Format Wars

Okay, "wars" is definitely over the top but the whole topic is just plain silly. It's laughable. Deserving of ridicule. (That's where VFTD comes in.) And if that wasn't enough the proponents are positively delusional. They haven't just jumped the shark, they were jumped while they jumped the shark. (And yes, even I'm a little confused by that one.)
But as a pretense of being fair and open-minded let's first list the virtues of the glorious 7-man format. It doesn't have much of a history. It's only been a nationally recognized format since NPPL 1.0 (Pure Promotions) transplanted it stateside from Euroland circa 2003. Less than a decade. Even by paintball standards that's not very long. (Yes, 7-man was around before that, here and there, played mostly as the poor man's 10-man.) (And, maybe you can make a case that 7-man as a format and style of play continued in the tradition of 10-man--after 10-man was gone--minus 3 guys and on a field a fraction of the size. Of course for a couple of years the NPPL's 7-man was competing against the remnant of the PSP's 10-man format so, then again, maybe not so much.) But (and it's a big but) 7-man is played on a field that's longer and narrower than xball. With carwash bunkers. Can't forget the carwashes. And 7-man still has semi-auto and sneakiness. Well, except that it doesn't really. Is sneakiness a format feature? Or is it a result of no sideline coaching or crowd participation? And then there's the factoid that the recent All*Star demonstration allowed grandstand side crowd participation so ... Okay, but hey they've still got semi-auto! Capped. At 15bps and as every semi-auto aficionado knows tons of 7-man players can easily exceed the cap with their crazy fast twitching skillz. And no way to determine if the guns are ramping, bouncing, etc. Only whether or not they go over the cap. Which is a warning and/or a penalty.
Maybe the best thing about 7-man is the NPPL's willingness to change with the times. To hold on to tradition and still reach out to the majority of competitive players. Why over the last year they've considered multiple point matches, crowd participation, capped markers, shorter points and they're thinking of adding buzzers and getting rid of the flag, at least the station flags. Can bells & whistles be far behind?
And then there's the fact the rest of the world plays 7-man and if we're ever going to legitimize competitive paintball we--what? The Eurokids don't play 7-man anymore? The Asians either? They play what?!? Xball Lite? Race to 4 or 5? Really? Well, that's not very helpful, is it?
But still, at least 7-man isn't xball, right, and that's what's important.

Time to be serious for a moment. The move to capped markers is a concession to the fact the NPPL has never been able to adequately regulate guns or enforce legitimate, workable rules--until now. And anybody who spends 5 minutes at a NPPL tournament knows 98% of the guns are ramping, bouncing, adding shots, whatever you want to deny in order to rationalize the "skill" involved. (The other 2% are pumps.) The move to multiple points is a concession to the fact the outcome is both fairer and more likely to advance the better team. Everything the NPPL has done to improve their format has brought it closer to xball (Race 2). Undeniable fact. All that's left is the dimensions of the playing field and the number of players per point. So here's your compromise. Use the current PSP field dimensions as they're closer to NPPL than old xball layout. Add a few bunkers to the basic set. 4 will probably do the trick. Keep the current PSP rules regarding sideline participation and keep the spectators far enough away that all the noise is just that, noise. Field 5 guys because now isn't the time to try and force the world tournament community to change--again. And hey, we'll all go "semi-auto." Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

