Saturday, December 24, 2011
Friday, December 23, 2011
Baca's Mailbag, Dec 23
What do you think Division 1 teams can and need to do in order to better themselves to make the jump to Pro? Besides the experience, what do Pro teams have that a successful D1/ Semipro team doesn't have and how can we best prepare ourselves for what's to come.
Players capable of competing on the Pro level. Of course part of that capability is born of experience--but not all of it.
Then there's the interesting qualifier; "successful" D1/Semipro teams. But what constitutes successful in this context? The big unknown for any team making the jump is whether the team belongs or doesn't. Let's look for a moment at the last two PSP am teams to make the jump; Vicious & CEP. Vicious via D1 and a Semi-pro season and CEP from D1. Vicious finished 10 of 12 teams in their first season and 8 out of 10 in their second with one Sunday appearance. Fortunately that Sunday came at Cup and provides a lift going into next season. CEP finished 10 of 10. Would it surprise you to know that Vicious has only won 2 PSP events since 2007? And that CEP won only one of 8 D1 events and one of those D1 seasons also saw the PSP offer a Semipro division. I mention the history of the latest two additions to the PSP Pro division because almost everyone would have said they were successful programs prior to making the move. (I am not, btw, saying neither Vicious or CEP can compete at the pro level but I also don't doubt for a second it's proved much more difficult than either team expected.) The (apparently) soon to be Pro Upton 187 has been more successful winning their final three D2 events and the final two D1 events this past season. That's 5 wins in the last 8 events. Now that is a successful team. Will it translate into pro success? Depends on what "success" means, doesn't it? Just being able to call yourself a pro player or have PBN turn you green is not success. Joining the club isn't success--it is the ultimate challenge in competitive paintball--embrace it.
Realistically--for pretty much everybody--early on success is survival. Success is staying engaged, staying positive, fighting the good fight. Recognizing there is a steep learning curve. One positive way to do this is to have clearly articulated goals. Focus on those goals and focus on learning the necessary lessons the competition will try to teach.
As a practical matter there are perhaps a few proactive things to be done. Play pro teams. (Easier said than done, I know.) (Keeping in mind that practice isn't competition. You only succeed in practice if you learn something and improve.) Organize your pit. Do it the same way every time with everyone having a known role to perform as required. (The less the team has to think about things other than playing the better.) The same applies to any and all team-related roles. It promotes order and frees the players up to focus on playing. At the beginning of each season the team should set goals, by practice, by event and for the season. Adjust upward as needed. Make every practice count. Practice needs to focus on making each and every player better, every time. (The critical question is how, I know.) One way is to tape practice and matches for later evaluation. Ideally, here's where a captain or coach can make a significant difference, particularly one who has been there and done that. It's mighty hard to know what you're missing when you don't know you're missing it. It is also difficult for most teams to internally evaluate one another and the team's deficiencies--much less have a good idea how to fix identified problems. And most players, however motivated, need someone to help draw the best out of them. And of course Race 2-7 is a more tactical and strategic variant than they will be used to as well.
At the end of the day there remain no guarantees. No sure fire answers. No roadmap to certain success. The best you can do is do your best.
Players capable of competing on the Pro level. Of course part of that capability is born of experience--but not all of it.
Then there's the interesting qualifier; "successful" D1/Semipro teams. But what constitutes successful in this context? The big unknown for any team making the jump is whether the team belongs or doesn't. Let's look for a moment at the last two PSP am teams to make the jump; Vicious & CEP. Vicious via D1 and a Semi-pro season and CEP from D1. Vicious finished 10 of 12 teams in their first season and 8 out of 10 in their second with one Sunday appearance. Fortunately that Sunday came at Cup and provides a lift going into next season. CEP finished 10 of 10. Would it surprise you to know that Vicious has only won 2 PSP events since 2007? And that CEP won only one of 8 D1 events and one of those D1 seasons also saw the PSP offer a Semipro division. I mention the history of the latest two additions to the PSP Pro division because almost everyone would have said they were successful programs prior to making the move. (I am not, btw, saying neither Vicious or CEP can compete at the pro level but I also don't doubt for a second it's proved much more difficult than either team expected.) The (apparently) soon to be Pro Upton 187 has been more successful winning their final three D2 events and the final two D1 events this past season. That's 5 wins in the last 8 events. Now that is a successful team. Will it translate into pro success? Depends on what "success" means, doesn't it? Just being able to call yourself a pro player or have PBN turn you green is not success. Joining the club isn't success--it is the ultimate challenge in competitive paintball--embrace it.
Realistically--for pretty much everybody--early on success is survival. Success is staying engaged, staying positive, fighting the good fight. Recognizing there is a steep learning curve. One positive way to do this is to have clearly articulated goals. Focus on those goals and focus on learning the necessary lessons the competition will try to teach.
As a practical matter there are perhaps a few proactive things to be done. Play pro teams. (Easier said than done, I know.) (Keeping in mind that practice isn't competition. You only succeed in practice if you learn something and improve.) Organize your pit. Do it the same way every time with everyone having a known role to perform as required. (The less the team has to think about things other than playing the better.) The same applies to any and all team-related roles. It promotes order and frees the players up to focus on playing. At the beginning of each season the team should set goals, by practice, by event and for the season. Adjust upward as needed. Make every practice count. Practice needs to focus on making each and every player better, every time. (The critical question is how, I know.) One way is to tape practice and matches for later evaluation. Ideally, here's where a captain or coach can make a significant difference, particularly one who has been there and done that. It's mighty hard to know what you're missing when you don't know you're missing it. It is also difficult for most teams to internally evaluate one another and the team's deficiencies--much less have a good idea how to fix identified problems. And most players, however motivated, need someone to help draw the best out of them. And of course Race 2-7 is a more tactical and strategic variant than they will be used to as well.
At the end of the day there remain no guarantees. No sure fire answers. No roadmap to certain success. The best you can do is do your best.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Baca's Mailbag, Dec 21
Today's question was pulled from the mailbag post of Dec 12. I foolishly agreed to respond (in that post's comments) and so now I'm stuck. Unlike the norm, today's answer is not the answer. I'm not sure there is such an answer but it is a valuable topic for conversation and one that competitive paintball will have to answer eventually.
So, do you see any way for the industry to help make tourney play more attractive to field owners, who can then sponsor and give refuge to more teams (who then buy more high end guns and cases of paint)?
Actually, I do. And I'ma throw in an extra answer besides--consider it an early Christmas present from VFTD. First thing the industry needs to do is stop sponsoring paintball teams. And by "sponsoring" I mean offering direct to teams discounted merchandise. (Did I have you going there for a sec?) Selling direct breaks down the relationships between teams/players and the local field. If the local field/pro shop is the conduit between local/regional/national am teams and discounted product it is a small price to pay to encourage fields interested in supporting competition paintball to do so and builds bonds at the local level between teams/players and their local fields/pro shops. As it stands the manufacturers who go the direct "sponsorship" route are cannibalizing their own grassroots markets.
While a good start that's not enough. In this time of economic contraction and internet sales (and even some big box store sales) the local field/pro shop--particularly if it has nearby competitors--has to offer something more, or at least different. Given that I think the bar has been raised too high for simple entry into the competitive paintball world I have some suggestions; offer and schedule times for basic paintball training; combine that with restricted but informal afternoon (or morning) (or both) streetball style "competitions" periodically and encourage or directly promote the development of paintball clubs based around the local field. The idea is to begin by teaching anyone interested the fundamentals of the game and then give them a place and a way to begin to experience their growing skills in an environment of their equals. You want more and future tourney players? Especially now they don't appear ex nihilo. The club can be an element the local field organizes or it can be an arrangement between those interested in building a paintball club and their local competition-oriented field. The club exists to develop tourney players and provide a ladder of teams on which to compete.And if the local field is the source of discounted gear, etc. you now have a reciprocal basis for the relationship. And in the longer term the most successful clubs will attract more and better players and more attention from would be industry supporters and everybody would potentially benefit.
So, do you see any way for the industry to help make tourney play more attractive to field owners, who can then sponsor and give refuge to more teams (who then buy more high end guns and cases of paint)?
Actually, I do. And I'ma throw in an extra answer besides--consider it an early Christmas present from VFTD. First thing the industry needs to do is stop sponsoring paintball teams. And by "sponsoring" I mean offering direct to teams discounted merchandise. (Did I have you going there for a sec?) Selling direct breaks down the relationships between teams/players and the local field. If the local field/pro shop is the conduit between local/regional/national am teams and discounted product it is a small price to pay to encourage fields interested in supporting competition paintball to do so and builds bonds at the local level between teams/players and their local fields/pro shops. As it stands the manufacturers who go the direct "sponsorship" route are cannibalizing their own grassroots markets.
While a good start that's not enough. In this time of economic contraction and internet sales (and even some big box store sales) the local field/pro shop--particularly if it has nearby competitors--has to offer something more, or at least different. Given that I think the bar has been raised too high for simple entry into the competitive paintball world I have some suggestions; offer and schedule times for basic paintball training; combine that with restricted but informal afternoon (or morning) (or both) streetball style "competitions" periodically and encourage or directly promote the development of paintball clubs based around the local field. The idea is to begin by teaching anyone interested the fundamentals of the game and then give them a place and a way to begin to experience their growing skills in an environment of their equals. You want more and future tourney players? Especially now they don't appear ex nihilo. The club can be an element the local field organizes or it can be an arrangement between those interested in building a paintball club and their local competition-oriented field. The club exists to develop tourney players and provide a ladder of teams on which to compete.And if the local field is the source of discounted gear, etc. you now have a reciprocal basis for the relationship. And in the longer term the most successful clubs will attract more and better players and more attention from would be industry supporters and everybody would potentially benefit.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Baca's Mailbag, December 19
For 2012 we will be playing D2 Xball nationally and I feel like all of our gun fighting skills individually are there, but just as a team I'm worried about the overall game plan execution. What are the best ways to lay out a game plan? How to make sure everyone sticks to their objective for that point? AND at what point do you have to change the game plan when it's not working? When you're down 0-3?
A good off season question. One I could (sadly) spend hours and pages answering but for now let's cover the rudiments and follow-up in comments or with another question--or ten. The two core points are simple; the game plan begins with (but extends beyond) the breakout and the players must know their role despite the constantly shifting game play. You have the weekend prior to the event to decide what your breakouts will be and the different ways you will sequence the runs during the breakout. (See below.) And to run those breakouts and run options until your squad is comfortable with the basic breakouts. That's the easy part.
When we talk about roles we're talking both fundamentals of playing the game--What is the wire lead's primary responsibility?--and if you're the third live player between two wire players what's your job in closing out a point? What do you do and why do you do it? And we're talking positional responsibility. What is the job of the snake side insert? When and how does the Home shooter decide to make a move? Too often what happens is teams run their breakout and just let the rest of the point happen. It is important in practice to play various mid- and end-game scenarios as teaching opportunities and in the process use those opportunities to also define what the role is of a each player in various positions on the field. Finally, despite what seems to be the conventional (uninformed) wisdom it's very important that players communicate on field in order to cooperate and coordinate their actions.
You don't change the plan. You come prepared with a number of breakouts and alternative ways of reaching your desired primaries. You practice them in advance. Your alternatives are designed to keep your opponent guessing--and shooting the wrong lanes at the wrong times--and as pre-arranged responses to certain predicted situations. If we can't get into the snake OTB this alternative will accomplish our requirement with only minimal delay. For example, when you struggle to get your player into the snake OTB add a Home edger who delays his primary run; or trail a corner runner who is gunning back into the Home zone; or send the corner runner first and trail the snake runner who is gunning the Home zone; or delay the snake runner until other guns are in position to counter the lane shooter(s) and slingshot the snake runner once your countering lanes are up, etc. The basic goal doesn't change or even the number of players committed to the effort--just the way you accomplish the task OTB or soon thereafter. But if you haven't practiced these options you cannot expect to execute them in a match.
The basic in-match adjustments are principally changing shooting lanes OTB and responding as needed to inside/out play. Lane adjustments can be anything from edging, to doubling lanes with delaying secondary shooters, changing the zones runners are shooting back into, etc. The reason you change shooting lanes is as a direct counter to effective laning by your opponent, to increase the effectiveness of your laning or to facilitate making your primaries. Knowing when to make adjustments depends on recognizing your opponent's tactics and communicating with your players. Inside/out play refers to the tactical option of either aggressively getting wide and on the wire OTB or keeping extra shooters inside to add lanes OTB and take primaries on the delay or else play short primaries looking to make limited, progressive bumps to the wire(s). The issue is effectiveness. For example, if your opponent is playing inside OTB and consistently eliminating one or more of your players an immediate adjustment may be required. Conversely if you're playing short and your opponent is getting wide and taking the play away from you, again an inside/out adjustment may be necessary. The standard inside/out adjustment is to match your opponent. Alternatively simple lane changes may suffice. Knowing your team and experience will tell you what you need to know. Expect a learning curve and incorporate adjustments into your practice.
A good off season question. One I could (sadly) spend hours and pages answering but for now let's cover the rudiments and follow-up in comments or with another question--or ten. The two core points are simple; the game plan begins with (but extends beyond) the breakout and the players must know their role despite the constantly shifting game play. You have the weekend prior to the event to decide what your breakouts will be and the different ways you will sequence the runs during the breakout. (See below.) And to run those breakouts and run options until your squad is comfortable with the basic breakouts. That's the easy part.
When we talk about roles we're talking both fundamentals of playing the game--What is the wire lead's primary responsibility?--and if you're the third live player between two wire players what's your job in closing out a point? What do you do and why do you do it? And we're talking positional responsibility. What is the job of the snake side insert? When and how does the Home shooter decide to make a move? Too often what happens is teams run their breakout and just let the rest of the point happen. It is important in practice to play various mid- and end-game scenarios as teaching opportunities and in the process use those opportunities to also define what the role is of a each player in various positions on the field. Finally, despite what seems to be the conventional (uninformed) wisdom it's very important that players communicate on field in order to cooperate and coordinate their actions.
You don't change the plan. You come prepared with a number of breakouts and alternative ways of reaching your desired primaries. You practice them in advance. Your alternatives are designed to keep your opponent guessing--and shooting the wrong lanes at the wrong times--and as pre-arranged responses to certain predicted situations. If we can't get into the snake OTB this alternative will accomplish our requirement with only minimal delay. For example, when you struggle to get your player into the snake OTB add a Home edger who delays his primary run; or trail a corner runner who is gunning back into the Home zone; or send the corner runner first and trail the snake runner who is gunning the Home zone; or delay the snake runner until other guns are in position to counter the lane shooter(s) and slingshot the snake runner once your countering lanes are up, etc. The basic goal doesn't change or even the number of players committed to the effort--just the way you accomplish the task OTB or soon thereafter. But if you haven't practiced these options you cannot expect to execute them in a match.
The basic in-match adjustments are principally changing shooting lanes OTB and responding as needed to inside/out play. Lane adjustments can be anything from edging, to doubling lanes with delaying secondary shooters, changing the zones runners are shooting back into, etc. The reason you change shooting lanes is as a direct counter to effective laning by your opponent, to increase the effectiveness of your laning or to facilitate making your primaries. Knowing when to make adjustments depends on recognizing your opponent's tactics and communicating with your players. Inside/out play refers to the tactical option of either aggressively getting wide and on the wire OTB or keeping extra shooters inside to add lanes OTB and take primaries on the delay or else play short primaries looking to make limited, progressive bumps to the wire(s). The issue is effectiveness. For example, if your opponent is playing inside OTB and consistently eliminating one or more of your players an immediate adjustment may be required. Conversely if you're playing short and your opponent is getting wide and taking the play away from you, again an inside/out adjustment may be necessary. The standard inside/out adjustment is to match your opponent. Alternatively simple lane changes may suffice. Knowing your team and experience will tell you what you need to know. Expect a learning curve and incorporate adjustments into your practice.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Baca's Mailbag, Dec 16
December 8, 2011 - Proposed standard ASTM WK34588, Practice for Operation of Low Impact Paintball Game Fields, enables those in paintball industry to create low-impact games for potential players who might like to try paintball but are initially intimidated by its intensity. According to Paintball Training Institute president Bob McGuire, standard outlines game organization, management, and safety protocols that slow down the game and limit shooting proximity to increase enjoyment for inexperienced players.
Would the 50 cal paintball be part of this in the future?
The short answer is: could be. But it isn't yet and the proposed standard isn't about 50 cal, it's much bigger than that.
Too cryptic? Re-read the statement. It means what it says and that means 50 cal might be part of that process. The concept is about expanding the boundaries of what it means to play paintball—and at the core of that is something called the “welt factor” and pre-existing ASTM standards with respect to age. Those standards are the reason that 10 years old is the current age minimum that insurers won't underwrite below. But what if paintball could be played by 8 year olds in a more compact environment without the existing “welt factor” (and pain) as part of the equation? Does a broader definition of what paintball is make it more inclusive, potentially more popular? Does a new and expanded demographic create more future, long term paintball players? Does paintball finally get the girls to join in if the “welt factor” is substantially reduced?
