The Latest on PSP Classifications (& the UCP)

Some of the weaker among you will have shut their eyes tight, begun whimpering incoherently and rocking quietly unable to read past the title. Like shell-shocked soldiers they know only too well what another classification post will likely bring. There have been so many. It's not fair. They tried to read them all but somewhere along the line it became too much. (Because I can't leave not well enough alone.) Ground zero for classification posts begin here. Followed by here, here, here & here--for a sample. And last year around this time there was this one, and then this one. More than that and we approach a threshold that should not be crossed.

Fortunately, none of this year's changes are a step backwards so I'ma dispense with most of the UCP and focus on the (one) remaining issue. It is, perhaps unsurprisingly, the same concern I had last year (after the otherwise excellent progress of the improvements leading into 2010). Moving down. Oh, sure, the issue was addressed. Both last year and this year. Which is progress (and I'm not complaining), it's just not enough. Last year it was possible for a player's ranking scores to eventually drop 50%. (Which effectively meant a single division reduction, for the most part.) This time around it is possible for ranking scores to be reduced up to 75%. But it takes too long and the conditions (in part) are counter intuitive--to put it politely.
Let's go Big Picture for a second. The issue isn't the mechanics. The issue is how fluid are the skills required to play competitive paintball? Once you've worked your way up to say, D1, is the average competitive player legitimately going to remain a mostly D1 player? Keeping in mind there is a distinction between talent, skills and experience the answer is player specific. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. From my perspective the answer is far more often no than it is yes. With that a given I am convinced organized competitive paintball needs to more accurately recognize reality & be willing to be more flexible--despite the possible sandbagging complaints--and potentially keep more active tourney ballers playing.
The latest rule for reducing ranking points is initiated by either time passing or events played. I understand time passing, particularly if the player is no longer competing at his (her) highest level. But what I don't get is equating events played with time passing. The new rule means is that if a player plays enough events they can accelerate the rate ranking scores reduce. Need two years to drop to a 70% value? Play 12 or more events instead. But don't additional events played equal more opportunity, more experience, more competition? If it isn't helping to make a better player it's certainly contributing to maintaining whatever level of skill they do have. Even more nonsensical, to reach the lowest reductions in ranking points possible (65%) (75%) the rule is time & a minimum number of events played. For example, a player last competed in a PSP event in 2006 but until he competes in at least 3 more events his ranking points won't drop? That's how it reads.

This latest version is an improvement but it's not enough and the rules, as they appear to read, are in part contradictory to the concept being dealt with. Why not a simple formula? I recommended one last year. You'll find it in the last link above.

Measuring Up

In 'A Measuring Stick' I left off at standards. In order for standards to exist, in a meaningful sense, they need to be clearly defined and consistently maintained. In the context of competitive paintball the next question is; how?

Traditionally teams self-selected and it seldom created gaping disparities because serious teams wanted to move up and the occasional teams frequently fell comfortably into the middle of their regular division. Teams determined their fitness to move up by having some degree of consistent success and with little reward at stake teams played for pride and recognition. (Which could eventually lead to the real reward; sponsorship.) [That state was not universal but it was sufficiently the norm that things worked fine for years.]
(Btw, my context is national series events, not local, where so-called sandbagging is a major bugaboo. And a red herring. And ultimately was caused by the general response to the national series largely unintentional rape & pillage of local / regional tourney scenes. But that's a different topic.)

Between then and the introduction of the UCP concept more divisions were introduced, larger prize packages were assigned to those divisions and new rules were implemented to "fix" the problems created by–you guessed it–the new divisions, the prizes and some of those rules.
Conceptually, the UCP is a very good idea in that it seeks to integrate every level of play from the local to the national under a consistent and progressive standard. In practice there are two significant issues; the progression from local to national that looks so good on paper retains, in the overlapping of divisions, the same tensions that had the locals in competition with the national for teams and the current UCP classification rules do not measure up. For the moment it's the classification rules that are important. The league has decided it has an interest in trying to engineer the content of divisions beyond the boundary of competition. (One of the consequences of that has been to drive players up the ranks artificially with the result it has driven some number out of the game, probably prematurely.) The other consequences are the current fuzzy dividing lines between divisions and a programmatic dumbing down of the competition itself across multiple divisions that will, at some point, affect all the levels of competition. In moving too many players (teams) up the rules undermine the core of each division, particularly the lower divisions, so that new teams moving up are competing against a fluctuating standard year by year. And just like teams and players improve by playing better players and teams in practice divisions should provide a consistent standard of play. When they don't the new D3 teams, for example, are competing against a standard that the year before was maybe a top 20 team. Do that year after year and you are doing the opposite of encouraging excellence, you're assuring mediocrity is seen as improvement. And then you move it up the ranks when you pack D2 teams into a floundering D1 division year after year. Does anybody really think the end result is superior play?