A Bar Too High

The fate of UK competitive paintball is being discussed over at P8ntballer--and it's of some interest--given nothing much is happening. (Although I'm beginning to seriously wonder what's become of the NPPL's attempt to engage ESPN & the next ESPN3 broadcast. I've heard a rumor or two but nothing of consequence and, as it's said, the hour approaches.) It's no doubt of considerably more interest to some of the UK kids, as well it should be. But here's the part I'm intrigued by; the path competitive paintball has followed in different countries. The UK is dominated by rental sites that cater--to the near exclusion of everything else (walk-ons, team practices, etc.)--to rental players and groups only. As a result players who became more involved and bought their own gear etc. were limited in the available outlets of play and (so it seems to me anyway) largely turned to tournament play. Or perhaps more of a Tournament Lite. Some teams, but not a lot, took it more seriously than others and trained and improved and worked their way up but many more didn't. When xball came along (including Euroland's bastard child, Xball Lite) the paradigm began to shift. With competitive paintball being transformed into sport so too the participants needed to be turned into athletes and competitors. That shift has had its effect around the paintball world. In the UK it has left competitive paintball in a shambles because a significant portion of their tourney base were really displaced recreational players. There are some who hope to turn that around but have yet to forge a viable plan for doing so.
Meanwhile, in places like Germany (where the development of paintball was almost the reverse of the UK in that tourney & team play has spawned recreational and training facilities) paintball is growing or at least solidly entrenched. The largest national league, the DPL, has around 300 teams competing around the country. What did they do to make that happen?
A few years ago Scandinavian (and particularly Swedish) tourney ball was very strong. It may well be it still is--I just don't know. But again, there's the same question of how did they organize successfully? Did the Germans follow their lead or did each follow a unique path?
There are other examples as well--and I'm very interested in the answers--because I'm inclined to think a significant factor in the decline of competitive paintball in the U.S. (at least in terms of the number of teams participating) shares some commonalities with the UK situation.

[Mix in the fact that PBIndustry policy frequently treated point of contact stores and fields like Sherman's Army marching through Georgia and we're well on our way towards a recipe for disaster.]

A bar too high. (I've mentioned this concept before so if you remember it, good for you and if not, it's new all over again.) The drive to legitimize competitive paintball as sport forced a lot of changes, first on the Pro teams--as did the routines & training of the Russian Legion. The effort to compete with the Russians forced the Pro teams to become more professional in their approach with fitness, drills, training & player development, etc. The whole attitude of the competitive side of paintball was transformed by both the conception of competitive paintball as sport and by the consequent demands it placed on teams. It raised the bar on what was required to be competitive. More money. More time. Greater commitment.
And it trickled down.
In magazine articles about the pro players and teams. In the How-To articles. In the nature of the xball format itself. In the shifting demographic skewing always younger. In the fever swamp created by the mirage of TV.

While I am foursquare behind the conception of competitive paintball as legit sport and have nothing but respect & admiration for the players and teams, regardless of current level or achievement, who are willing to make the necessary sacrifices in order to strive to be the best--it has created a gulf between the average rec baller and tournament paintball. It has raised the bar to entry so high it is driving potential players away. The transition used to be easier, smoother, less demanding. Out at our home field most every weekend you will find D5 & D4 teams grinding away. (Which, after a fashion, is pretty awesome.) They're doing drills, breakouts and scrimmaging. They are working, not playing. And where does that leave the kid or father and son who have been playing recreationally for a while and are curious about the tournament experience?

Next time I'll talk about the two tracks.

Thoughts on the layout of PSP Galveston

As most of you probably know the new PSP rules for 2011 fostered a fair amount of debate. In particular those rules that altered the playing field. It was spectacularly obvious (to some) from the get go the new rules would be a step back from the xball ethos that has, in past seasons, driven the PSP. Many suggested, including VFTD, that the new rules would slow the games down--perhaps enough to make the clock the arbiter of winning and losing more often than the Race 2 result. We will see. It is a distinct possibility given the layout the PSP has released for Galveston. The only mitigating factor is that probably more teams than not won't be able to hit the broadside of a barn off the break--or an opponent for that matter. (And it's highly questionable if the inability to hit anyone OTB will speed up or slow down any given point. That will depend on what a team does with an 'extra' body.)