See what I mean about bigger than 50 cal alone. The fact is however that a small(er) ball could easily be part of the equation—and low impact paintball isn't a new idea. The initial industry interest seems to pre-date the PMI merger and may have influenced their purchase of RP Scherer but was cut short by the economic necessities that drove the merger with National Paintball Sports. And it's unclear (at least right now though Mr. C is on the case) how much if any of PMI's interest carried over but it appears there is still some measure of industry interest. I might even be inclined to suggest it's quite a lot of interest but I only have that feeling based on what sources wouldn't talk about. I mean if it was a non-issue everybody would say so, right? (Okay, the good liars will say anything, and do, but even though we's talking paintball, not everyone is a good liar.)
I know what your thinking. GI Sportz, d'oh! Hold on. Yes, GI tried to make a big 50 cal push a couple years ago (how time flies) but their focus (apparently) was less about low impact and more about competing with and replacing 68. Seems to me there's some overlap there but rumor has it the low impact community—yes, there seems to be one—wasn't universally on board with that effort. It seems there are some major paintball interests that see low impact paintball as a viable gateway to general paintball play. And, no, I don't know what the ins & outs of that are/were? be but it's intriguing, isn't it? It also seems 50 cal isn't universally viewed as the ideal small ball size from the low impact side of the equation but that the economic advantages held sway. (And now all the major manufacturers have the dies to convert to 50 cal if it comes up again.)
Does HydroTec's paintball fit into the low impact equation? The answer appears to be not at this time. It seemed to me that a paintball that was mostly water with a shell thickness that could be very precisely controlled might be ideal for this kind of application but it seems HydroTec hasn't made any overtures to the ASTM. Yet. (Although my ASTM contact is reticent to discuss any matter other than what they are working on—like the obvious tie-ins to various industries that might have an interest in the outcome of their efforts.) But that got me thinking—and call me crazy (I'm used to it)--but look at some of the, I hate to call them trends, that VFTD and others have reported and/or commented on in the past. Industry conferences aimed at paintball field owners including Airsoft & laser tag. Tippmann introducing a laser tag variant using their paintball-based equipment. And toy giant Hasbro with their expanding universe of Nerf stuff that both mimics paintball but is also safe enough to play virtually anywhere. How much more low impact can you get?
And the ultimate question—for today anyway—is low impact paintball a counter to all these other shooting and tag games? Or are they all best seen as potential gateways to future paintball play?
Would the 50 cal paintball be part of this in the future?
The short answer is: could be. But it isn't yet and the proposed standard isn't about 50 cal, it's much bigger than that.
Too cryptic? Re-read the statement. It means what it says and that means 50 cal might be part of that process. The concept is about expanding the boundaries of what it means to play paintball—and at the core of that is something called the “welt factor” and pre-existing ASTM standards with respect to age. Those standards are the reason that 10 years old is the current age minimum that insurers won't underwrite below. But what if paintball could be played by 8 year olds in a more compact environment without the existing “welt factor” (and pain) as part of the equation? Does a broader definition of what paintball is make it more inclusive, potentially more popular? Does a new and expanded demographic create more future, long term paintball players? Does paintball finally get the girls to join in if the “welt factor” is substantially reduced?
See what I mean about bigger than 50 cal alone. The fact is however that a small(er) ball could easily be part of the equation—and low impact paintball isn't a new idea. The initial industry interest seems to pre-date the PMI merger and may have influenced their purchase of RP Scherer but was cut short by the economic necessities that drove the merger with National Paintball Sports. And it's unclear (at least right now though Mr. C is on the case) how much if any of PMI's interest carried over but it appears there is still some measure of industry interest. I might even be inclined to suggest it's quite a lot of interest but I only have that feeling based on what sources wouldn't talk about. I mean if it was a non-issue everybody would say so, right? (Okay, the good liars will say anything, and do, but even though we's talking paintball, not everyone is a good liar.)
I know what your thinking. GI Sportz, d'oh! Hold on. Yes, GI tried to make a big 50 cal push a couple years ago (how time flies) but their focus (apparently) was less about low impact and more about competing with and replacing 68. Seems to me there's some overlap there but rumor has it the low impact community—yes, there seems to be one—wasn't universally on board with that effort. It seems there are some major paintball interests that see low impact paintball as a viable gateway to general paintball play. And, no, I don't know what the ins & outs of that are/were? be but it's intriguing, isn't it? It also seems 50 cal isn't universally viewed as the ideal small ball size from the low impact side of the equation but that the economic advantages held sway. (And now all the major manufacturers have the dies to convert to 50 cal if it comes up again.)
Does HydroTec's paintball fit into the low impact equation? The answer appears to be not at this time. It seemed to me that a paintball that was mostly water with a shell thickness that could be very precisely controlled might be ideal for this kind of application but it seems HydroTec hasn't made any overtures to the ASTM. Yet. (Although my ASTM contact is reticent to discuss any matter other than what they are working on—like the obvious tie-ins to various industries that might have an interest in the outcome of their efforts.) But that got me thinking—and call me crazy (I'm used to it)--but look at some of the, I hate to call them trends, that VFTD and others have reported and/or commented on in the past. Industry conferences aimed at paintball field owners including Airsoft & laser tag. Tippmann introducing a laser tag variant using their paintball-based equipment. And toy giant Hasbro with their expanding universe of Nerf stuff that both mimics paintball but is also safe enough to play virtually anywhere. How much more low impact can you get?
And the ultimate question—for today anyway—is low impact paintball a counter to all these other shooting and tag games? Or are they all best seen as potential gateways to future paintball play?
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Baca's Mailbag, December 15
Have you been able to find out anymore information about what actually happened at the merger talks? Who ended up sinking the deal? From a few posts around the internet it appears it was the NPPL that ended things.
To answer the first part of the question, yes, I've found out more about what happened. Without assigning blame here's roughly what happened at the end. As everyone (who cares) now knows the meeting in Vegas ended badly. There was an effort made after that via a series of conference calls to get back on track the day before the NPPL announced their 2012 event schedule. [The joint the-merger-is-off statement came out November 30th and the NPPL announced their complete 2012 schedule the next day, December 1st. The PSP announced their first two events on December 5th.] Proposals and counter-proposals were made and rejected and neither party apparently could agree to any middle ground between the proposals offered. To the best of my current knowledge format wasn't the make or break issue--it would have been dealt with after a basic deal was agreed to. It seems the core issues were ownership stake(s)--who ended up with what--and something VFTD remarked on back in September, uncertainty about the legal structure of the NPPL and the status of its team/owners in some instances. (Both parties agreed months ago, during the process, to release records to a third party for review and it took the NPPL months to comply.) How much bearing the later issue had on an inability to agree to the former I've no idea--nor can I break down the numbers or dollars being discussed. (If I can get the-rest-of-the-story and be reasonably certain of its accuracy I'll tell that tale when I can.)
I don't think either league left the bargaining table unhappy with the outcome and from here on out we will see what sort of line the industry takes, along with the players. (And I do mean players, not the etools who have never played either one but insist on repeatedly declaring their opinions.)
To answer the first part of the question, yes, I've found out more about what happened. Without assigning blame here's roughly what happened at the end. As everyone (who cares) now knows the meeting in Vegas ended badly. There was an effort made after that via a series of conference calls to get back on track the day before the NPPL announced their 2012 event schedule. [The joint the-merger-is-off statement came out November 30th and the NPPL announced their complete 2012 schedule the next day, December 1st. The PSP announced their first two events on December 5th.] Proposals and counter-proposals were made and rejected and neither party apparently could agree to any middle ground between the proposals offered. To the best of my current knowledge format wasn't the make or break issue--it would have been dealt with after a basic deal was agreed to. It seems the core issues were ownership stake(s)--who ended up with what--and something VFTD remarked on back in September, uncertainty about the legal structure of the NPPL and the status of its team/owners in some instances. (Both parties agreed months ago, during the process, to release records to a third party for review and it took the NPPL months to comply.) How much bearing the later issue had on an inability to agree to the former I've no idea--nor can I break down the numbers or dollars being discussed. (If I can get the-rest-of-the-story and be reasonably certain of its accuracy I'll tell that tale when I can.)
I don't think either league left the bargaining table unhappy with the outcome and from here on out we will see what sort of line the industry takes, along with the players. (And I do mean players, not the etools who have never played either one but insist on repeatedly declaring their opinions.)
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Mailbag Extra: Deep Water Edition
Where's the Hydrotec paintballs and the 50 cal issue at now?
This is two separate questions and I expect to have more info related to small ball soon so today's extra is about HydroTec. (Another mailbag question came over the transom recently that got me digging into something else that might provide some answers soon.)
If you've been following HydroTec you know (from tweets & their website) that they continue to stall while claiming to be working away diligently on things like paint seams and color combos, etc. Which is probably true but there is also speculation that there are other, primary causes at work. Around the time of the public disclosure of the HydroTec water-based paintball project there were rumors that one or more of the major paint suppliers would likely file suit against HydroTec if for no other reason than to impede their delivery to market. In the case of KEE the rumors swirled around the past employment of Mr. Ronnie Bayless who worked, in the past, on a number of paintball-related projects for R.P.Scherer and others. The rumored wedge was something on the order of proprietary knowledge and systems belonging to KEE via RP (included in the purchase/merger of PMI & National) given that Mr. Bayless was (then) employed by HydroTec.
The latest rumorology claims KEE never filed suit against HydroTec but did present them with a cease & desist order. Further the latest rumors claim Mr. Bayless no longer works for HydroTec but just when that relationship was severed (if in fact it has been--the website gives no indication it has) remains unclear. And finally rumors hint at a growing dissatisfaction with HydroTec's progress, or lack thereof, from a principle investor that VFTD reported last year was rumored to be Kraft Foods or a subsidiary company. VFTD has not confirmed that rumor but it continues in play in the deep background.
HydroTec is nearly a year behind their originally announced roll out date of January 2011 with no end in sight.
This is two separate questions and I expect to have more info related to small ball soon so today's extra is about HydroTec. (Another mailbag question came over the transom recently that got me digging into something else that might provide some answers soon.)
If you've been following HydroTec you know (from tweets & their website) that they continue to stall while claiming to be working away diligently on things like paint seams and color combos, etc. Which is probably true but there is also speculation that there are other, primary causes at work. Around the time of the public disclosure of the HydroTec water-based paintball project there were rumors that one or more of the major paint suppliers would likely file suit against HydroTec if for no other reason than to impede their delivery to market. In the case of KEE the rumors swirled around the past employment of Mr. Ronnie Bayless who worked, in the past, on a number of paintball-related projects for R.P.Scherer and others. The rumored wedge was something on the order of proprietary knowledge and systems belonging to KEE via RP (included in the purchase/merger of PMI & National) given that Mr. Bayless was (then) employed by HydroTec.
The latest rumorology claims KEE never filed suit against HydroTec but did present them with a cease & desist order. Further the latest rumors claim Mr. Bayless no longer works for HydroTec but just when that relationship was severed (if in fact it has been--the website gives no indication it has) remains unclear. And finally rumors hint at a growing dissatisfaction with HydroTec's progress, or lack thereof, from a principle investor that VFTD reported last year was rumored to be Kraft Foods or a subsidiary company. VFTD has not confirmed that rumor but it continues in play in the deep background.
HydroTec is nearly a year behind their originally announced roll out date of January 2011 with no end in sight.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Baca's Mailbag, Dec 12
The question(s) that follow are very common. I have heard them repeated for as long as I've been involved in this game and there was a time when I asked most of them. I don't have definitive answers. The best I can do is some observations based on too many years experience. I invite the rest of you slackers to include your take on these questions in the comments.
(A) Ok, What type of back round do most of the pro players or regular tourney player have ??? (B) How do you afford it? is a question I am asked many times over the couse of a season? (C) I see a lot of the newer players having a tough time, when they look at the commitment needed to play on a regular basis. Our team is made up of a mix of people, ages and incomes and we are in a rual area.. (D) We have to buget and save to do what we do. We have no team sponsors and by no means do I think we have money to throw around.. We didnt go to a couple of major event due to the cost of traveling (air fare) How how do most players afford to play ...? (E) Do sponsors make up some of the difference, has it really become a rich man's sport? (F) What your feeling on the paintball landscape and the cost of playing competitive ball?
I'm going to respond to the questions in the order they come up and in order to keep things as clear as possible I've divided the query into sections.
(A)--from an economic perspective there is no type. I joke occasionally about the lack of diverse sports interest and background among tourney players but I doubt it's much different from the generalized norm. I just find it a bit curious since most competitive people are competitive about almost everything, and as kids, tend to try more things--or did a hundred years ago when I was a kid.
(B)--the usual way most players do. By prioritizing their spending in such a way that they can keep playing paintball. Figure out what you can afford and then spend more--is the way it frequently ends up. I'm not even sure it's all that much different, cost-wise, than it used to be. (But I do think there are a couple of contributing factors that are different today than in the past.) Back in the day we shot less paint but it cost a lot more. The last IAO I played Hellfire was $105 bucks a case of 2000 (including tax.) High end guns weren't much cheaper and national events were a larger time commitment, more days off school or work. A serious tourney jones has never been cheap. The biggest difference today is practice costs.
(C)--Nothing new here either although I do think it's tougher to get started in tourney paintball than it once was. My first team had players with money but no time and players with time but no money. Some were super gung ho, others a lot less so. Our biggest issue was getting enough time & money & commitment together for actual events. We were a decent practice team and a lousy competition team.
(D)--Again, not uncommon. So does most everybody else involved in the tourney side of the game. What often happens is one or two guys end up taking on extra financial burdens (to be paid back later) which almost inevitably turn into (more) problems later. Two things are required of a serious team; strong leadership and a plan. And once the plan is agreed to everyone needs to hold up their end--or they get replaced. More problems arise here in that lots of times the team is a mix of friends and ages and resources and that has always been and remains a recipe for frustration more often than not. Nobody wants to be the bad guy, everybody understands the difficulties but if the team is actually going to function there has to be a bottom line commitment from everyone actively involved. The big difference is today the level of commitment is higher lower down the divisional ladder than it once was, or so it seems to me.
(E)--Sponsors make up some of the difference for very few teams any more. And the lion's share of what remains of real sponsorship, not discount product deals, is product. For example, Team A gets X number of guns from sponsor Q. The guns are for the team with the understanding the extra guns are sold to help fund the team. There are a relative handful of teams that do better than that.
(F)--In many respects very little has changed. Serious competition isn't cheap, it requires some level of commitment. A commitment in time & money. It is what it is. Beyond that I have one serious concern and I think there are a couple of factors in play today that are significantly different from times past.
My fear is decisions about the game's future direction will be based too much on the current rough economic times. Somewhere there's a boundary between keeping the sport alive and killing it in an effort to get more peeps to play.
Having said all that I also think there are things that make it more difficult to compete than in times past: fewer fields dedicated to supporting local team(s); a broadly younger demographic; what practice has become. The first one seems pretty straighforward. Toss into the mix the larger number of younger players and you've got kids without direction and fewer leaders. Fewer leaders and fewer homes that welcome competitive players and teams makes it more difficult to build teams. And somewhere during the last decade the romance of the grind has token hold of all divisions of competition. Which isn't a bad thing but it has upped the ante to competing in virtually every division of play. Kick in scrimming on the event layout and the game--for too many--becomes about reps, practice points played and nearly endless cases of paint shot--and we're talking about so-called introductory levels of play. The entry bar has been raised too high and it's going to be nigh on impossible to lower it.
(A) Ok, What type of back round do most of the pro players or regular tourney player have ??? (B) How do you afford it? is a question I am asked many times over the couse of a season? (C) I see a lot of the newer players having a tough time, when they look at the commitment needed to play on a regular basis. Our team is made up of a mix of people, ages and incomes and we are in a rual area.. (D) We have to buget and save to do what we do. We have no team sponsors and by no means do I think we have money to throw around.. We didnt go to a couple of major event due to the cost of traveling (air fare) How how do most players afford to play ...? (E) Do sponsors make up some of the difference, has it really become a rich man's sport? (F) What your feeling on the paintball landscape and the cost of playing competitive ball?
I'm going to respond to the questions in the order they come up and in order to keep things as clear as possible I've divided the query into sections.
(A)--from an economic perspective there is no type. I joke occasionally about the lack of diverse sports interest and background among tourney players but I doubt it's much different from the generalized norm. I just find it a bit curious since most competitive people are competitive about almost everything, and as kids, tend to try more things--or did a hundred years ago when I was a kid.
(B)--the usual way most players do. By prioritizing their spending in such a way that they can keep playing paintball. Figure out what you can afford and then spend more--is the way it frequently ends up. I'm not even sure it's all that much different, cost-wise, than it used to be. (But I do think there are a couple of contributing factors that are different today than in the past.) Back in the day we shot less paint but it cost a lot more. The last IAO I played Hellfire was $105 bucks a case of 2000 (including tax.) High end guns weren't much cheaper and national events were a larger time commitment, more days off school or work. A serious tourney jones has never been cheap. The biggest difference today is practice costs.
(C)--Nothing new here either although I do think it's tougher to get started in tourney paintball than it once was. My first team had players with money but no time and players with time but no money. Some were super gung ho, others a lot less so. Our biggest issue was getting enough time & money & commitment together for actual events. We were a decent practice team and a lousy competition team.
