Despite the doom and gloom and general air of desperation surrounding major league paintball positive things continue to happen with all the leagues making moves. (If everybody started to say competitive paintball was okay, doing just fine, we're all happy to play; would it make a difference?) Once again I have something positive to say about the Millennium Series. I know, it's weird, right? But I can't help it. Have you seen the Paris venue for the first event? It really is a Paris venue. If the surface is flat, which it ought to be, it's nearly ideal. On the other hand there remains the questions surrounding all the empty CPL spots and licenses for the locked divisions and far those numbers may (continue to) decline. Camp Carnage (fourth last season in SPL) have agreed to go CPL and the MS is also attempting to be proactive behind the scenes but no word how that's working for them yet.
The PSP announced yesterday new affiliates league(s) under the resurrected banner of the AXBL--which was discontinued in the Northeast a year or two ago. It returns under the leadership of new commissioner Steve Rabackoff playing in both the Atlantic Coast region (Maryland, etc.) and in Texas. The new AXBL leagues will play some version of Race 2 X (apparently), use the PSP rulebook and APPA registration. It wasn't announced if the AXBL will continue as in the past as competitors for the Richmond Cup.
What I'm curious about though is taking a peek behind the curtain. In the press release Steve does mention working with Louis Dalesio, commish of the CXBL (and owner of PBL Action Sports in Canada.) It used to be the CXBL & AXBL were DXS sponsored series with, if I remember correctly, distribution thru PBL. Since Steve now works for GI Sportz I expect GI will be the AXBL paint sponsor. Will the CXBL follow? If so it's another blow to DXS as GI Sportz continues to make inroads with high profile distribution deals.
Showing posts with label AXBL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AXBL. Show all posts
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The AXB What?
VFTD was going to post the first Pro*file today but (as per usual) I've been distracted by the sudden exit of the AXBL a week (or so) after they released their 2010 schedule (and the usual suspects began complaining about this and that--but, of course, that's paintball.) [Team numbers appear to have been on the decline for whatever that's worth and there was a petulant quality to their au revoir. On the other hand I hear the AXBL didn't really make much of a profit and, as seems to be the case these days, it all breaks down to the cash to be had, or not, in paint. Go figure.] Anyway, I am not here to praise or bury the AXBL, it had some laudable qualities and some parochial qualities and in some respects I'm amazed it lasted as long as it did.
Let's talk xball--and I'm not talking 'bout that format-formerly-known-as-xball for pansies either. Last bastion of "real" xball, that's what the AXBL was. (Yeah, I know they still play it in the CXBL but that's Canada so it doesn't really count.) Of course it wasn't exactly the same as "real" xball. The rules were a bit different and they played with a ROF limit. Everybody knows "real" xball was "real" semi-auto. Trust me, I'm the ultimate fan of true xball and I would love to see it make a come back. And who knows? Maybe one day it will. In the meantime I'm not sure if 7 or 8 "real" xball matches a season is worth it. The NXL tried that too--we played a few more matches too--but it's just more fun to win events on the way to World Cup.I'm also a fan of local and regional tourney ball as the appropriate developmental scene for competitive paintball and the AXBL seemed to do that pretty well. And it was clever to take advantage of the Canada/America thing to have a season ending league championship in each league and then a North American slugfest. As a result a regional league played bigger than it was and promoted a certain pride of competition. But wouldn't it be better if it really was a North American championship? Or even bigger than that? If an opportunity existed to compete at a local or regional level during the year in order to earn a spot in a real championship that included the top regional teams in identical leagues from around the country and beyond?
That's the hope and promise of the new alignment between a number of regional leagues and the PSP. Okay, so maybe it isn't "real" xball. It's still pretty damn good. And a season of competition has a lot of winners and losers on the road to a local title and, who knows, a real honest-to-goodness championship that proves who the best divisional teams really are.
The AXBL will be missed but bigger and better is in sight. But it ain't all cookies and milk. Fact is there probably won't be a place for everybody. Oh, not teams and players--I mean promoters and local leagues. Making the move the PSP and the affiliated regionals have undertaken has risks but if it succeeds it will marginalize all the other grassroots series and events. Why play local without the opportunity to prove yourself on a national scale when it's readily available to anyone with the desire to be their best? Fingers crossed. It could be a bumpy ride.
