Inside the Merger Talk & Rumorology

Actually not so much really. At least not enough to merit that post title but it got your heart racing, didn't it? (Most of you excited, fewer of you horrified.) [I'd gladly apologize for leading you on except of course I'm not sorry 'cus I think it's kinda funny. In an admittedly cruel sorta way.] Rumor has it stuff like revisiting ROF and notions like limited paint have been part of the discussions. And I don't mind saying I find it a little disconcerting. Mostly because too many of the people at the table have no business being there unless you count enormous egos, entrenched opinions and self-interested motives as appropriate first principles. Did I sugarcoat that too much? Do I need to be more forthright? Was that really necessary? Naw, but I enjoyed it--and frankly, it's the truth. Hey, I always say once you start digging a hole, dig it deep!

As you might have guessed the real subject is paint usage. And as it happens I have some numbers available. But first I want to offer for the record, again, that there is no data that supports changing the ROF as a paint saving measure. (We've had ROF changes based on the notion that it will trickle down to local recreational fields and/or that it will lower the threshold to tourney entry. How's that worked out? We've had the PSP change their ROF three times and if there's any data to demonstrate those changes made any quantifiable difference in paint usage I haven't heard about it.) Now of course if the change is substantial enough, 12 bps to Billy Ball, yes, there will be lower paint consumption as a result. But with that significant a change you're also playing a different game too.
Uncertain? Other paint usage factors include pack size, pod size, (total paint carried) bunker placement & game time. Without taking the other factors into account how can anyone categorically say--and possibly change the game again--on the basis the change will somehow save paint. Will it really? If so, how much? And what consideration is being given to potential peripheral consequences? If you really want to save paint leave the ROF alone and open up the OTB shooting lanes. If laners OTB increase their kill percentages you are guaranteed to save paint. First that eliminated player won't be shooting the paint on his back and when you remove 20% or more of your opponent's players off the bat the game transitions into a close almost immediately. Of course doing that may not make the current player base particularly happy, but hey, it saved paint.
The same applies to limited paint--which is a practice already in place. Everybody plays with limited paint. What is meant is a restricted by rule limit to the maximum paint allowed on the field at any one time. However, depending on just how limited an amount of paint is being discussed it will, without any doubt, alter the nature and play of the game. In the lower divisions this isn't necessarily a bad thing but it would a terrible decision at the pro level as it would dumb down the game considerably. (See the link to an old post below which discusses this in more detail.)
And now for the numbers I promised. For the sake of round numbers let's say the current ROF is 12. Let's also agree that a hopper (loader) holds 180 paintballs. And let's use D1/D2 Race 2 format of a 15 minute game Race 2-5. The game parameters then is fifteen minutes of game time or first team to 5 points with a max number of 9 points played per match. At 12 bps a player could conceivably shoot 10800 paintballs in 15 minutes. A team of 5 could shoot 54000 paintballs. In practice that potential is limited by the number of pods a player carries. If we assume an average of 7 pods--which is probably a little high--plus hopper a 5-man squad is carrying 5100 paintballs; around 2 and one half cases. How often does a team shoot that much paint in a point? (Almost never.) And what are the game conditions that promote heavy paint use?
At 12 bps a player empties his hopper in 15 seconds. At 10 bps the same player empties the same hopper in 18 seconds. Is that 3 seconds a hopper fill going to save paint? (No.) Does it reduce the amount of paint in hand? (No.)
Take a moment and revisit the PSP Galveston event where an attempt was made to both encourage older, fatter, slower players into coming back to tourney play along with a field layout that would promote faster points. (Faster points equal less paint shot per point potentially.) How did that work out? My point isn't that the league screwed up. My point is that making singular changes alone, especially the ones being discussed, are unlikely to achieve the results desired unless the change is so dramatic it changes the game too--and even when an effort was made to "improve" the pace of play the desired results didn't occur because even with the best intentions and best efforts the complexity of the game wasn't properly evaluated or understood.
The last thing a newly unified league needs is a host of changes the results of which can't be predicted with anything like certainty.
For more on ROF and its relationship to how the game is played today read this post from the archives. (I'm feeling more lazy than usual today and didn't feel like repeating myself. Again.)

In other rumorology there's lots of behind-the-scenes talk about the off season musical chairs of pro players already--along with some speculation about the future of a few pro teams as well. It's too soon to start talking names and details because as far as I know nothing (much) has been finalized just yet. But as soon as these rumors start turning into near factoids I'm sure Mr. Curious will have the skinny. (And I don't mean Kevin.) Okay, here's a taste; could be some Ironmen on the move and apparently Yaya is dialling up a serious phone bill calling ballers.

