APPA Classification Score Inflation

This is a critique, not a criticism. Short history lesson: In the early months of this blog I likened the then UCP to Logan's Run and suggested the system (and the league) was unnecessarily driving players up and out of competitive paintball. Which was true. Since that time the classification system has been adjusted a number of times in ways that (intentionally or unintentionally) fell in line with VFTD's original criticisms.
In a recent post about Social Paintball I took them to task a bit for a contributor who simply regurgitated the old claim--first made here--purely to engender some controversy. It has since occurred to me that the system was tweeked again and that I hadn't reviewed in detail the latest changes and if I was going to give Social some grief over it I oughta make sure nothing major had changed. And nothing major has changed--but a situation that hadn't been addressed before has been now, sorta. That is the relative merit of a score received depending on the size of the division.
One of the score modifiers is # of teams in a division. Any number 10 and above doesn't modify the received score. For divisions less than 10 teams there is a modifier that reduces the overall score received based I presume on the idea that it's more difficult to win out in a bracket of 20 teams than it is in a bracket of 8 teams and regardless there is necessarily a higher likelihood of competitive intensity in the larger bracket. Conceptually I'm okay with that but where I think an issue exists is at the other end of the team numbers spectrum.
Given the current scoring system every team, other than first and last, receive a score that accounts for the number of participants--at least in part. For example in a division of 12 second place receives 92 points (rounded) while the same second place finish in a division of 8 receives 87 points. The # teams modifier goes further and will reduce that base score even further--which is okay--but that's not where the score inflation problem lies. Score inflation produces disparate values when the divisions get bigger.
Btw, the reason this is a critique and not a criticism is because, despite the score inflation, a quick crunching of the numbers demonstrates that, unlike in times past, this won't effect the upper divisions where the problems of the past primarily resided but it might have an impact on the lower divisions, principally D3 & D4.
Here's an example: 6th place in a division of 8 is 35 points (rounded); in a division of  10 it's 50 points & in a division of 20 teams it's 75 points. In a division of 30 teams 6th place receives 85 points. Each result is a 6th place finish but also results in a swing of 50 points between the lowest and highest score. Of course in one sense the swing reflects the degree of difficulty in arriving at that placement; 6th out of 30 is considerably more difficult--at least statistically--than 6th out of 8 and while I happily concur that's not the issue either.
The issue with score inflation is that the classification system determines a player's status based on multiples of a base score. If your division nevers exceeds 12 or 15 teams it own't ever be a concern. In divisions that routinely reach or exceed 30 teams it could be a problem. And when I say "problem" I mean produce a result where players are bumped up when they shouldn't be. Fortunately the present system has sufficient safe guards--and most D4 & D3 teams don't play a full season--so that score inflation alone shouldn't push players (& teams) up a division.
A simple way to address the issue would be to reconsider the size of the smallest max score division and adjust the reducing multipliers--or leave it as is accepting score inflation because most of time it probably won't be a problem.

(And of course it ought to go without saying, but I'm saying it anyway, I may differ with APPA on occasion but only because it is a serious and legit effort--unlike the revenue stream mockery used by the other national league.)

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.

Final Thoughts on PSP Changes 2011

No, this won't be another rant. I think I've got most of it out of my system. At this point it rather goes without saying the majority of this debate is being conducted by the clueless, the ignorant and the moronic and that includes both sides of the argument. Here's a hint (and then I'll get down to business) to those who have been converted and are intent on "helping" the PSP. Endlessly regurgitating your belief in the urgency of the need for change is not the same thing as explaining why certain changes are appropriate to the situation. So far most of the debate reminds me of this, although not nearly as amusing.

First a quick recap of the proposed changes.

• Lengthen the field 10 feet per side (Total size will now be 120 x 170 feet)
• Eliminate Pit-side coaching and communication
• Field Layouts will not be released prior to the events
• Adjust position of bunkers to better suit a wider variety of players
• Adjust classification system for D1 – Pro, now that the Semi-Pro division is absent

The lengthening of the field alone isn't a significant issue from a game play perspective. Yes, it will necessarily alter some things. (The change is also likely to be a hardship for some local fields. And it isn't true that the size of a practice field is now irrelevant because layouts won't be known.)
However, in combination with the 'new priorities' for bunker placement [change 4] the impact will be significant--and as predicted. Slower games, slower points. More clock stoppages. (Keep in mind that field design always has an impact on play of the game particularly in the lower divisions. The reason these changes will have predictable results is because the bunker set remains basically the same. It may be possible to restore field neutrality to the new field and abide by the placement priorities but only with a larger bunker set. And I don't mean larger bunkers, I mean a greater total number of bunkers.)
The elimination of pit-side coaching in and of itself is not a big deal--but it isn't the elimination of coaching either--despite the number of numbskulls who seem to think it is. Will it make any difference? Sure, the teams that already play are used to it and the players are actively involved. With the change they will be penalised for doing what has been a part of the game from Day 1. Will it encourage players and teams that object to coaching to play PSP? I can't imagine why but I also find it hard to believe how many people seemingly can't read simple English. (Our foreign friends excluded, of course.)
No release of the event layout is a worthwhile change. It's most important to the higher divisions, particularly pro. It creates an environment where the top teams can save practice money. Lots of it and remain competitive. It also has value to all divisions of play; one, as a potential money-saver and two, as a situation that will compel teams, coaches, captains and players to learn how to play, not learn how to play a specific field.
Now about the classification system. The statement is somewhat ambiguous regarding specific changes. Which is an opportunity. If the PSP is willing to consider reclassifying inactive Pro/Semi-pro & D1 players in order to give most of them an opportunity to get back into the competitive game and provide the kind of experience, skill & leadership that will improve competitive paintball and add numbers from a pool of recently active and committed players.