Adding further contradictions is a league policy that ignores the idea of merit in that any team at any time is allowed to enter any division they want--with the possible exception of the Pro division. Along similar lines is the pricing policy of entry fees in some circumstances. (Mentioned in this week's MLP Held Hostage Weekly Update.) Is the idea to push teams to favor one bracket over another or participation on one day over another? Or both? Or does D3 pay more simply because the expectation is there's more D3 teams than anything else? Regardless it demonstrates that there is more going on than simply organizing an event, series or system to promote excellence in competitive paintball.

So what to do about it?

Find out next time as short attention span blogging presents; 'Measure of the Game.' (Seeing a pattern yet?)

A Measuring Stick

I spent some time this past weekend with the Rangers, a paintball team from Guatemala. They came up to the States for some trigger time against my guys on Saturday and ended up competing in the largest of our statewide tournament series on Sunday. (A good bunch of guys, btw.) I suspect they are representative of many new teams in the developing paintball world; energetic, eager and perhaps not so overtly competitive as American ballers tend to be. (Or at least they make an effort to be friendly too and certainly minus the obnoxious punk posturing.)

The point of their excursion north was to learn and improve. And they looked to do so in the traditional paintball way; by scrimmaging better players and competing against better teams. Makes perfectly good sense, doesn't it? Pretty much the way you and I did it, too. (And/or the way you're still doing it.)

This was particularly useful for the Rangers because those basic training methods don't really exist in Central America. In part because competitive paintball is so young there, there is only other up-and-coming to butt heads against. They simply don't have available the crucial components of experienced players and established teams. As a consequence I think their weekend up here was (hopefully) very instructive and a bit of an eye-opener as their experience acted as a measuring stick. A way of judging just where they are and an indicator of how much better they need to get in order to measure up to a world standard. (Of course that still leaves them, and teams like them, with the task of finding ways to make-up for the opportunities that still don't exist.)

All that was a rather oblique approach to a (sorta) related topic; competitiveness and the maintenance of a competitive standard. Which brings me back in a very roundabout way to how the PSP is using its classification system. (Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!) Yeah, sorry about this (unless you're too new to be aware of all the other classification-related posts I've written) but at least this is a different argument.

Brief recap: my objection to the UCP, and its application in the PSP, is that it runs players up the ranks unnecessarily and frequently the result is to push many of those players out of competitive paintball. [And the move to add a semi-pro division acknowledges the issue if not the cause.] Most of my arguments have been tied to the effect on players. The system also blurs and/or breaks down the barriers between divisions to the detriment of the overall competition and the idea of excellence.

Here's how. Divisions exist in recognition of different levels of skill and ability that are sufficiently distinct to warrant those separate divisions of competition. And, realistically, to encourage teams of diverse ability to compete. For purposes of competition the divisions represent incremental steps rising to the top level of competition, currently call Pro. Conceptually we're on solid, easily understood ground. The questions I have is how do you maintain a clear distinction between the divisions created and how does that divisional process actually lead to excellence in the game? The answer to both those questions starts with a standard. Teams like the Rangers struggle to find their place in part because there is no consistent standard in their environment, no well defined target to aim for, at least in a practical sense that they can measure themselves against periodically.

I'll finish this in a day or two.

Paintball Stuff

Get ready for a long-ish edition of stuff coming at ya on a Friday. First up, I'll be re-posting the 'The Mech Warrior' (from Baca's Blog over at the Big Bullet) over the weekend for those lazy slackers too lazy to click over. Why, because it has competitive paintball relevance unlike most Baca's Blog posts.