Back on My Hobby Horse

Remember Galveston? And VFTD's predictions regarding how the PSP's annual-we-must-make-changes-in-order-to-save-paintball would turn out? Yeah, well, I'm not satisfied with being right once because frankly it hasn't made (enough of) a difference so I'ma do what I always do--continue to bludgeon ignorance into submission with the Baca stick. In the case of the PSP it's my stubborn determination to help the PSP be the best it can be. Sometimes despite itself. Really. (Love you, Lane. No homo.)
Anyway, the plan is simple. VFTD will be charting all matches played in the multi-point format once known as (watered down) xball. (At Galveston more than half of all matches went to time despite the fact the great majority were Race 2-4.) After taking a look at the Chicago layout I see no reason to suspect there will be a different outcome this time around. (Why, btw, was it released on a Wednesday when the oft-stated pre-season change-to-save-paintball was that official field releases would occur on the Thursday prior to the event? I know, it's just a day but how hard is it to consistently do what you say you're gonna do?)
For those outta the loop here's the deal. The longer field matters, in part, because the number of props hasn't changed. Bigger props were supposed to be close to Home to help out the bigger, slower, fatter player the league was trying to entice back into the game and the upshot of the collective changes was supposed to be a more inviting game to a wider pool of potential players. (While I understand conceptually it was never going to work that way in practice.) As a practical matter it was only going to slow matches, extend points, use more paint & generally be less exciting. To make that point after the fact VFTD charted match results.
To sum up: early release & (apparently) those bigger, fatter, slower players are no longer of interest. Even so, it won't change the outcome at all. Results posted after the event--maybe even during. Watch the webcast and enjoy the pro matches. (Trust me, some of those won't be pretty either.)

Burning Question

Hey APPA, how many first time i.d.'s were issued at Galveston and how many were issued to players 30 and older compared to Phoenix last year? Isn't that the sort of data the league should have already requested APPA determine to help evaluate the effectiveness of the older, fatter, slower rule changes? How 'bout sharing with us?
After all the point wasn't to turn Race 2-X into Snooze 2-2 (or 3). And it wasn't to shoot a third (or more) more paint--yet here we are. And if anyone at the PSP is thinking of raising the ROF in order to compensate, don't.

Millennium 2011 (so far)

Just when you begin to believe there are things in this world you can count on, like police brutality, that lowbrow celebrity culture can't sink any lower and that the MS will find a way to screw up (again) something happens to turn your world upside down. The Millennium announced their latest changes for the 2011 season and--and (I can't believe I'm saying this) it doesn't look half bad. Regular readers know I enjoy taking shots, cheap or otherwise, at the MS and while it has often been like shooting fish in a barrel I have no shame. The easier the better. Of course I could say something about the pompous know-it-all members of the board who think Paintball owes them a special debt of gratitude or about the interpersonal skills of Obersturmbannfuhrer (Ulrich Stahr) Klinkenhoffer but what would be the point? Okay, other than a cheap laugh. Which is its own reward. While I might have done some things differently the MS's moves this time around merit a real discussion. (The post title links to the press release.)
I like the concept behind the longer term additions, the assorted Cups (Ladies, Youth & Nations) under the auspices of the EPBF & national federations. And I'm looking forward to hearing more about how it will work. Given the way the majority of sports are organized in Europe this move looks like a sensible, progressive measure aimed at helping build the essential structures of a recognized sport while laying the foundation for continued cooperation between the MS and developing federations.
The relative centralization of events with a second Paris-area event makes sense and could be a real plus if it measures up to the claims being made about the location.
Regarding format and game play changes it's kind of a mixed bag. Removing the designated coach from the spectator sideline doesn't remove "coaching;" it simply moves it into the crowd. Maybe that's enough but if it isn't the MS will need to consider some means of enforcing whatever it is they're trying to accomplish. On the other hand, unlike the PSP, it allows the players to remain actively involved from inside the pit area.
EDIT: [Widening the field ... ] For no reason I can fathom I assumed the stated change in field dimension widened the field. (I didn't even check the math.) It doesn't. It narrows the field marginally, from 125 ft. to the current PSP 120 ft. Given the actual nature of the change it's not a particularly consequential move. It probably could have been implemented with no one the wiser. Unlike the changes made to D3's format which will better serve as a Race 2 transitional format between M5 and full on Race 2-4 than the quasi-Race 2 played last season. And lastly there is what the league will continue to do; release the event layout 4-5 weeks in advance. My argument on this issue stands; it will force a battered CPL to continue scrimmaging the layout while driving the pre-event demands down the divisions just like it has in the U.S. With similar results, declining numbers of lower division participation. It will also, in time, prove advantageous to the ongoing development of U.S players over Euro players just as the gap was beginning to close. Even so, agree or disagree, it appears that across the board the MS has taken a thoughtful and measured approach to change this off season. Still the devil is in the details and we don't know some of those just yet.