I know, there was really nothing new there but I did say I wanted to recap first. So I recapped the PSP positions ... and mine.

For any who may remain confused by the mountain of nonsense posted at PBN. New field dimensions--not intended to save teams money. Intended to make game more appealing to larger group of (competitive?) players. (And when I say larger I don't mean older, fatter, slower players--and neither does the PSP. It's hoping to attract players interested in tourney paintball who, for whatever reason, aren't already competing in the PSP.
Eliminate pit-side coaching--not intended to save teams money. Intended to make game more appealing to larger group of (competitive?) players.
No early release of field layout--intended to save teams money, especially the pros thru reduced expenditures of practice paint. (Perhaps) intended to push all teams and players to develop new training and practice habits that will produce better players. [Intended or not, it will.]
"Adjusting" bunkers--not intended to save teams money. Intended to make game more appealing to a larger group of (competitive?) players.
Adjust classification system--not intended to save teams money. Probably, I'm assuming, intended to resolve fact there is no more semi-pro division.

Here's one last idea--although I don't know if this one will work or not. (It's too complicated a calculation to make without hard data but there is no reason, in principle, that it shouldn't be possible.) Okay, more than one idea. Here's the first one. (It's not the complicated one, btw.) Bring back 5-man. Call it Open 5-man and allow up to two D3 ranked players. Keep it simple, keep it as inexpensive as possible. The object is to draw from off the national track--after all, that's the target group of players the PSP hopes to attract, yes? Separated from the Race 2 format it would carry none of the preconceptions of competing in Race 2 and the league would be free to organize it however it chose.
Aight, back to the last idea. In a nutshell put Raehl to work calculating how many matches of which version of the Race 2 format can be played on a single field over the course of a day. (Like he doesn't already know.) Then, crunching operating costs, (on a per field setup basis?) calculate an optimum sized event that will, if full, operate in the black. In order to ensure max participation put limits on each event. Add scarcity to the equation and the league would be in a position to control precisely the scale of each event also allowing them to be more precise in containing their costs as well. (Yes, there are additional complications created by divisions, etc. but they can be overcome.)
Huh? What's the point? The point is part of the problem the PSP faces is a lack of control over revenue. Each event is an unknown number that only comes into focus at the last minute--almost literally. This forces the league to prepare to handle some uncertain max number of participants and this inevitably increases cost throughout their system. To get greater control over costs is the only alternative to increasing revenue but there is no reason not to work on both sides of the profitability calculus.
Is that even possible? I don't know for sure but as a concept it's sound. And I'm sure the league is busy cutting costs as best they are able but maybe, just maybe they didn't think of pushing it to this extreme.

That's it. I'm done. (Cue cheering of relieved throngs.)

Pro Prelims: Day 1

Picking up from yesterday's items of interest the pro field did get the blackout sheeting up between the pro field and the CXPL field and I have a (slightly) better idea what all the cameras are all about. Seems some guys paid the PSP event video fee and set-up their cameras with the idea of collecting all the footage of the whole pro event for editing as an experimental production. If they like what they get apparently the notion is to then see about working a deal with the league for the future. This time around however there is little or no sound; it will all be visual.

You want scores go to ProPaintball or direct to APPA. Mostly the expected teams are doing what was expected. There's always a surprise or two it seems but nothing jumps out just yet. As rumored Mike Hinman is working with Dynasty. In our bracket we and the Russians are currently 2-0. We meet in the final prelim match tomorrow at 4 pm. And by the math nobody is out of the running yet regardless of record.

Instead of talking about the pro numbers some more I want to talk about a D1 team, Mayhem. Prior to the event there was a fair amount of whining about the classifications of some of the rostered Mayhem players because of their past team affiliation(s)--along with nebulous complaints or charges (of something nefarious) aimed at the league or the APPA or both. As it turned out Mayhem finished 1-3. I'm not suggesting whatever was "wrong" with the player classifications didn't matter because they didn't win. I'm suggesting a couple other things instead. One, maybe the classifications really reflected appropriate classifications for the players rostered despite past history and Two, we--as a paintball community--wring our hands over all the players the sport is losing yet the second some whiner thinks he may have to compete in order to win he wants to disqualify anyone and everyone who might stand in the way.
A related truth is that pro players do not stay pro players in terms of their skills set unless they continue to play pro or near pro paintball. And while the years don't erode experience or knowledge they take a brutal toll on the actual capacity to compete at a very high level. Another truth is the very guys who comprised much of the Mayhem roster are exactly the guys the game needs to want to stay involved and help develop and transition the next generation of tourney players.

