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 PSP affiliates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PSP affiliates. Show all posts
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Thursday, September 9, 2010
What is Tournament Paintball? part 3
It is evident now that competitive paintball is where the drive and desire to move tournament paintball into the realm of sport has taken us. It is what it is and it was inevitable. Competitive paintball will continue to develop. If the vehicle hadn't been xball it would have been something else. It is also evident that the current difficulties are the result of a number of factors some of which have nothing to do with playing the game. There will be no one stop easy fixes. Most of us have no way to affect the outcome regardless. But there may be some things that can be done in the present to help build a more sustainable and broader tournament base.
Before offering some practical suggestions I think it's also important to make the conceptual distinction between competitive paintball and tournament paintball. Of course both terms represent a form of competition but competition is also an aspect of all paintball. Today, wherever you are, the default definition of tournament paintball is related to the xball brand of competitive paintball. And if that is what potential and beginning tourney players think tournament paintball is they (and we) are limiting their options and reducing the number who will try it out. What I mean is the PSP needs to undo everything it's done in the last couple of years with the affiliates and universal classification. (Bet that got your attention.) No, that's not what I mean but I do think one option is to offer tourney play at the local level that isn't the first few steps up the national and international competition ladder. Alternatively (or in combination with) local and regional competitive paintball needs to lower the bar to participation.For example our local practice field also hosts a PSP affiliate series with the bulk of participating teams being D3, 4 & 5. And what do those teams do to get ready for their next regional event? They spend their weekends scrimmaging each other full points and burn through paint at tournament rates. It hardly matters if the events themselves are reasonably priced if teams can't afford to practice. And they are preparing to compete this way because that's what we taught them to do. If that is the minimum requirement to compete in D4 is it any wonder we're losing teams?
(Sorry. No easy button involved. And if you're still uncertain I am not throwing the PSP or anybody else for that matter under the bus. The further sport paintball moves from generic paintball the more intermediary steps it needs along the way to provide a conduit of future players.)
Ok, back to what to do. How to lower costs? Shoot less paint. Which can be accomplished a few ways. I do not favor limited paint or drastically lower ROF--at least not at the national sport paintball level of competition. Do not release the field layout prior to the event. (It's deja vu all over again. Yes, I've suggested this before.) Without the layout there's little point in shooting truckloads of paint weekend after weekend. Teams will have to adapt. Find new ways to train and not be forced by the system to try and keep up with the next team by shooting extreme amounts of practice paint. Teams could literally save thousands of dollars. The rest of my suggestions relate primarily to the local & regional tourney scene. Lower the bar to tournament play. Something that is already happening in places. We need to see more generic 3-man and 5-man paintball events. And keep those players out of the UCP (Universal Classification Program) of APPA [or on an alternate local track] until they begin playing the bottom rung affiliate league events. We need some reseeding stand alone Open events. And for the time being we need to trim the number of total events down.
The specifics aren't important. Different areas will likely require different choices but the baseline goals need to be the same. Entry level tourney play that doesn't require the dedication, commitment and expense of competitive paintball as a gateway opportunity. Keep it simple with 3-man and/or 5-man. No pre-release of the layout. Strictly limit who can play. (I'd be sorely tempted to disallow anyone with an existing APPA i.d. but there's probably some room for consideration there.) Simplify divisions. Want to limit ROF? Give it a try. Or limited paint? Sure. The goal is a low pressure tourney environment a step or two above walk-on play for the most part. Ranking should be seasonal as long as divisions remain competitive and keep those players off the UCP. Let them track at their own pace as much as and as long as possible. Those that want greater challenges will make the necessary moves on their own.