UPDATE: Looking for an immediate alternative to the AXBL? Check out the NYPL.
Monday, March 16, 2009
PSP vs AXBL: Please God Make Him Stop
Have no fear. I'm done, mostly, with this topic. (If you missed the first two look here and here.) The point never was to try and convince anybody of anything and I'm not going to start now. And, of course, the audience to be convinced is about as exclusive as paintball gets and I have no expectations on that score. I just put stuff out there. (And circumstances eventually prove me correct. What can I say? It's a gift.)
I would like to take a moment and recap. The AXBL, drawing primarily from New York and Pennsylvania, has a two tier conference league of 40+ teams playing full on Xball with all teams paying a licensing fee and committing to the complete series of events. There is a promotion and relegation scheme in place and events are held at paintball sites. In ways the PSP isn't the AXBL is a model of consistency and stability. The question I asked was, why? And followed it up with; Is there anything in the comparison to be learned? The Raehl faction denied any relevance and chalked it all up to lower cost and proximity. While cost is always a consideration that alone doesn't prove satisfactory--to me anyway--when one takes into account a regional series like the CFOA operates more like the PSP than the AXBL and despite a significant cost advantage is experiencing some of the same concerns the PSP is. And how significant is proximity really? What is the practical difference between a 4 hour drive and a 2 or 3 hour flight? (Remember, proximity isn't about cost, it's about access.) Perhaps a bigger factor is duration--the length of the event--but again, there are counter-examples like the CFOA.
Regardless, I found it an interesting comparison. I will, however, confess that a large part of what I see in the comparison is further confirmation that the Pro Circuit is the way to go. The simple fact is the regional series can do things the national traveling circus can't. (Is it just my imagination or do I hear the Raehl faction squawking already?)
But before I call it a day, er, a post, I'd like to wedge some extra UCP comments in here. And since you can't stop me that's what I'm gonna do. (There will plenty more coming in the next "official" UCP post.) Here's a little thought experiment for you. The AXBL (or any random regional league) has opted to go full boat on the UCP (including formats, etc.) They have a 4 event season that will culminate--for the more successful teams--in a trip to the PSP national championships held during WC. Each event winner gets a hundred points towards their series total. The PSP, on the other hand, offers events that are worth double points towards a team's season point total. Tell me, what's wrong with that picture?
I would like to take a moment and recap. The AXBL, drawing primarily from New York and Pennsylvania, has a two tier conference league of 40+ teams playing full on Xball with all teams paying a licensing fee and committing to the complete series of events. There is a promotion and relegation scheme in place and events are held at paintball sites. In ways the PSP isn't the AXBL is a model of consistency and stability. The question I asked was, why? And followed it up with; Is there anything in the comparison to be learned? The Raehl faction denied any relevance and chalked it all up to lower cost and proximity. While cost is always a consideration that alone doesn't prove satisfactory--to me anyway--when one takes into account a regional series like the CFOA operates more like the PSP than the AXBL and despite a significant cost advantage is experiencing some of the same concerns the PSP is. And how significant is proximity really? What is the practical difference between a 4 hour drive and a 2 or 3 hour flight? (Remember, proximity isn't about cost, it's about access.) Perhaps a bigger factor is duration--the length of the event--but again, there are counter-examples like the CFOA.
Regardless, I found it an interesting comparison. I will, however, confess that a large part of what I see in the comparison is further confirmation that the Pro Circuit is the way to go. The simple fact is the regional series can do things the national traveling circus can't. (Is it just my imagination or do I hear the Raehl faction squawking already?)
But before I call it a day, er, a post, I'd like to wedge some extra UCP comments in here. And since you can't stop me that's what I'm gonna do. (There will plenty more coming in the next "official" UCP post.) Here's a little thought experiment for you. The AXBL (or any random regional league) has opted to go full boat on the UCP (including formats, etc.) They have a 4 event season that will culminate--for the more successful teams--in a trip to the PSP national championships held during WC. Each event winner gets a hundred points towards their series total. The PSP, on the other hand, offers events that are worth double points towards a team's season point total. Tell me, what's wrong with that picture?