Broken Record

If you've been hanging around the VFTD watercooler long enough this post will seem like deja vu. (Come to think of it VFTD's second birthday was a few days ago.) During that first July I spent a lot of time on the "lost" D1 players and I've replayed that record since then, too. A couple of things in the last week reminded me that, despite changes, not much has changed.
In prior posts I tied the lost players to the misguided classification rules. Those rules were changed--for the better--and yet, lost players is still an issue. Players from a well known high profile Florida team that fell apart recently (and unexpectedly) are trying to put the pieces back together. Part of their motivation, besides a desire to compete, is the realization that if they can't compete at the major league level they can't compete at all. At least not in Florida. Of course money is an issue too, always has been and always will be and the current state of the economy is affecting a lot more players than just the players caught in the classification pinch. This is also the first year of the PSP's affiliates rollout and while progress has been, and is being made, it isn't all sunshine and lollipops. And some of the grey clouds attached to the silver lining continue to be classification related issues. Those aren't so much wrongly classified players but the recurring tensions that occur as all leagues feel the pinch and the need to do everything they can to accommodate as many customers as possible. [Sports have players but paintball leagues need customers and the two categories don't always line up evenly.]
There's the rub as it applies to lost players. It's a helluva time to try and sort a fully realized, vertically integrated sport out of tournament paintball. I don't know any proponent of competitive paintball who doesn't want this to happen--or something quite like it--and if this effort had coincided with the good times I think it would be an established reality today but that's not where we are. The higher ranked the player becomes the fewer the options that exist for competition. Those options often include higher costs along with a more fully developed and complex organization in order to be competitive. At the other end of the spectrum the affiliates are torn between upward player movement pressure, enforcing classifications and the lack of competing upper divisional teams in a process that frequently breaks up existing teams.
The sport demands a legit classification system. The leagues need players. The timing is brutal but it is what it is. Competitive paintball needs to keep as many of its adherents actively involved as possible. But how?
Tomorrow, a couple of new ideas.

The Optimized Bracket Adjustment

Before I get started on the OBA (optimized bracket adjustment) a few (more) words on yesterday's classification post. I want to demonstrate in real numbers the difference in the current method for moving down and my suggested alternative.

Let's say a player earns 4200 points during the 2010 season. The player is ranked semi-pro as a result. In the current system (assuming no higher scores are received) the player's scores remain the same in 2011 and 2012. For 2013 the score is reduced from 4200 to 3150 dropping the player's rank to D1. And in 2014 the score drops again to 2100 where it stays, leaving the player ranked D1.
Using my alternative take the same player and the same 4200 points earned in 2010. The score remains the same in 2011. In 2012 (assuming no new qualifying scores are received) the player's score drops to 3360 and the player is ranked D1. In 2013 the score drops to 2520 and player remains D1. In 2014 the score drops to 1680 with the player assigned a D2 rank and in 2015 it would drop to the D2 floor of 984 where it would remain--until sufficient new scores were earned to start the climb up the ladder over again.
The larger point is simply that any player who rises to semi-pro (or pro) status but is unable for whatever reason to maintain it is no longer a semi-pro (or pro) player by demonstrated ability and shouldn't remain one by rank. That player may retain semi-pro potential but that is very different than playing at a semi-pro level and their classification rank ought to reflect the fact.

The Optimized Bracket Adjustment modifies scores earned in sub-optimal brackets. In a bracket of 8 teams 50% of the field end up in the top 4. In a bracket of 20 teams 20% of the field end up in the top 4. Clearly the larger bracket has a higher degree of difficulty in achieving a top 4 result. In the 8 team bracket the winner receives a 100. Second gets a 77 and third gets a 64. (All numbers rounded.) Eighth place gets 10, seventh gets 23 and sixth gets 36. In the bracket of 20 teams the winner receives 100, second gets 85, third gets 80. Twentieth gets 10, nineteenth gets 15 and eighteenth gets 19. All scores revert toward the mean except the polar scores of 100 and 10.

My contention is that a win in a bracket of eight is not equivalent to a win in a bracket of twenty (or more.) All results aren't created equally and shouldn't be valued equally for the purpose of determining a player's classification. The OBA takes into account the disparity in the relative degree of difficulty between random bracket population sets. The OBA would assign an optimum number of participants to a bracket and any number less than the optimum would modify the final event scores received by the participating teams. It would NOT alter their place of finish and the purpose of the modified score is as it relates to the ratings that impact classification only. Any number of teams below the optimum is then recognized as being competitively insufficient to award maximum points. It would also be relatively easy to do. It could be accomplished at least 3 ways, 2 of which are; by altering the range of scores from the top down (meaning the max score would be less than 100) or by changing the mean score (by moving both the high and low score possible.) In either case it would only require a simple numeric change to the equation generating raw event scores. And depending on the program structure it probably wouldn't be all that difficult to include. (Easy for me to say.)

But, again, this is more of a quibble than an absolutely necessary modification. The OBA would be most useful in under-populated brackets that displayed little or no parity. The fact that the high score is removed from consideration goes a long way towards assuring only players who legitimately earn their rank receive it--particularly in under-populated brackets--and as I said in the first post the new system is a substantial improvement over the old one. Any perceived or real inequities in the system are unlikely to affect any significant number of players. All it really needs is a little more flexibility in allowing downward player movement.

PSP Classification System: Moving Down

Picking up on yesterday's post on the PSP's new classification system I want to nit-pick the details a little bit in the areas where this system retains some of the old system's problems. Hereafter a "problem" is something I would like to see handled differently or better--not a problem in a design or structural sense. So, my problems with the system may not be yours--until I convince you otherwise.