(D)--Again, not uncommon. So does most everybody else involved in the tourney side of the game. What often happens is one or two guys end up taking on extra financial burdens (to be paid back later) which almost inevitably turn into (more) problems later. Two things are required of a serious team; strong leadership and a plan. And once the plan is agreed to everyone needs to hold up their end--or they get replaced. More problems arise here in that lots of times the team is a mix of friends and ages and resources and that has always been and remains a recipe for frustration more often than not. Nobody wants to be the bad guy, everybody understands the difficulties but if the team is actually going to function there has to be a bottom line commitment from everyone actively involved. The big difference is today the level of commitment is higher lower down the divisional ladder than it once was, or so it seems to me.
(E)--Sponsors make up some of the difference for very few teams any more. And the lion's share of what remains of real sponsorship, not discount product deals, is product. For example, Team A gets X number of guns from sponsor Q. The guns are for the team with the understanding the extra guns are sold to help fund the team. There are a relative handful of teams that do better than that.
(F)--In many respects very little has changed. Serious competition isn't cheap, it requires some level of commitment. A commitment in time & money. It is what it is. Beyond that I have one serious concern and I think there are a couple of factors in play today that are significantly different from times past.
My fear is decisions about the game's future direction will be based too much on the current rough economic times. Somewhere there's a boundary between keeping the sport alive and killing it in an effort to get more peeps to play.
Having said all that I also think there are things that make it more difficult to compete than in times past: fewer fields dedicated to supporting local team(s); a broadly younger demographic; what practice has become. The first one seems pretty straighforward. Toss into the mix the larger number of younger players and you've got kids without direction and fewer leaders. Fewer leaders and fewer homes that welcome competitive players and teams makes it more difficult to build teams. And somewhere during the last decade the romance of the grind has token hold of all divisions of competition. Which isn't a bad thing but it has upped the ante to competing in virtually every division of play. Kick in scrimming on the event layout and the game--for too many--becomes about reps, practice points played and nearly endless cases of paint shot--and we're talking about so-called introductory levels of play. The entry bar has been raised too high and it's going to be nigh on impossible to lower it.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Baca's Mailbag, Dec 9
I can see the bottom of the mail bag from here, slackers. Just saying. Personally, I'm looking forward to my blogging vacation.
"My team is looking to make the jump from Race 2-2 to D3 Race 2-4. We have been successful in the past despite being somewhat isolated with little to no access to other better teams for practice and training. My concerns are twofold; How is xball lite different, if it is, and is there anything other than what we're doing we can do to continue to get better considering our situation?" (Official VFTD paraphrase offered for clarity and succinctness.)
First, the tone of the question(s) expressed some hesitation about making the move to D3 xball lite. The move, compulsory or otherwise, needs to be reframed as a positive challenge, a good thing for the team. (Because it is.) On the other hand it's also a good thing to be as prepared as possible.
The steepest learning curve immediately is the turnaround on points. Your players need to be physically prepared and as a team you need to be properly organized to deal with the changes the quick turnarounds cause. Depending on how many players are on the team you will need to take into account; line up changes, in match tactical adjustments, basic logistical necessities. Your basic logistical necessities are potted paint, aired up working markers, assigned roles, unmarked players--all the usual basics. When you walk off the field and know you don't play again for between 10 minutes and an hour or whatever all those things are easily dealt with. When you're playing again in two minutes you have to have a plan--and everybody needs to know how they fit in the plan. Even if you will staff assistance it is worth talking through the process as a group and practicing getting ready within the turnaround time limit.
Depending on the size of your roster you may also need to prepare for shifting line-ups, different groups of five going out to play each point. Anything less than two complete lines means some number of players will be playing back-to-backs and will require priority coming off the field for things like air, getting cleaned up (paint free), etc. Even if shifting line-ups isn't new make sure you know how it's going to work within the limited time frame of the xball (Race 2) turnaround. It's between points, 2 players are going back-to-back and the pit is full of people trying to get ready and get on the field. The last thing you need is to know in advance how your team will determine what your next point is going to be. Do your players decide? Does a coach call prearranged plays? However the team functions you will need to make sure your routine for that too fits within your turnaround time. It may seem rather daunting at first but if you walk through it, get everybody on the same page and practice getting everything done within the time limit you'll be well ahead of the game. Keep in mind your first practical event experience may still be kinda chaotic because the one thing you can't prepare for is the real deal--but your advance prep will make the transition much easier.
(Based on the elements of practice you mentioned) the team should add laning OTB and Running & Gunning drills to your current regimen. (There are half a dozen or more posts in the archives covering those topics in how-to formats. Search stuff like laning, OTB, practice, playing the game, running & gunning and so on.) Otherwise the drills and mismatches (snap-shooting, 1on1's, 2on1's, 3on2's, etc.) and so on continue to be a solid base. With little or no local challenges to help keep the team sharp your group attitude and focus becomes critical to future success--which is one reason the move up to a new national level challenge is positive motivation. The other thing you need to focus on when it comes to your regular (routine) practice is execution. Practice can't degenerate into simply going through the motions, it needs to be about perfecting, always getting better.
Finally I would suggest, if it's at all possible, to arrange a special weekend practice trip--not unlike going to an event--to test your progress and scrimmage with better players and teams. Or, alternatively planning well in advance to schedule competing at a regional event where better than home grown competition will exist. Regardless, treat your first event or two in the new format as learning experiences and set your goals accordingly.
Good luck.
"My team is looking to make the jump from Race 2-2 to D3 Race 2-4. We have been successful in the past despite being somewhat isolated with little to no access to other better teams for practice and training. My concerns are twofold; How is xball lite different, if it is, and is there anything other than what we're doing we can do to continue to get better considering our situation?" (Official VFTD paraphrase offered for clarity and succinctness.)
First, the tone of the question(s) expressed some hesitation about making the move to D3 xball lite. The move, compulsory or otherwise, needs to be reframed as a positive challenge, a good thing for the team. (Because it is.) On the other hand it's also a good thing to be as prepared as possible.
The steepest learning curve immediately is the turnaround on points. Your players need to be physically prepared and as a team you need to be properly organized to deal with the changes the quick turnarounds cause. Depending on how many players are on the team you will need to take into account; line up changes, in match tactical adjustments, basic logistical necessities. Your basic logistical necessities are potted paint, aired up working markers, assigned roles, unmarked players--all the usual basics. When you walk off the field and know you don't play again for between 10 minutes and an hour or whatever all those things are easily dealt with. When you're playing again in two minutes you have to have a plan--and everybody needs to know how they fit in the plan. Even if you will staff assistance it is worth talking through the process as a group and practicing getting ready within the turnaround time limit.
Depending on the size of your roster you may also need to prepare for shifting line-ups, different groups of five going out to play each point. Anything less than two complete lines means some number of players will be playing back-to-backs and will require priority coming off the field for things like air, getting cleaned up (paint free), etc. Even if shifting line-ups isn't new make sure you know how it's going to work within the limited time frame of the xball (Race 2) turnaround. It's between points, 2 players are going back-to-back and the pit is full of people trying to get ready and get on the field. The last thing you need is to know in advance how your team will determine what your next point is going to be. Do your players decide? Does a coach call prearranged plays? However the team functions you will need to make sure your routine for that too fits within your turnaround time. It may seem rather daunting at first but if you walk through it, get everybody on the same page and practice getting everything done within the time limit you'll be well ahead of the game. Keep in mind your first practical event experience may still be kinda chaotic because the one thing you can't prepare for is the real deal--but your advance prep will make the transition much easier.
(Based on the elements of practice you mentioned) the team should add laning OTB and Running & Gunning drills to your current regimen. (There are half a dozen or more posts in the archives covering those topics in how-to formats. Search stuff like laning, OTB, practice, playing the game, running & gunning and so on.) Otherwise the drills and mismatches (snap-shooting, 1on1's, 2on1's, 3on2's, etc.) and so on continue to be a solid base. With little or no local challenges to help keep the team sharp your group attitude and focus becomes critical to future success--which is one reason the move up to a new national level challenge is positive motivation. The other thing you need to focus on when it comes to your regular (routine) practice is execution. Practice can't degenerate into simply going through the motions, it needs to be about perfecting, always getting better.
Finally I would suggest, if it's at all possible, to arrange a special weekend practice trip--not unlike going to an event--to test your progress and scrimmage with better players and teams. Or, alternatively planning well in advance to schedule competing at a regional event where better than home grown competition will exist. Regardless, treat your first event or two in the new format as learning experiences and set your goals accordingly.
Good luck.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Mailbag Extra: NPPL Drops Format Bomb!
With the recent announcement by the NPPL that they are converting to Race2 for professional matches, and adding what they term as Millennium 5-man divisions, do you see this as:1) an attempt to offer a similar format as PSP, in the hope of a "smooth" transition in a future merger?
2) an attempt to offer enough formats to satisfy all tournament players, with the goal of stealing PSP market share?
In my mind, it has to be one or the other, or am I missing something?
Re: question #1: That's very sweet and naive. And it will be the correct answer the same day Vegans vote unanimously that their favorite fast food is JackInTheBox.
Re: question #2: In some senses I almost find this one hard to credit as well because I am initially unconvinced that much thought went into this decision. Even so I think it has to be viewed, in part, as a direct challenge to the PSP whether that was intended or not. (Nor would it surprise me to see the PSP respond in kind or at least use their left over scheduling flexibility to best effect.)
I know those probably aren't the most satisfactory answers but there's still a lot of necessary information missing before this move can be fairly judged. Things like what will the prelims look like? How will Sunday play proceed? Will the fields all still comply with current NPPL design characteristics, etc.? Will there be time limit? How will it work? Without this sort of info it's impossible to adequately project how this might work out.
However, given what we do know there are some, if not conclusions to be drawn, pitfalls that might arise. How much paint will the Pro teams shoot under this formula? (Contrary to popular belief many of them have marginal sponsorships.) Will they severely limit the prelims in order to split the difference? (Something like the Millennium currently do where teams only play 3 matches in the prelims. In which the scoring becomes matches won--which will frequently end in ties and come down to the plus/minus ratio of points scored to determine who moves on. A variant of the system that was both confusing and unsatisfactory in HB last year.) Will the return of Semi-Pro be a mixed division with D1 or an attempt to revive a separate division? Will the new formats cost more in entries? Will the offer of 5-man Xball Lite prove to be direct competition with traditional 7-man among the am teams? There are dozens of similar questions but you get the idea, I'm sure.
And then there the issues that prior experience suggest might arise. How will the format changes be reflected in the rule book? (If the NPPL can't produce an adequate rule book for 7-man can they be expected to deliver one that covers multiple formats?) Format changes don't change a registration and ID system that only function as a revenue stream for the league and they don't instantly improve the officiating. In fact they put more stress on both those factors. And then there's scheduling and field prep requirements? How many more fields will it take? The league was running 12 hour days in Vegas trying to get in all the scheduled games for much less time intensive formats. With 3 fields in Vegas the quality of the carpets was noticeably diminished--the fields looked like green quilts. How many more fields will the league need? How many more refs will it take? Does the league have any idea if they can effectively run Race 2 on 7-man style fields?
The bottom line is format changes don't fix the endemic problems. All the NPPL has done so far with this announcement is confirm that they too believe their prior format was lacking--at least when it comes to the Pros and the 5-man teams.
2) an attempt to offer enough formats to satisfy all tournament players, with the goal of stealing PSP market share?
In my mind, it has to be one or the other, or am I missing something?
Re: question #1: That's very sweet and naive. And it will be the correct answer the same day Vegans vote unanimously that their favorite fast food is JackInTheBox.
Re: question #2: In some senses I almost find this one hard to credit as well because I am initially unconvinced that much thought went into this decision. Even so I think it has to be viewed, in part, as a direct challenge to the PSP whether that was intended or not. (Nor would it surprise me to see the PSP respond in kind or at least use their left over scheduling flexibility to best effect.)
I know those probably aren't the most satisfactory answers but there's still a lot of necessary information missing before this move can be fairly judged. Things like what will the prelims look like? How will Sunday play proceed? Will the fields all still comply with current NPPL design characteristics, etc.? Will there be time limit? How will it work? Without this sort of info it's impossible to adequately project how this might work out.
However, given what we do know there are some, if not conclusions to be drawn, pitfalls that might arise. How much paint will the Pro teams shoot under this formula? (Contrary to popular belief many of them have marginal sponsorships.) Will they severely limit the prelims in order to split the difference? (Something like the Millennium currently do where teams only play 3 matches in the prelims. In which the scoring becomes matches won--which will frequently end in ties and come down to the plus/minus ratio of points scored to determine who moves on. A variant of the system that was both confusing and unsatisfactory in HB last year.) Will the return of Semi-Pro be a mixed division with D1 or an attempt to revive a separate division? Will the new formats cost more in entries? Will the offer of 5-man Xball Lite prove to be direct competition with traditional 7-man among the am teams? There are dozens of similar questions but you get the idea, I'm sure.
And then there the issues that prior experience suggest might arise. How will the format changes be reflected in the rule book? (If the NPPL can't produce an adequate rule book for 7-man can they be expected to deliver one that covers multiple formats?) Format changes don't change a registration and ID system that only function as a revenue stream for the league and they don't instantly improve the officiating. In fact they put more stress on both those factors. And then there's scheduling and field prep requirements? How many more fields will it take? The league was running 12 hour days in Vegas trying to get in all the scheduled games for much less time intensive formats. With 3 fields in Vegas the quality of the carpets was noticeably diminished--the fields looked like green quilts. How many more fields will the league need? How many more refs will it take? Does the league have any idea if they can effectively run Race 2 on 7-man style fields?
The bottom line is format changes don't fix the endemic problems. All the NPPL has done so far with this announcement is confirm that they too believe their prior format was lacking--at least when it comes to the Pros and the 5-man teams.
Baca's Mailbag, Dec 6
How likely do you think it is that some sponsors (Kee) will go through with their rumored threats to pull out of the NPPL?
The easy button answer is not very. And that's because any hard line change would be a break with history and past practices and I'm disinclined to believe it until I see it. And yet I keep hearing nattering about a mostly united front blah blah blah. So it's hard to know--but fortunately it's easy to speculate and there are a few possible scenarios to consider--if in fact most of the major industry players follow through one way or another. On one hand the big industry sponsors could simply discontinue their support and not show up. On the other they could conceivably take a more active hand in where their sponsored teams play, or don't play. In the second scenario the issue isn't what Joe Divisional Team does but what the Pro teams do and more to the point the high profile anchor pro teams like Dynasty or Infamous. Established teams with established reputations validate the entire division with their presence and if they're not there it changes the general perception of their worthiness (for lack of a better word) to self-identify as pro. (Which is why the Millennium kids have a chip on their collective shoulders and need first tier Russians and/or U.S. team(s) competing in the CPL. It both defines and assures their status.) The follow-up question is does devaluing the Pro division erode interest and divisional player participation--if the end goal is to see the league call it quits.
The other option of simply no longer sponsoring the league does a couple of things; it saves the industry some money (some of which ended up in the league's pockets) and it complicates things for the sponsored teams of those companies without going so far as to forbid them to play. Of course it also complicates things for the companies if they aren't present to support their products for their flagship teams, etc.
A simpler solution would be stick a fork in Pev and watch all the hot air escape. And accept the inescapable conclusion that Chuck is an empty wetsuit and a surf board, paintball's answer to the Peter Principle, and just ignore him. At which point the NPPL becomes Bart & the Volunteers and if they want to play 7-man God bless them everyone.
EDIT: Haha! It turns out they don't want to play 7-man after all.
The easy button answer is not very. And that's because any hard line change would be a break with history and past practices and I'm disinclined to believe it until I see it. And yet I keep hearing nattering about a mostly united front blah blah blah. So it's hard to know--but fortunately it's easy to speculate and there are a few possible scenarios to consider--if in fact most of the major industry players follow through one way or another. On one hand the big industry sponsors could simply discontinue their support and not show up. On the other they could conceivably take a more active hand in where their sponsored teams play, or don't play. In the second scenario the issue isn't what Joe Divisional Team does but what the Pro teams do and more to the point the high profile anchor pro teams like Dynasty or Infamous. Established teams with established reputations validate the entire division with their presence and if they're not there it changes the general perception of their worthiness (for lack of a better word) to self-identify as pro. (Which is why the Millennium kids have a chip on their collective shoulders and need first tier Russians and/or U.S. team(s) competing in the CPL. It both defines and assures their status.) The follow-up question is does devaluing the Pro division erode interest and divisional player participation--if the end goal is to see the league call it quits.
The other option of simply no longer sponsoring the league does a couple of things; it saves the industry some money (some of which ended up in the league's pockets) and it complicates things for the sponsored teams of those companies without going so far as to forbid them to play. Of course it also complicates things for the companies if they aren't present to support their products for their flagship teams, etc.
A simpler solution would be stick a fork in Pev and watch all the hot air escape. And accept the inescapable conclusion that Chuck is an empty wetsuit and a surf board, paintball's answer to the Peter Principle, and just ignore him. At which point the NPPL becomes Bart & the Volunteers and if they want to play 7-man God bless them everyone.