Video editions of MAO matches are now up at the PSP, soon to be VFTD's official major league website that blows the most. Even if you saw them live I would recommend you watch them again, this time focusing on learning something along the way. It's not only entertainment a potentially valuable tool as well.

I'm enjoying the website challenge poll so much I'm gonna start doing one every week on Mondays. Next week's topic will be the Millennium.

Speaking of the Millennium there's a couple fresh news items up on their website from boss Barry Fuggle and the website representing the combined might of the pro-paintball forces in Germany. Both are encouraging participation in the Bitburg event to show the politicians and media what paintball is really all about. And it seems to be working as registrations in the open divisions jumped this week from near single digits to numbers that could, with a few more days of registration available, match Malaga. Hopefully that's all that will match Malaga and no one will ask for too many explanations as make-up matches are made-up along with the Bitburg schedule. Otherwise the professional presentation of elite competitive paintball might not be overly impressive. Just saying.
Oh, and it's nothing to do with anything really but what's with the odd spelling of Bitburg in both posted items? Kind regards

The PSP is also trying out a couple new divisions in Chicago and try as I might, I couldn't help but wonder how they fit in the context of the UCP, the Universal Classification Program. The mere mention of the UCP should be more than enough to make the regulars here cringe but if you are out of that loop and want to suffer along with everybody else look here, here and here. (Don't blame me, you were warned.) (And besides, there's lots more where that came from.)
Anyway, I can see the "new" D4 being a variation on D3 Intro so that's not a huge deal although, it seems to me, there was a reason it was originally called D3 Intro. As for D2 Race2-2 it's really mostly a kind of catch-all to scoop up a few more teams, isn't it? One D1 player allowed but for general classification purposes it counts as D3? Which is fine by me but like I said, raises a few UCP questions in my mind.
Was the original division D3 Intro specifically intended to NOT fall below the "national level" threshold and infringe on local and regional events? This is potentially a reflection of a larger issue with the UCP; a tension between it's core function and what the PSP would like it to do--help build the PSP. There isn't a necessary conflict there, only some UCP functions at cross purposes. And, why, if a team plays D3 once without a classification "penalty" (cus that's how a lot of them look at it) play D4 at all if it's mostly a try out division? Same price, no prizes. If it might end up a permanent division it will definitely put the PSP national events at odds with local and regional competition. See previously mentioned UCP conflict.

Lastly, Friday is for recognizing new enlistees to the DPA. However, this is the third week in a row without any. Your failure to enlist is thwarting VFTD's plan for World Paintball Domination. Don't ask how it's supposed to work; it's really complicated. Since when did you care? Just join. It's the new agg.

The UCP Meets The Bass-O-Matic

To set the table recent UCP (Universal Classification Program) posts can be reviewed here and here. And if you are unfamiliar with the Bass-O-Matic ... Okay, enough silliness, this is important--even universally important--stuff, so it's time to be serious. (You are taking this seriously, aren't you?)

Before tossing the UCP into the Bass-O-Matic and flipping the switch I want to state for the record that I am not anti- the UCP. I am even cautiously in favor of the general concept and its potential to help organize and legitimize Paintball as Sport. My principle objection is the timing which I think has driven some of the details in ways that may compromise the sport. That's merely my opinion. The other concerns I have are primarily structural. So consider this a critique and not a takedown. My purpose is not to trash the UCP but to improve it.

Let's begin with some observations gleaned from reading the tentative UCP draft. The value of consistent classifications is systemic standardization, not so Little Jimmy can compare himself to other D4 players around the country. And while comparing ranking points across leagues is probably good for a friendly argument or two it's about as meaningful as Little Jimmy checking out the D4 competition. Universal Classification does however provide a functional framework for structuring a national championship event(s) that will answer all those questions on the field. The core value of the UCP is to provide a comprehensive and uniform structure to the competitive game and, er, incidentally build a grassroots network that will support the PSP. (More on this at some point as it won't actually work as currently conceived.)

After a quick and dirty review of the UCP draft there are a few things that seem either incomplete or simply don't make a lot of sense to me. Which is rather surprising as I typically expect the raehl faction to be scrupulously anal when it comes to details. (I'm pretty sure, btw, that last sentence is the very definition of a left-handed compliment. Oh, and the pairing of scrupulously and anal is, I admit, more than a little disturbing.)