Finally there are a couple of items that haven't been addressed yet. The May MS event overlaps the May NPPL event. Does that mean the MS doesn't expect a Dynasty team to compete this season? And if not that would be a sixth CPL team loss between the 2010 and 2011 seasons. Is there a chance the MS won't relegate any CPL teams this year because of the extra openings? Will SPL & D1 remain locked divisions? And on a related topic does the MS plan to do anything about U.S. pros filling roster spots down into D2? Inquiring minds want to know.

NPPL 2011

I don't know about you but I'm (temporarily) tired of talking about the PSP--so it really doesn't matter whether you are or not. I'd like to have something to talk about when it comes to the other guys, NPPL & MS, but they are both laying low right now. I do have a pdf from the fevered imagination of the Millennium's marketing collective that couldn't be more disconnected from reality if it had been written by a long-time opium addict. (Yes, it's the 2011 sponsorship package.)

Otherwise all I've got is the NPPL capping "semi-auto" at 15 bps & the new bunkers, cubes and big wedges. Whoop-dee-freaking-doo. Oh, and the NPPL has put out hard dates for their complete 2011 schedule of events. The locations are the same as last year's but there's nothing wrong with that as the season opens with the now traditional Huntington Beach, Chitown at Challenge Park outside Joliet (IL) Pev's in Aldie (VA) and Vegas. The one thing I do notice is that none of the events occur during the summer. April, May, September & November? What? There's almost 4 months between events two and three. I'm mildly surprised that the can't-wait-for-the-new-NPPL-season-to-get-started crowd--yes, that's sarcasm--hasn't uttered a peep about the weird break in the season. Of course the NPPL crowd are pretty laid back. PSP changes one bunker and all hell breaks loose with local fields across the country practically bursting into flames with the news; the NPPL changes two bunkers including the "new" family-sized wedge and a couple of stoners notice and go, "Whoa. Cool, dudes." Then again there are so few NPPL fields around the country the impact across the paintball community is negligible. Regarding the capped gun thing nobody seems too put out by that one either. Oh, sure there's a few lamenting the loss of their trigger pulling skill 'cause they can pull 18-20 easy--but if it helps the league with enforceable gun rules--well, okay. We don't yet know how the league intends to enforce their cap but they'll get around to it. Right?

There is one other thing that interests me. Could too much success put the NPPL in the PSP's predicament? Part of the PSP's current problems are a product of scale; how many teams must play in order for an event to be profitable? The NPPL 3.0 has, from Day 1, been looking to mimic some of the elements of the PSP like the regional affiliates. They are also making an effort to expand their reach but what if Huntington Beach registrations push the league beyond two fields? To three or four even. Is that necessarily a good thing?
If NPPL 3.0 were to go to a best of 3 (Race 2-2) format that would put the two major leagues that much closer given the changes in store for the PSP in 2011. (From what I hear it may happen for the Pros but is unlikely for the lower divisions which may have something to do with the logistics of running Race 2-2 on two fields. It hasn't been easy to run the Race format as a 3 day event for the PSP.)

Older, Fatter, Slower, Round 2

The PSP has gotten such a positive response to their off season changes it seems the NPPL has decided to emulate at least one of them by changing their bunker set. (Link is in the title.) The U is gone as are 2 Cakes and 1 Small dorito. In their place two 5 foot cubes and two 8x8x5 foot wings (triangles). Independent of the other changes this may work out fine and the new bunkers may prove popular but I can't help viewing this with a jaundiced eye. (I wasn't always so cynical. Oh, who am I trying to kid, of course, I'm cynical.) Look, here's how the league press release reads, "The goal is to provide larger bunkers on the field making it harder to get eliminations off the break and promote longer games." What that means is hey, we want all those old, fat & slow players to come play NPPL instead of PSP. If they really wanted to make it harder to eliminate players OTB then don't let anybody shoot OTB. Simple. Or have a no laning zone around the start bunker so that no one can shoot until they are outside the no shooting zone. And seriously whose idea was this really? C'mon, the leagues are not driving these bunker changes. The manufacturer is and the leagues go along with it.
What's next? Widen the field 10 feet on each side? Allow pit-side coaching?