EDIT: Haha! It turns out they don't want to play 7-man after all.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Baca's Mailbag, Dec 4
A couple of quick notes. Yes, GI has in fact bought Procaps--and the deal is officially done. VFTD was supposed to receive an early copy of the official Press Release (which may still happen)--I foolishly agreed to delay posting in exchange for the presser--but it didn't matter as they proceeded almost immediately to leak the information, AGAIN. This time after having signed all the appropriate documents or at least while in the process of signing them. Let that be a lesson kids. It's one I'ma take to heart. Trust me. (As soon as I realized the cat was out of the bag--this time for good--I did post it on VFTD's Facebook page and will be commented on events of the day there during December.)
Mailbag questions aren't being answered in the order received. It's whatever happens to catch my fancy really. For example today's question provides an opportunity to compare the two major leagues and demonstrate, for the uninitiated, that I'm an equal opportunity hater.
I, along with others I'm sure, was wondering which format you think is better and why. I've been following for a while and can pretty much figure its not going to be the NPPL, but I guess I was wanting to know is what sets the PSP apart as being the premier league (if that is your position).
The obvious answer is Bacaball! (Excepting of course it's only suitable as an expensive spectator-friendly, sports-legitimizing version of competitive paintball that, er, nobody has actually played--yet.)
Between traditional 7-man and Race 2 the simple answer is Race 2 for all the same reasons you've already heard. The big one is of course that the outcome of a match is more likely to be determinative of which team was actually better on a given day. For me, sideline coaching or no coaching is a non-issue. Communication has always been a key element of playing the game and remains so whether or not someone outside the field of play is communicating or not. And for the record I do not believe sideline coaching has nearly the impact that is often attributed to it. (Although at the lower levels it can have more of an impact but that is directly related to the skill & confidence of the players.) But once you start talking about officiating and things like gun rules we're now in the territory that sets the leagues apart from one another.
In one sense the dividing issue for the players seems to be format preference. Which is fine. And if that were the only factor at play I would be (and am) fine with peeps playing what they like. On that count my issues with both leagues, heck, with all leagues, has always been they deliver the best product possible to their customers and since we're talking about tournament paintball "best" means a fair and impartial competitive environment in which to compete. That's my baseline. Everything else is an extra as far as I'm concerned--and secondary. Is it fun to have an unusual or exotic venue? In an unusual or unique location? Absolutely. Do any extras ever make up for a lousy competition? Nope. At least not from my perspective. Your mileage may vary--but I doubt it. In the past when various iterations of the NPPL clearly focused more on delivering an experience instead of a competition--apparently assuming the competition part would handle itself--they ended up in the unenviable positions of always having to try and top themselves and eventually couldn't, no matter how much money they spent. And it cost them on both sides of that equation. It cost them the experience seekers and the serious competitors.
On the other hand there's the path the PSP has followed. The league pays APPA for a registration system that actually works and has the potential to incorporate every tournament player at every level because it's a necessary feature of providing a fair competition. (Does the league still make a few bucks on ID cards? I hope so. I'd hate to think Chris gets all that money--but the point is one league has a real system, the other has another revenue stream.) The PSP pays a salary to the Head of Referees to travel around and train refs and oversee their on field efforts at events in an effort to maintain the highest quality they can manage. The PSP also pays extra for a dedicated crew of refs and their supervision on the Pro field. Is it less than perfect? Sure but the league is willing to spend real money to provide the best officiating they can. And anyone who has been around more than a day or two knows the history of the NPPL, in every version, is fraught with one reffing scandal after another--and not just on the outer fields among the lower divisions--but front and center on the grandstand field. The difference isn't bad luck. It's that one league makes a concerted effort to get it right and the other has different priorities. Same with gun rules. The PSP has clearly defined and enforceable gun rules--whether you like them or not--and as a result significant gun-related penalties are almost unheard of anymore. The NPPL, on the other hand, has a history of unenforceable rules, subjective reffing judgments, arbitrary penalties and widespread cheating. Today's NPPL 3.0 has at least capped their "semi-auto" so they have an enforceable limit (thanks to Virtue) while they continue to turn a blind eye to the ramping they supposedly don't allow. And then there are the rest of the rules. In the PSP there is a clearly defined hierarchy of authority in place to see to it the rules are followed. (Is everybody always happy? Nope, but that isn't the point of the rules.) In the NPPL the rules are inadequate at best and incomplete at worst and the Ultimate Ref's job seems to be making stuff up as he goes along. Does it matter? Most of the time probably not but it is symptomatic of the NPPL's routine practice of half-assing the actual competition while touting what a great job they do at growing and promoting paintball.
Bottom line is what sets the leagues apart in my mind is one is focused on the on-field competition and the other isn't--and never has been.
Mailbag questions aren't being answered in the order received. It's whatever happens to catch my fancy really. For example today's question provides an opportunity to compare the two major leagues and demonstrate, for the uninitiated, that I'm an equal opportunity hater.
I, along with others I'm sure, was wondering which format you think is better and why. I've been following for a while and can pretty much figure its not going to be the NPPL, but I guess I was wanting to know is what sets the PSP apart as being the premier league (if that is your position).
The obvious answer is Bacaball! (Excepting of course it's only suitable as an expensive spectator-friendly, sports-legitimizing version of competitive paintball that, er, nobody has actually played--yet.)
Between traditional 7-man and Race 2 the simple answer is Race 2 for all the same reasons you've already heard. The big one is of course that the outcome of a match is more likely to be determinative of which team was actually better on a given day. For me, sideline coaching or no coaching is a non-issue. Communication has always been a key element of playing the game and remains so whether or not someone outside the field of play is communicating or not. And for the record I do not believe sideline coaching has nearly the impact that is often attributed to it. (Although at the lower levels it can have more of an impact but that is directly related to the skill & confidence of the players.) But once you start talking about officiating and things like gun rules we're now in the territory that sets the leagues apart from one another.
In one sense the dividing issue for the players seems to be format preference. Which is fine. And if that were the only factor at play I would be (and am) fine with peeps playing what they like. On that count my issues with both leagues, heck, with all leagues, has always been they deliver the best product possible to their customers and since we're talking about tournament paintball "best" means a fair and impartial competitive environment in which to compete. That's my baseline. Everything else is an extra as far as I'm concerned--and secondary. Is it fun to have an unusual or exotic venue? In an unusual or unique location? Absolutely. Do any extras ever make up for a lousy competition? Nope. At least not from my perspective. Your mileage may vary--but I doubt it. In the past when various iterations of the NPPL clearly focused more on delivering an experience instead of a competition--apparently assuming the competition part would handle itself--they ended up in the unenviable positions of always having to try and top themselves and eventually couldn't, no matter how much money they spent. And it cost them on both sides of that equation. It cost them the experience seekers and the serious competitors.
On the other hand there's the path the PSP has followed. The league pays APPA for a registration system that actually works and has the potential to incorporate every tournament player at every level because it's a necessary feature of providing a fair competition. (Does the league still make a few bucks on ID cards? I hope so. I'd hate to think Chris gets all that money--but the point is one league has a real system, the other has another revenue stream.) The PSP pays a salary to the Head of Referees to travel around and train refs and oversee their on field efforts at events in an effort to maintain the highest quality they can manage. The PSP also pays extra for a dedicated crew of refs and their supervision on the Pro field. Is it less than perfect? Sure but the league is willing to spend real money to provide the best officiating they can. And anyone who has been around more than a day or two knows the history of the NPPL, in every version, is fraught with one reffing scandal after another--and not just on the outer fields among the lower divisions--but front and center on the grandstand field. The difference isn't bad luck. It's that one league makes a concerted effort to get it right and the other has different priorities. Same with gun rules. The PSP has clearly defined and enforceable gun rules--whether you like them or not--and as a result significant gun-related penalties are almost unheard of anymore. The NPPL, on the other hand, has a history of unenforceable rules, subjective reffing judgments, arbitrary penalties and widespread cheating. Today's NPPL 3.0 has at least capped their "semi-auto" so they have an enforceable limit (thanks to Virtue) while they continue to turn a blind eye to the ramping they supposedly don't allow. And then there are the rest of the rules. In the PSP there is a clearly defined hierarchy of authority in place to see to it the rules are followed. (Is everybody always happy? Nope, but that isn't the point of the rules.) In the NPPL the rules are inadequate at best and incomplete at worst and the Ultimate Ref's job seems to be making stuff up as he goes along. Does it matter? Most of the time probably not but it is symptomatic of the NPPL's routine practice of half-assing the actual competition while touting what a great job they do at growing and promoting paintball.
Bottom line is what sets the leagues apart in my mind is one is focused on the on-field competition and the other isn't--and never has been.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
World Cup Practice, part 4
This is it, slackers. A December freebie--and the final installment discussing our WC practice weekend on the event layout. (Yes, I could go on almost forever but I'm stopping with this installment. If you have additional questions feel free to ask or post them up in comments.) It's also now December--and that means Mailbag Month is here. (This is your final reminder that all posts in December, except breaking news of real import--and there's an official one coming!--will be answering questions or responding to mailbag or Facebook comments. And if those run out or don't exist in sufficient numbers to fill December then I'm on vacation! Just saying.)
Recap: So far we've covered a general assessment of the value of the most common primary bunkers; how we will attack & defend the snake and what it will take to play effectively on the D-wire. This time I want to round things out by talking a bit more about actually playing the snake, some alternative options, why the center of this layout wasn't utilised more actively and whatever other bits & pieces come to mind. A veritable post-Thanksgiving cornucopia of game play scraps and leftovers.
How a team play(ed) this (or any other snake) is oftentimes one of the features that separate the men from the boys. On the diagram you will note that the first four knuckles (or shooting stations) are numbered appropriately. As we've already discussed the mid-field MT is likely to be played as a secondary Home bunker and used primarily to deny and/or control the snake. Now, taking a closer look at what the various knuckles offer, why, if you have worked hard to get into the snake and there is a crossfield MT gun--do you stop at the first knuckle and try to play it? The goal of gaining the snake isn't in order to contest other players in superior positions shooting down on top of you while you crawl on your belly. I know, I know, you already know this but a quick review of your's (and most everybody else's) practical experience will demonstrate that you may know dat but you don't play dat.
Ideally the object of working into the snake is to get in position to kill peeps who have no place to hide. In addition the secondary object is to apply pressure to your opponent; pressure that either pins them in their spots or forces them to react. Remember proximity tension? It applies in spades in the snake.
In practice our field was set-up in such a way that the midfield MT did not have a clean gap to shoot between snake 1 and snake 2. On the Pro field at Cup there was a gap. Did it make a difference? Yes but only a minor one. A competent snake player was not delayed for any length of time by the MT and if you watch some of the Pro field matches the thing to look for is players making the strong move right to snake 4 as rapidly and directly as possible. Playing the snake is not a leisurely sight-seeing proposition moving from one knuckle to the next--it's about taking aggressive action that quickly eliminates your opponent(s) or forces your them into a defensive posture. Even if the snake player doesn't get any fast kills the action frequently frees up other players to make moves and take greater control of the field.
One other generalized comment with regards to proximity tension. (Okay, two.) One, if you watch how players respond to proximity tension you will learn a lot about how they play the game under stress. Two, it is always better to give than receive (and I'm not talking about gifts at Christmas.) I'm talking about bunkering your opponent when the opportunity presents itself--and/or proactively making your own opportunities. The benefits are practical and psychological, as one springs from the other. It is offense and not defense, it is active, not reactive. It imposes your will on your opponent. The core move is a momentum builder (or changer) and it simultaneously encourages teammates to act while discouraging opponents resulting as often as not in a net gain in field position with the added bonus of demoralizing the opponent.
At this point it's fair to say we were committed to attacking the wires. We had decided how we would go about doing that and what options and contingencies we could call upon when circumstances required. Our attack may appear simple but it wasn't. But what other options exist? It is always necessary to evaluate the whole field even if you don't plan on using all of it because you also must be prepared for what your opponent might do. (A great example of this is the most recent NCPA final featuring, if I recall correctly, Long Beach State & Tennessee. Losing the match trying to play Long Beach straight up Tennessee altered their attack. Instead of competing for the snake they played to hold the snake and attack using an interior D-side lane. [I kept waiting to see somebody try it all day.] The change in tactics took Long Beach by surprise and they never came up with a workable counter which allowed Tennessee to run off a few points in a row and take the championship. Whether Tennessee was saving that tactic or fell into it doesn't matter. What matters is that Long Beach wasn't prepared to respond to it. Watch the video some time. It's pretty remarkable. Which is why I remarked on it.)
After the fact it's clear that the center of the field wasn't much utilised except in closing points out but I want to take a quick look at why it wasn't. (Lots of teams, when they have nothing else or as a bold change, will send player(s) up the center OTB.) There were a couple of reasons not to attack using this layout's X OTB. On the diagram at either side of the X you will note on the D-side a critical blind zone in pink and on the snake side two lanes in purple. Each side of the X presents a player with variations on the same problem. On the D-side both the wire MT and corner TCK can't be seen. What is the X-side player to do? If there's an opponent wide in either the MT or TCK do you play them to deny the D1 or close the angle? Inside the MR and the midfield MT both have line-of-sight angles and the X-side can be run down from Home. A similar scenario exists on the snake side as the X-side player there needs to either attack insert Temple or corner SD (and TCK) or defend access to the snake--but can't do both--and is also susceptible to being bunkered or countered by the feed TCK. In neither case does going X-side OTB offer a high likelihood of quick kills and/or disruption of the opponent's breakout.
But that doesn't (didn't) mean the middle zone of the field didn't play. On the D-side using the midfield MT as a D-side play (instead of the crossfield) offers a strong change of pace option to either attack Home, a crossfield TCK laner or breakdown snake side players in their primaries early in a point by bumping the Can as part of a move to the wire from the inside out. It also a good running path if your opponent is already strong on the wire. Even better when playing snake side as the strong side--odd gun is committed snake side--is the rotation upfield into the Can (see dashed line). It can be an OTB option but is better as a contingency. By that I mean if you lane the wide runner OTB--then you take the Can to cut off follow-up rotations to the wire and eventually turn the gun inside in the transition from mid-game to close out.
Beyond that there's the routine stuff of walking and re-walking the positions. Testing bounce shots. Talking through options and sequences with your teammates. And on and on. The process is as comprehensive or as simple as you choose to make it.
Recap: So far we've covered a general assessment of the value of the most common primary bunkers; how we will attack & defend the snake and what it will take to play effectively on the D-wire. This time I want to round things out by talking a bit more about actually playing the snake, some alternative options, why the center of this layout wasn't utilised more actively and whatever other bits & pieces come to mind. A veritable post-Thanksgiving cornucopia of game play scraps and leftovers.
Ideally the object of working into the snake is to get in position to kill peeps who have no place to hide. In addition the secondary object is to apply pressure to your opponent; pressure that either pins them in their spots or forces them to react. Remember proximity tension? It applies in spades in the snake.
In practice our field was set-up in such a way that the midfield MT did not have a clean gap to shoot between snake 1 and snake 2. On the Pro field at Cup there was a gap. Did it make a difference? Yes but only a minor one. A competent snake player was not delayed for any length of time by the MT and if you watch some of the Pro field matches the thing to look for is players making the strong move right to snake 4 as rapidly and directly as possible. Playing the snake is not a leisurely sight-seeing proposition moving from one knuckle to the next--it's about taking aggressive action that quickly eliminates your opponent(s) or forces your them into a defensive posture. Even if the snake player doesn't get any fast kills the action frequently frees up other players to make moves and take greater control of the field.
One other generalized comment with regards to proximity tension. (Okay, two.) One, if you watch how players respond to proximity tension you will learn a lot about how they play the game under stress. Two, it is always better to give than receive (and I'm not talking about gifts at Christmas.) I'm talking about bunkering your opponent when the opportunity presents itself--and/or proactively making your own opportunities. The benefits are practical and psychological, as one springs from the other. It is offense and not defense, it is active, not reactive. It imposes your will on your opponent. The core move is a momentum builder (or changer) and it simultaneously encourages teammates to act while discouraging opponents resulting as often as not in a net gain in field position with the added bonus of demoralizing the opponent.
At this point it's fair to say we were committed to attacking the wires. We had decided how we would go about doing that and what options and contingencies we could call upon when circumstances required. Our attack may appear simple but it wasn't. But what other options exist? It is always necessary to evaluate the whole field even if you don't plan on using all of it because you also must be prepared for what your opponent might do. (A great example of this is the most recent NCPA final featuring, if I recall correctly, Long Beach State & Tennessee. Losing the match trying to play Long Beach straight up Tennessee altered their attack. Instead of competing for the snake they played to hold the snake and attack using an interior D-side lane. [I kept waiting to see somebody try it all day.] The change in tactics took Long Beach by surprise and they never came up with a workable counter which allowed Tennessee to run off a few points in a row and take the championship. Whether Tennessee was saving that tactic or fell into it doesn't matter. What matters is that Long Beach wasn't prepared to respond to it. Watch the video some time. It's pretty remarkable. Which is why I remarked on it.)