The idea of open events is aimed at the D2 and D1 ranked players no longer playing because there are lots of them and very few options for them to keep actively involved short of trying to maintain a competitive commitment. Anyone can play an open event and skill level by team doesn't matter because by the final round of play all the teams are seeded against similar skill levels. Say the promoter decides on three divisions of play; A, B & C with prizes tiered as well with A having the best. Every team that signs up has a shot at all three packages. The teams are assigned divisions randomly and Round 1 is played. The reseed puts the most successful teams in bracket A, the mid-pack in B and C for the rest. Round 2 confirms the seedings but also allows some potential movement. Reseed and play Round 3 and there you have it. Round 3 winners receive the prizes for their brackets. It's a good way for lesser teams to get to compete against better ones and at the end of the day still vie for prizes and/or trophies and it doesn't penalize any player regardless of classification status.
There's also no reason not to run these kinds of events along with affiliate league play. What should be avoided is offering or trying to offer too many events over the course of the season. Too many choices dilutes the product and odds are, particularly in the current environment, the majority will end up picking & choosing. Far better to have a few rock solid events in place early so teams can see it's a do-able schedule and plan ahead.
A few words on the UCP. It's worlds better than it was. It's also appropriate for competitive paintball. I still wonder if it's flexible enough but I am not opposed to it or the concept behind it. I just think that in the here and now there is no good reason to push every tournament player onto a one size fits all fast track. Because it doesn't and there's no reason it should. What competitive paintball needs--among other things--isn't a larger pool of rec players but a larger pool of tournament players that have an opportunity to grow and develop at their own pace.
Before offering some practical suggestions I think it's also important to make the conceptual distinction between competitive paintball and tournament paintball. Of course both terms represent a form of competition but competition is also an aspect of all paintball. Today, wherever you are, the default definition of tournament paintball is related to the xball brand of competitive paintball. And if that is what potential and beginning tourney players think tournament paintball is they (and we) are limiting their options and reducing the number who will try it out. What I mean is the PSP needs to undo everything it's done in the last couple of years with the affiliates and universal classification. (Bet that got your attention.) No, that's not what I mean but I do think one option is to offer tourney play at the local level that isn't the first few steps up the national and international competition ladder. Alternatively (or in combination with) local and regional competitive paintball needs to lower the bar to participation.For example our local practice field also hosts a PSP affiliate series with the bulk of participating teams being D3, 4 & 5. And what do those teams do to get ready for their next regional event? They spend their weekends scrimmaging each other full points and burn through paint at tournament rates. It hardly matters if the events themselves are reasonably priced if teams can't afford to practice. And they are preparing to compete this way because that's what we taught them to do. If that is the minimum requirement to compete in D4 is it any wonder we're losing teams?
Let's review: At present competitive paintball is too expensive for its target demographic and simultaneously (and unnecessarily) restricts the opportunities of a significant number of the most dedicated players.
What to do? We broaden the definition of tournament paintball in order to legitimize a wider variety of tournament options. (Sure, this already happens as a practical matter but only in a piecemeal haphazard way.) Lower costs for competitive paintball. Lower the bar to tournament play with alternatives to competitive paintball. Slow down the "career" track and also offer options that don't involve a "career" track. Reconnect with the disenfranchised players.(Sorry. No easy button involved. And if you're still uncertain I am not throwing the PSP or anybody else for that matter under the bus. The further sport paintball moves from generic paintball the more intermediary steps it needs along the way to provide a conduit of future players.)
Ok, back to what to do. How to lower costs? Shoot less paint. Which can be accomplished a few ways. I do not favor limited paint or drastically lower ROF--at least not at the national sport paintball level of competition. Do not release the field layout prior to the event. (It's deja vu all over again. Yes, I've suggested this before.) Without the layout there's little point in shooting truckloads of paint weekend after weekend. Teams will have to adapt. Find new ways to train and not be forced by the system to try and keep up with the next team by shooting extreme amounts of practice paint. Teams could literally save thousands of dollars. The rest of my suggestions relate primarily to the local & regional tourney scene. Lower the bar to tournament play. Something that is already happening in places. We need to see more generic 3-man and 5-man paintball events. And keep those players out of the UCP (Universal Classification Program) of APPA [or on an alternate local track] until they begin playing the bottom rung affiliate league events. We need some reseeding stand alone Open events. And for the time being we need to trim the number of total events down.