UPDATE: I have been taken to task for being somewhat too cynical and all-inclusive in my closing comments. In the interests of accuracy I need to clarify a couple of points. Chuck initiated the NPPL bunker changes this year as the league decided to get rid of the enormous U. The specifics were decided in a dialogue between the league and the manufacturer.
Additionally the argument was made that some modest changes are good in general in that it gives players new shapes to learn how to play and provides fresh creative inspiration. Which I think is a fair argument to make in favor of regular change. Otherwise I will stand by my claim that the prime mover in adding, changing, modifying the bunker sets is the manufacturer and I'll leave it you to decide if that's a good, bad or in-between thing.

PSP 2011: Rumor Edition

I had a perfectly good post almost ready to go and then the phone started ringing. Have you seen ProPaintball's latest? It seems the kids at ProPaintball have a scoop or a balloon, of the trial variety. Either way, it's going to raise a ruckus. (First ever appearance of the word, "ruckus", on VFTD.) Seems someone has leaked some proposed details of what the PSP may, or may not, be considering for 2011. I suggest it is very likely a trial balloon (an intentional leak) simply because the circle of people having any say in what the PSP does is a small one. The only other alternative is a legit leak from someone in the know breaking trust or else it's complete rubbish fit only for the smackbox--and since that isn't where it was posted ... A number of the rumored elements have been discussed for a long time and aren't really anything new. So what do the rumors amount to?
Beginning at the beginning rumor 1 & 2 are what I've taken to calling 'The Amodea Solution' as the suggestion was made a few months ago by John Amodea of X3 magazine to enlarge the playing fields and add larger bunkers towards the back of the field in the hopes of reconnecting with an older more affluent group of players. Despite what I know will be the impact on the play of the game I would support such a move if there was any reason to believe it will work. Does any such group of players actually exist today? Playing scenario maybe? The number of competing teams back when the PSP transitioned from 10-man to Xball doesn't hint at it unless they are some very patient ex-10-man players. Even so, it might be worth a trial period to see what happens.
It has been suggested some local fields will be ill-equipped to add twenty feet of length. It could happen but field dimensions have changed numerous times in the last dozen years and I can't recall any previous outcry. What exactly, while I'm at it, is the PSP's responsibility?
What will happen is not hard to predict. Dimension and design changes will tend to make fields more defense-oriented with wider open lanes and less middle of the field play. The result will be slower game play--potentially much slower game play. It would be a real step backwards for the pro division.
Now about that trial period. How about from D3 down? After all, what classification are these wished for older more affluent players likely to have or receive? If the PSP wants to see if there might be some advantage to the Amodea Solution go ahead and give it a try where the bulk of the "new" players would likely play and where the effects of the change will impact the play of the game the least.
Next on the list is the elimination of pit side coaching. Right now in divisional play the pit side coach is the primary coach and can roam along the net to the fifty, or thereabouts. On the pro field we can't move past the end of the pit. I'm assuming here the object is to try an attract all those teams out there deadset against coaching. Except, again, how many of them are there really? Is the NPPL full of them? Is the NPPL full? And what about the snake side coaching? What's the point of trying to turn the pit side into a tennis match when there's still snake side coaching and a noisy crowd supporting the competing teams? Is a half measure really gonna change anything beyond pissing off the regulars? And how is this going to be enforced? Are the referees going to start calling penalties for off the field actions that will penalize on field play? Really? For the six guys on the internet who will never play if there's coaching?
Finally we come to a move that makes sense--one that I've been advocating for years. Don't release the field layout early. Versions of my case in favor of no release are here & here.
Lastly, rumored event locations in Phoenix and Riverside. Cool. If the league can or will improve their bottom line with new locations more consistent with the economic realities I'm on board. Hopefully they will work out. Until we see them it's hard to offer a real opinion.

Larger field: (neutral-ish)
Bigger bunkers oriented toward the back: (poor)
Eliminate pit side coaching: (huh?)
No field release: (excellent)
Cumulative: (a step back)

UPDATE: Seems the PSP via their website and Facebook are confirming the posted rumors on ProPaintball. That has pushed me to re-write some of this post. (I left in my initial speculation so you'd know what I was thinking.)

No Easy Answers

Is not an excuse for failing to look for answers. It's a recognition of reality. In comments to The Monday Poll post this week raehl suggested uncapped semi-auto hopperball and Don (tongue in cheek, if not firmly) suggested no batteries equals true semi-auto. My purpose here isn't to dissect the merits of either suggestion but rather to point out two or three factors in play when we try to "solve" various of the presumed "problems" with competitive paintball using their suggestions as a springboard.