Yesterday I mentioned there was a floor in each division where the event rating (raw score times multiplier) was insufficient alone or cumulatively to push a player (team) up a rank and that it was roughly the bottom third that wouldn't change their rank assuming consistent scores. (If you are D3 playing in D2 and routinely at the bottom of the results you stay D3.) Well, there is also a threshold for moving up and it is approx. at the 23rd percentile so that if your accumulated average event ratings put you (your team) in the top 25% percent or so consistently the numbers will move you up a rank at season's end. My quibble here is only at the margins--what is the appropriate amount of teams (players) to gain the next rank--and does this threshold do that? Ideally I'm not sure it ought to be a standardized value across the divisions but despite that reservation I think the new system serves the interests of the lower divisions quite capably.

Now all of this is a little fuzzy partly on account of dropping the high score and only counting scores 2, 3 and 4 as determinative. As I noted yesterday this keeps an aberrational score (or one received in a less populated bracket--more on this coming tomorrow) from dominating the results. But the fuzziness is advantageous to the players as it also creates boundaries that aren't as hard and fast as before and helps make the overall system one that sees players earn their rank while simultaneously being less likely to push wholesale advancements. This is particularly so in the lower divisions with more populous brackets. [Despite the fact all the calculations up and down the divisions are computed consistently the size of the sample--the number of competing teams--has an impact in increasing potential opportunities for movement. For example the boundary between D2 and D1 is more fluid than the boundary between D1 and Semi-pro. One might argue the differences are small but they become readily apparent as sample sizes increase.]

Despite these improvements and despite the standardization of how a player's rank goes down I think it's still too restrictive. (Once again my problem may not be yours.) In the lower divisions with the focus on moving up dropping ranks has little to no priority but nonetheless remains a function of this system. From the upper divisions however movement down has greater urgency because there are both practical and artificial limitations on opportunity. This system, like the last one, is heavily biased toward the notion that once a rank is achieved the player is not subject to significant change or loss of skills and/or game-playing ability. For example any, let me repeat that, any player who achieves a pro rank cannot, in this system, ever drop below semi-pro.

Flatly, that's ridiculous. The system continues to judge players on team results--there's little option on that count--but all players aren't equal and some player gain ranks with teams their ability doesn't merit. Players may like to think once a high-ranked player always a high-ranked player but it simply isn't true. Most players, regardless of rank, have to work at keeping up their skill level and that is more true the higher a player gets. The new system drops scores 25% after 2 years and 50% (total) after 3 years which results in a player dropping one rank. Instead, drop a player's score 20% a year after the first year with a maximum 80% for all players ranked higher than D2 while using D2 as the floor with no higher-ranked player ever dropping below that level. The result would prioritize recent performances and scores and good players would continue to accumulate scores that keep them in the upper levels.

Tomorrow: Part 3 (The Big Finish): The Optimized Bracket Adjustment

PSP’s Restructured Classification System

Without rewriting the classification rules in simple English I’m hoping to get through this subject relatively painlessly. That means, 1) if there’s any follow-up questions don’t hesitate to ask and, 2) there will be a second part regardless of how long this post ends up being. The second post will cover the one area of weakness in these new rules.

Fortunately it should be a relatively short post as the new rules have done a very good job of addressing some past issues. The new system puts players in the position of earning their rank (by and large.) The new system is more flexible in that it has a structured consistent methodology to handle player movement both up--and down. Which is a big and positive step. The mid-season movement qualifier is protection against outliers moving players prematurely. And the dropping of the high score in the calculation of the player’s rating helps confirm the player’s ability as well as reinforcing the idea of earning the rank assigned. There is no automatic movement up the ranks based on which division a player is competing in. And there is a rational floor built into the system that assures players (teams) that simply aren’t competitive or even average won’t be forced to move up beyond their ability (in most situations.) Put it altogether and it’s a significant improvement. Add it to the regional affiliates inclusion this season and the Big Picture concept of a universalized competitive paintball environment regardless of where you play or what level you compete at and the new system is an essential, perhaps the essential piece of that puzzle. It’s not perfect–but what is?–but it is world’s better than the old system and even without the addition I’m going to suggest in the next post it will work well for most players in most circumstances. It is the new state of the art.

Okay, perhaps a bit about how the new system works is in order. In some respects it’s just a more nuanced version of the old system but it is the new flexibility, and the way the accumulated numbers are valued, that makes all the difference in the world. The event score formula simply assigns a place value to any number of competing teams in a range between 10 - 100. First is 100, last is 10 and everybody else falls in-between. That’s not where the changes are. The key to the new system is the multipliers and the idea that players play themselves into the rank(s) they achieve. The disparity between the top ranks and the lower ones may seem extreme but the relationships between each rank and within those ranks is consistent top to bottom. The same event results in each division will result in the same outcomes. A D3 player becomes a D2 player in exactly the same way as a semi-pro becomes pro. For example the "floor" of each rank is around the 69th percentile. That means as a D3 moving up to try D2 if your season sees scores in the bottom third of the D2 scores most of the time those players would almost certainly retain their D3 rank. This means the standard to move up a rank is to consistently score in the upper two-thirds so that a player’s accumulated rating minus their best score moves them into the upper two-thirds. Conceptually, with a floor all players will eventually find their place within the divisions in a largely non-coercive system.

In the larger divisions I don’t see any real issues with the new system. However, there are vestiges of the old issues in small divisions and I’ll discuss the problem and suggest a fix tomorrow.