Saturday, February 28, 2009
PSP vs. AXBL, round 2
Since we are only traveling back in time a brief period--to the PSP vs. AXBL post--we will not be needing Mr. Peabody, his boy, Sherman, or the Wayback machine for this one. This response is too complex for a post comment though and as such defaults into a follow-up post; PSP vs. AXBL, round 2. In the hope of keeping the dialogue chronological and clear I will recap in brief to the point of Raehl's most recent rebuttal and then respond--as I promised to last week in Phoenix--whereupon Raehl will retreat in dismay and embarrassment clutching at his hind quarters, figuratively of course.
The original enquiry. Identified two core issues for the PSP; the uncertain draw at any given event and the continuing struggle to fill the upper non-pro division(s). Neither of these are issues for the AXBL which maintains a consistent tiered league from a regional base with lower level teams playing expressly with the goal of moving up. The question became, Is there anything to be learned here? Why does the one struggle in these areas when the other doesn't?
Raehl's first reply. (I'm leaving out the stuff that isn't, to my mind, responsive to the original post but if Chris or anyone else wishes to drag it back in, in the comments, that's fine.) Raehl suggests any differences that might be viewed as advantage AXBL accrue from proximity--being a regional series it is cheaper and easier to be the AXBL. He further suggests that my allegation that the "team ownership" structure could play a role is silly as he reiterates his proximity is all argument.
Unfortunately for Raehl I had already dealt with his proximity argument before he made it by introducing the CFOA into the original post. If the CFOA can act as a stand-in for the PSP then the regional versus national argument fails immediately because the CFOA struggles with exactly the same issues as the PSP with respect to the topic of the post.
And where I think Raehl may be missing the boat in "team ownership" is his determination to make it solely about the interaction between the league and the team. It is clear that while that basic relationship may be similar it's not the relevant aspect if, in fact, team ownership possesses any relevance.
Raehl's second reply. Raehl adds to his explanation by suggesting it is proximity and a league that requires advance payment in order to participate. And, uh, the format is different. He closes his comment with these statements:
PSP can be every bit as stable as AXBL, as long as they cut their events down to three fields, two days, and don't let anyone play unless they pay for the full season up front.
You're right, dissecting an argument is what I always do, because if your argument is crap, you don't have a point, you have a fantasy. You start with information that isn't true, apply logic that is bunk, and reach a conclusion that is, obviously, disconnected from reality. And before you try and bust out that ad-hominem "psp shill" retort in defense of your non-point again, remember that the NCPA has pretty much exactly the same league structure as AXBL, and had it first, so I'm obviously a fan. I don't think I said anything bad about AXBL; I said that your conclusion as to why AXBL was more consistent was mistaken.
I included that last para just for fun and that's the one I want to start with. It's not really pertinent but so what? But it would be helpful if Raehl could read with comprehension, for a start. I did not call him a PSP shill nor did I accuse him of denigrating the AXBL. I did say he left himself open to that accusation--which has been made before but not by me--when his knee-jerk response is to always defend the PSP even when nobody is on the offensive. It also makes for shoddy thinking as these exchanges ought to demonstrate. Let's list the ways. I did not offer any conclusions about anything. I didn't construct an argument, logically or otherwise. I did provide some salient information which is unequivocally true and correct. And the only place Raehl attacked the information was with respect to "team ownership" but I also provided a definition in the original post--which was conveniently ignored. (Unstated elements of my interest in "team owners" are the commitment required and the numbers of such teams drawn from a relatively small area vis-a-vis the PSP's nationwide draw.)
What I did do was juxtapose what I called AXBL strengths against PSP weaknesses and posed a question or two intended to encourage peeps to think a little bit.