Arc of Development
James Naismith invented basketball but nobody sets up peach baskets at either end of the floor anymore. In fact the dimensions of the modern competitive game aren't always uniform depending on the level of play. And nobody playing football eschews the forward pass today because it wasn't part of the original game or utilizes the wing T formation much anymore beyond a few high schools--and even they may have moved on. My point is simple; the game is constantly evolving and it's difficult, if not impossible, to resist. MLB has held a line with wooden bats and NASCAR uses restrictor plates on some circuits but even well-established sports aren't immune.

Arc of Technology
Much of the driving force behind changes in competitive paintball has been technology. (And behind the technology is the ever present desire to make a buck. D'oh!) While technology itself is neutral it easily and often outpaces our ability to consider the end result. Producers are looking to profit. Ultimately the players, collectively, decide if it's something they want or not. Sorta. In the long term. In the short term the balance can be tipped to favor the producers. And thru much of competitive paintball's short history that has occurred because producers also controlled the competitive game. Including the rules. And as technology has bumped up against the rules it is the rules that have changed to accommodate technology with, as far as I can tell, virtually no concern for the outcome. However, (for whatever consolation it might be) regardless of how some might choose to apportion blame within this process changing technologies are an unavoidable factor and will eventually find a balance between the producers and the users

The Will of the Players
Despite the fact most of you are sheep y'all eventually get around to only buying and playing the brand of paintball you really want to. Mostly. For purposes of this post that means the 13 year old who kinda sorta wants to play tourney ball doesn't want to play hopperball or some variant of low ROF. And it doesn't matter if he only thinks that's what he wants. And it's not some PBIndustry conspiracy that there are high ROF Spyders & Tippmanns or tons of DMs and Egos out in the woods. Players are buying and shooting the guns (goggles, packs, hoppers, etc.) they want to. Sure the choices have limitations but as long as there are choices players will do what they want--including quitting playing paintball.

Nothing Happens in Isolation
Decisions are like dominoes, one leads to the next--whether it was the intended next or not. So what about raehl's uncapped semi-auto hopperball? If it's an answer what's the question? How many players per side? What size field? Is there an age component? Is it a beginner's format? Have you ever tried shooting a high ROF electro with a real gravity fed hopper? It's like owning a Ferrari and being unable to leave Manhattan. My point isn't to nit-pick the examples, it's to demonstrate there are no simple solutions. Why aren't Young Guns divisions with age restrictions more popular if ROF is the problem? Are there really too few players interested in competitive paintball or too few mentors and captains to lead and organize?

All the pieces of the puzzle must be accounted for. If you do it right there aren't any leftover pieces. Here's another example. Not a great one because I don't know enough of the details but I am intrigued by the CFOA's efforts to promote 3-man. Once upon a time 3-man was a staple local tourney option. It seems like a no-brainer for entry level play but what happened to it? Will the CFOA's efforts be rewarded? Is it being played with any restrictions? On Race 2 field layouts? Is it working or isn't it? Why or why not? The uncertainty surrounding competitive paintball these days can be a frustrating struggle--but it is also an opportunity. Just not one subject to easy answers.

Thoughts on PSP Changes for 2010

This post is only my initial reaction to the raised ROF and new fee/prize structure announcement and I won't spend a lot of time on either now. Once all the changes are announced VFTD will break it all down in more detail.
For the most part this is all good news. The original ROF moves last year were justified by making some rather dubious claims about trickling down and saving paint. (Which apparently are no longer desirable results or else nobody believes it anymore. And why should they since neither one was correct.) The lower ROF however did have the potential to make better players faster at the lower levels. (I posted on the concept extensively last year.) Anyway, I think this had less to do with the PSP and more to do some future announcements that should be upcoming. Overall, it's a relatively neutral change (and will make a vocal internet crowd of forever D3 players happy so what's not to like?)
The new pricing and prize structures signals a change in direction for the PSP that is a very positive one. It is incentivizing excellence. After all we are supposedly playing a game with the purpose of being the best we can be, right? So why reward mediocrity? If the league wants teams to move up, don't force them, give them a reason. Give them an incentive to improve. Next step is to see if classification rule changes are adopted more in line with these pricing and prize concepts. And while I certainly appreciate the new pro pricing--after years of paying huge fees (relatively) for somebody else's decisions--I think all the prize money divisions ought to be the same. If D2 & D1 are $2750 then semi-pro and pro should not be less but should probably be a match. After all, s-p and pro already have game play benefits over D1 and D2 as it is. I'm not complaining, I just think identical pricing would seem fairer to the majority and the difference is negligible anyway. Just a thought.