Paintball Unity Proclaimed

Not, uh, actual unity. This particular unity is limited to competitive paintball in the United States for the time being. And in fact it isn't exactly unity at all 'cus there's a few folks out there running events and series who aren't part of the unity announced today by the PSP. For available details (and a bitchin' map) go here. But, all the same, it is a unity of the participating leagues which includes 6 regional leagues (kinda) and the PSP. And that's a very good start.
First, while I am admittedly poking a little fun I am foursquare in favor of this move as a potentially significant step in the right direction. (Remember what I didn't talk about here?)

The basics announced today establishes the Race To format as the dominate format for competitive paintball in the U.S. and lays the foundation for the vertical integration of the format from the local grassroots all the way up to the pro division. The key to that integration will be the use of APPA and as yet unannounced modified classification system to rank players around the country to assure, as closely as possible, that everyone is playing the same game and ranked in a consistent manner from region to region as well as within the ranks of the PSP.

However, the devil--as they say--is in the details and we don't know those yet so I'm keeping my fingers crossed. (No easy task given they are short & thick and about as flexible as a kendo shinai.)
Anyway, the critical issues are how effective--without being coercive--the new classification system proves to be in delivering on the announcement's promise and how the relationship between the regions and the PSP is understood by the participating parties and what the intent is in taking this step. I think the classification issue is pretty straightforward and we should see within a reasonable window of time how it's working. And it's also the sort of thing that can be "fixed" if needed--as long as the leagues and players remain convinced it's the way to go. The issue of the relationship between the leagues and the PSP is a dicier proposition because, like it or not, today, tomorrow and into the near future the PSP is in competition with the leagues for participating teams. It's unavoidable and the prospect for ultimate success may ride on whatever the plan is for some sort of transition or shift in priorities on the part of the PSP.

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.

A Classification Question

Seems Aftershock is looking into having a semi-pro team compete in Chicago. Which is swell--the more the merrier--but then I wondered if it was gonna be a one-off deal, sorta like Trauma playing MAO, and if so, what it might mean to the players participating. Obviously in the Trauma situation it wasn't a big deal as all or most of the players would have been ranked no lower than semi-pro anyway. But this Shock situation could be different so I took (another) look at this year's Classification rules.
There are no minimum roster appearances in effect in semi-pro. For example, appear on ONE pro roster this season and you are ranked pro. Appear more than once on any divisional roster and you are that rank automatically. But not in semi-pro so there is some room to maneuver. It would seem that the classification rule in effect is the one for playing above your current rank the one time you may do so without automatically changing ranks. Two divisions up and it's an automatic 100 point score. One division up and it's a minimum 50 plus your team score with a max of 100.
I bring this up (again) because players seldom pay much attention to this sort of thing. I have no idea if this is intended to perhaps go somewhere or if it's supposed to be a one-time fun thing for the local players and fans but whatever it is keep in mind there are classification consequences depending on the incoming rank of the chosen players.

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.

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.

Logan's Run: The Finish Line

My differences with the classification and ranking system isn't that the concept is defective but that the present implementation is faulty. Clearly the PSP disagrees and beyond that has a purpose in the way the system currently functions (and will purportedly function in the future.) My objection is two-fold; the current system is unnecessarily coercive and, in the end it won't work as intended. First thing I looked at was the points system (which isn't bad but in some respects is a blunt instrument.) It would be possible to add to the present calculations and it would be possible to put a different points system in place but how the numbers are figured isn't the real problem. And making that change wouldn't automatically fix things. So while I think there's some room for improvement there it's not a big deal.
As discussed in 'The Pear or the Pyramid' post one of my objections is demographic. I don't think you can re-make the ranks to reflect what you want them to look like without losing teams & players if what you want is 'unnatural'. It appears to me the idea is to remedy the dearth of upper division teams by redistributing the lower division teams in the sense that what we now consider D2 level talent becomes D1 and so on. Which also begs the question what happens to legitimate semi-pro talent when their division is populated by D1 talent? Or is that just a big mixer? It also presupposes the plan will work but that assumes there otherwise isn't enough real D1/semi-pro talent out there and it also assumes that there are no other causal factors inhibiting teams at the upper levels. My view is there are substantial causal factors inhibiting upper level team growth and dumbing down the divisions solves nothing. (And, of course there are plenty of D1/Pro (semi-pro) ranked players in the system who aren't competing so the issue isn't lack of players.)
I also think some of the changes made to the system this year tacitly acknowledge my views. The (marginal) relaxation of D3 classification rules and the inclusion of D3/D4 Intro are plainly moves made to encourage more D3 level participation both by "new" teams and by D3 teams that may have intentionally limited their participation in the past to avoid being moved up to D2. And as soon as you accept this premise it must follow that it applies, to one degree or another, across all the divisions. [This also begins to support the idea that coercive measures are in some respects counterproductive.]
Even if one were to argue that self-selection (teams choosing to participate) tends to skew the expected numbers towards a higher baseline of ability across the board all the limited numbers available suggest that doesn't really matter. A quick examination of where teams place themselves produces the (broadly) expected ratios, ie; they's mostly D2 & D3.
My objection to coercion is practical. It's simply not terribly effective and when coupled with a restructuring policy that will not work cannot achieve its intended result.
Another objection I have to strip mining the (presumed) upper ranks of the lower divisions is that it offers no continuity, no normative standard to be achieved or measured against (and understood) by the incoming teams. For example, if the top 4 teams are moved up the expectation is that the teams that finished 5 - 8 should be at or near the top the following season. This won't be universally true but it gives all the other teams a way of measuring their progress and/or ability.