Instead of the usual review that offers some tips on shooting lanes or breaks down some aspect of how a given field will play this time VFTD will explain in detail the characteristics of this layout that tend to encourage defensive play and slow overall movement. To begin note there are three colors used; orange, yellow & green. Green for example represents those nice cozy spots where one might settle down to cultivate a little garden. (I'm kidding. Sorta.)

Sticking with green that's the real point. You'll be sticking with green. The backline bunkers are the only wire feeds that may be taken OTB with relative security. They both force the player to the ground reducing visibility and making exiting the bunker that much more difficult. The snake side "new brick" has some (marginal) utility in contesting the snake. The d-side cake has less. And as long a player is contained in one or the other it will inhibit further team movement from the inside out or compel a teammate to a longer, riskier move. On the d-wire the other "new brick" might as well be a stop sign as that is the effect it will most often have as the same characteristics apply that affect the other green bunkers.

Moving on to the orange designated bunkers it should be immediately apparent 2 of the same bunkers that are green on the diagram are also orange on the opposite end of the field. That's because the bunkers are as ineffectual as defensive positions as they are as offensive launch points. From the cake it is clear that despite an inside angle the cake cannot contain or inhibit movement along the d-wire or even contest rotations from its mirror, given the distances involved. The "new brick" feeding the snake is slightly more useful in that it may inhibit some movement but will also be under heavier attack from more positions on the field much of the time. The thing to remember is that the lack of options from these bunkers will at the same time encourage the effort to push more players to the wires while also often making it more difficult to do so.

Finally the yellow designated bunkers appear to be the only tips of the hat to the hoped for influx of lumberjacks the PSP wanted to attract with the rule changes. You know, the bigger, slower, older player who played tourney ball when dinosaurs roamed the Earth. The yellow bunkers are both MTs and both positioned where they are primarily defensive in nature and any layout that virtually requires backfield bunkers to be played for extended periods of time (or in isolation) are fields that tend to neutralize any (but not all) aggressive play tendencies.

One key to this kind of field is player elevation--and, no, I don't mean levitation--I mean lines of sight and ability to respond quickly. (Bunkers a player can stand up in, or play tall.) Much of this layout wants to bury the player's nose in the ground and that tendency must be resisted. Remember communication is just an extension of what you can see. It is important to play this field as tall as possible and maintain crossfield communication.

Playing Pin the Tail on the Donkey

If you're confused by the title, no worries, it's a cultural reference to a kid's party game. I have no idea if it's even played anywhere anymore but it was when I was a kid. (Maybe when my kids were kids, too.) The idea is you put a large picture of a tailless donkey on the wall and give each child a turn at pinning a separate tail onto the donkey. The catch was you had to do it blindfolded and then you were spun around until you were dizzy and disoriented. Hilarity ensued. That's kinda how I feel about most of the efforts to "fix" competitive paintball. Even when the discussion is thoughtful and interesting--as it has been the last few days. We're outta the loop when actual decisions get made and the decision-makers are being tugged left, right and sideways desperately hoping they don't make a (nother) mistake.

The WC numbers I mentioned the other day don't prove anything. May even have multiple likely sounding explanations but what I want to do is try and broaden the picture of competitive paintball we're all looking at. In 1997 WC had 67 10-man teams. In 1998 there were 80 10-man teams. In 1999 there were 87 10-man teams. In 2000 there were 117 10-man teams. In 2001 there were over 180 10-man teams and in 2002 there were more than 210 10-man teams. This is the period of time Cup left the woods, moved to Hyperball, then Airball. Electropneumatic guns became commonplace. Xball was introduced and the NPPL split.