Offered in no particular order I'd like to begin by rehashing an old complaint and by explaining my fundamental concern with this particular effort (the UCP draft) and the broad concept of the UCP, if you get the distinction. To rehash: I oppose the recent PSP movement thru classifications rules and the practice thereof and I oppose any version of that being embedded in the practices of the UCP. I've posted on it repeatedly--to everyone's great dismay, I'm sure--but if you missed them you can get more than enough of my argument by checking out the Logan's Run series of posts in the January '09 archive on the sidebar. Broad concept first: Why? What's in it for the locals and regionals? [Disclaimer--I was asked to offer input on the UCP and coordinate my impressions with the raehl faction. This post is not the result of that effort. I blew it off after 3 emails when it became apparent I wasn't getting paid enough--does zero even count?--and that the raehl faction's primary interest was to simply argue about everything. So please take that into consideration when you judge the validity of this post.]
Back on topic: What incentives exist to encourage widespread participation? It seems a simple enough question. Two examples of what I'm talking about. Imagine two statewide tourney series competing for teams. What's the payoff for one series to go with the UCP or for both to want to? Obviously there is the proffered National Championship--which isn't chopped liver--but remains very unclear. (More coming.) There's the I.D. card cost balanced by the eliminates sandbagging promise. There's the prospect of wholesale classification changes for the competing teams and questions like, do the format changes required impact in a negative way the logistics (and cost) of running one day events? Or what about 3-man? Are all local UCP-sanctioned events restricted to being D4 & D5 3-man events? (See the chart!) It looks swell on a chart but it's just not realistic. And why would a local promoter sign up for this when there is no apparent advantage to him to do so? Oh, wait, he gets a new income stream from I.D. cards! (More on this coming.) Particularly at the local level the idea is to keep it simple and cheap because most teams are looking for a fun day of paintball and nobody embraces change for change's sake. The UCP draft demands change and isn't offering much in exchange--that I can see--to the local, grassroots level.

Arbitrary regional ceiling at D2 Race2-4? APPA has more than enough D1 ranked players in its database to fill a regional division of 8 - 10 teams four or five times over. The problem isn't that this level of play is so skilled, so stratospheric there are only handfuls of such players--the problem is the leagues have yet to figure out to sustain the players that do exist. (And, to be fair, a lot of upper division players of recent vintage have unrealistic expectations given the current climate.)

How will UCP-sanctioned formats function as a one day event? It would probably be helpful if the UCP offered an addendum outlining alternative scheduling options, real numbers on matches played, how to organize past the prelims and so on so potential promoters would have something in hand to offer added confidence it its workability as well as provide answers for prospective teams.

The team count disparity. The promise is a shot at a real national title. How are the qualifying teams calculated? Oh, I know thy earn points--more on this too--but that's not my question. Say a regional league has 20 D2 teams competing over the season and a local or statewide series has 10 D2 teams competing. Do they both send the same number of teams to the Nat'l Championships? If they do then you undermine the regional by making the local more attractive or are we back to no local events can sanction anything but 3-man? At a minimum the UCP needs to define its terms and add concise qualifiers.

Qualifying. As referenced and elaborated on in the comments of the second post linked to above the process of teams qualifying for the Nat'l Championship is murky at best. And the suggestion/inference that total accumulated points somehow play a role in deciding the national champ is a terrible idea. The whole point of having a Nat'l Championship is to determine a winner on the field and you cannot accept all scores as equivalent regardless of the league they were achieved in. (Which brings us back, in part, to sanctioning leagues.) Additionally there is the matter of the bonus points assigned to teams competing in a PSP as opposed to a regional event. (Again, see post referenced above.) Are teams that competed all season in the PSP also competing in the Nat'l Championship or are they competing for something else? If they are all on the same competition track the PSP is undermining its own events by allowing a sanctioned route to the championship that will almost certainly be easier and cheaper.

APPA I.D. cards must be a universally recognized I.D. throughout the UCP otherwise it would rightly be viewed as simply an alternative revenue stream. Right now CFOA players need an APPA CFOA card and then when they play PSP they need a different APPA PSP card. All the info is accessible to either card as the player number doesn't change once established..The only difference is each league gets a kickback on the I.D. cards. Once all these leagues are united under the UCP there is no excuse to charge and re-charge for the same I.D. A reasonable alternative would be a revenue sharing arrangement that includes all UCP leagues.