There are two options in dealing with the present system; simply reign in its excesses and move up only those players/teams that must move in order to sustain the competitive balance of the division or, include a more flexible means for players to move down as well as up in order to be responsive to some of the current system's excesses. The first option is easiest but undercuts the PSP's restructuring of divisions plan. The second is harder to order by rule but can be done. (I don't know what impact it would have given the current system but in any system it should provide greater opportunity without disrupting competitive balance any more than occurs now with the allowances of limited upper division players on lower division rosters.)
For example, a simple change might be – every team that wins an event moves up and in addition any team that has more than one top 4 finish moves up. For '09 that would still move up 6 teams in D3 and 7 teams in D2 but it would only be winning teams and/or teams that showed the consistent ability to finish near the top. (Btw, it will be interesting to see how many of the D2 teams forced to move up actually ever play a D1 event. The going rate recently is about 50% which also seems to fly in the face of the PSP's goals here.)
As for players dropping ranks I have worked out a system. It has a pro floor and a floor for all other players. It takes into account the "success" of players in the ranks and has measures to limit possible abuses. It is predicated on my belief that some measure of flexibility with respect to rank will allow wider participation without harming competitive balance by keeping more players actively in the mix of pursuing competitive opportunities at appropriate levels of play. (Should any established league or ranking system have an interest I'll be happy to provide the details.)

The alternative is a completely redesigned classification & ranking system. Even so, it would necessarily look something like the current one and still wouldn't be able to address the populations of the divisions that the PSP is apparently trying to manipulate with the present system. In order to "fix" divisional disparities one must do two basic things; identify the causes and determine a methodology for dealing with the problem. For example, the PSP sees a dearth of upper division teams and their methodology is coercion and their identified cause is not enough upper division teams (which is a tautology) and their fix is to turn D2 teams into D1 teams and presto, plenty of d1 teams. (Or maybe not.)
My view is classification and ranking can't address the issue alone. Classification and ranking is only about the competitive integrity of the divisions. Other concerns require other answers. If coercion isn't the answer, what is? I'm thinking incentives. Give teams a reason or reasons to do what you'd like them to do. Here's a start: tie entry fees to paintball played. Since D2 and D1 now both play Race 2-5 their entries should be the same. Now there are no series prizes. Change that and award a D1 series prize package along with event prizes. These changes begin to reward excellence (higher division play) and motivate teams to move up if they think they can compete and at the same time removes the disincentive of higher entry fees for higher division play. There are, I'm sure, plenty of creative ways to achieve the desired goals. My choice would be to institute elements of all the options mentioned.

There you have it, kids.

Logan's Run: The PSP Perspective

This isn't the big finish either. Obviously. (But it's still coming.)

Having been frightened out of my wits when the jack-booted thugs of tourney ball bashed my door down in the middle of the night and threatened to, you know, be really upset with me if I didn't knock it off I promised to make everything right. So that's why I'm giving y'all the PSP side of things.
Naw. Not really. It's one thing to disagree with people over a particular policy and another thing to ascribe heartless and evil motives to the people responsible for the disputed policy. I don't think (and have never thought) the PSP guys were laughing over displacing orphans or putting widows on the street. It's a caricature of reality. Among other things, now more than ever, they need and want as many peeps as possible playing their game. Nobody is maliciously pushing people away.

What the PSP has been doing in increments is trying to restructure how the divisions function and who populates those divisions. They started on that course awhile ago with the hope it would ultimately provide a stable future for the game and allow a more seamless integration with local/regional leagues. Back last July when I was going on about D1's status as the odd division out and what it meant to D1 ranked players I made a couple of suggestions. I suggested the addition of a D4 xball and/or a semi-pro/open bracket to address some of the issues I thought were problems. I am not for a second saying the PSP was paying any attention to our happy little blog–only that they too saw a situation they thought could be improved upon and they tried to make things better. Are trying to make things better. The D3/D4 Intro addresses the uncertainty of the transitional players coming into the league by providing an opportunity to experience the format without ranking/classification repercussions–and that is a good thing. Semi-pro addressed the issue of how to accommodate the most experienced players without being unfair to the up-and-comers–again, a good thing. The fact that there have been some unexpected bumps along the road and that other issues have arisen is simply (and unfortunately) the way it's turned out so far, not part of some scheme.
I think it's fair to criticize (or raise questions or pursue dialogue) when substantive issues are potentially at stake but I also think it's important to acknowledge the positives and remember that we are all in this thing together.
The PSP now has a divisional structure that I think can be the framework from which all competitive paintball can align. As I mentioned to one of the PSP guys yesterday in a related context the devil is in the details. What's the best way to get the results everybody wants? It's a process and not always a happy or a pretty one.

Next time (for real 'cus I'm almost as tired of this subject as all y'all are) I'll close it out with some alternative ideas.

Logan's Run: The Human Face

This is not the final post in the series. It is not the alternative options or additional measures I promised. Those are still coming, just not today. (If you haven't seen the other posts in the series they've all been posted this month.)
Today I want to tell y'all the story of a single player. Today the player came to me and wanted to know if he could take a year off paintball and still compete in the future. That's what he asked but not what he wanted to know. He wanted to know what to do and he wanted to know if his "career" as a competitive paintball player was over. As soon as he appears on a Phoenix roster the PSP will rank him as a semi-pro player. Just like all last year's NXL players who won't be on a pro roster this year because of the roster reductions. Last year in January this player came to an open tryout with 2 events of D3 experience (so maybe the PSP thinks he was a D2 player. It's hard to keep track.) He showed promise. He had the right attitude. And the desire.
Yesterday (along with his remaining teammates from last season) he was told that his team wasn't gonna be carried over this year. (The plan was to keep the team but a series of unexpected changes forced the change of plan.) Last season they did well and finished with enough points to be moved up. Last year no division existed for them to move up to. There's only one team with 2 spots that he can play on without long distance travel for practice and that just isn't possible or realistic. Tomorrow or next week he may be an ex-competitive paintball player. All before his 19th birthday.