The specifics aren't important. Different areas will likely require different choices but the baseline goals need to be the same. Entry level tourney play that doesn't require the dedication, commitment and expense of competitive paintball as a gateway opportunity. Keep it simple with 3-man and/or 5-man. No pre-release of the layout. Strictly limit who can play. (I'd be sorely tempted to disallow anyone with an existing APPA i.d. but there's probably some room for consideration there.) Simplify divisions. Want to limit ROF? Give it a try. Or limited paint? Sure. The goal is a low pressure tourney environment a step or two above walk-on play for the most part. Ranking should be seasonal as long as divisions remain competitive and keep those players off the UCP. Let them track at their own pace as much as and as long as possible. Those that want greater challenges will make the necessary moves on their own.
The idea of open events is aimed at the D2 and D1 ranked players no longer playing because there are lots of them and very few options for them to keep actively involved short of trying to maintain a competitive commitment. Anyone can play an open event and skill level by team doesn't matter because by the final round of play all the teams are seeded against similar skill levels. Say the promoter decides on three divisions of play; A, B & C with prizes tiered as well with A having the best. Every team that signs up has a shot at all three packages. The teams are assigned divisions randomly and Round 1 is played. The reseed puts the most successful teams in bracket A, the mid-pack in B and C for the rest. Round 2 confirms the seedings but also allows some potential movement. Reseed and play Round 3 and there you have it. Round 3 winners receive the prizes for their brackets. It's a good way for lesser teams to get to compete against better ones and at the end of the day still vie for prizes and/or trophies and it doesn't penalize any player regardless of classification status.
There's also no reason not to run these kinds of events along with affiliate league play. What should be avoided is offering or trying to offer too many events over the course of the season. Too many choices dilutes the product and odds are, particularly in the current environment, the majority will end up picking & choosing. Far better to have a few rock solid events in place early so teams can see it's a do-able schedule and plan ahead.
A few words on the UCP. It's worlds better than it was. It's also appropriate for competitive paintball. I still wonder if it's flexible enough but I am not opposed to it or the concept behind it. I just think that in the here and now there is no good reason to push every tournament player onto a one size fits all fast track. Because it doesn't and there's no reason it should. What competitive paintball needs--among other things--isn't a larger pool of rec players but a larger pool of tournament players that have an opportunity to grow and develop at their own pace.
This is hardly a conclusive post but it's a start. There's so much more to all this that hopefully I've made a dent. Regardless, I have no doubt it's a topic that will be revisited again and again.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Broken Record
If you've been hanging around the VFTD watercooler long enough this post will seem like deja vu. (Come to think of it VFTD's second birthday was a few days ago.) During that first July I spent a lot of time on the "lost" D1 players and I've replayed that record since then, too. A couple of things in the last week reminded me that, despite changes, not much has changed.
In prior posts I tied the lost players to the misguided classification rules. Those rules were changed--for the better--and yet, lost players is still an issue. Players from a well known high profile Florida team that fell apart recently (and unexpectedly) are trying to put the pieces back together. Part of their motivation, besides a desire to compete, is the realization that if they can't compete at the major league level they can't compete at all. At least not in Florida. Of course money is an issue too, always has been and always will be and the current state of the economy is affecting a lot more players than just the players caught in the classification pinch. This is also the first year of the PSP's affiliates rollout and while progress has been, and is being made, it isn't all sunshine and lollipops. And some of the grey clouds attached to the silver lining continue to be classification related issues. Those aren't so much wrongly classified players but the recurring tensions that occur as all leagues feel the pinch and the need to do everything they can to accommodate as many customers as possible. [Sports have players but paintball leagues need customers and the two categories don't always line up evenly.]