In 2003/2004 the PSP offered both Xball & 10-man. In 2004 the new NPPL was averaging around 170 teams an event. 2005 was the first year Xball was the stand alone headliner at Cup with only 77 xball teams & 247 5-man teams. In 2005 the NPPL averaged around 200 teams an event and by the end of 2006 Pure Promotions was looking to bail. (Rumor had it both leagues were losing money. These were also the days of the Race 2-TV.) 2006 saw 131 xball teams & 235 5-man teams participate. 2007 was the peak for xball teams at 160 with a 10% drop in 5-man teams to 212. 2008 had 138 xball teams & 195 5-man teams. (In Pacific Paintball's worst year they had more teams competing on average per event than the latest incarnation of the USPL/NPPL.) 2009 saw xball decline to its second lowest stand alone total of 125 along with still shrinking 5-man total of 183. 2010 had 134 xball teams while 5-man fell off the table dropping to 118. There's some facts & figures. Here's some more.

Bottom drops out on years of streaking growth as industry sales go flat. Fall of 2006 the PMI/NPS merger is engineered creating KEE. Jarden buys K2 in 2007 after K2 struggles with the paintball division it began putting together with the Brass Eagle purchase in what, 2003. By 2006 unification talks between the the two major leagues isn't a whispered rumor but an annual event on the end of season calendar as an intransigent industry demands action yet refuses to back one league or the other despite claiming dire economic consequences.

Since I'm running long I'll leave the analysis of the data to y'all--for now. And I'll pick it up again first of next week.

PSP PHX '10: The Twin Towers

I am going to revisit a comment I made in the laning post for this layout in the next to last paragraph and offer a fuller explanation. Specifically this: (This includes routinely filling the MTs as the result is a predominantly defensive posture that won't allow teams to push the wires if they drop a body. It will also tend to overextend the lead wire player as it will lead to an inability on one side or the other to fill the voids anytime the lead player is eliminated.)

This is not an attempt to talk you (or anyone else) out of playing those bunkers because I know lots of teams will and that's fine. Given the typical skill levels exhibited in the lower divisions a defensive strategy is frequently effective because it is less demanding of the individual players and puts the other team in the position of needing to be demonstrably better all around--or else points devolve into two defensive-oriented squads hosing away at each other hoping to shoot somebody before they get shot. [And on this basis alone the move to raise the ROF will undoubtedly retard the development of some percentage of lower div players.]

My interest here is in discussing why dependence on the MTs is a tactical error, all things otherwise being equal. The attached diagram of the layout identifies the MTs and Home with red. Other likely breakout primaries are marked with yellow and the same side of the field transition bunkers are marked with green. The colors are intended for quick reference and to help visualize coming points. Red indicates primary spots taken in a common breakout using the MTs. Yellow indicates other primary options that are initially neutral but become defensive positions if the opponent is forcing the action. Early on green represents a first stage offensive push.

In any breakout using the pair of MTs as primaries the likelihood is the MT players will initially be inside the shooting zone and/or shifting to positions similar to B & I shown on the laning post diagram of the layout. This will tend to push both wire players to a limited number of primary options and on the D-side in particular will consistently expose that player to running the same lanes over and over. (On this layout that outcome is hard to avoid regardless but is particularly risky when playing both MTs.) The only tactical discretion that remains is whether the Home shooter has a specific rotation to make or is simply looking to fill should one wire or the other be eliminated. Among other things this becomes extremely predictable. Even the most aggressive breakout option utilising both MTs will seldom, if ever, push more than two players out to a wire. The immediate impact is twofold; basic breakouts employing the two towers put a premium on your laning for effect (as failure gives up the wide gun as often as not) and maximizes the impact of any wide rotation losses you take (because there is no one left to fill the spot.)

Once the breakout is accomplished there are only two options moving into the mid-game transition; Home player makes a pre-planned rotation to one wire or the other, or, Home player waits to fill if/when a wire player is eliminated. In the first case one wire player at least gains support but conversely the other wire is isolated. And eliminations of the wire players give up both angles and open the field deep into the defensive team's side of the field with only the inside guns of the MTs (and possibly Home) to contest control. Additionally wide eliminations without immediate attempts to fill put the defensive team at risk of pressure up the middle of the field.