The Pear or the Pyramid: Logan's Run, part 3

It occurred to me that maybe I ought to take a moment and explain why I think all this enforced upward movement through the divisions matters. (If I already have feel free to skip this part and chalk it up to a vitamin deficiency or something when I was kid. We were barely civilized back then what with no video games or cable TV. Small wonder I turned out this way.) As you know if you've been following along I'm concerned that the present system pushes players up the ranks and then out of the game. (There is always some degree of attrition but shouldn't we be attempting to limit that attrition?) It also pushes some players without the ability into ranks where they can't compete. This process will, over time, "dumb down" the game by falsely rewarding players with ranks they don't deserve which in turn tends to make the divisional distinctions less useful and negates in some respects the idea of earning a higher ranking.

The PSP has in mind a league (the pool of all players) that looks like a pear (perhaps a Bartlett): a modest peak representing the elite pros and near semi-pros and a bulbous body with something like equal measures in D1 and D3 with the largest group massed in D2. I don't know what the appeal of this model is but I'm pretty certain it can only be attained by unnaturally altering the normal state of things in a competitive environment; hence the present system. [If I'm describing the Pear Model incorrectly let me know.] Here's why I think this: any endeavor predicated on merit, in this case the skill set of a competitive paintball player, tends to chart out in the famous (or infamous) bell-shaped graph. All this means is that the vast majority of players fall between the upper middle to lower middle in their ability to play the game. (Since we's talking 'bout paintball.) Additionally, the norm is that there will be, statistically, about the same numbers of progressively worse and progressively better players in diminishing numbers the further the graph moves from the center, both left and right. What our bell-shaped graph tells us is that the largest percentage of players will naturally fall into the middle zones. (Which may account for the Pear Model thinking going on except it's missing a step.)
What the Pear Model fails to account for is a league structure which has a floor, a self-selecting floor. Formerly xball began at D3. That is the floor. Players and teams choose to compete at that level and based on historic numbers I think it's safe to suggest that the volume of 5-man players and teams competing "below" D3 xball positions the average D3 player somewhere in the middle perhaps slightly above the absolute middle. [Of course we can't fully account for experience and the developmental arc each player goes thru but we assume those variables are expressed in improving results. And when teams of players prove they are well above the average in their division they need to move up–so perhaps the real disagreement is where and how to assess when teams/players reach that point.]
With a floor (an entry level) the league doesn't reflect the whole of the bell graph, only a portion of it beginning somewhere in the middle-ish. Nor does it concern itself with the progressively worse player, only the progressively better players. That result starts with a wide base and narrows as it rises because the numbers of players with better and better skill sets progressively shrinks as you move away from the middle. The end result might be considered a Pyramid Model. If the Pyramid Model is a superior representation of what the pool of all players' skill levels looks like within the league it's possible to make some simple assumptions about divisions. The largest division will be the floor division, in this case D3. And each division moving up should be smaller until the peak is reached. An important additional question is where those divisional breaks ought to be. In any event there will necessarily be players at the edges with marginal skill sets for the level they are competing in. Another interesting question is what is the necessary ratio between succeeding divisions to assure maintenance of the player pool the next division up.
The only way the Pear Model works is if the majority of incoming players are at best lower middle when they begin competing in the league. I think that is far more likely to be an accurate assessment on the local and regional level than on the national level. What the current classification system will eventually result in is a large scale shift in the skill level within the divisions. For example a future D1 will have the average or slightly higher than average skill set of the current D2 and so on. Which in turns lowers the skill threshold to compete up the ladder into Semi-pro and potentially pro. At which point pro risks being elite largely by virtue of being restricted.
Lots of other factors are involved and have significant influences so I don't think we can draw too much from this part of the discussion over classification except to say anytime we fail to see the norm represented in our divisions it likely means there's something wrong somewhere in the system.

Okay, that got all esoteric and stuff. My principle interest isn't to debate the perfect ratio between divisions but to provide the fairest possible competitive environment to the most players possible–and I'm sure that's what the PSP or any other league wants too. How to calculate the best way to achieve that goal is an interesting question. (To me anyway.) I'll try to keep it simple next time when I conclude this series of posts with a proposed "fix" for the current system and an alternative system as well.

Promoting Mediocrity: Logan's Run cont.

Remember the alternatives to the PSP's classification system I promised? Yeah, yeah, it's still coming but maybe not today.
The place where the PSP and I diverge is that I think they're crazy and I know I'm right. But that's not very helpful, is it? Let's try this another way. (Btw, I use PSP instead of individual names to smear the innocent and the guilty alike.)