After the fact it's clear that the center of the field wasn't much utilised except in closing points out but I want to take a quick look at why it wasn't. (Lots of teams, when they have nothing else or as a bold change, will send player(s) up the center OTB.) There were a couple of reasons not to attack using this layout's X OTB. On the diagram at either side of the X you will note on the D-side a critical blind zone in pink and on the snake side two lanes in purple. Each side of the X presents a player with variations on the same problem. On the D-side both the wire MT and corner TCK can't be seen. What is the X-side player to do? If there's an opponent wide in either the MT or TCK do you play them to deny the D1 or close the angle? Inside the MR and the midfield MT both have line-of-sight angles and the X-side can be run down from Home. A similar scenario exists on the snake side as the X-side player there needs to either attack insert Temple or corner SD (and TCK) or defend access to the snake--but can't do both--and is also susceptible to being bunkered or countered by the feed TCK. In neither case does going X-side OTB offer a high likelihood of quick kills and/or disruption of the opponent's breakout.
But that doesn't (didn't) mean the middle zone of the field didn't play. On the D-side using the midfield MT as a D-side play (instead of the crossfield) offers a strong change of pace option to either attack Home, a crossfield TCK laner or breakdown snake side players in their primaries early in a point by bumping the Can as part of a move to the wire from the inside out. It also a good running path if your opponent is already strong on the wire. Even better when playing snake side as the strong side--odd gun is committed snake side--is the rotation upfield into the Can (see dashed line). It can be an OTB option but is better as a contingency. By that I mean if you lane the wide runner OTB--then you take the Can to cut off follow-up rotations to the wire and eventually turn the gun inside in the transition from mid-game to close out.
Beyond that there's the routine stuff of walking and re-walking the positions. Testing bounce shots. Talking through options and sequences with your teammates. And on and on. The process is as comprehensive or as simple as you choose to make it.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
It's Official!
Below is the joint statement issued by the PSP & NPPL in the wake of a final effort to bring the merger to fruition. If VFTD was a paintball news site (or beholden to industry support and advertising) that's the way I'd leave it too. But VFTD isn't so ... it looks like CYA to me. "Remain committed and optimistic .." Yeah, right.
Here's the (rumored) dealio. Some time in the last day (or two?) a final ditch effort was made to see if a deal could be reached. As is clear in the statement it didn't work out. After the (apparent) debacle in Vegas--hey, that's the way that effort is rumored (there's that word again) to have gone--VFTD wants to know what really happened. The truth may never get out but--here's a prediction--the first stories are likely to be just that, stories. Who initiated this last ditch effort? Why? What did it amount to? So many questions. So few answers. So far.
_____________________________________________
Subject: PSP & NPPL joint Press Release
Dear Industry Members, Teams, Players and Supporters,
In June of this year, the PSP management and the NPPL management met in Las Vegas for a meeting to construct the framework for a merged or newly combined entity to host one paintball tournament event series for 2012 and beyond. Both the PSP and the NPPL supported by the majority of the industry felt that given the past erosion of our industry and the current economic uncertainty, that one league hosting a series of events would be the best thing for everyone involved. After additional meetings in New Jersey, Orlando and Las Vegas combined with countless phone conferences and email correspondence, we were unable to come to an agreement that satisfied both parties. Given the time that is left in the calendar year and the quickly approaching 2012 tournament season, we have exhausted the time to negotiate further.
The PSP & NPPL staff fully recognizes the benefits of a combined league for 2012 and with the most genuine of intentions, deployed all assets and made every effort to make one league a reality for the paintball community. We believe the PSP & NPPL organizations pursued the negotiations with the same intentions and shared our desire to be successful. The PSP & NPPL both recognize the termination of negotiations as a temporary setback but remain committed and optimistic to merging for one league in the future. We want to thank the staff of both the PSP & NPPL and sincerely appreciate the efforts they made to consummate a combined entity.
Regards,
The PSP & NPPL Management
Here's the (rumored) dealio. Some time in the last day (or two?) a final ditch effort was made to see if a deal could be reached. As is clear in the statement it didn't work out. After the (apparent) debacle in Vegas--hey, that's the way that effort is rumored (there's that word again) to have gone--VFTD wants to know what really happened. The truth may never get out but--here's a prediction--the first stories are likely to be just that, stories. Who initiated this last ditch effort? Why? What did it amount to? So many questions. So few answers. So far.
_____________________________________________
Subject: PSP & NPPL joint Press Release
Dear Industry Members, Teams, Players and Supporters,
In June of this year, the PSP management and the NPPL management met in Las Vegas for a meeting to construct the framework for a merged or newly combined entity to host one paintball tournament event series for 2012 and beyond. Both the PSP and the NPPL supported by the majority of the industry felt that given the past erosion of our industry and the current economic uncertainty, that one league hosting a series of events would be the best thing for everyone involved. After additional meetings in New Jersey, Orlando and Las Vegas combined with countless phone conferences and email correspondence, we were unable to come to an agreement that satisfied both parties. Given the time that is left in the calendar year and the quickly approaching 2012 tournament season, we have exhausted the time to negotiate further.
The PSP & NPPL staff fully recognizes the benefits of a combined league for 2012 and with the most genuine of intentions, deployed all assets and made every effort to make one league a reality for the paintball community. We believe the PSP & NPPL organizations pursued the negotiations with the same intentions and shared our desire to be successful. The PSP & NPPL both recognize the termination of negotiations as a temporary setback but remain committed and optimistic to merging for one league in the future. We want to thank the staff of both the PSP & NPPL and sincerely appreciate the efforts they made to consummate a combined entity.
Regards,
The PSP & NPPL Management
Silly Season
Is in full force and doesn't show any signs of letting up. From here on out all bets are off. I'ma repeat about a third of what I'm hearing and I'm not even gonna worry about it's accuracy. If you don't want unvetted rumors--stop reading them. At this point I'm quite certain most of the rumor makers and powers that be in paintball don't know what's happening either so we're all in good company. Yes of course peeps have plans and everyone is trying to make moves but everything is so unsettled right now yesterday's rumor is today's deal is tomorrow's never gonna happen. Sit back, put your feet up and enjoy--but don't put any stock in any of this nonsense. (Unless I tell you otherwise.)
(Btw, I am working on World Cup Practice, part 4 and will post it soon-ish.)
The on again off again major league merger is definitely off. (Until it isn't.) As of right this minute it appears that both leagues will go about their regular bidness. Could that change? Sure, when pigs fly and NASA discovers those moon rocks they collected are petrified cream cheese. Never say never but it looks like a real long shot right now.
And again I gotta ask--since nobody has come up with a good answer yet--why so many players seem to think the merger has any real meaning for them or competitive paintball generally? If you read the rubbish being posted most of the hysterical merger mania seems to be convinced that a merger would usher in a new golden era of tournament paintball and in no time at all the President (or at least Beyonce) would be singing the national anthem before a championship final being broadcast live to billions of instant fans. Seriously, what possesses people to believe that sort of nonsense?
Back to the merger. The real issue (assuming the merger stays off the table) is how the sponsors respond, if they do, or if everything remains bidness as usual. Yes, I've said this before and it remains true today. And as before there's no telling--yet. Rumor has it the industry players generally know where they stand and what their intentions are but everyone is watching everyone else to see who, if anyone, is gonna break ranks first. And if that happens all bets are off. Again.
Okay, now about Procaps. Remember the whole Smarts Parts rigamarole? The on again off again, it's sold, it's not routine that went on for some time? (Months.) Well, it's looking like that may prove to be the case with Procaps. Reports of the sale were premature and it seems three paintball companies put in bids with GI's being the highest in total but not in cash. (According to the latest.) The three companies are the same ones as has been previously rumored; GI, KEE & Tippmann. (Yep, that Tippmann.) It may be knowledge of being the top bidder is what set off the premature rejoicing at GI--but at any rate it's all rumored now to be moot--as the bank (the ever ubiquitous "bank") has rejected all the bids. If so it's back to the drawing board for everybody. Sure, why not?
A potentially important related issue for competitive paintball teams and players is how the sale, non-sale & whoever ends up with Procaps, if it's a paintball company, affects sponsorship deals for next season. In recent years the process has lagged, with the industry dragging its metaphoric feet, and with the whole Procaps thing up in the air there's no telling how it might impact sponsorships.
With respect to the latest RL rumors there's conflicting claims. Middle or so of last season the rumor started floating that Sergey Leontiev (owner of RL) was backing off his prior commitments to the team and that was part of the internal issues going on there that resulted in the poor showing in Jersey, the rumored retirements (I mentioned last time) etc. If that was true to begin with, it is now being rumored that whatever the problems were they've been settled and Sergey (and his money) are back in full force. As to the make-up of next season's roster there's conflicting stories about the U.S. players--did they quit first?--and the apparent factoids that the Russians have been looking at some other non-Russian players recently. It wouldn't surprise me if they ended up with an all Russian roster but it also wouldn't surprise me if they didn't.
Finally there's some deep chatter, way deep chatter, about the NPPL making some substantial changes to their format. It may be something that's under discussion but frankly I don't put much, if any, stock in it at present. If I hear more about it and it sounds at any point like it might really happen I'll get into it in more detail--but for the time being it's just a seriously outlandish rumor. (Even for me--and even unvetted.)
(Btw, I am working on World Cup Practice, part 4 and will post it soon-ish.)
The on again off again major league merger is definitely off. (Until it isn't.) As of right this minute it appears that both leagues will go about their regular bidness. Could that change? Sure, when pigs fly and NASA discovers those moon rocks they collected are petrified cream cheese. Never say never but it looks like a real long shot right now.
And again I gotta ask--since nobody has come up with a good answer yet--why so many players seem to think the merger has any real meaning for them or competitive paintball generally? If you read the rubbish being posted most of the hysterical merger mania seems to be convinced that a merger would usher in a new golden era of tournament paintball and in no time at all the President (or at least Beyonce) would be singing the national anthem before a championship final being broadcast live to billions of instant fans. Seriously, what possesses people to believe that sort of nonsense?
Back to the merger. The real issue (assuming the merger stays off the table) is how the sponsors respond, if they do, or if everything remains bidness as usual. Yes, I've said this before and it remains true today. And as before there's no telling--yet. Rumor has it the industry players generally know where they stand and what their intentions are but everyone is watching everyone else to see who, if anyone, is gonna break ranks first. And if that happens all bets are off. Again.
Okay, now about Procaps. Remember the whole Smarts Parts rigamarole? The on again off again, it's sold, it's not routine that went on for some time? (Months.) Well, it's looking like that may prove to be the case with Procaps. Reports of the sale were premature and it seems three paintball companies put in bids with GI's being the highest in total but not in cash. (According to the latest.) The three companies are the same ones as has been previously rumored; GI, KEE & Tippmann. (Yep, that Tippmann.) It may be knowledge of being the top bidder is what set off the premature rejoicing at GI--but at any rate it's all rumored now to be moot--as the bank (the ever ubiquitous "bank") has rejected all the bids. If so it's back to the drawing board for everybody. Sure, why not?
A potentially important related issue for competitive paintball teams and players is how the sale, non-sale & whoever ends up with Procaps, if it's a paintball company, affects sponsorship deals for next season. In recent years the process has lagged, with the industry dragging its metaphoric feet, and with the whole Procaps thing up in the air there's no telling how it might impact sponsorships.
With respect to the latest RL rumors there's conflicting claims. Middle or so of last season the rumor started floating that Sergey Leontiev (owner of RL) was backing off his prior commitments to the team and that was part of the internal issues going on there that resulted in the poor showing in Jersey, the rumored retirements (I mentioned last time) etc. If that was true to begin with, it is now being rumored that whatever the problems were they've been settled and Sergey (and his money) are back in full force. As to the make-up of next season's roster there's conflicting stories about the U.S. players--did they quit first?--and the apparent factoids that the Russians have been looking at some other non-Russian players recently. It wouldn't surprise me if they ended up with an all Russian roster but it also wouldn't surprise me if they didn't.
Finally there's some deep chatter, way deep chatter, about the NPPL making some substantial changes to their format. It may be something that's under discussion but frankly I don't put much, if any, stock in it at present. If I hear more about it and it sounds at any point like it might really happen I'll get into it in more detail--but for the time being it's just a seriously outlandish rumor. (Even for me--and even unvetted.)
Monday, November 28, 2011
Outer Limits of Rumorology
Or as our Brit friends would write (assuming basic literacy, which is, more and more, a dangerous assumption given the factoid literacy rates in the Western world have declined in recent decades despite [or because of?] the gold star mentality of what passes for educators these days) 'Outer Limits of Rumourology'. As VFTD regulars know I have a penchant for beating a dead horse or am otherwise unable to leave well enough alone so here's one last--for now--post with rumors; about rumors. It is the paintball silly season after all.
The kids over at ProPaintball recently posted their latest player and team rumors and one of them included a reference to TBD. Rumor suggests the Legion will be returning to an all Russian roster next year and that leaves their American players without a team. And further that TBD (among others) is talking to J-Rab about joining Damage. To forestall a spate of J-Rab questions I'll tell y'all what I know. The team has been talking to Justin informally off and on ever since he played 7-man with us a couple years ago. And the subject has been discussed internally so as far as it goes the rumor is correct. On the subject of the Russian Legion generally there's been another rumor floating around since at least New Jersey PSP that has two of the Legion's home grown regulars retiring--at least from PSP competition. If that (and the Federov rumor) proves to be correct it could be a very different Russian Legion next year.
Hold the presses! One of the earliest rumored players in the Procaps sweepstakes is once again rumored to be back in the mix. Hint: it's a paintball company, d'oh! (That at present doesn't have paint-making capability.) I first heard this rumor during the holiday weekend and have as yet not been able to get additional sources to confirm. I'm mentioning it now because if accurate it makes the Procaps Sold post premature at best and wrong at worst. I find it hard to credit but who knows? (Of course it could be the GI Kidz jumped the gun and what was claimed to be a done deal was in fact the beginning of what was expected to be a done deal. And, yes, that means more than one of my sources for that rumor came from within. And I've since heard the GI brass attempted to put the fear of God or unemployment in their employees to keep their mouths shut in the future.) With the original GI buys Procaps rumor the initial source was a regular, and to-date impeccable source that was later confirmed by two other independent sources. (I even got a price--but decided to stay away from that.) The latest hasn't seemed to be as well sourced but ... hey, this is paintball so almost anything is possible I suppose. Regardless Procaps is still on the block.
And last and certainly least is not so much a rumor as a, oh I don't know, hopeful wannabe rumor? Btw, this is about the Millennium Series, sorta. In the past I've heard rumors about the licensing fees and entries suggesting that all teams aren't charged equally (This is news?)--and that plenty of people know it--but nobody will talk about it, particularly those gaining an advantage if it's true. But that isn't the latest. In fact that's old (old) news. The latest (also really a recycled rumor too) wannabe rumor is that the MS also cuts deals on sponsorships with industry partners--at least with certain industry sponsors. (Of course if you'd seen the sponsorship packet they put out each year and the prices you'd be amazed that anybody paid those prices.) This isn't really a rumor, it's an unsubstantiated complaint. And like the licensing business what it's really all about is that whatever group of participants are unsatisfied with the MS want somebody else to change things for them. So pretty much big time Europaintball as usual. So why did I mention this particular wannabe rumor? Because if there's any fire generating these puffs of smoke this is somebody's opportunity to make a real case. Or not. And if not, it remains bidness as usual--and after last year in the MS maybe that's not such a bad thing after all.
The kids over at ProPaintball recently posted their latest player and team rumors and one of them included a reference to TBD. Rumor suggests the Legion will be returning to an all Russian roster next year and that leaves their American players without a team. And further that TBD (among others) is talking to J-Rab about joining Damage. To forestall a spate of J-Rab questions I'll tell y'all what I know. The team has been talking to Justin informally off and on ever since he played 7-man with us a couple years ago. And the subject has been discussed internally so as far as it goes the rumor is correct. On the subject of the Russian Legion generally there's been another rumor floating around since at least New Jersey PSP that has two of the Legion's home grown regulars retiring--at least from PSP competition. If that (and the Federov rumor) proves to be correct it could be a very different Russian Legion next year.
Hold the presses! One of the earliest rumored players in the Procaps sweepstakes is once again rumored to be back in the mix. Hint: it's a paintball company, d'oh! (That at present doesn't have paint-making capability.) I first heard this rumor during the holiday weekend and have as yet not been able to get additional sources to confirm. I'm mentioning it now because if accurate it makes the Procaps Sold post premature at best and wrong at worst. I find it hard to credit but who knows? (Of course it could be the GI Kidz jumped the gun and what was claimed to be a done deal was in fact the beginning of what was expected to be a done deal. And, yes, that means more than one of my sources for that rumor came from within. And I've since heard the GI brass attempted to put the fear of God or unemployment in their employees to keep their mouths shut in the future.) With the original GI buys Procaps rumor the initial source was a regular, and to-date impeccable source that was later confirmed by two other independent sources. (I even got a price--but decided to stay away from that.) The latest hasn't seemed to be as well sourced but ... hey, this is paintball so almost anything is possible I suppose. Regardless Procaps is still on the block.
