view I won't debate. Instead I will, at the proverbial later date, offer some expanded thoughts on the topic. How could I resist dredging another post out of the topic?