That's enough for now and should get the raehl faction howling. There's more but honestly this should be enough to keep the UCPers busy for awhile. Or, you know, maybe not since it's so obviously perfect already.

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?

Again with the UCP

Next week, probably about mid-week, I will have a substantial follow-up on my UCP query from last Thursday. I'm a bit disappointed in the lack of comments because this is an important issue and this is a legit opportunity to express an opinion that will be heard. On the other hand I can see where some of y'all directly involved would be a bit reticent. Please consider doing it anyway. And if you know somebody who operates tournaments at their local field or runs a regional of any size take a few minutes to aim them at these UCP posts because I'd really like to hear from as many peeps as possible. I've spoken with a few but the wider the sample of views the more valuable the result.
Truth is in the blogging universe most readers, even loyal regulars, aren't typically commenters but this is one of the rare occasions where I sincerely encourage you to make the effort.

Tomorrow, Part 1 of the Iron Laws of Tournament Logistics.

Mr. Curious

Mr. Curious doesn't have anything to contribute to the UCP post--he's trying very hard to be a paintballer (lazy slacker)--but he does have an interesting question.
Do players who compete in more than one series that use the APPA system have to pay for multiple I.D. cards? And, if so, why?

And I'm trying to be a paintballer too--so I'm gonna rely on Mr. APPA supplying the 411.

Universal Classification Program

If you haven't checked it out yet, or don't remember any of the details, I encourage you to look over the UCP, universal classification program. The reason for my request is that I'm looking for answers and I need your help. (Mark it on your calendar 'cus it's never gonna happen again.) What I'm curious about is the general appeal of this concept and what, if anything, y'all don't like about it. I'm particularly interested in what event promoters think but don't let that stop you from posting an opinion in the comments.
It's one thing to devise a plan and another thing altogether to get people to jump on your bandwagon. Being a natural pessimist with an abiding mistrust (and dislike) of authority, any authority, I'm about the last guy to see this objectively--which is why I need your help. Tell me why it's a good idea (or a bad idea) and why it will work (or why it won't.) I have some ideas but I'm gonna wait for your comments because I don't want to unduly influence you with my negativity. Knowing the sort of lazy slackers paintballers tend to be your comments could very well have an influence on the final outcome of the UCP project. And if that doesn't motivate you to take a few minutes to participate, well, I'd offer cash but, you know, times are tough.

Major League Paintball Held Hostage, Day 25

Three, make that four, brief items on the agenda for today and (at least) one of them is just plain silly. You decide which one is the silly one.

The Millennium Series announces the new official standard of 44 bunkers to produce a MS field layout. The 44 coinciding with the new PSP standard even though all the bunkers across both standards aren't identical--yet. One more step down the UPBF pathway, a cheaper base package price for Adrenaline Games and a new upgrade kit for '09. Every base covered.

For those of you who find posting comments too taxing VFTD has the Reax option which offers some minimal feedback on your opinions of what's shaking here at VFTD. Mostly y'all are such slackers you don't bother with those either and that's okay 'cus truth be told your opinion is completely optional and I'm not losing any sleep over it. I think more reader participation is a positive thing but whatever. This is about the dud reax to the latest Enlistment post. Some comedian added a second dud--and that was amusing. I still want to know what exactly the problem is. VFTD doesn't grade for spelling or grammar so come on, Capt. Dud, you can do it.
(I'm trying out a bit of reverse psychology. Let's see how it works.)

VFTD would like to congratulate the kids at Propaintball.com on the upscale move and wish them all success. I'd also like to encourage the lazy slugs that always used the link at pbreserve to visit VFTD to suffer through the mind-numbingly difficult process of adding VFTD to their favorites. I know y'all can do it.