Of course eliminations off the break will change the dynamics of how a point plays out but my basic point stands. Playing both the MTs is fundamentally a defensive game plan that puts extra pressure on your wings to stay alive and offers them little when its time to shift to offense. Do the MTs have a role on this layout? Yes. Should they be relied on or figure prominently in any game plan? No.

There's plenty more to all this but as usual I'm going long. If there are any specific questions don't hesitate to ask and I won't hesitate to try and answer.

PSP PHX '10: Laning Off The Break

Normally I don't do this prior to an event we are playing but in this case it's a more complex "problem" than usual and I don't expect I'll be giving anything away to our competition--and even if I do it will still come down to players, plans and execution.

Keep in mind that ideally the lanes chosen are consistent with team goals and not simply picked by the player(s) randomly or because it's a more 'comfortable' option; ie, I can't do that 'cus I'll get shot so let me shoot over there instead. The lack of a unified effort on this layout will prove particularly counterproductive in a match with a real team. (And, yes, if you're wondering I am suggesting there are plenty of 'teams' that aren't really teams in a meaningful sense.)

Inside the half circle on the diagram is the basic shooting zone. I've chosen some spots but the available lanes aren't limited to the spots. Anywhere within the zone offers most of the same lanes. On the d-side of the field the home shooter has limited lanes and minimal control of the wire. This is where A, B & C come into play as players delay their move to their primaries in order to lane first. A & C are moderately high risk which is where E & I become options. E represents player movement up field with the option to shoot a moving lane to either side of the field and I is positioned in the nearest TCK in order to shoot a cross field corner and D1 lane. The problem in relying on I is that you remove a gun from the snake side of play otb.

Regarding the snake side, while it is more open to effective laning options, it is still possible and important to make your opponent prove their laning ability. And once again relying on crossfield lanes will weaken your initial efforts on the opposite side otb. (A d-side shooter [A or B] in those positions is a d-side player on that point but is, in a sense, out of the play during the critical initial seconds so the effort to shoot the crossfield lane leaves that player playing catch up. So while it's a good lane there is a real trade off.) Additionally, players shooting lanes from outside the shooting zone will require time to reach their spots and this is where your team speed can come into play. It is important to make solid judgments in practice about actual degree of risk involved in the various breaks you attempt and to have alternative options planned in advance.

The core complication is how to mix your laning options so that you consistently put paint through the critical lanes without getting caught inside the shooting zone or simply inside generally after your opponent is wide and denying outside rotations. (This includes routinely filling the MTs as the result is a predominantly defensive posture that won't allow teams to push the wires if they drop a body. It will also tend to overextend the lead wire player as it will lead to an inability on one side or the other to fill the voids anytime the lead player is eliminated.)

Hopefully this will give some teams a good place to start preparing fo Phoenix. If you would like additional information or have a specific related question put it up in comments and I'll (probably) be happy to take a stab at an answer.

PSP Chicago OTB

Here it is, mostly. I left a couple of minor options out just for the sake of clarity. All the lanes given in blue represent the possibility of a running & gunning (or moving) lane though they needn't be in every situation. The red lanes are essentially fixed position lanes that are shoot, then move.
Starting with the blue and A I'll take the lanes in alphabetical order.

A: Is a step off the board using the pins to block in order to get a quick lane up for a snake runner (or the snake wire temple.)

B: Can be (and often is) the follow-up position for the A lane shooter. Alternatively OTB a deep position can be taken up that allows the shooter to lane the snake side gap while stepping into the B position.

C: Is an alternate cross field contain lane option that does a couple of things. It lets the B position player play wide on the D-side while setting the C (pin) player up to wrap on a home shooter and rotate into the 40 D-side dorito or the X. Additionally, A can shoot the lane and move to C while B shoots wide then switches for cross field lane control.