There's the rub as it applies to lost players. It's a helluva time to try and sort a fully realized, vertically integrated sport out of tournament paintball. I don't know any proponent of competitive paintball who doesn't want this to happen--or something quite like it--and if this effort had coincided with the good times I think it would be an established reality today but that's not where we are. The higher ranked the player becomes the fewer the options that exist for competition. Those options often include higher costs along with a more fully developed and complex organization in order to be competitive. At the other end of the spectrum the affiliates are torn between upward player movement pressure, enforcing classifications and the lack of competing upper divisional teams in a process that frequently breaks up existing teams.
The sport demands a legit classification system. The leagues need players. The timing is brutal but it is what it is. Competitive paintball needs to keep as many of its adherents actively involved as possible. But how?
Tomorrow, a couple of new ideas.
In prior posts I tied the lost players to the misguided classification rules. Those rules were changed--for the better--and yet, lost players is still an issue. Players from a well known high profile Florida team that fell apart recently (and unexpectedly) are trying to put the pieces back together. Part of their motivation, besides a desire to compete, is the realization that if they can't compete at the major league level they can't compete at all. At least not in Florida. Of course money is an issue too, always has been and always will be and the current state of the economy is affecting a lot more players than just the players caught in the classification pinch. This is also the first year of the PSP's affiliates rollout and while progress has been, and is being made, it isn't all sunshine and lollipops. And some of the grey clouds attached to the silver lining continue to be classification related issues. Those aren't so much wrongly classified players but the recurring tensions that occur as all leagues feel the pinch and the need to do everything they can to accommodate as many customers as possible. [Sports have players but paintball leagues need customers and the two categories don't always line up evenly.]
There's the rub as it applies to lost players. It's a helluva time to try and sort a fully realized, vertically integrated sport out of tournament paintball. I don't know any proponent of competitive paintball who doesn't want this to happen--or something quite like it--and if this effort had coincided with the good times I think it would be an established reality today but that's not where we are. The higher ranked the player becomes the fewer the options that exist for competition. Those options often include higher costs along with a more fully developed and complex organization in order to be competitive. At the other end of the spectrum the affiliates are torn between upward player movement pressure, enforcing classifications and the lack of competing upper divisional teams in a process that frequently breaks up existing teams.
The sport demands a legit classification system. The leagues need players. The timing is brutal but it is what it is. Competitive paintball needs to keep as many of its adherents actively involved as possible. But how?
Tomorrow, a couple of new ideas.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Major League Paintball: The Affiliates
Aight, the PSP has done it again. Announcing today the MPL (Mexican Paintball League) as a new affiliate league. The association officially extends the Race 2 format south of the border. So when can we expect to see an affiliate in Canuckistan? And why the hell is the MSXL a supporting member and not an affiliate?
Chicago PSP registration is up to 72 Race 2-X and 25 Race 2-2 teams. The first deadline for payment is still 3 weeks away and the event is two months away. I'm interested in the affiliates on a couple of counts; I believe (and have advocated for a long time) that regional tourneys and a centralized championship is (was) the way to go. And because the greatest risk to the PSP is in the transition away from the old national model. So both the health of the affiliates and their immediate impact on the PSP are worth following.
The jury is still out on Phoenix. Was the decline the economy, the elevated entry fees in a category or two, or draw down from prior WCPPL & AZPPL events or some combination of them all? After checking the numbers at APPA it seems the Phoenix Race 2-2 entries are (were) generally consistent with Cup & Chicago '09. Also of some interest perhaps is the factoid that anytime Race 2-2 is available as a Sat-Sun or Fri-Sun option the longer Friday thru Sunday draws more teams (except WC 'o7). Probably not all that relevant as Phoenix '10 had both options and numbers were still down 40% over the two years prior.