And last and certainly least is not so much a rumor as a, oh I don't know, hopeful wannabe rumor? Btw, this is about the Millennium Series, sorta. In the past I've heard rumors about the licensing fees and entries suggesting that all teams aren't charged equally (This is news?)--and that plenty of people know it--but nobody will talk about it, particularly those gaining an advantage if it's true. But that isn't the latest. In fact that's old (old) news. The latest (also really a recycled rumor too) wannabe rumor is that the MS also cuts deals on sponsorships with industry partners--at least with certain industry sponsors. (Of course if you'd seen the sponsorship packet they put out each year and the prices you'd be amazed that anybody paid those prices.) This isn't really a rumor, it's an unsubstantiated complaint. And like the licensing business what it's really all about is that whatever group of participants are unsatisfied with the MS want somebody else to change things for them. So pretty much big time Europaintball as usual. So why did I mention this particular wannabe rumor? Because if there's any fire generating these puffs of smoke this is somebody's opportunity to make a real case. Or not. And if not, it remains bidness as usual--and after last year in the MS maybe that's not such a bad thing after all.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Numbers Game
The final numbers are in for the 2011 season major league paintball participation. Back in July I posted on the mid-term--(Buy the Numbers?)--and while the numbers are correct I got it wrong. I predicted by the end of the year participation numbers would stabilize across both leagues and end up similar to 2010 numbers. As it turned out both leagues saw real numbers rise. Good for everybody.
Since my views are already pretty well known I'ma just give y'all the rest of the numbers and you people can fight about what it means, or ought to mean and what comes next. In keeping with prior practice I've left the Pro teams out of both equations. (Read the other post if you want to know why.) I've also broken the numbers down by format; 7-man teams compared to Xball Lite teams (even though 5-man in the NPPL doesn't directly compare to Race 2-2.) In four events PSP averaged 160 teams and the NPPL averaged 79 teams. [There is a discrepancy however. NPPL's team list for Vegas had (has?) 136 teams but after the event the league only ranked 103 teams in the various division rankings. They left out the new D4 7-man so I used the Team List number of 15. And then of course Mutiny was a no show which left Vegas turnout at a potential high of 135 to a low of 117. Similar discrepancies exist between the Chicago & DC lists and final rankings as well with the lists in all 3 cases being the larger number. The total plus/minus over the season is 33 teams. I used the rankings because those numbers reflect post event results and seemed to me more likely to be correct with respect to teams that actually competed. To be consistent I also checked both the APPA's paid list against PSP's ranking results and those numbers matched for each event.] For the NPPL it was a significant bump. Between 2009 and 2010 NPPL 3.0 only improved by four teams per event average whereas this past season the bump was up 13 teams per event on average (although virtually all the gains can be attributed to HB & Vegas.)
The direct format comparison saw an average of 53 7-man teams per event and 90 Race 2-X teams. That is an 7-man increase of 9 teams per event over last year. So of the plus 13 teams per NPPL event 9 were in the primary format. And the 90 Race 2-X is a decline of 3 teams per event over 2010 but the PSP more than made up that difference in Race 2-2. Much of the PSP losses in recent years have been from the 5-man ranks and the gains of 2011 were plus 21 teams (80 versus 59) over 2010.
So there you have it.
I would ask one question though. While I know the industry wishes for a single national league what exactly do the players who want one league think it will do either for them or for paintball? Riddle me that.
And just so the Eurokids don't feel left out--it seems one CPL spot is already up for sale and if this off season mirrors last year the MS will be scrambling to try and find teams. I suspect it won't be as bad--assuming the goal is to hold the line at or near 2011 team numbers--because the league had event limits in 2011 that were below 2010 attendance numbers (for the most part) and if the Euro trend is similar to the U.S. (which saw rising participation numbers) there should be teams to fill in the spots that might otherwise have gone missing from normal attrition. (It's a good thing too since the MS went far and wide last year scouring the east and all the distant corners of near Euroland for replacement teams already so that is an option that won't be available again in the near term.) Of course all bets are off if the failing eurozone economies explode the Euro and the whole things starts tumbling like falling dominoes.
Since my views are already pretty well known I'ma just give y'all the rest of the numbers and you people can fight about what it means, or ought to mean and what comes next. In keeping with prior practice I've left the Pro teams out of both equations. (Read the other post if you want to know why.) I've also broken the numbers down by format; 7-man teams compared to Xball Lite teams (even though 5-man in the NPPL doesn't directly compare to Race 2-2.) In four events PSP averaged 160 teams and the NPPL averaged 79 teams. [There is a discrepancy however. NPPL's team list for Vegas had (has?) 136 teams but after the event the league only ranked 103 teams in the various division rankings. They left out the new D4 7-man so I used the Team List number of 15. And then of course Mutiny was a no show which left Vegas turnout at a potential high of 135 to a low of 117. Similar discrepancies exist between the Chicago & DC lists and final rankings as well with the lists in all 3 cases being the larger number. The total plus/minus over the season is 33 teams. I used the rankings because those numbers reflect post event results and seemed to me more likely to be correct with respect to teams that actually competed. To be consistent I also checked both the APPA's paid list against PSP's ranking results and those numbers matched for each event.] For the NPPL it was a significant bump. Between 2009 and 2010 NPPL 3.0 only improved by four teams per event average whereas this past season the bump was up 13 teams per event on average (although virtually all the gains can be attributed to HB & Vegas.)
The direct format comparison saw an average of 53 7-man teams per event and 90 Race 2-X teams. That is an 7-man increase of 9 teams per event over last year. So of the plus 13 teams per NPPL event 9 were in the primary format. And the 90 Race 2-X is a decline of 3 teams per event over 2010 but the PSP more than made up that difference in Race 2-2. Much of the PSP losses in recent years have been from the 5-man ranks and the gains of 2011 were plus 21 teams (80 versus 59) over 2010.
So there you have it.
I would ask one question though. While I know the industry wishes for a single national league what exactly do the players who want one league think it will do either for them or for paintball? Riddle me that.
And just so the Eurokids don't feel left out--it seems one CPL spot is already up for sale and if this off season mirrors last year the MS will be scrambling to try and find teams. I suspect it won't be as bad--assuming the goal is to hold the line at or near 2011 team numbers--because the league had event limits in 2011 that were below 2010 attendance numbers (for the most part) and if the Euro trend is similar to the U.S. (which saw rising participation numbers) there should be teams to fill in the spots that might otherwise have gone missing from normal attrition. (It's a good thing too since the MS went far and wide last year scouring the east and all the distant corners of near Euroland for replacement teams already so that is an option that won't be available again in the near term.) Of course all bets are off if the failing eurozone economies explode the Euro and the whole things starts tumbling like falling dominoes.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
December Will Be Mailbag Month!
December posts will be devoted to Baca's Mailbag. (Unless timely & interesting news demands a comment or two.) All postings in December will be in response to questions, comments, observations, etc. either posted on VFTD's Facebook page or delivered to my own private Tora Bora via the email link on the sidebar. So it's up to you, slackers. If you want some VFTD to occupy you through the dark days of winter you know what you have to do--hope somebody else sends in some stuff.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Happy Thanksgiving (minus the cranberries!)
To one and all. (I'm feeling magnanimous.) Even though it is an American holiday and VFTD has an international following it is worth a moment of reflection on everyone's part to acknowledge and be grateful for family, friends and all the good things in life.
Paintball Myths
There's a thread in the WCA (Asia) forum at the Nation about girls in paintball. Specifically about girls playing at World Cup Asia but as such posts always do it quickly devolved into the usual irrational nonsense--except for one sensible girl, IceBox. (You go girl!) Let me see if I have this right: Girls are every bit the equal of guys, Grrl Power, girls are tough, capable and can do anything a guy can do. Except, apparently, on a paintball field where if the girls aren't treated with the utmost care like little porcelain dolls they'll run away and never come back again. So when there aren't enough girls playing paintball it's all the guys' fault. Newsflash: I hate to break it to you but that's a cognitive disconnect, kids. Pick one. You can't have both.
How many girls play Airsoft?
On the flipside there's the common claim (almost invariably offered up by young males) that competitive paintball (and depending on the conversation pretty much all other forms of paintball) demands aggressive hardcore play--and as a hyper aggressive game it's not for everybody who isn't drenched head-to-toe in testosterone. Every time I read one of those kind of posts it makes me smile. It's the (unintended) gift that just keeps on giving. Especially the ones in which the writer really seems to believe it. One of the unwritten truths of paintball is that most of the (younger in particular) participants have little to no sports backgrounds. (And for purposes of this post and the point being made baseball doesn't count unless you use your Louisville Slugger for a Saturday night rumble with the Jets or the Sharks.) If they did they'd know how silly their claims are. And then there's what you see on most fields the world over. I'm sorry but hiding behind your primary spraying away at 12 bps pod after pod is not raw untempered aggression. And that heart-pumping adrenaline dump that makes 5 minutes seem like an eternity? That's not berserker aggression, it's called fear. But whatever you do keep writing those posts, kids. I can always use the laugh.
How many girls play Airsoft?
On the flipside there's the common claim (almost invariably offered up by young males) that competitive paintball (and depending on the conversation pretty much all other forms of paintball) demands aggressive hardcore play--and as a hyper aggressive game it's not for everybody who isn't drenched head-to-toe in testosterone. Every time I read one of those kind of posts it makes me smile. It's the (unintended) gift that just keeps on giving. Especially the ones in which the writer really seems to believe it. One of the unwritten truths of paintball is that most of the (younger in particular) participants have little to no sports backgrounds. (And for purposes of this post and the point being made baseball doesn't count unless you use your Louisville Slugger for a Saturday night rumble with the Jets or the Sharks.) If they did they'd know how silly their claims are. And then there's what you see on most fields the world over. I'm sorry but hiding behind your primary spraying away at 12 bps pod after pod is not raw untempered aggression. And that heart-pumping adrenaline dump that makes 5 minutes seem like an eternity? That's not berserker aggression, it's called fear. But whatever you do keep writing those posts, kids. I can always use the laugh.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
2011 World Cup Practice, part 3
It's back! (World Cup practice posts, d'oh.) Despite a lack of popular demand. (This one's for you, Devon.) (Okay, not really just for you but it does prove I almost keep up to date with VFTD's Facebook page.)
To quickly recap parts 1 & 2 practice is for developing players and the skills required to be successful in actual tournaments. Versatility is a key training goal. Not only does the proper sort of training make players stronger where they were weak but it instills confidence in the individual and in the group as a unit. It is self-reinforcing and allows the coach or captain to go from strength to strength. I have watched all the PSP uploaded videos of our matches a number of times. My objective is to look for things I didn't see during the actual match--because during the match I'm watching our opponents, not my guys--so that I can perhaps pick up on things we need to work on. And trust me, I always find fault somewhere. (And sometimes it's even me.)
Part 2 left off with a description of the back and forth process involved in determining how we would play with respect to a single prop; the D-side MT. Part 3 will dissect playing the D-wire and the various control options. Beginning with the Home shooter the diagram illustrates 4 lanes. Lane 1 is an occasional lane best used after edging the MT consistently and changing the opponent's path. Lanes 2 & 3 are the primary OTB lanes. Lane 4 may or may not be available depending on the actual physical field set-up but it's a tight lane and less effective than 3. The first half of Saturday we shot Lane 2. I wanted to be able to get paint on any D-side runner, including dropping short into the MR, but we could not put a consistent lane up in that close to the breakout. So we moved to Lane 3--and began putting paint on their runners consistently. (Once the opponent is forced to take the MR on the breakout more often than not playing the dead zones--blue dots--becomes an effective option to either lane the MR and/or attack the Home shooter before they can get out.) (Home shooter can also be the dead zone shooter.) The only effective D-wire control bunkers are in Orange and Purple. (The Violet option of playing the MT D-side offered only marginal utility and even less than it appears on the diagram due to the narrow laning window.) (Green can only cover very limited lanes and cannot be relied on to control movement.) The cross field Orange is one of those situations that require a constant paint stream, more or less, and actually only pins the opponent in D1. As a consequence we used this option randomly--unless we were under heavy D-side pressure (which as a practical matter didn't happen)--to slow upfield D-wire progress and force the opposition to always be aware of the possibility. In concert with Orange we used Purple (MR) for layers of contain. Given that the the MR has a positional disadvantage versus the D1, corner TCK and wire-side MT the object is not to gunfight edges, it's to inhibit (deny) movement.
To quickly recap parts 1 & 2 practice is for developing players and the skills required to be successful in actual tournaments. Versatility is a key training goal. Not only does the proper sort of training make players stronger where they were weak but it instills confidence in the individual and in the group as a unit. It is self-reinforcing and allows the coach or captain to go from strength to strength. I have watched all the PSP uploaded videos of our matches a number of times. My objective is to look for things I didn't see during the actual match--because during the match I'm watching our opponents, not my guys--so that I can perhaps pick up on things we need to work on. And trust me, I always find fault somewhere. (And sometimes it's even me.)
No player will do anything in a match that he hasn't done or won't do in practice. Read that over again and let it sink in. (Now read it again.) Whatever limitations your players show in practice you can safely expect 10-20% less from them in a real match. (One where the score goes up on the big board.) (And, yes, there are of course exceptions but as a general rule players tend to back off a little, or a lot, from practice to the real deal.) As a consequence the only place players really learn to expand their game is in practice. (To know something intellectually doesn't automatically translate into action.) And once a player has a couple of years of competition under their belt it often requires that you intentionally push them places they otherwise wouldn't go. (Players tend to settle, get comfortable in specific roles, want to do the things they already do well, etc.)
One caveat. Last time (practice part 2) I mentioned moving players around and the fact we made that call while also prepping the event layout the weekend before Cup. I want to caution lower division teams with less experienced players about doing the same. Developing versatility is a process and should be worked on primarily in practices that aren't layout prep. The reason for this is confidence and team cohesion. With a young, building team and/or inexperienced players last minute changes of that nature can (and usually do) play havoc with player and team self-confidence. (There's lots of stress, mixed in with the excitement, for developing young teams contemplating a big event. Following routines and focusing on the positive as your lead-in is normally the best approach.)
Back the Cup layout.
Part 2 left off with a description of the back and forth process involved in determining how we would play with respect to a single prop; the D-side MT. Part 3 will dissect playing the D-wire and the various control options. Beginning with the Home shooter the diagram illustrates 4 lanes. Lane 1 is an occasional lane best used after edging the MT consistently and changing the opponent's path. Lanes 2 & 3 are the primary OTB lanes. Lane 4 may or may not be available depending on the actual physical field set-up but it's a tight lane and less effective than 3. The first half of Saturday we shot Lane 2. I wanted to be able to get paint on any D-side runner, including dropping short into the MR, but we could not put a consistent lane up in that close to the breakout. So we moved to Lane 3--and began putting paint on their runners consistently. (Once the opponent is forced to take the MR on the breakout more often than not playing the dead zones--blue dots--becomes an effective option to either lane the MR and/or attack the Home shooter before they can get out.) (Home shooter can also be the dead zone shooter.) The only effective D-wire control bunkers are in Orange and Purple. (The Violet option of playing the MT D-side offered only marginal utility and even less than it appears on the diagram due to the narrow laning window.) (Green can only cover very limited lanes and cannot be relied on to control movement.) The cross field Orange is one of those situations that require a constant paint stream, more or less, and actually only pins the opponent in D1. As a consequence we used this option randomly--unless we were under heavy D-side pressure (which as a practical matter didn't happen)--to slow upfield D-wire progress and force the opposition to always be aware of the possibility. In concert with Orange we used Purple (MR) for layers of contain. Given that the the MR has a positional disadvantage versus the D1, corner TCK and wire-side MT the object is not to gunfight edges, it's to inhibit (deny) movement.Okay, given that post breakout movement on the D-wire has the potential to overwhelm efforts to deny movement control guns aren't enough. (And are, of course, also fundamentally defense-oriented requiring a transition from defense to offense.) The other factor at play is what I call proximity tension. Proximity tension is what happens when opposing players get close to each other. Too close and you risk getting bunkered. Too far and you may give up additional spots but in any case proximity tension means that the first team to get upfield position tends, simply by already being in a spot, to inhibit their opponents up wire movement.
Early on Saturday Dynasty took aggressive advantage of pushing the D-wire when we couldn't contain the wire lead with our lanes OTB. Once we began shooting an effective lane, Lane 3, it forced Dynasty to mix up their D-side breakouts. (Dynasty hadn't done much better with their contain and the result was a lot of back and forth bunkering action.) Overall the edge went to Dynasty as their support/insert players were more aggressive. (Remember they were also doing a very effective job early of getting into the snake adding heavy snake cross field pressure at the same time.)
Another important element is running lanes and the critical distinction is spacing at the intersection of the shooting and running lanes. The MR placement tends to force a flat run early regardless of primary bunker. Since the primary lanes OTB are on both sides of the MR the goal is to get as much separation between the two running lanes as possible in order to force your opponent to have to pick which lane they will shoot OTB. On this layout then a tight run around the MR into the wire side MT (diving it even!) is a necessary option along with a baseline run to the corner. (A lot of teams simply ran deep all the time and that is not going to work consistently against a good laning team.)
Given that consistent and effective contain was really mostly a delaying tactic our goal became to get on the wire quickly and up the wire even faster. Once the objective is clear the issue then becomes execution. Can the players consistently do what is required to achieve your goal(s)? If yes, you're good to go. If no, then you need to reconsider your options because it does no good to ask players to do something they simply can't so in that sense we return to training for versatility in order to open up the available options for competing on any type of layout.