D: Is a step off the board cross field lane on the D-side break. It's an option that mixes up the angles and shooters and allows for a snake side heavy break while protecting against a strong OTB push D-side. D is also the first step in the progression D, E & F. In that capacity the D shooter can lane inside/outside the snake dorito, into the fingers or wider.

E: Is a gun up holding spot that allows for an extra lane but also allows the shooter to delay, evaluate the opposition's break, and then respond accordingly with the option to feed wide or upfield.

F: Both snake side pins are playable and playing them up tight is a variation on E. If a player can get small the wide pin is well protected from most shooters with the best out of line-of-sight lane being to bounce paint off the inner pin. Otherwise E offers many of the same lanes and if/when heavy pressure holds up movement playing in tight is a very playable option.

G: Is the primary option on effectively laning inside the D-can. This can be a simple sweep the gun up on the horn and/or step up into home while holding the lane. G also gives very quick shots to multiple lanes on both sides of the field but carries the downside of an exposed shooter to any edging gun.

H: Similar to D in terms of the available lanes except H offers a solid lane inside the snake dorito. H is also primarily a hold, shoot (delay) then cut out to a primary option. A good choice for a delayed corner runner or even a delayed snake runner.

I & J: standard home shooting positions and the available lanes.

These OTB lanes leave out straight Run & Gun options but otherwise reflects 90% of all the lanes we used in Chicago and should (hopefully) offer some more ideas for the developing Xball player. (Or else it will show you how clever you already are. And what could be better than that?)

New Look Pro

At last--it's New Look Pro. (About time too.) While the focus will be the on field playing of the game it's nearly impossible to completely separate from the business & politics of the game.
I'm writing this based on a couple of assumptions. That the PSP has an interest in maintaining a pro division that serves as the pinnacle of competition paintball. And, that the ultimate goal remains the mainstreaming of competition paintball. (Or, as I prefer, the "selling" of paintball.) Even if there is now a willingness to take a more incremental approach than in the past. You know, actually build the game.
It will be interesting--to me anyway--to see what comes out of the Vegas meeting (apparently not everything that happens in Vegas stays in Vegas) with respect to the pro game and the rumored semi-pro or open division. The news could also be exciting or disappointing or horrifying.
Four issues strike me as being most significant. One (1), changes to the actual on field competition. Two (2), changes to the rules (ROF & penalties for example) and/or practices of the PSP. Three (3), the 'lost' generation of players who may be too good to play. Four (4), the relationship, if any, that the league fosters with the pro teams.
Regarding point 3 there already exists a lost generation of players. Back in July I discussed the issue as it related to D1 here, here and here. And with the prospect of a single national league and a limited (locked?) pro division there exists the potential for a glut of pro ranked players looking for a place to play. I expect this to be addressed by either adding a new division or turning D1 back to an Open division. The core problem is that if the issue isn't handled well the league may end up squandering the skills and motivation to compete of a lot of players [who also have the potential to make a valuable contribution to the game]--and unintentionally send a counterproductive message to all the lower division teams--your motivation and desire to be the best you can be will drive you out of our league.
Point 4 is the critical issue. How it is addressed, or if it is addressed, will be reflected in the choices made related to points one and two. Last year's changes proved less than effective for a couple of reasons. One reason was a miscalculation of what would make a real difference and the second was because no decision made last off season altered in any significant way the relationship of the pro teams to the league--it remained fundamentally adversarial. (That's a 'loaded' term but I don't mean to attach any negative connotation.) In my view that miscalculation was a direct result of the nature of the relationship. It is also my view that until the relationship is altered many of the changes that will be made (or have been made) will not serve their intended purpose.
Regarding point 1 the relevant aspect here is do choices made now lock the league (and the teams and the players) into a version of not-gonna-call-it-xball-anymore that is less than optimum? And is less a showcase of the sport and just generally less. Less may be unavoidable for the time being but my concern is that these choices will be put forward as beneficial to the teams but will only result in compromising the potential of the game.
Point 2 is mostly a subset of 1 but is also intended to cover stuff like the release of field layouts, etc. The pertinent question with any changes made in this category is do they benefit only the league or only the teams or some combination. Another area of concern is that the league sees a need to economize and in that process simply shifts some additional burden to the teams either unintentionally or in the guise of helping them. For example the changes made last year reduced field time for most lower div teams with no changes or increases in cost. Or the NXL maintaining their operational decisions on the backs of the competing teams even with a substantially altered game.
As to how this plays out on the field an xball lite variant at the pro level will result in lost strategic and tactical options. [I'll explain how another time.] It will almost certainly also result in more cautious, less exciting play and increase the potential for poor officiating to impact the outcome of matches.