UPDATE: ROF. In the original post above I allude to a reason why the PSP would make this change now--after saying no change a few days ago--and after seeing the threads at PBN it seems I ought to explain. If for no other reason than just for fun. Well, and to demonstrate one more time why it is VFTD is the only place for unique competitive paintball commentary. The decision was made yesterday at the "secret" PSP meeting in San Diego at the behest of the very guys who are busy crediting the PSP for listening to the players' cry for change. (For those trying to keep score that would be Hinman and Pauly so far.) It sounds swell and if it plays in Peoria it's a small (and harmless) deceit by paintball standards. I will explain further when more of the meeting's details are released.
I am not, btw, calling anyone out here because it's not really important. I just find it amusing how paintball public relations tends to work no matter whose responsible for it. Are you having fun today?

Next World Order

Say hello to the new boss same as the old boss.
For a lot of tourney players nothing much is going to change. Sure, a rule here, a rule there that add up to some minor changes but nothing major. I think this New World Order talk is perhaps overblown--even if some arrangement is agreed upon between the PSP and MS. Yes, they will be the leading tournament series but they don't and won't have a monopoly on tournament paintball. Most tourney players don't play in either of them and if either league makes enough decisions that alienate their customer base whatever they agree on won't much matter. What the next world order does offer is the possibility of formalizing and stabilizing the game/sport of competitive paintball. And that could be a very good thing.

Here's some of what I think you can expect. 5-man in a couple of variants; xball & something (very) similar to the way the PSP has been running their regular 5-man. At the lower divisions of xball play I don't expect (and continue to hope) there are no major changes. There could very well be more divisions of both xball and 5-man. The place where the greatest changes are most likely is at the top because that is where the widest divergence between the PSP and MS currently exist. I hope, for purely selfish reasons, that the end result is either allowed some flexibility or looks much more like the PSP version than the MS. The tension is between keeping the pro level game the format's undisputed flagship competition and the pressing need to reduce the cost of competing at the pro level. There have got to better ways to address those needs (and there are) than watering down the game--again.
On issues like locked divisions and restrictive non-sponsor possibilities I won't hazard a guess 'cus that's all it would be. I will say it strikes me as borderline insane to do stuff like that at the same time you're trying to forge a world game identity for your version of competitive paintball.

One of the critical discussions to be had as the next world order begins ought to be about what has been lost as much as on what has been gained. What, if anything, can be done to regain or restore some elements of the game play that may be seen as lacking or lost. Who knows, maybe it won't be much of anything but if one format is going to dominate and become the world standard that version of the game has an obligation to represent as much of the energy, excitement, thrill and skill as can be stuffed into it.

And Now For a Bit of Rampant Speculation: Given the seemingly odd timing of the NPPL filing I think one of two things probably happened. Either the NPPL & PSP worked out their bargain or Freidman decided it wasn't worth the effort--nor the likely continued cost--and simply wanted out. Both make sense. The former implies that Friedman remains interested in "selling" paintball. The latter suggests he's washed his hands of the whole mess and is satisfied to get out. For the life of me I can't see why he'd want to stay and keep trying to "sell" paintball on terms other than his own. And if he didn't think he could do it using the NPPL why would he think he can do it using the PSP?
More intriguing is what will become of the NPPL brand? I smell another cynical VFTD game.

Richter or Beaufort?

Hah! It's a trick question. The answer is both! They're both scales. Richter of course is the seismic scale that measures shifts in the earth's crust, you know, earthquakes. The Beaufort Scale measures, among other things, wind speed.
While the winds of change are blowing in paintball and we's all distracted a few subterranean rumblings hint at the possibility of an earthquake or two really rearranging the landscape. I can't tell you what the Big One, if it comes, will do to competitive paintball but I can suggest a window of time when it's likely to happen--if it does. (Obviously if I'm calling one possibility the Big One I do have some idea what might happen.) Figure on the Big One to come sometime in the last half of December--if it comes at all. Even without the Big One you can count on some lesser quakes doing a decent job of shaking things up.
I know what you're thinking: Great, it's like a bad Nostradamus prediction but without the rhymes. Anybody can do that and be right once in a while. After all even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile. I don't disagree but nothings set in stone--yet.

A New Pro Paradigm

For those who'd like to cut to the chase (cause this is really long) go down to the START HERE and read from there. Then you can come back and look over the foundational arguments and the alternatives later. Slackers.