Next time--putting it altogether.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
The Rumor Game
Before I get started it occurs to me that perhaps it's worthwhile to be transparent on any association I presently have with GI Sportz. I know and like a number of the staff. My team is sponsored by GI Sportz and I hope that relationship continues but I'm out of that loop (though I am from time to time consulted for my opinion.) There was also the briefest of conversations about an opportunity that might come my way (all I'm going to say)--and I hope this situation hasn't nixed that possibility. That's it.
In recalling the JT brouhaha--December '09--a whole bunch of great posts & comments--(and a few irate and threatening phone calls)--I remembered putting up a post called Rumorology, The Unseen Game (or something to that effect) and would like to take a moment, once again, to comment on rumors in a general way. The intent at VFTD is to the best of my ability post only rumors I believe are accurate. I am not concerned if they are inconvenient or anything else as long as they're accurate. Have all of VFTD's rumors been 100% correct? No, but when they haven't been absolutely factually correct they have almost always been close.
The reason I focus on accuracy isn't because I like to be right--although I do--it's because there are potentially other less than positive ramifications from rumors sometimes. Fallout if you will. And I have no wish to cause any "fallout" needlessly. At which point you and I may disagree about the definition of 'needless' but that's beside the point. Nor is VFTD some sort of paintball crusader who thinks the little guy has a "right to know" and that posting rumors is some sort of public service. (Although sometimes the little guy does have a right to know and there are damn few reliable outlets in those cases.)
About fallout. Imagine a competitor gets wind of a situation, a buy out, a move, a failed contract negotiation with a supplier or any other number of things that might be spun as a problem for a third party. What will happen to your deals with the XYZ widget company if the ABC widget company buys them? Any uncertainty may become somebody else's opportunity. The same circumstances exist any time a company is in the midst of any kind of significant change. It happens all the time on Wall Street and the stock market can climb or falter, shifting millions or billions of dollars, on the flimsiest of rumors. To one extent or another the same is potentially true in the world of paintball. The need exists to control such situations and manage the change with as few hiccups as possible.
In recalling the JT brouhaha--December '09--a whole bunch of great posts & comments--(and a few irate and threatening phone calls)--I remembered putting up a post called Rumorology, The Unseen Game (or something to that effect) and would like to take a moment, once again, to comment on rumors in a general way. The intent at VFTD is to the best of my ability post only rumors I believe are accurate. I am not concerned if they are inconvenient or anything else as long as they're accurate. Have all of VFTD's rumors been 100% correct? No, but when they haven't been absolutely factually correct they have almost always been close.
The reason I focus on accuracy isn't because I like to be right--although I do--it's because there are potentially other less than positive ramifications from rumors sometimes. Fallout if you will. And I have no wish to cause any "fallout" needlessly. At which point you and I may disagree about the definition of 'needless' but that's beside the point. Nor is VFTD some sort of paintball crusader who thinks the little guy has a "right to know" and that posting rumors is some sort of public service. (Although sometimes the little guy does have a right to know and there are damn few reliable outlets in those cases.)
About fallout. Imagine a competitor gets wind of a situation, a buy out, a move, a failed contract negotiation with a supplier or any other number of things that might be spun as a problem for a third party. What will happen to your deals with the XYZ widget company if the ABC widget company buys them? Any uncertainty may become somebody else's opportunity. The same circumstances exist any time a company is in the midst of any kind of significant change. It happens all the time on Wall Street and the stock market can climb or falter, shifting millions or billions of dollars, on the flimsiest of rumors. To one extent or another the same is potentially true in the world of paintball. The need exists to control such situations and manage the change with as few hiccups as possible.
A Reply From GI
The plot thickens. I have received both emails and phone calls direct to my secret bunker--somebody leaked the information--and in response I am happy to post, as a courtesy & with permission, the contents of one of the emails. The sender is Opie Thomas, who is a big muckety-muck at GI and who I have known for a number of years on a friendly basis. As have most if not all of the PB industry and many others involved in the game. I have no intention of challenging his statement. What I have done is follow up with my sources and after having done so decided not to remove the original post or issue a retraction. What I will do is leave it up to y'all to make up your own minds--such as they are.
Paul,
This is Opie from Gi Sportz. I am writing to let you know that as of right now GI Sportz has not purchased Procaps. Unless you see a Press Release from us stating so, the rumors are not fact.
Thanks,
Opie
David 'Opie' Thomas
Paul,
This is Opie from Gi Sportz. I am writing to let you know that as of right now GI Sportz has not purchased Procaps. Unless you see a Press Release from us stating so, the rumors are not fact.
Thanks,
Opie
David 'Opie' Thomas
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
What Doesn't Happen In Vegas
I don't have anything new on the merger (Kaboom!) front but when has that stopped me before? If, in fact, this signals the end of serious talks about a merger for the foreseeable future--and there seems little doubt that it does--then a post mortem is in order. And if it's all some sort of misunderstanding--I didn't know she was your wife when she stepped out of my shower--we can consider it just another one of those wacky Vegas misadventures along the rocky road to happiness--but it's not. But seriously, odds are, given the rumors exploding last weekend in Vegas, and the sudden posting of an HB event schedule for 2012 it sure sounds like everything went Kaboom! So what happens now? Is top flight national competition paintball in trouble? And what about some of the reported rumors? And how does the sale of Procaps effect national level competitive paintball, if at all?
While I'm not privvy to any first person insider info--go figure--I think there are a few reasonable conclusions that can be drawn (and I'm willing to climb out on a limb and offer a few up.) Back in September I posted a couple of merger-related posts. The first one, Merger Counterfactual, addressed the possibilities of what happens if there is or isn't a merger. I stand by that post and have a rumor or two to toss into the pot as I go all in. In Monday's post I alluded to the rumor that KEE was threatening a hard line with its sponsored teams if there was no merger. A hard line that favors the PSP. (There's even been some talk of a united industry--minus PE--determined to break the 2 league sponsorship cycle--but color me skeptical of that one.) If true that would mean KEE would likely pressure teams like Dynasty, Infamous and XSV to abandon the NPPL. (Of course the reverse could also be true but that isn't the way the rumors were flying.) And think of all the teams shooting Axes & RPS paint. That doesn't paint a pretty picture for the NPPL's future success.
Merger Machinations was also posted in September. In that post I identified some impediments to the merger I believed to be accurate. (And I've had no reason or received any info to suggest otherwise since.) Admittedly there are more current rumors but only the folks in the room discussing the merger know what actually happened and why and I would be very surprised (shocked actually) if the whole process wasn't covered by non-disclosure agreements. [I use them with some regularity and while not foolproof non-disclosures provide some extra legal protections again sensitive or proprietary information being leaked.] That is however just a supposition on my part. That said all the "insider" rumors about the meeting are coming from one side; the NPPL side.
What's perhaps more interesting than speculating about exactly what happened is speculating about what will happen next. Rumorology has suggested (for some time now) that there will be more events next season--rumor says 5 but who knows, is back to the old schedule of 6 events possible? I would guess not but that would only be a guess. Further I would expect the PSP to maintain the status quo when it comes to rules and format and such. After a reputedly successful 2011 (and the general playership aversion to change) a little continuity would likely prove quite popular. (Although a return to the shorter field might be change everyone could appreciate--and would help reverse the more paint, fewer points trend of 2011.) And then there's the sale of Procaps. Richmond has always flagshipped his paint brand with high visibility sponsorships--the current GI Sportz line-up for example--and there's no reason to imagine that will change. The question really is--will DraXXus be retained as a separate brand line (that incidentally ends up competing with GI) or will Procaps be subsumed into GI? And what happens to DraXXus sponsored teams as a result? Does GI spread the wealth and go with the numbers or focus their resources on a few well chosen teams? (Last year, KEE picked up a number of teams on the relative cheap with their Axes & RPS deals because there wasn't any real alternatives available.) Will the Procaps sale force further belt tightening and if it does what will that mean? In the Pro division it will likely mean a number of the NPPL only Pro teams won't have any real option about where they play; it will be NPPL or nothing.
And then there are the players. How many players play for multiple teams? How many teams are made up largely of players who also play elsewhere? Back in the day the NXL attempted to restrict player movement and I can imagine a time, in the not so distant future, when that becomes a more viable policy. When the NXL tried to restrict player movement there was too much money and too many options available to make it stick but that isn't the paintball universe of today.
Recently the league wars have been relatively mild low grade conflicts, schoolyard pissing contests if you will, but if the industry really does pick a side will it signal a heating up of the war? In the aftermath of whatever caused the merger to fail are there hard feelings, bruised egos and bitter recriminations? Frankly that's the stuff of paintball wars past--will it be the basis for a hot war going forward?
So many questions. So much unknown and/or uncertain going forward. At least there will be something to talk about over the winter.
While I'm not privvy to any first person insider info--go figure--I think there are a few reasonable conclusions that can be drawn (and I'm willing to climb out on a limb and offer a few up.) Back in September I posted a couple of merger-related posts. The first one, Merger Counterfactual, addressed the possibilities of what happens if there is or isn't a merger. I stand by that post and have a rumor or two to toss into the pot as I go all in. In Monday's post I alluded to the rumor that KEE was threatening a hard line with its sponsored teams if there was no merger. A hard line that favors the PSP. (There's even been some talk of a united industry--minus PE--determined to break the 2 league sponsorship cycle--but color me skeptical of that one.) If true that would mean KEE would likely pressure teams like Dynasty, Infamous and XSV to abandon the NPPL. (Of course the reverse could also be true but that isn't the way the rumors were flying.) And think of all the teams shooting Axes & RPS paint. That doesn't paint a pretty picture for the NPPL's future success.
Merger Machinations was also posted in September. In that post I identified some impediments to the merger I believed to be accurate. (And I've had no reason or received any info to suggest otherwise since.) Admittedly there are more current rumors but only the folks in the room discussing the merger know what actually happened and why and I would be very surprised (shocked actually) if the whole process wasn't covered by non-disclosure agreements. [I use them with some regularity and while not foolproof non-disclosures provide some extra legal protections again sensitive or proprietary information being leaked.] That is however just a supposition on my part. That said all the "insider" rumors about the meeting are coming from one side; the NPPL side.
What's perhaps more interesting than speculating about exactly what happened is speculating about what will happen next. Rumorology has suggested (for some time now) that there will be more events next season--rumor says 5 but who knows, is back to the old schedule of 6 events possible? I would guess not but that would only be a guess. Further I would expect the PSP to maintain the status quo when it comes to rules and format and such. After a reputedly successful 2011 (and the general playership aversion to change) a little continuity would likely prove quite popular. (Although a return to the shorter field might be change everyone could appreciate--and would help reverse the more paint, fewer points trend of 2011.) And then there's the sale of Procaps. Richmond has always flagshipped his paint brand with high visibility sponsorships--the current GI Sportz line-up for example--and there's no reason to imagine that will change. The question really is--will DraXXus be retained as a separate brand line (that incidentally ends up competing with GI) or will Procaps be subsumed into GI? And what happens to DraXXus sponsored teams as a result? Does GI spread the wealth and go with the numbers or focus their resources on a few well chosen teams? (Last year, KEE picked up a number of teams on the relative cheap with their Axes & RPS deals because there wasn't any real alternatives available.) Will the Procaps sale force further belt tightening and if it does what will that mean? In the Pro division it will likely mean a number of the NPPL only Pro teams won't have any real option about where they play; it will be NPPL or nothing.
And then there are the players. How many players play for multiple teams? How many teams are made up largely of players who also play elsewhere? Back in the day the NXL attempted to restrict player movement and I can imagine a time, in the not so distant future, when that becomes a more viable policy. When the NXL tried to restrict player movement there was too much money and too many options available to make it stick but that isn't the paintball universe of today.
Recently the league wars have been relatively mild low grade conflicts, schoolyard pissing contests if you will, but if the industry really does pick a side will it signal a heating up of the war? In the aftermath of whatever caused the merger to fail are there hard feelings, bruised egos and bitter recriminations? Frankly that's the stuff of paintball wars past--will it be the basis for a hot war going forward?
So many questions. So much unknown and/or uncertain going forward. At least there will be something to talk about over the winter.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Procaps Sold!
After hitting a detour at Moose Jaw and taking a wrong turn at Medicine Hat Mr. Curious hitched a ride to Saskatoon where he was able to hire a dog sled for the remainder of his journey in the Great White North. When news of Procaps financial distress finally became public recently Mr. C was already on the hunt and re-doubled his efforts to nail this story down. Rumors have been swirling like an icy wind that a couple of paintball concerns were potentially interested in buying the company and VFTD received the news by carrier pigeon from Mr. Curious mere moments ago. In a wickedly entertaining twist of the fates it seems that Richmond Italia (GI Sportz) is the new owner in a move that reunites Mr. Italia (and a number of his staff) with the company he originally founded more than a decade ago. Reports are the deal was inked yesterday. No word on when an official announcement will be forthcoming.
UPDATE: It seems the folks at Procaps are playing dumb (or outright denying) the done deal but VFTD has confirmed the sale from a number of sources.
UPDATE: It seems the folks at Procaps are playing dumb (or outright denying) the done deal but VFTD has confirmed the sale from a number of sources.
Monday, November 14, 2011
What Happens In Vegas ...
stays in Vegas--buried out in the desert if it's particularly inconvenient. I have always found it deeply ironic that the NPPL, desperate to be the glitz & glamor league, loves Vegas and a dozen apt metaphors spring to mind but I'm in 'Don't Worry, Be Happy' mode and simply don't have the energy at the moment. Maybe it's because I'm in the middle of a paintball holiday. We left Vegas late Saturday night, or Sunday morning if you prefer, and I haven't thought about talked about or read about anything paintball since then. The only things I know happened (according to passed along info) is that TonTons beat Ironmen at the Intercontinental Cup piggy-backing WCA & that some friends came second in Vegas and won the D3 series.
I'm not going to rail about the league's shortcomings. Again. I'm not going to rant about the merger; do it or don't. I'm not going to mock the industry or decry what passes for media. Not today anyway 'cus I just don't care. And I'm rather enjoying not caring. And honestly even on my best rant-filled day I don't take any of this too seriously. It's just paintball. What passed for democracy in Europe is dead. The Rule of Law in America is now a sad joke. There are a lot more important things to care about than paintball.
However, this is a blog about competitive paintball and I was in Vegas (briefly) for the final NPPL event of the year so I feel a certain obligation to comment on it. So on to the disclaimer.
I have resigned myself to this year's situation--just as the season finally ends. Good timing, I know. My guys are capable of competing for titles but we struggle without proper preparation. The circumstances this year didn't allow the same sort of prep we managed last year. Of course that has no impact on the standings or results and those are what they are and they continue to frustrate me. And in Vegas we did what we've been doing; making small mistakes and giving up bodies carelessly and it cost us. For the record then I do not (and never have claimed) we would be winners if it weren't for the refs. That is a loser's mentality. Winners overcome. And sometimes that includes poor officiating.
So--when I again (in good spirits) recount the continuing issues with officiating and tie it (again) into a failure at the institutional level y'all can decide for yourselves if I'm objective or not. But before I do I want to cover a few other items related to the event or the NPPL.
As most of you likely know Mutiny didn't show up (apparently) at the last minute. I say apparently because if they gave any advance to anyone it came as a surprise to us and everyone I talked to about it. (Apparently.) I don't know what the problem was but it altered our bracket by reducing the number of teams and games played in the prelim. [In the Pros that isn't really that big a deal but in divisional play teams rightfully have an expectation of the terms of the competition and teams dropping out last minute can affect that competition.]
On the merger front everything seemed rosy leading into the event but seemed to go south as the event went on. The expectation was that the PSP principles would be present and that a final deal might get done during the weekend. (And if I post this only to discover something has been settled and announced boy will I look silly but at least you'll know I wasn't kidding when I said I was in the middle a paintball holiday.) I didn't see any PSP peeps--but I didn't look for any either. The talk on Saturday in the paddock was considerably less positive than the latest public pronouncements. The mood was more pessimistic (unless you were and are anti-merger) and the talk was about what the fallout might be if no merger occured. There was the rumor of tough talk from "key" industry powers pushing a hard line and using their sponsorship dollar influence to push teams into one camp or the other--as a practical matter that meant from the NPPL into the PSP. But who knows? I don't although the chatter at the event seemed more substantial than the blatant disinformation that's been popping up on the web in recent weeks.
There were 3 fields at Vegas in what was the largest turnout NPPL 3.0 has ever had; 136 or 138 teams. (I can't remember which and I'm too lazy to check.) At some point I'll figure out if this year's team numbers suggest any substantive statistical uptick. [Prior to the event the NPPL posted an announcement for HB 2012. I'm now wondering if that was, and is, a sign of a crumbling merger effort.] The set-up was better than last year's as it was closer to the Riviera and the majority of the players. No more pretense that anybody in Vegas not playing gives a rat's rear end. The Riviera remains a dump with the typical Motel Six room putting the Riviera's rooms, including the suites, to shame. As in NPPL days past one of the fields was short some turf. Back in the day they used to spray paint the tarmac green. The daily game schedules on Friday and Saturday ran from 8 am to around 7:30 pm each day and even with daylight savings time the sun was setting between 5 and 5:30 leaving at least a couple of hours each day to be played in the dark with artificial lighting. Virtue was on hand again with their chips in Pro guns keeping track of max ROF and such and (apparently) either at the Captain's Meeting or elsewhere the idea of installing the chips in all competitor's guns was broached leaving the divisional kids wondering how and who was going to pay for that. (Although I think we already know, don't we?) Regardless it remains intriguing technology with some obvious and perhaps some, so far, less obvious practical applications. We'll see.