With respect to each of the affiliates I'm not going to try and draw any conclusions just yet although a few factoids seem worthy of mention. The WCPPL appears to be going great guns with 85 teams registered (when I checked earlier in the week). Seems solid considering its only the second year for the league and first using the Race 2 format(s). Mike's league is also the only one offering pump right now. The AZPPL has 28 Race 2-2 teams registered for its next event and did over 20 in its first event. The Vicious Series is maxed out at 36 for their next event including 16 Race 2-4 teams. And the recent addition MSXL has 24 Race 2-4 teams signed for its next event. In the northeast the Hurricanes Tourney Series is just getting started as ther first event isn't until the end of May--but this is a completely new league launch. Down in Florida the CFPS looks to be down numbers-wise a bit over last year but the best turnouts last year were during the summer months so it will be interesting to see how this season trends. Which brings us to the CFOA which isn't drawing like the old days but has solid numbers in both Race 2-4 and Race 2-2. The CFOA is also committing to a broad offering of 3-man events presumably to help rebuild the competitive base in their region.
Overall, the numbers may look pretty good but it seems to me there's lots of potential for growth despite the hardship factors and it will be interesting to see how this season unfolds.
Chicago PSP registration is up to 72 Race 2-X and 25 Race 2-2 teams. The first deadline for payment is still 3 weeks away and the event is two months away. I'm interested in the affiliates on a couple of counts; I believe (and have advocated for a long time) that regional tourneys and a centralized championship is (was) the way to go. And because the greatest risk to the PSP is in the transition away from the old national model. So both the health of the affiliates and their immediate impact on the PSP are worth following.
The jury is still out on Phoenix. Was the decline the economy, the elevated entry fees in a category or two, or draw down from prior WCPPL & AZPPL events or some combination of them all? After checking the numbers at APPA it seems the Phoenix Race 2-2 entries are (were) generally consistent with Cup & Chicago '09. Also of some interest perhaps is the factoid that anytime Race 2-2 is available as a Sat-Sun or Fri-Sun option the longer Friday thru Sunday draws more teams (except WC 'o7). Probably not all that relevant as Phoenix '10 had both options and numbers were still down 40% over the two years prior.
With respect to each of the affiliates I'm not going to try and draw any conclusions just yet although a few factoids seem worthy of mention. The WCPPL appears to be going great guns with 85 teams registered (when I checked earlier in the week). Seems solid considering its only the second year for the league and first using the Race 2 format(s). Mike's league is also the only one offering pump right now. The AZPPL has 28 Race 2-2 teams registered for its next event and did over 20 in its first event. The Vicious Series is maxed out at 36 for their next event including 16 Race 2-4 teams. And the recent addition MSXL has 24 Race 2-4 teams signed for its next event. In the northeast the Hurricanes Tourney Series is just getting started as ther first event isn't until the end of May--but this is a completely new league launch. Down in Florida the CFPS looks to be down numbers-wise a bit over last year but the best turnouts last year were during the summer months so it will be interesting to see how this season trends. Which brings us to the CFOA which isn't drawing like the old days but has solid numbers in both Race 2-4 and Race 2-2. The CFOA is also committing to a broad offering of 3-man events presumably to help rebuild the competitive base in their region.
Overall, the numbers may look pretty good but it seems to me there's lots of potential for growth despite the hardship factors and it will be interesting to see how this season unfolds.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Hey Hey HEY!
Calling all Pro slackers. Here's a gentle reminder for all you lazy good for nothing pro players if you want to see your Pro*file posted here at VFTD. I don't want to hear about school, job, girlfriend, charity work or any of the rest of your hackneyed and lame excuses. The price of participation is you making a modest effort. For more info look here or drop me an email. (Or have your personal assistant do it for you.)
Over at one of my favorite watering holes somebody leaked a copy of a possible NPPL Chicago field design. It is one of two under consideration and it is a copy of the original that was scribbled on at an HB meeting called to discuss the various submissions. The scribbles are suggested changes (like moving the carwashes further toward the center of the field and switching the Dorito wire corner SDs for the nearby Temples.) An owners vote was supposed to decide which one would be the Chicago layout but apparently the drama continues. It is rumored that white smoke will rise from Eric Crandall's barbecue once a final field is actually chosen.