VFTD's past objections to organizing something like the UPBF was not about rejecting a universal standard, it was about promoting the right standard. (Something reasonable people can disagree about certainly.) My concern with the UPBF and now the UCP (Universal Classification Program)is that the PSP will end up being locked into the current format--ostensibly a response to economic reality--as it's accepted by regional and international series and we will all end up playing in perpetuity this rather watered down version of its-not-called-xball-anymore. I was given some assurance that that wasn't going to happen and that the focus needed to be on getting thru the coming difficult times. I do not doubt the sincerity of those assurances nor the reality of the tough times. I am, however, afraid that once the current format and system become accepted on a widespread basis the option of making changes diminishes drastically simply because it then begins to affect so many more leagues, teams and players. Its own momentum will make it nearly impossible to change course once it gets going. On the plus side it will also be that much harder to shrink the game any further. I suppose that's some consolation.

Major League Paintball Held Hostage, Day 24

It's your lucky day 'cus I'm feeling benevolent. That and I'm totally burned out on this classification & ranking thing. No more harping. I've had my say. We'll see what happens. Hopefully it'll work out.
But--
I do have a couple of kinda, sorta related items for comment today. And there's nothing you can do about it. There's no restraining order against blogging. Yet.
What do you suppose the average age of a competitive paintballer is today? What was it ten years ago? Whatever you think the number is today's baller is considerably younger, isn't he? (Or for all eleven of you gals, she.) Keep that in mind for this next part.
What is the life cycle of a good tourney baller these days? If the player is good (or plays on a good team) and competes at the national level the player can expect to move up one division a year. And every division up means fewer teams and fewer slots for players to play--at least that's what it's always meant in the past. (And the current system ain't helping.) So the higher you go the greater the likelihood you play yourself out of the game. And this, by the way, is irrespective of the merits of the system used. (I know--been here, done this.) Keep that in mind for this next part.

Regarding the UCP's (Universal Classification Program) national championship concept is the PSP sowing the seeds of their own irrelevance? I think they are. Here's how: In trying to organize a regional system based on the Race format and using the UCP to promote a national championship formula they will end up competing against the lower divisions at the regional level and they will be at a distinct disadvantage. There are reasons that when I suggested a series of similar ideas here and here that I proposed a Pro Circuit. If your regional ranking is consistent with the national ranking and you can compete regionally and qualify for the national championship at the end of the year (World Cup) what advantage is it to compete in a national circuit that is more expensive across the board? So the PSP wants to set-up a regional but identical system to their own and don't see that they will be competing with the regions? Now throw in the factoid that if your team stays regional they stay out of the PSP's classification system (as it currently stands.) Win, win to play regionally. Of course even if the PSP closes the classification loopholes there's still no apparent reason for lower division teams to play the national circuit. Are the soccer fields of Phoenix, the grass and gravel of MAO and the rock hard ground of Bollingbrook so exotic that teams will pay thousands more to compete there instead of their regionals? Could happen.

Btw, expect the new issue of WELT soon. Don't have a date for you but I hear it's on the way. My latest is sure to outrage. All I ask is if you plan on coming over with torches and pitchforks you call ahead. It's common courtesy. And be sure to see who JB is having his cuppa with this month. Here's a hint--it's a baller. That and loads more coming soon at the extremely low price of absolutely free. So keep your eyes peeled. (Not really. That would hurt.) For the new issue of WELT.

Major League Paintball Held Hostage, Day 23

VFTD also held hostage, Day 23. I know, I'm whining and yes, I disgust myself so no need to kick me while I'm down. Rumor has it JT will be/has signed up to sponsor the PSP this year in a big way. Don't know if that grapevine report is accurate or not but if I were you I wouldn't drop everything and call my broker just yet. There may be a floor for other industries and commodities but I think paintball has a basement.

APPA's front page has a link posted to the PSP's Universal Classification Program in preliminary form (as well as a graphic representation.) I hate to do it to y'all and I won't take it badly if you don't stop by tomorrow 'cus I'm gonna post some observations and questions regarding the UCP and its relation to the PSP's classification and ranking system. I may also have a go-round or three with Raehl in the comments to the Logan's Run Finale for those with masochistic urges and a desire for punishment.

Saw a tentative WCPPL schedule (of 5 or 6 events) the other day and they've scheduled around the USPL west coast events but added together it's gonna be 9 or 10 7-man events on the Left Coast this season. I know the kids were up in arms over losing 7-man (for a month or two) but when it comes time to pay the entry are they gonna love it enough to support both leagues?

Stay vigilant. Or take a nap. What could it hurt?