Once the official announcements are made the VFTD will break them down in detail but until then it's difficult to be more specific.

Informal Survey

Subject: early release of field layouts prior to events
(It isn't your imagination. I am, once again, returning to a topic already covered to one degree or another. This will be the final word, for now. If you're wondering what compulsion moves me to this sorta behavior; it's the kids. Mine and the gaggle of paintball players I routinely deal with most weekends. Somehow it is never enough to hear a thing once. They must have everything repeated over and over so it has become my habitual practice. And your curse.)
The reason given for releasing the layouts early is to encourage teams to practice at paintball fields that have the up-to-date xball bunkers and can setup the latest layout. [Which always sounded to me like some quid pro quo arrangement with Adrenaline Games and not a terribly serious reason. Where, after all, is an xball team going to practice if not on an xball field whether they have a specific layout or not?]
In my informal World Cup survey--sounds authoritative, doesn't it?--most field owners I asked about it thought it did one of two things. A) made no real difference, or, B) tended to swamp them with teams ONLY when the layout was available. What B means is that for fields catering to tourney teams the field release practice has created cycles in their business; heavy use near an event and little or no use (from the teams) the rest of the time. Owners answering A didn't really cater to teams.
This is anecdotal, limited in scope and completely unscientific but it makes sense. Teams have limited resources so releasing layouts early only encourages them to practice when they can optimize their efforts and play the event layout. Contrary to its claimed purpose this ain't helpful to fields investing in xball bunkers and annual upgrades.
It remains an open question how NOT releasing the layouts would effect local field business but there are quality of play, player development, and player skill set implications as well. Think on that for a bit. I will be addressing the issue in an upcoming post called Robots versus Ninjas.

Saving Xball

The title may strike you as a bit over the top, a little hyperbolic and it probably is but I tend to prefer my reality toward the pessimism side of the spectrum. What isn't hyperbole however is the fact that xball still costs wheelbarrows full of our increasingly devalued dollars and the steps taken last off season to mitigate expenses (for the pros) wasn't sufficient.
So, I'm gonna start harping again on one of the suggestions I made last year around this time for helping to reduce cost to compete at the pro level. (I'm leaving out of this the whole Pro Circuit and the details in the follow up Pro Paradigm--which will post later today--as they aren't essential elements for this particular cost reducing suggestion.)
STOP RELEASING THE PRO FIELD LAYOUT IN ADVANCE OF THE TOURNAMENT. (No, I'm not yelling, just being forceful.)
How does that reduce costs, you ask? (Even if you didn't ask I'm gonna tell you.) Not only will it most likely reduce cost but it will also have added extra benefits by way of intended consequences. (As opposed to those pesky unintended consequences which usually don't turn out so well.)
The current preparation standard is to scrimmage another team or run points on the event layout both of which churn ungodly amounts of paint. (We usually burn 80-100 cases a weekend doing that.) No layout and everyone has to re-think how to prepare for an event. The focus becomes not learning every detail of a specific field but in developing players ability to understand and exploit all sorts of different possibilities. This can be done with considerably less commitment to blazin' paint. And in the process you create a player with the mental skill set of the Old Skoolers and the physical skill set of the xball generation.
The result is refocusing on skills and teaching how to bring those skills into play without the necessity of shooting millions of balls and coupled with the new flexibility in field design would mean that at events you would see teams playing to their particular strengths and matches would be not only a match of skills but of styles.
The argument offered last time around against this suggestion was that local fields have purchased xball fields and without the layouts there's no guarantee anybody plays them specifically--but think on that for a second--
If you are an xball team what kind of field are you going to train on? Does it really matter that you don't have the layout? I don't think it does but if the PSP is still concerned then the simple answer is to make the NXL field layout different from the divisional layout.
Okay, so maybe it won't save any pro teams but it might and it's still a good idea.