If, as has often been bandied about, the pro teams are in some senses being carried by the league(s) then my question is; why? Why does the PSP pay out of pocket to keep the NXL going? (While we can debate the dollars, at best--at best--the NXL may come close to breaking even) And if the Pro Division in the NPPL is no better than a break even bracket (between reduced entry fees and prize payout it's probably a net loser) why is so much emphasis put on the Pros and why isn't anyone talking about "fixing" the league(s) by dumping the deadbeats and losers?
Stop spluttering and answer the question.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating dumping the (pro) deadbeats and losers. That would leave me in a bad place. (And I don't buy the conventional wisdom anyway.) But, in order to address the issues confronting the pro divisions it's important to begin at the beginning, with our assumptions. Without offering the answer there are a couple of things that can be said that reflect the current thinking. (Irrespective of its practicality or rationality.) The pro divisions aren't simply about dollars and cents. The leagues do assign a value to the pro divisions that isn't strictly represented by the bottom line. A significant element of that perceived value is in seeing the pro teams (and players) as the epitome of competitive paintball and the public face of competitive paintball and the likely wedge into wider mainstream acceptance and recognition.
What assumptions underlie this thinking?
Try these: The pro division (and players) represents the best of the sport; makes the best argument in favor of paintball as sport; inspires and motivates players at every level of competition. Which is good for the league and for paintball. The pro division (and players) is the draw to compete on a national level. Which is good for the league.
The pro division (and players) is the primary marketing vehicle for competitive paintball and PBIndustry. Which is good for the paintball, the league and PBIndustry.

We'll come back to the assumptions and their validity in a minute. But first--
Let's review the state of the pro teams today. Teams are failing. More are expected to follow. The cost of competing is overwhelming a (probably significant) percentage of the remaining teams. Everyone involved is concerned and uncertain where equilibrium is to be found. And the one critical factor that hasn't been taken into account is that the league(s) are directly competing with the teams for increasingly scarce sponsorship dollars. Reread that last part. Let it sink in. Today's post is brought to you by the word counterproductive. Say it with me boys and girls, counterproductive. Now let's play a game of 'What If' with the NXL. (I'm not gonna deal with the NPPL only because I think the option offered in the "Brave New PB World" posts could work for them but their situation is complicated by a number of factors including money already spent and a lack of nationwide support for their format.) Back to the NXL.
WHAT IF the PSP kills it? It's gone. In its place a PSP Open division that operates like any other division. What's the result?
That depends.
On a lot of things that never were particularly relevant to the teams or division. The more expensive scoreboard. Does it stay or go? Grandstands. Stay or go? A dedicated field. Stay or go? The NXL refs. Stay or go? Big prize money. Stay or go?
The first point is this: Calling the pro division the NXL and separating it from the other PSP divisions didn't make it more expensive nor did any action taken at the behest of the pro teams as a group. Every decision--let me repeat that--EVERY decision that added to the cost of running the NXL was predicated on one or more of the assumptions listed above and was made by the same peeps who now expect the NXL teams to pay for those decisions. I almost forgot. What would be the result if the PSP killed the NXL and put the pros in an Open division?
The league could operate the new division on the same cost/benefit calculus as all the other divisions, the pros would refuse to be gouged for entry and administration fees and everybody could reconsider their assumptions. SEE above.
Let's take it a step further. WHAT IF we do away with pros altogether? No more pro teams or pro players. The PSP to become four am brackets of xball (plus the 5-man stuff). D3 up thru Open. Everybody who was pro gets reclassed as Open or D1. Does it make any of the ex-pro teams or players any less skilled or accomplished than they when they were called pro? Of course it doesn't.
Point Two: There is nothing to be gained with a purely semantic restructuring unless it also involves a reappraisal of the assumptions above. (Even if the assumptions are invalid there is nothing gained in a simple semantic distinction.)
WHAT IF the assumptions are wrong? Then the sooner they are repudiated the better.
WHAT IF the assumptions are basically sound? Then they will factor in the future of competitive paintball--at some future time--but the issue confronting the leagues today is at what cost and can it be sustained. Pro football turned out to be a lucrative idea but even so teams and leagues failed in the process.