Going in Joey & I thought the most likely upshot of the criticism leveled at DC officiating would be some flag happy reffing--and so it turned out for the most part. (Which frequently resulted in refs running around pulling bodies and pow-wowing after the fact to decide why they'd done what they'd done.) I didn't count them but it also looked like there were more refs on the Pro field as well. Just goes to show you numbers don't equal quality. And while there wasn't any big mishaps--at least on Saturday on the grandstand field--the status quo remained in force. Tom still has a job with the league (which still seems to be trying to keep everyone happy) and the owner's group liaison to officials interjected his opinions (directions?) regarding on field calls even as he was competing with his team. Even with the best of intentions and everyone's agreement that kind of behavior is a gross conflict of interest and shouldn't happen under any circumstances. And everybody knows it. And then there were numerous examples of inconsistency (bias?) when it came to enforcing the rules. One that was repeated a number of times involved another team owner who also plays. In our game with his team he was one of the two last players left on his team. He was bunkered clean out of the snake corner and the ref called him out. The player who bunkered him shot at the other opposing player across the back of the field as two other of our players came thru the center. He called himself out and then proceded to keep talking ... and playing as he lowered his gun and shot one of our live players collecting the flag. Our on field team captain immediately began objecting and the refs started throwing flags. All the penalties were on us. The team owner started yelling that our player who had bunkered him was out of bounds--even though he ran him down highway--and then he started shooting again. Even though a ref had called him out; he had acknowledged he was eliminated, he was talking and shooting his gun after he was eliminated nobody threw a flag on him. Then or any other time during the Saturday prelims. Instead it was decided that even though our player had bunkered him clean he had afterwards stepped out of bounds and then fired his gun earning a two for one and our on field captain was eliminated when he spoke and that was a one for one. It's so absurd it's laughable except when it's happening to you--and when similar scenes are repeated over and over. (Despite our poor play at the end of the day we were in a position to go through and missed on body count.) I know it sounds like a spoof--but it isn't. And there are plenty more stories like that from one afternoon of play but it isn't important.
What is important is that the league has seemingly done nothing to address the very real institutional problems they have with officiating oversight--and reffing in general. It is an issue that has plagued (and helped sink) every iteration of the NPPL and will continue to be a problem until they treat it seriously instead of as a public relations issue to be swept under the rug. But, hey, that's on them. Personally I can hardly wait to see the post-event statement proclaiming the greatest event ever played and congratulating everyone involved on making paintball history. Yeah, that sounds about right. Don't worry, be happy.
I'm not going to rail about the league's shortcomings. Again. I'm not going to rant about the merger; do it or don't. I'm not going to mock the industry or decry what passes for media. Not today anyway 'cus I just don't care. And I'm rather enjoying not caring. And honestly even on my best rant-filled day I don't take any of this too seriously. It's just paintball. What passed for democracy in Europe is dead. The Rule of Law in America is now a sad joke. There are a lot more important things to care about than paintball.
However, this is a blog about competitive paintball and I was in Vegas (briefly) for the final NPPL event of the year so I feel a certain obligation to comment on it. So on to the disclaimer.
I have resigned myself to this year's situation--just as the season finally ends. Good timing, I know. My guys are capable of competing for titles but we struggle without proper preparation. The circumstances this year didn't allow the same sort of prep we managed last year. Of course that has no impact on the standings or results and those are what they are and they continue to frustrate me. And in Vegas we did what we've been doing; making small mistakes and giving up bodies carelessly and it cost us. For the record then I do not (and never have claimed) we would be winners if it weren't for the refs. That is a loser's mentality. Winners overcome. And sometimes that includes poor officiating.
So--when I again (in good spirits) recount the continuing issues with officiating and tie it (again) into a failure at the institutional level y'all can decide for yourselves if I'm objective or not. But before I do I want to cover a few other items related to the event or the NPPL.
As most of you likely know Mutiny didn't show up (apparently) at the last minute. I say apparently because if they gave any advance to anyone it came as a surprise to us and everyone I talked to about it. (Apparently.) I don't know what the problem was but it altered our bracket by reducing the number of teams and games played in the prelim. [In the Pros that isn't really that big a deal but in divisional play teams rightfully have an expectation of the terms of the competition and teams dropping out last minute can affect that competition.]
On the merger front everything seemed rosy leading into the event but seemed to go south as the event went on. The expectation was that the PSP principles would be present and that a final deal might get done during the weekend. (And if I post this only to discover something has been settled and announced boy will I look silly but at least you'll know I wasn't kidding when I said I was in the middle a paintball holiday.) I didn't see any PSP peeps--but I didn't look for any either. The talk on Saturday in the paddock was considerably less positive than the latest public pronouncements. The mood was more pessimistic (unless you were and are anti-merger) and the talk was about what the fallout might be if no merger occured. There was the rumor of tough talk from "key" industry powers pushing a hard line and using their sponsorship dollar influence to push teams into one camp or the other--as a practical matter that meant from the NPPL into the PSP. But who knows? I don't although the chatter at the event seemed more substantial than the blatant disinformation that's been popping up on the web in recent weeks.
There were 3 fields at Vegas in what was the largest turnout NPPL 3.0 has ever had; 136 or 138 teams. (I can't remember which and I'm too lazy to check.) At some point I'll figure out if this year's team numbers suggest any substantive statistical uptick. [Prior to the event the NPPL posted an announcement for HB 2012. I'm now wondering if that was, and is, a sign of a crumbling merger effort.] The set-up was better than last year's as it was closer to the Riviera and the majority of the players. No more pretense that anybody in Vegas not playing gives a rat's rear end. The Riviera remains a dump with the typical Motel Six room putting the Riviera's rooms, including the suites, to shame. As in NPPL days past one of the fields was short some turf. Back in the day they used to spray paint the tarmac green. The daily game schedules on Friday and Saturday ran from 8 am to around 7:30 pm each day and even with daylight savings time the sun was setting between 5 and 5:30 leaving at least a couple of hours each day to be played in the dark with artificial lighting. Virtue was on hand again with their chips in Pro guns keeping track of max ROF and such and (apparently) either at the Captain's Meeting or elsewhere the idea of installing the chips in all competitor's guns was broached leaving the divisional kids wondering how and who was going to pay for that. (Although I think we already know, don't we?) Regardless it remains intriguing technology with some obvious and perhaps some, so far, less obvious practical applications. We'll see.
Going in Joey & I thought the most likely upshot of the criticism leveled at DC officiating would be some flag happy reffing--and so it turned out for the most part. (Which frequently resulted in refs running around pulling bodies and pow-wowing after the fact to decide why they'd done what they'd done.) I didn't count them but it also looked like there were more refs on the Pro field as well. Just goes to show you numbers don't equal quality. And while there wasn't any big mishaps--at least on Saturday on the grandstand field--the status quo remained in force. Tom still has a job with the league (which still seems to be trying to keep everyone happy) and the owner's group liaison to officials interjected his opinions (directions?) regarding on field calls even as he was competing with his team. Even with the best of intentions and everyone's agreement that kind of behavior is a gross conflict of interest and shouldn't happen under any circumstances. And everybody knows it. And then there were numerous examples of inconsistency (bias?) when it came to enforcing the rules. One that was repeated a number of times involved another team owner who also plays. In our game with his team he was one of the two last players left on his team. He was bunkered clean out of the snake corner and the ref called him out. The player who bunkered him shot at the other opposing player across the back of the field as two other of our players came thru the center. He called himself out and then proceded to keep talking ... and playing as he lowered his gun and shot one of our live players collecting the flag. Our on field team captain immediately began objecting and the refs started throwing flags. All the penalties were on us. The team owner started yelling that our player who had bunkered him was out of bounds--even though he ran him down highway--and then he started shooting again. Even though a ref had called him out; he had acknowledged he was eliminated, he was talking and shooting his gun after he was eliminated nobody threw a flag on him. Then or any other time during the Saturday prelims. Instead it was decided that even though our player had bunkered him clean he had afterwards stepped out of bounds and then fired his gun earning a two for one and our on field captain was eliminated when he spoke and that was a one for one. It's so absurd it's laughable except when it's happening to you--and when similar scenes are repeated over and over. (Despite our poor play at the end of the day we were in a position to go through and missed on body count.) I know it sounds like a spoof--but it isn't. And there are plenty more stories like that from one afternoon of play but it isn't important.
What is important is that the league has seemingly done nothing to address the very real institutional problems they have with officiating oversight--and reffing in general. It is an issue that has plagued (and helped sink) every iteration of the NPPL and will continue to be a problem until they treat it seriously instead of as a public relations issue to be swept under the rug. But, hey, that's on them. Personally I can hardly wait to see the post-event statement proclaiming the greatest event ever played and congratulating everyone involved on making paintball history. Yeah, that sounds about right. Don't worry, be happy.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Inside the Merger Talk & Rumorology
Actually not so much really. At least not enough to merit that post title but it got your heart racing, didn't it? (Most of you excited, fewer of you horrified.) [I'd gladly apologize for leading you on except of course I'm not sorry 'cus I think it's kinda funny. In an admittedly cruel sorta way.] Rumor has it stuff like revisiting ROF and notions like limited paint have been part of the discussions. And I don't mind saying I find it a little disconcerting. Mostly because too many of the people at the table have no business being there unless you count enormous egos, entrenched opinions and self-interested motives as appropriate first principles. Did I sugarcoat that too much? Do I need to be more forthright? Was that really necessary? Naw, but I enjoyed it--and frankly, it's the truth. Hey, I always say once you start digging a hole, dig it deep!
As you might have guessed the real subject is paint usage. And as it happens I have some numbers available. But first I want to offer for the record, again, that there is no data that supports changing the ROF as a paint saving measure. (We've had ROF changes based on the notion that it will trickle down to local recreational fields and/or that it will lower the threshold to tourney entry. How's that worked out? We've had the PSP change their ROF three times and if there's any data to demonstrate those changes made any quantifiable difference in paint usage I haven't heard about it.) Now of course if the change is substantial enough, 12 bps to Billy Ball, yes, there will be lower paint consumption as a result. But with that significant a change you're also playing a different game too.
Uncertain? Other paint usage factors include pack size, pod size, (total paint carried) bunker placement & game time. Without taking the other factors into account how can anyone categorically say--and possibly change the game again--on the basis the change will somehow save paint. Will it really? If so, how much? And what consideration is being given to potential peripheral consequences? If you really want to save paint leave the ROF alone and open up the OTB shooting lanes. If laners OTB increase their kill percentages you are guaranteed to save paint. First that eliminated player won't be shooting the paint on his back and when you remove 20% or more of your opponent's players off the bat the game transitions into a close almost immediately. Of course doing that may not make the current player base particularly happy, but hey, it saved paint.
The same applies to limited paint--which is a practice already in place. Everybody plays with limited paint. What is meant is a restricted by rule limit to the maximum paint allowed on the field at any one time. However, depending on just how limited an amount of paint is being discussed it will, without any doubt, alter the nature and play of the game. In the lower divisions this isn't necessarily a bad thing but it would a terrible decision at the pro level as it would dumb down the game considerably. (See the link to an old post below which discusses this in more detail.)
And now for the numbers I promised. For the sake of round numbers let's say the current ROF is 12. Let's also agree that a hopper (loader) holds 180 paintballs. And let's use D1/D2 Race 2 format of a 15 minute game Race 2-5. The game parameters then is fifteen minutes of game time or first team to 5 points with a max number of 9 points played per match. At 12 bps a player could conceivably shoot 10800 paintballs in 15 minutes. A team of 5 could shoot 54000 paintballs. In practice that potential is limited by the number of pods a player carries. If we assume an average of 7 pods--which is probably a little high--plus hopper a 5-man squad is carrying 5100 paintballs; around 2 and one half cases. How often does a team shoot that much paint in a point? (Almost never.) And what are the game conditions that promote heavy paint use?
At 12 bps a player empties his hopper in 15 seconds. At 10 bps the same player empties the same hopper in 18 seconds. Is that 3 seconds a hopper fill going to save paint? (No.) Does it reduce the amount of paint in hand? (No.)
Take a moment and revisit the PSP Galveston event where an attempt was made to both encourage older, fatter, slower players into coming back to tourney play along with a field layout that would promote faster points. (Faster points equal less paint shot per point potentially.) How did that work out? My point isn't that the league screwed up. My point is that making singular changes alone, especially the ones being discussed, are unlikely to achieve the results desired unless the change is so dramatic it changes the game too--and even when an effort was made to "improve" the pace of play the desired results didn't occur because even with the best intentions and best efforts the complexity of the game wasn't properly evaluated or understood.
The last thing a newly unified league needs is a host of changes the results of which can't be predicted with anything like certainty.
For more on ROF and its relationship to how the game is played today read this post from the archives. (I'm feeling more lazy than usual today and didn't feel like repeating myself. Again.)
In other rumorology there's lots of behind-the-scenes talk about the off season musical chairs of pro players already--along with some speculation about the future of a few pro teams as well. It's too soon to start talking names and details because as far as I know nothing (much) has been finalized just yet. But as soon as these rumors start turning into near factoids I'm sure Mr. Curious will have the skinny. (And I don't mean Kevin.) Okay, here's a taste; could be some Ironmen on the move and apparently Yaya is dialling up a serious phone bill calling ballers.
As you might have guessed the real subject is paint usage. And as it happens I have some numbers available. But first I want to offer for the record, again, that there is no data that supports changing the ROF as a paint saving measure. (We've had ROF changes based on the notion that it will trickle down to local recreational fields and/or that it will lower the threshold to tourney entry. How's that worked out? We've had the PSP change their ROF three times and if there's any data to demonstrate those changes made any quantifiable difference in paint usage I haven't heard about it.) Now of course if the change is substantial enough, 12 bps to Billy Ball, yes, there will be lower paint consumption as a result. But with that significant a change you're also playing a different game too.
Uncertain? Other paint usage factors include pack size, pod size, (total paint carried) bunker placement & game time. Without taking the other factors into account how can anyone categorically say--and possibly change the game again--on the basis the change will somehow save paint. Will it really? If so, how much? And what consideration is being given to potential peripheral consequences? If you really want to save paint leave the ROF alone and open up the OTB shooting lanes. If laners OTB increase their kill percentages you are guaranteed to save paint. First that eliminated player won't be shooting the paint on his back and when you remove 20% or more of your opponent's players off the bat the game transitions into a close almost immediately. Of course doing that may not make the current player base particularly happy, but hey, it saved paint.
The same applies to limited paint--which is a practice already in place. Everybody plays with limited paint. What is meant is a restricted by rule limit to the maximum paint allowed on the field at any one time. However, depending on just how limited an amount of paint is being discussed it will, without any doubt, alter the nature and play of the game. In the lower divisions this isn't necessarily a bad thing but it would a terrible decision at the pro level as it would dumb down the game considerably. (See the link to an old post below which discusses this in more detail.)
And now for the numbers I promised. For the sake of round numbers let's say the current ROF is 12. Let's also agree that a hopper (loader) holds 180 paintballs. And let's use D1/D2 Race 2 format of a 15 minute game Race 2-5. The game parameters then is fifteen minutes of game time or first team to 5 points with a max number of 9 points played per match. At 12 bps a player could conceivably shoot 10800 paintballs in 15 minutes. A team of 5 could shoot 54000 paintballs. In practice that potential is limited by the number of pods a player carries. If we assume an average of 7 pods--which is probably a little high--plus hopper a 5-man squad is carrying 5100 paintballs; around 2 and one half cases. How often does a team shoot that much paint in a point? (Almost never.) And what are the game conditions that promote heavy paint use?
At 12 bps a player empties his hopper in 15 seconds. At 10 bps the same player empties the same hopper in 18 seconds. Is that 3 seconds a hopper fill going to save paint? (No.) Does it reduce the amount of paint in hand? (No.)
Take a moment and revisit the PSP Galveston event where an attempt was made to both encourage older, fatter, slower players into coming back to tourney play along with a field layout that would promote faster points. (Faster points equal less paint shot per point potentially.) How did that work out? My point isn't that the league screwed up. My point is that making singular changes alone, especially the ones being discussed, are unlikely to achieve the results desired unless the change is so dramatic it changes the game too--and even when an effort was made to "improve" the pace of play the desired results didn't occur because even with the best intentions and best efforts the complexity of the game wasn't properly evaluated or understood.
The last thing a newly unified league needs is a host of changes the results of which can't be predicted with anything like certainty.
For more on ROF and its relationship to how the game is played today read this post from the archives. (I'm feeling more lazy than usual today and didn't feel like repeating myself. Again.)
In other rumorology there's lots of behind-the-scenes talk about the off season musical chairs of pro players already--along with some speculation about the future of a few pro teams as well. It's too soon to start talking names and details because as far as I know nothing (much) has been finalized just yet. But as soon as these rumors start turning into near factoids I'm sure Mr. Curious will have the skinny. (And I don't mean Kevin.) Okay, here's a taste; could be some Ironmen on the move and apparently Yaya is dialling up a serious phone bill calling ballers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
