This past weekend was a good one for sports fans--the final weekend of the NFL regular season with a few playoff spots still to be determined followed by a spate of New Year's college football bowl games and, oh yeah, the NBA (the national boring association.) Don't get me wrong, I love hoops, they just don't play it anymore in the NBA. And I'm still jonesing over no hockey but it's worse than that--the latest hockey strike is an outlier of what's coming down the road for all pro sports. Some serious belt-tightening and major league loss of revenues. But enough of the sour side of sports.
What got me thinking was some of the differences between the major sports and how fans relate to their favorite sports, teams and players. And if there's any lessons in there for paintball. One nugget of conventional wisdom says players in sports like basketball and baseball are more accessible to the fans 'cus you can see their faces allowing individual players to stand out more than in say, football where everyone is wearing a helmet and separated from the spectators by a greater distance. I'm not sure I'm buying that notion but there is one big difference that I think does matter--the way the different major leagues brand their product. In the 1980s the NBA was faltering under a cloud of player drug arrests and reinvigorated the league using the Larry Bird Magic Johnson rivalry and soon after the star system was born. Oh sure, there were star players before in all the leagues but beginning in the 80s the NBA made an affirmative decision to promote the league not thru its teams, tradition or history but thru it's current star players. Unlike the NBA the NFL is all about the teams, traditions and rivalries built on decades of Sunday afternoon games.
What I'm wondering is if there's a right (or a wrong) way to maximize support for competitive paintball as an emergent sport? Without much history or continuity it's certainly easier to focus on star players--and there's been a lot of that this off season as the PSP and PBA explore ways to use the player statistics collected last season--but is that the way forward? Are fans loyal to teams or do they simply follow their favorite players? Last time I looked this was still a team sport and star players only guarantee the usual collection of fair weather bandwagon followers. Okay, maybe that last was my bias showing a wee bit. I confess, I'm a team first guy. What about you?
Friday, January 4, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
Definitely TEAM first. Individual players add some color to the equation but still a team of stars doesn't necessarily mean cups and championships.
Ofcourse teams first. Players come and go, but teams stay. Or atleast they stay in major professional sports. I'm sad whenever an established (pro) paintball team folds when some of the key players leave. We need continuity to build fan base. I'm glad we do have some teams with 20+ year long history.
-Long time Ironmen fan-
I say team first aswell. But for me, in paintball, it is important that the feel of the team and the style of play stays some what the same even if some players come and go. You might start liking a team because of their aggressive play, dirty play or intelligent way. Not saying that a team can't adapt and evolve, think you get what I mean anyway. If this totally changes atleast I might start questioning how much I really care for that team anymore.
The star player is and/or has been a marketable commodity that may initially draw in the interests of the young and impressionable (not yet competiting) "speedball" player. But the team becomes the draw for the young divisional competitior IMO.
Oh, and I wish to re-new my annual condolences for Big Blue's bowl loss.
In the state of paintball today, marketing the PLAYER is the only rational choice. Granted some teams have been around for a long time (See Ironmen & Aftershock). However, these long standing teams can't rely on a history that was developed when the game was different. Furthermore, if the revolving door known as the professional bottom ranks keeps churning, then 2-4 teams a year would have to seriously analyze whether their marketing efforts can carry into the next season. This is especially relevant depending on WHO is doing the branding. Teams rely on branding themselves as relevant in order to convince companies to use them in branding their products. It is logical to see that a company doesn't see a value in utilizing teams for branding for the reasons stated above. Lastly, even if a marketing strategy was developed around a team, the team is still likely to lean on specific positions within the field. The classic concept that your fast, slim, aggressive, front/snake player has more appeal than your overwieght, slow, 20 pill carrying, barely moving, loud-mouthed back player. To wrap up my point, the marketing that matters will be focused on the player. Although it would be beneficial for a team to market itself through tradition, that will never materialize with the revolving door at the bottom of the pro bracket.
I think if you market the notion of "star" individual players...well then you need to prove they're stars...by supplying them with the largest individual contracts. Look at Jeremy Lin...he got paid no? I mean, in order to be a star you have to be good and be deserving of the money given to you. That being said we know there isn't a whole lot of money going to players in pro paintball, but I am curious as to what the largest current contract is for...
With constantly evolving team rosters it may be easier to market stars...not to mention paintball teams are relatively small compared to pro sports (except basketball).
I like that in paintball you have the opportunity to cheer and participate in a teams success that goes beyond "rooting for laundry." If you share the same practice field as Dynasty, you might scrim them if you're lucky, or receive a few pointers. They're from where you're from. So you might root for them at the pro tournaments and have a good valid reason for doing so. But we're always rooting for a "star," in some fashion or another. In the NBA, we're usually rooting for a guy like Kobe or Lebron- NBA fans seem to put the athletes above the team. NFL fans root sometimes for great quarterbacks or running backs, but the genius behind NFL marketing is that the team is the star. Pittsburgh has an identity that transcends the players. No one would ever mistake the Steelers for a diva-laden finesse team, and that's intentional.
In some ways, paintball teams function the same way. We know when we watch XSV, we're getting Thomas and JB and Rich, those guys are recognizable, but we're getting a consistent team identity behind it. We know with Damage we are getting smart and methodical and five guns up no matter what every time, but we also root for J Rab and Dave and Jacob etc.
What I am more curious about is when it's time for guys like Oliver, Yosh, and Ryan to hang it up, will they OWN Dynasty, or will it cease to exist? Who will "own" the team and will they manage it in a way that makes it familiar but relevant? the same question can be asked for any pro team beyond the Ironmen, when Dave did that very thing by ushering in the next generation. But if you ask me, Dave is not active enough in being the Jerry Jones/ Al Davis of the Ironmen..ok maybe I should use the Rooney's instead.
@Mark..Xactly, star power, promote the heroes and role models, same in every sport....Who is the Ray lewis of PB...Troll? Marketable commodities used to give the sport a face
Through fantasy football, cheering for individual players has made the sport stronger and more watched. People no longer watch their home team, then turn off the TV. They watch the other games on TV because they have the running back for some other team on their fantasy roster. They are still fans of their home team, but they are also fans of football. Even if their home team sucks, there is still football to watch with 3 Sunday afternoon games, a Sunday night game, a Monday night game, and a Thursday night game. You also get 4 of those games without even needing a cable package. Compare that to baseball, where to even watch your home team, you need to get cable. Very few nationally televised games, much less interest for other teams. Interest drops off when the home team starts to suck -- they are more fans of the team than of the sport.
It really depends on the sport.. the last full team to win an NBA championship was Detroit back in 04. there was no man on the team more important to their success than the next.
in a game like hockey, the team function becomes more pronounced, where the bench matters as much if not more than the starting 5. though some nights one guy can be nearly unstoppable.
football lies somewhere in between where you need great players at specific positions, but one's greatness can make up for deficiencies else where. OR a very good team defense.
Paintball to me can go either direction, with respect to how the layout goes. in a slower more methodical game the individual impact is less measurable, so one could argue that its the team. until one guys steps up and makes a crazy move to win a the match. On a faster layout though the impact becomes very apparent, as the front guys wither get up the field to do damage, or the back guys shoot them. either way the whole team aspect is lessened and it could become more of a "get kobe the ball" play... paintball is so dynamic that its hard to tell which one is more important. a few individual great players having a great weekend, or most of the team having solid performances. but at the end of the day a team cannot succeed without the correct individual skills where they need to be. So it seems to me that in paintball the individual skills are more important, if only to make the team a stronger unit. and at some point that line begins to blur.
Post a Comment