What do you think about Joey Blute's [Manager of TB Damage] suggestion in the recent Social PB video about limiting events to specific paint providers so as to avoid an advantage?
Is there that much variance in paint from event/manufacturer event to event to provide an advantage and warrant such a change?
Let's begin with the second question. Yes, there often is. And the reasons are almost endless. It can be as simple as miscalculating the local weather if the top grade paint was made for the event or deciding a large quantity of leftover from the last event was really good and if it's been properly stored it should still be good ... And complicating the issue further is separate lots within the grades of paint vary as well. Now I don't want to suggest the differences are enormous but then they don't have to be to potentially impact the results. Which is why the smart pro teams (and I assume that's all of them) make their event paint supply a high priority.
I think it's an intriguing idea. I liked it back in the days of print mag 'Paintball Games International' when I suggested it and again on this blog in 2008 in a post called, Paradigm Shift. And I have no doubt that somebody else before either one of us got around to it thought it sounded like a good idea because it is a good idea. From a competitive perspective it would remove the most influential existing variable from game play. And it's a significant enough variable at times to have an impact on the outcome of matches particularly if the teams are closely matched to begin with.
I also think now was a good time to bring this idea back. In the past when virtually all the pro teams were locked into substantial (and very valuable) paint sponsorships it would have been impossible, or nearly so, to make this kind of change but now we have a one paint league with the NPPL and the level of team paint sponsorships has shrunken to the point where a change may be in the best interests of the manufacturers and most of the teams. There has been a trend of late for local and regional leagues to feature single paint sponsors. But exactly how that might work in the PSP for example is hard to say. I do think it's an all or nothing proposition though and an event like WC would have to be shared on a rotating basis between the paint sponsors. What if PSP offered two 2-year paint sponsorships to the highest bidders and each sponsor would get 5 alternating events. Whoever took the first event the first year would get the first WC but each sponsor would get exactly the same number of events over two seasons. High bidder gets choice of schedule. Would leaving someone out work? In the hothouse environment that is paintball industry probably not but who knows?
And of course at the end of the day whatever the arrangement it would have to make economic sense to the manufacturers.