The PSP has a vision of how and why players should move through the ranks and what that ought to look like conceptually. I'm mostly convinced that conception isn't possible and that in the process major league paintball will push some of the most dedicated players out of the game. It isn't intentional. Nor is it ill-considered. But I could be wrong.
It's numbers time! PSP says it is only promoting 15% of D3 players with the new classification rules. Which in raw numbers is accurate. 122 teams of D3 players played at least one event so if 20 teams are moved up it's 15%. Here's some more numbers. If a single team playing a single event equals 1 event experience unit then all D3 teams in 2008 earned 217 experience units. So, did the 15% being promoted play 15% of the D3 paintball in '08? Not even close, they played 36% of all the D3 paintball in '08. And the 15% being promoted constitute around 48% of all teams that played more than one event. As a practical matter PSP is promoting 36% of all the D3 experience and nearly 50% of all D3 teams that demonstrate the desire and capacity to play multiple events.
The next relevant number is 55. 55 is the mean average score given the range of 10 - 100. In any given single event if there is an odd number of competing teams there will be an equal number of teams above and below 55. And if you multiple 55 by 3 you get the score required to be promoted to D2, 165. That means if you play 3 events and are the perfect middle score the PSP deems you are good enough to be D2. In my world it means you are the very definition of an average D3 team.
There is one more way to look at the numbers. At NEO the NCPA All Stars scored a 67 and finished 12^th. At WC Misfit Toyz scored 67 and finished 24^th. What this means is the seed points assigned are purely a relational function of the total number of participants. This also means the scores do not reflect a consistent value team to team, event to event. Btw, assuming a static roster the NCPA All-Stars will be promoted to D2 with a best event score over the course of the season of 67.
Is the PSP really only promoting 15%? Or is it 36%? Or closer to 50%? Are they promoting the stable core out of D3 only to wonder later on why D3 is suddenly struggling? Or will that just be the bad economy? What happens up and down the league when you keep promoting ordinary teams?

More next time.

Logan's Run: PSP Style

The basics of the PSP classification rules have been released--or should that be unleashed? I am hoping against hope and looking towards the heavens while silently whispering please, please, please, please let there be something more coming that will mitigate the inevitable result of this system. But I'm not optimistic.
Okay, but what does that have to do with Logan's Run? Or even, what is Logan's Run? The answer to either of those questions should make the connection clear. Logan's Run is a sci-fi novel (then movie) that falls into the sub-genre of apocalyptic or dystopian future stories. In Logan's Run overpopulation is addressed by killing off people when they reach a certain age. It is sold as a social good and turned into a celebration. The previous classification rules did much the same, though instead of killing players the rules simply pushed (many, most, a whole bunch of?) players out of competitive paintball once they reached D1 ranking. The new rules, at least the stuff released so far, appears to be doing much the same but at semi-pro instead. For some background on the subject see previous posts here, here & here.

As it stands the classification rules only push players up the rankings. The rules take no account of, and are incapable of taking into account, the teams the players play on except for the results those teams achieve. Teams are not moved up in the rankings, only players. The classification rules cannot make adjustment for individual players except to assume any player who ever plays above his/her current rank should automatically receive extra ranking points. All the assumptions assume experience equals ability. The system also assumes that if the league doesn't compel upward movement that it won't happen. Since none of those things are universally true any result based on those assumptions is bound to be, let us say charitably, sub-optimum. Or wrong-headed and counterproductive.
I had hopes that with the new divisions the league would follow through and go all the way towards establishing classification rules they don't have to fiddle every year or so. These are not those rules. By last season's rule book 42 D3 teams must play D2 in '09. (Of course it isn't really teams moving up, it's their rosters but for the sake of brevity assume I mean qualifying players when I say teams.) 10 D2 teams must move up to D1 and if D1 used the same formula as D2 it would move 5 teams to semi-pro. (There were no rules established for D1 players to move up because there was no place for them to automatically go last year.) The old problem was that far too many of the players ranked D1 never ended up playing. Not just playing D1 but playing, period. And mass compulsory movement of D3 teams meant variations of the same when players were pushed beyond their skill level and experience before they were ready. The past problems will not be addressed simply by adding divisions to move through as long as the rules themselves aren't reconsidered (and then CHANGED.) And of course the only effort ever made to address what to do with pro ranked players was last year's mid-season pick'em. It might as well be a lottery. Wouldn't it be interesting to take the limited number of pro registered in APPA (since the NXL was outside APPA for a couple of years or more) and see where they all are today. But you already know where most of them are, don't you? Playing a different game.

D3 intro is a positive step. The new cumulative point total to push D3 players into D2 if used on last season's teams would move nearly 50% of all teams that played 2 or more events. That's simply too many and unnecessary. The reality is the great mass of teams in the middle are D3 teams by virtue of their ability and if this is the method the PSP intends to use they are not preserving the competitive balance–-they are social engineering. (One might even suggest they are trying to push teams up into more expensive brackets.) The same applies to both D2 & D1 as well. And where the resistance has been before-–moving up to D1 it will simply be exchanged for resistance to move into semi-pro. The classification rules will create a glut of semi-pro players with no place to play. This will happen even if the PSP were to open up semi-pro to more teams. But as of right now the limitation is 24 total pro and semi-pro teams in whatever combination and that is a logistical limitation. The end result gives players one extra level to pass through before the rules push them out and create the bottleneck to pro rosters discussed in Semi-pro dilemma. I will keep track of the carry-over this season and if the league wanted I imagine the APPA database is flexible enough to track this sort of thing so at least the league could see how many peeps it's pushing aside.

Next time I will offer a couple of alternatives to the current classification system. (May not be until next Monday as practice starts this weekend. We'll see.)