PSP D1

The title is something of a misnomer as the solution to "fixing" D1 extends beyond D1 into the other am brackets, current classification system and the PSP's pricing & prizes system. In brief it goes like this: modify pricing so that it is a neutral factor in a team's decision-making process; modify prizes to reward accomplishment and encourage superior competition; allow for more fluid player movement through the classification system up and down; add a new Xball bracket, D4.
Now for the how and why. As the league currently functions D3 is the entry bracket, a catch-all for brand new to Xball teams and teams that have been playing 5-man Xball and every permutation in-between. For example, as of this writing the NEO has registered 13 first timers for D3 or more than 25%. In Chicago it was 25 of 58 or over 40% that were first timers in D3 Xball for that event. At the same time classification rules state that a player appearing on 2 or more D3 rosters will be classified D2. If that means cumulative rosters then every player in D3, regardless of aptitude or success who plays more than 2 events has to move up (or in rarer cases remain as part of the limited allowance for higher ranked players.) This is NOT a player or team friendly construction. It forces players (and teams) up regardless of ability and should routinely result in swelling the ranks of D2--so where are all the former D3's? So right now you and your team decide to play as many PSP D3 events as you can in the coming season. The result is you manage 4 events, are never close to playing Sunday and for your effort and trouble all your players will be ranked D2 in the future. Does this make any sense? Not to me, it doesn't.
Which leads us to D4 Xball. D4 becomes a true entry level to Xball division and D3 becomes functionally a leaner, more competitive division. As to how D4 works try this: all APPA classification rules apply for players with any history so new to PSP teams that nonetheless don't qualify for D4 must begin at D3. Movement through the division is not based on a random value of time served but on merit or team/player choice. Any team that wins a D4 event is immediately reclassed D3 for any subsequent events. As a result D3 becomes a division to strive to attain for some, a more competitive bracket all around and teams that aren't ready for D3 have a place to develop and a league that encourages their participation instead of enforcing obstacles to their development. This also means there is no good reason for the wholesale shoveling of D3 players into D2 and the consequent prodding of D2 players into D1. A D4 division removes the need for aggressive compulsory player movement that is, IMHO, completely out of tune with player skill levels, committment and the development of teams.
Let's move on to pricing. D1 - D3 entries should be priced the same. What teams are paying for is the opportunity to compete on a national level. The league provides the same services to all. The "new" D4 is offered at a reduced rate to encourage participation and because the prizes in D4 are tokens only.
Prizes must be awarded in all competitive brackets but should also reflect degree of difficulty and/or level of accomplishment. This one is difficult to assess. Currently the league pays out around 43K an event, regardless of participation, to divisional Xball. And I'm sure the league prefers prizes to be a fixed expense and I imagine many of the teams do too but I can't help wondering what impact it would have if the league instituted a prize floor (minimum guaranteed) and then allowed for a rising percentage of entries per division to go toward matching or exceeding the floor. For example, around 10% (if I remember my calculations correctly) of D3 entries end up in the prize pool given the average number of competing teams while at D1 it's above 60%. If the higher divisions offered the potential of a higher percentage return on entries I wonder if it wouldn't help motivate voluntary upward movement. Just a thought.
Okay, I've gone long again so I'll save classification for next time as it's the toughest nut to crack.