As to the substance of Raehl's second reply there is something to both proximity and the upfront commitment but the example of the CFOA already limits, at the very least, the impact of proximity as the decisive factor. Though using proximity as a filter for cost and time commitment might be productive but again there is the CFOA counter-example. And to suggest the PSP could be as stable as the AXBL if the PSP were to become like the AXBL (a regional closed league) is actually more telling than Raehl seems to realize. Perhaps the question ought to be is AXBL-type stability possible short of becoming like the AXBL?
Meanwhile, the questions remain open. There were some good comments the first time around and I hope a few more of you take a little time to reconsider the original post this time around. The object here isn't (and wasn't) about picking winners and losers. If I have piqued your interest look at the original post one more time. Major league paintball is on rocky ground and needs answers or at the very least some new ideas generated (perhaps) by confronting the old problems in new and different ways.
UPDATE: It has been suggested that the above isn't really an advancement on the original. That is a view I won't debate. Instead I will, at the proverbial later date, offer some expanded thoughts on the topic. How could I resist dredging another post out of the topic?
The original enquiry. Identified two core issues for the PSP; the uncertain draw at any given event and the continuing struggle to fill the upper non-pro division(s). Neither of these are issues for the AXBL which maintains a consistent tiered league from a regional base with lower level teams playing expressly with the goal of moving up. The question became, Is there anything to be learned here? Why does the one struggle in these areas when the other doesn't?
Raehl's first reply. (I'm leaving out the stuff that isn't, to my mind, responsive to the original post but if Chris or anyone else wishes to drag it back in, in the comments, that's fine.) Raehl suggests any differences that might be viewed as advantage AXBL accrue from proximity--being a regional series it is cheaper and easier to be the AXBL. He further suggests that my allegation that the "team ownership" structure could play a role is silly as he reiterates his proximity is all argument.
Unfortunately for Raehl I had already dealt with his proximity argument before he made it by introducing the CFOA into the original post. If the CFOA can act as a stand-in for the PSP then the regional versus national argument fails immediately because the CFOA struggles with exactly the same issues as the PSP with respect to the topic of the post.
And where I think Raehl may be missing the boat in "team ownership" is his determination to make it solely about the interaction between the league and the team. It is clear that while that basic relationship may be similar it's not the relevant aspect if, in fact, team ownership possesses any relevance.
Raehl's second reply. Raehl adds to his explanation by suggesting it is proximity and a league that requires advance payment in order to participate. And, uh, the format is different. He closes his comment with these statements:
PSP can be every bit as stable as AXBL, as long as they cut their events down to three fields, two days, and don't let anyone play unless they pay for the full season up front.
You're right, dissecting an argument is what I always do, because if your argument is crap, you don't have a point, you have a fantasy. You start with information that isn't true, apply logic that is bunk, and reach a conclusion that is, obviously, disconnected from reality. And before you try and bust out that ad-hominem "psp shill" retort in defense of your non-point again, remember that the NCPA has pretty much exactly the same league structure as AXBL, and had it first, so I'm obviously a fan. I don't think I said anything bad about AXBL; I said that your conclusion as to why AXBL was more consistent was mistaken.
I included that last para just for fun and that's the one I want to start with. It's not really pertinent but so what? But it would be helpful if Raehl could read with comprehension, for a start. I did not call him a PSP shill nor did I accuse him of denigrating the AXBL. I did say he left himself open to that accusation--which has been made before but not by me--when his knee-jerk response is to always defend the PSP even when nobody is on the offensive. It also makes for shoddy thinking as these exchanges ought to demonstrate. Let's list the ways. I did not offer any conclusions about anything. I didn't construct an argument, logically or otherwise. I did provide some salient information which is unequivocally true and correct. And the only place Raehl attacked the information was with respect to "team ownership" but I also provided a definition in the original post--which was conveniently ignored. (Unstated elements of my interest in "team owners" are the commitment required and the numbers of such teams drawn from a relatively small area vis-a-vis the PSP's nationwide draw.)
What I did do was juxtapose what I called AXBL strengths against PSP weaknesses and posed a question or two intended to encourage peeps to think a little bit.