The MSXL, the PSP's newest (first) (only) supporting league [Why aren't these guys an affiliate and what's the difference? Enquiring minds] has taken a big step and they are offering an Open Division of play for players ranked pro down to D2. It will be interesting to see if this gets off the ground. So far it looks like a couple of "local" PSP D1 teams are on board. Could be an excellent opportunity for regional D1 and higher ranked players to consider putting new teams together as well as this provides them a place to compete without the expense and uncertainty of jumping into the national fray right away.
UPDATE: dropped by the Big Bullet (after checking out Steve's guest posts at T-Square) and it looked like a brand new site. Looks good. (The purple is gone.) and it's very easy to skim through all the different items quickly to get an overview of what's happening. Also, the right sidebar is dominated by links that go the extra mile and list a number of recent postings on the various sites represented--so if you want to make sure you haven't missed something at the Bullet you can skim all the new stuff at loads of other paintball sites. (And even better, it means you can officially leave Twitter to the teenaged girls--as well as those who might as well be teenaged girls. [You know who you are.] Twitter is not for real men. Call me backward, Neolithic even but if Twitter doesn't make you uncomfortable you probably ought to check your hormone levels, ladies.)
Over at one of my favorite watering holes somebody leaked a copy of a possible NPPL Chicago field design. It is one of two under consideration and it is a copy of the original that was scribbled on at an HB meeting called to discuss the various submissions. The scribbles are suggested changes (like moving the carwashes further toward the center of the field and switching the Dorito wire corner SDs for the nearby Temples.) An owners vote was supposed to decide which one would be the Chicago layout but apparently the drama continues. It is rumored that white smoke will rise from Eric Crandall's barbecue once a final field is actually chosen.
The MSXL, the PSP's newest (first) (only) supporting league [Why aren't these guys an affiliate and what's the difference? Enquiring minds] has taken a big step and they are offering an Open Division of play for players ranked pro down to D2. It will be interesting to see if this gets off the ground. So far it looks like a couple of "local" PSP D1 teams are on board. Could be an excellent opportunity for regional D1 and higher ranked players to consider putting new teams together as well as this provides them a place to compete without the expense and uncertainty of jumping into the national fray right away.
UPDATE: dropped by the Big Bullet (after checking out Steve's guest posts at T-Square) and it looked like a brand new site. Looks good. (The purple is gone.) and it's very easy to skim through all the different items quickly to get an overview of what's happening. Also, the right sidebar is dominated by links that go the extra mile and list a number of recent postings on the various sites represented--so if you want to make sure you haven't missed something at the Bullet you can skim all the new stuff at loads of other paintball sites. (And even better, it means you can officially leave Twitter to the teenaged girls--as well as those who might as well be teenaged girls. [You know who you are.] Twitter is not for real men. Call me backward, Neolithic even but if Twitter doesn't make you uncomfortable you probably ought to check your hormone levels, ladies.)
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Suicide Watch: Special Update
In Tuesday's regular weekly update I questioned whether or not the new affiliates, AZPPL & WCPPL, might have an impact on PSP Phoenix participation given that registrations in the Race2-2 divisions is down compared to last year while the registrations for the format-formerly-known-as-xball is closer to last year's numbers.
First thing to take note of is very little crossover, a handful of teams are playing both, and most of those are out of the AZPPL (unsurprisingly.)
Also, the WCPPL has a very solid D2 Race2-5 division set to play the weekend of March 6,7 and 52 Race2-2 teams in D3 & D4. That's a lot of something where there was nothing before.
The timing and the numbers and the lack of crossover might suggest the PSP "lost" some teams to the affiliates but even if it cost the PSP a few teams this time around growth like that exhibited in the WCPPL certainly portends a better future.
First thing to take note of is very little crossover, a handful of teams are playing both, and most of those are out of the AZPPL (unsurprisingly.)
Also, the WCPPL has a very solid D2 Race2-5 division set to play the weekend of March 6,7 and 52 Race2-2 teams in D3 & D4. That's a lot of something where there was nothing before.
The timing and the numbers and the lack of crossover might suggest the PSP "lost" some teams to the affiliates but even if it cost the PSP a few teams this time around growth like that exhibited in the WCPPL certainly portends a better future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
