Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Merger Machinations

As long as I'm already digging myself a hole, what the hell, let's keep digging! This post is in response to some of the comments in the 'Behind the Scene at DC' post questioning the possibility of a merger or assuming it's a dead issue or ought to be after the DC shens. I won't address what ought to be but I do want to shine a bit of light on the situation. As I have stated before the impetus for the merger is coming from outside either league and is being spearheaded from within the PBIndustry. The industry wants one league because they are incapable of acting cooperatively even in situations where they all might be best served if they could cooperate. Instead they are pushing the leagues to merge, regardless of outcome, to achieve a result they (the industry) can't accomplish themselves. (If there is only one league to support it will be cheaper than two and there won't be any room to maneuver for advantage by any of the industry players. At least in the short term.) That is the core of the merger effort.
It's rubbish but it's their rubbish. (For more on the subject check out 'Merger Counterfactual'.)
Frankly I'd be tempted to call their (industry's) bluff because somebody would break ranks and as soon as that happened they'd all fold--like they've always done before--but then I'm not the one risking the league 80% of the players play which makes it an easy call for me.
However there are impediments to a deal being done. (I suspect the conduct at DC wasn't helpful but also probably wasn't a deal-breaker either.) I have, in the past, alluded to a larger problem when it comes to the merger. (A problem beyond personalities and personal priorities and egos even. Who'd a thunk it, right?) I'm talking about the practical fact that there is no NPPL really. At least not the sort where you can review the ownership structure, the participating teams or individuals, the terms of their internal agreements, shared assets and liabilities, etc. There's a few teams and owners who have, or think they have, some claim on an ownership stake but there is no legal entity for the PSP to deal with. Which is going to make doing a deal a little tricky unless or until that "problem" is addressed.
But it could also be that there's a solution within the "problem." We know that the current NPPL board is split on the merger. (Those against it would either have no team as the majority of their players also play elsewhere or they couldn't afford it or be competitive.) And therein lies the beauty of the "problem." What if the PSP, instead of negotiating a merger, proposed, by invitation, to negotiate with a limited number of teams and owners--largely those already receptive to the idea--and simply ignored the rest? (As it stands now if there's no Bart Y. in the NPPL there's no NPPL. You gotta wonder how much Bart enjoyed getting screwed by his own league.) If there is no legal entity that identifies and gives substance to the NPPL there's no need to pretend there is and deal with the collective. Instead come to terms with the stable, substantive teams and owners and call it a day. Tell the industry if they can't say no to whatever scraps of the former NPPL are left over that's their problem and as far as the PSP is concerned they are the only legitimate national tournament series organization.

Next time, Format War.


Anonymous said...

You have yet to point out the source. I think you're getting closer.


Anonymous said...

the merger needs to be between the industry and the PSP with an empasis on solidarity!
And then work on teams and player loyalty to there teams and league so we could at least try and look proffesional.(see PB3X article)

Baca said...

Anon #1
Which source? I am working hard to remain focused on issues and not call out (directly) any individuals, teams or companies. ;-)

Anon #2
It's nice to see John have an opinion (for once) that isn't pure vanilla. Good for him. :-)
Clearly you aren't familiar with the history of the national leagues and the involvement of the PBIndustry. That isn't the merger that is needed although I'm all for cooperation.

In fact the PSP pro division does require both numbers and names and there are specs for how they should look and where they are placed on the jerseys.

Don Saavedra said...

I find it hard to believe that "industry" can't just see for themselves where their money is better spent. I don't get all the confusion about what is best going forward.

BCtom said...

Just for the record! I did not overturn a call by video footage. I am always asked to watch some gross injustice on the paintball field in video format. I only use the info to see where the refs can improve. tcole

Anonymous said...

HA! Nice job Commissioner, I’m sure your refs are going to appreciate your implication of continued training due to 'gross injustice'. That sure gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling...

Baca said...

Okay Tom
But you were presented with so-called video evidence, yes? Then on what basis did you overturn a game result and change scores? You do realize that by the rule book it doesn't matter if it was video evidence or a pursuasive argument, you still had no business changing game results after the fact.

Tbone said...

Thanks Tom

Baca is a major conspiracy theorist and creates artificial drams in a effort to seem intelligent.

Baca said...

Nice effort, TBone, to take the time to set up a phony account to look like you're not the usual gutless anonymous critic. I espcially like your account That's creative!
For the record Tom didn't deny overturning a game result after the fact--he just denied doing it on the basis of video evidence. I know that's a hard distinction for a dumbass to comprehend but if you don't know what's going on stick to making cheap shots on PBN. Have a nice day!

Anonymous said...


Supposedly both Explicit and Uprising signed their score card as Uprising winning the match and they just uploaded the results wrong. No clue if that's actually true or not(I wasn't there), that's just what I heard online.

So why do you guys continue to support a league, that where apparently every event there's some huge controversial issue?

I suppose you don't have to answer that, but could you answer this question for me - what's the logic/idea behind having a 1v1 settle a tie breaker or sudden death or whatever the NPPL calls it? If they're so for 7-man... why settle a game/match breaker with a 1 on 1?

Anonymous said...

Wait, I can't pick a story.

Did it take 12+ hours to decide not to overturn a game, or did it take 12+ hours to figure out how to correct a score that was entered backwards?

Is that really the defense? Nothing nefarious was going on, we're all just that bad at our job?

Baca said...

Anon #5
Even if that was true the rules are clear that once a score sheet is signed off on only mathematical errors may be corrected and math errors are further defined as (subtraction or) addition errors, not things like miscounting live players on the field.
The simple fact is the rules were ignored or not known by the people responsible for their correct enforcement. One can argue the merits of the rules as written but then the thing to do is change them--not ignore or over rule them by whim.
And seriously if the "story" keeps changing how can anybody know what to believe?

None of our players have to compete in the NPPL. It is a voluntary choice. Those in charge of the team made the original decision there was potential value to acquiring a stake in the league. Beyond that we're getting into internal team issues and I won't talk about those here.

As I understand it the 1v1 was thought to be more exciting to watch.

Anonymous said...

Hi Tom, when you're done on here, can you return my phone call please. I want to buy airsoft things. Check your office VM.

Simon said...

I don't believe 1 V 1's are ever that exciting or the best way to decide a team sport. There's also a larger element of luck involved.

I'd rather see such an important result decided by another game (hopefully to get an outright winner) and then if the body count is a draw at full time sudden death of who loses a body next.

Anonymous said...

I agree Simon. I just think its odd going from a best of three 7-man series to all the sudden 1 v 1 to decide your sudden death winner. To all the sudden drop 6 players, and remove the whole teamwork/communication element for your deciding factor of who wins doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I orginally was thinking that if you dropped it down to 6v6 or 5v5 just to change it up a little, it'd make sense. I definitely like your proposal on how to handle the tie breaker.

Don Saavedra said...

Can we go back to the days when teams just decide to tie because they are tired?

Anonymous said...

"Who loses a body next" is a tremendously difficult officiating decision when you have a 180' long field.

And Joy Division already proved that deciding games on bodies leads to some very bad paintball.

Fortunately, there's a solution to all of these problems:

Match Clock. Play points until it runs out; add time if it runs out with a tie.

If only there were a league out there that offered such a format. I bet it would be very popular.