As to the substance of Raehl's second reply there is something to both proximity and the upfront commitment but the example of the CFOA already limits, at the very least, the impact of proximity as the decisive factor. Though using proximity as a filter for cost and time commitment might be productive but again there is the CFOA counter-example. And to suggest the PSP could be as stable as the AXBL if the PSP were to become like the AXBL (a regional closed league) is actually more telling than Raehl seems to realize. Perhaps the question ought to be is AXBL-type stability possible short of becoming like the AXBL?
Meanwhile, the questions remain open. There were some good comments the first time around and I hope a few more of you take a little time to reconsider the original post this time around. The object here isn't (and wasn't) about picking winners and losers. If I have piqued your interest look at the original post one more time. Major league paintball is on rocky ground and needs answers or at the very least some new ideas generated (perhaps) by confronting the old problems in new and different ways.
UPDATE: It has been suggested that the above isn't really an advancement on the original. That is a view I won't debate. Instead I will, at the proverbial later date, offer some expanded thoughts on the topic. How could I resist dredging another post out of the topic?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
PSP versus AXBL
Sadly this post isn't a two-leagues-enter-one-league-exits winner take all brawl. And Master Blaster is nowhere to be found. That would be a lot more fun than what this post is really about. So proceed at your own risk of disappointment, fully aware that boredom could be just a paragraph or two away.
No, no. No! Hang on. Wait a second. Let's have none of that! Forget that boredom talk, it's defeatist rubbish. (Sorry about that. A bit of left over negativity from The Pro Team Crack-Up, I suppose.)
This post is a voyage of discovery. Yeah, that's the ticket. An opportunity to examine the PSP from a different point of view and perhaps draw new conclusions. To glean fresh insights. Or deepen long held prejudices. Be inspired. Cry havoc. And loose the dogs of war! (Okay, I got a little carried away. Again. And, no, I'm not a manic depressive–most of my doctors agree--but I appreciate your concern.)
Let's begin with some factoids about the AXBL (which, for purposes of this post, includes the MXL). Each is a closed league comprised of 3 conferences/divisions of 7 teams (for '09) that totals 42 teams between the two leagues. There is a licensing (franchise) fee to acquire a team slot and entry fee/per player fees. One league is FPO and one isn't. The season was comprised of playing the other teams within your conference once (but will apparently be altered for '09) plus a league championship. (The AXBL has played original xball matches comprised of 2 - 25 minute halves while the MXL played 20 minute halves.) The teams are drawn primarily from New England, New York and Pennsylvania along with a few outliers. The leagues' sanctioned events are played over two-day weekends at pre-existing paintball field venues. Overall, the total cost to compete (including travel and related expenses) is significantly less for the majority of the teams than it would be to compete at say, D2, in the PSP.
This is just enough information to cause trouble as it allows for lots of possible arguments for or against without being able to settle any of them–and that's not the point. Suffice to say that each league has certain drawbacks and certain benefits and different teams and players can and will have a variety of reasons to choose one over the other. For example, AXBL offers potentially more on-field minutes played versus the PSP providing greater diversity of competition. Or AXBL cost versus PSP prestige.
What interests me is what appear to be AXBL strengths are, in one measure or another, PSP weaknesses. And if that's correct, what are the lessons to be drawn? I hasten to add there is no hard data here. There is little more than appearances and the inferences that might be reasonably drawn with an open mind. There are also some similarities. The AXBL has reduced each league by three spots this season. Some prices have gone up at the same time there will be less on-field paintball in the coming season. The AXBL went to a 4 event season over last year's 5. Issues of communication and refereeing cause friction between the league and the team owners. (Just like everywhere else.)
Here then is the critical item: Despite drawing a preponderance of its teams from a much smaller geographical area the AXBL has consistently maintained a full league. This year it will be 42 teams and in previous years it was 48. The AXBL has a stability the PSP doesn't and it has a structure that produces team owners. By broad definition here team owners are individuals or groups willing and able to take on the responsibilities of organizing and operating a paintball team.
Here's where you say, sure, okay but the PSP isn't exactly chopped liver and it's routinely dealing with much larger team numbers so what's the big deal?