Right. Let's now take a moment to draw a few conclusions. The status quo seems unlikely to hold. If it doesn't how many pro teams go under in the next year or two and what would be the impact? At what point is the pro league really exclusive and at what point is it just a joke? However you might assess that I think it's fair to say that doing nothing will result in fewer pro teams. That leaves the league in the position to be proactive or to simply wait and see what happens next. In the wake of the lost pro teams ending the '07 season the PSP adopted some new rules and instituted format modifications in an effort to stem the tide. It wasn't enough. If they choose to act again they will have a variety of choices.
Alternative 1 is to "fine tune" the status quo and do a head count to see if they'll have a sufficient number of teams committed for next year. (Sufficient being the operative word.)
Alternative 2 is to reduce costs to the pro teams. As noted above the NXL is using the teams to pay for a league run the way the NXL wants it run. Perhaps they need to reconsider, economize and pass the savings on to the teams.
Alternative 3 is to fully integrate the pro division into the rest of the PSP and call it whatever you want.
WHAT IF the PSP seriously considers the radical alternative league structure presented in the 'Brave New Paintball World' series of posts?
The concept relies on a traveling Pro Circuit so the costs to the pro teams aren't reduced the way they would be for the am divisions playing regionally. However, the same potential cost savings that applied to alternatives 1 - 3 could also potentially apply to a Pro Circuit with regional leagues. But is it enough?

START HERE: (if you have a short attention span)
Remember when I claimed the pro teams were in competition with the league(s) for sponsorship support? (It's not the way everyone is used to thinking about the relationship but it is undeniable.) And that the NXL has set standards of operation to its liking and expects the competing teams to subsidize those standards? (That's either hubris or stupidity or both.) And it's definitely crazy. In this economic climate it's practically suicidal! What is required is a new Pro Paradigm. If the assumptions everyone makes about the pro level of play are basically sound and the leagues want to maintain a separate and dynamic pro division it must rethink how it does things--and it must have help.
The Pro Circuit relies on the league operating in cooperation with PBIndustry. The new Pro Paradigm includes the pro teams as integral parts of the whole. It acknowledges the teams as partners in the process instead of the current quasi-customer/quasi-marketing tool status most have today. The Pro Circuit means the league can focus on the core elements of promoting the partner members in PBIndustry and marketing competitive paintball to a wider audience using the showcase of the pro teams. And the best way to facilitate this is if everyone is working together toward a shared goal and with a common purpose. At a minimum it should be the Pro Circuit's responsibility to operate the pro events–not the pro teams to underwrite it. Depending on how inclusive the involvement of PBIndustry the potential exists to pool resources to support the pro teams. This would be possible because what the league is promoting is the Pro Circuit and the competing teams are the essential component of the circuit. And marketing the circuit would be a unifying effort and would only enhance the participating teams allowing them to function as both fan favorites and tools of league promotion. Virtually any option for how to structure the circuit in a nuts and bolts sort of way is on the table and only requires agreement to move forward. With specific regard to the teams themselves some of the issues to settle would be continued private ownership, a new franchise model or even league ownership or sponsor ownership of the teams (which could be shared in percentages among as many or as few sponsors as desired in a given case.) If not ownership then sponsorships could still be partially assigned by team predicated on relative values which could allow smaller sponsors a direct share of the overall marketing value. If you wanted to get really off the wall you could organize the teams geographically for real and draw rosters from the pools of regional players. Once you stop doing things the way they've always been done the possibilities are nearly endless. [As a practical matter it would be a tremendous amount of work but it all starts with the old vision thing.]
The fundamental goal is to create a sustainable model that both develops competitive paintball and showcases competitive paintball and does so in a cooperative environment that benefits everybody involved. And the final point is to stop competing amongst ourselves where it is counterproductive and work toward a model based on common interest that can more effectively utilize the dollars spent.

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.

Bringing on the Future

As the proud possessor of a bus pass for the internet superhighway I have yet to figure out how to upload, store and make accessible the dead tree version of 'View from the Deadbox'. Not that you care but I mention it because a couple of the old columns are relevant to the 'Rumors, Whispers & Statistics' post which has apparently engendered some discussion and then there's the feature piece in the latest PGi inquiring of assorted paintball peeps what they expect or hope for the future. Coincidentally the current issue of Rich Telford's World of Paintball, er, FaceFull has an interview with The Staud on the future of paintball, too. Is it coincidence that all of a sudden paintball peeps are thinking about what becomes of, principally, Pro paintball? There's really no all of a sudden about it as we're a couple plus years into a leaner sponsorship environment and through a few rounds of now defunct high level reunification talks that have included the Format Question. Speculation and rumor are par for the course but at some point a critical mass of circumstances will demand change. (And, no, that doesn't necessarily mean reunification or some mutant format.)
Entering the second half of the season is the time when everyone begins to get serious about planning the next year. That makes now the time to open this kinda discussion.
If I can't figure out how to upload material in the next day or so I'll post a synopsis of the plan (and prediction) I wrote three years ago in a future post.
That and somebody probably ought to say something about the latest NPPL TV season on FSN. Okay, if you insist. It's a good thing I'm not looking for new friends.