Where the AXBL always knows who is competing the PSP is always guessing and has come to rely on part time team commitment. (A fact that plays havoc with the Iron Laws of Tournament Logistics.) Isn't that purely a property of running a more expensive national series? Maybe so but then tell me why the CFOA looks more like the PSP and shares many of the same concerns when they are a regional series. It's not because they are an expensive national series. Is it?
And what conclusions might we draw about the PSP's struggle over years to populate various upper level divisions, regardless of title; D1, Open, Semi-Pro where in the MXL the object of team owners is to advance to the AXBL? Where the PSP struggles the AXBL is organized, orderly and upwardly mobile by the consent and desire of the competing teams.
There have to be reasons for these stark differences, don't there?
No, no. No! Hang on. Wait a second. Let's have none of that! Forget that boredom talk, it's defeatist rubbish. (Sorry about that. A bit of left over negativity from The Pro Team Crack-Up, I suppose.)
This post is a voyage of discovery. Yeah, that's the ticket. An opportunity to examine the PSP from a different point of view and perhaps draw new conclusions. To glean fresh insights. Or deepen long held prejudices. Be inspired. Cry havoc. And loose the dogs of war! (Okay, I got a little carried away. Again. And, no, I'm not a manic depressive–most of my doctors agree--but I appreciate your concern.)
Let's begin with some factoids about the AXBL (which, for purposes of this post, includes the MXL). Each is a closed league comprised of 3 conferences/divisions of 7 teams (for '09) that totals 42 teams between the two leagues. There is a licensing (franchise) fee to acquire a team slot and entry fee/per player fees. One league is FPO and one isn't. The season was comprised of playing the other teams within your conference once (but will apparently be altered for '09) plus a league championship. (The AXBL has played original xball matches comprised of 2 - 25 minute halves while the MXL played 20 minute halves.) The teams are drawn primarily from New England, New York and Pennsylvania along with a few outliers. The leagues' sanctioned events are played over two-day weekends at pre-existing paintball field venues. Overall, the total cost to compete (including travel and related expenses) is significantly less for the majority of the teams than it would be to compete at say, D2, in the PSP.
This is just enough information to cause trouble as it allows for lots of possible arguments for or against without being able to settle any of them–and that's not the point. Suffice to say that each league has certain drawbacks and certain benefits and different teams and players can and will have a variety of reasons to choose one over the other. For example, AXBL offers potentially more on-field minutes played versus the PSP providing greater diversity of competition. Or AXBL cost versus PSP prestige.
What interests me is what appear to be AXBL strengths are, in one measure or another, PSP weaknesses. And if that's correct, what are the lessons to be drawn? I hasten to add there is no hard data here. There is little more than appearances and the inferences that might be reasonably drawn with an open mind. There are also some similarities. The AXBL has reduced each league by three spots this season. Some prices have gone up at the same time there will be less on-field paintball in the coming season. The AXBL went to a 4 event season over last year's 5. Issues of communication and refereeing cause friction between the league and the team owners. (Just like everywhere else.)
Here then is the critical item: Despite drawing a preponderance of its teams from a much smaller geographical area the AXBL has consistently maintained a full league. This year it will be 42 teams and in previous years it was 48. The AXBL has a stability the PSP doesn't and it has a structure that produces team owners. By broad definition here team owners are individuals or groups willing and able to take on the responsibilities of organizing and operating a paintball team.
Here's where you say, sure, okay but the PSP isn't exactly chopped liver and it's routinely dealing with much larger team numbers so what's the big deal?
Where the AXBL always knows who is competing the PSP is always guessing and has come to rely on part time team commitment. (A fact that plays havoc with the Iron Laws of Tournament Logistics.) Isn't that purely a property of running a more expensive national series? Maybe so but then tell me why the CFOA looks more like the PSP and shares many of the same concerns when they are a regional series. It's not because they are an expensive national series. Is it?
And what conclusions might we draw about the PSP's struggle over years to populate various upper level divisions, regardless of title; D1, Open, Semi-Pro where in the MXL the object of team owners is to advance to the AXBL? Where the PSP struggles the AXBL is organized, orderly and upwardly mobile by the consent and desire of the competing teams.
There have to be reasons for these stark differences, don't there?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
