Baca's Mailbag, Dec 12

The question(s) that follow are very common. I have heard them repeated for as long as I've been involved in this game and there was a time when I asked most of them. I don't have definitive answers. The best I can do is some observations based on too many years experience. I invite the rest of you slackers to include your take on these questions in the comments.

(A) Ok, What type of back round do most of the pro players or regular tourney player have ??? (B) How do you afford it? is a question I am asked many times over the couse of a season? (C) I see a lot of the newer players having a tough time, when they look at the commitment needed to play on a regular basis. Our team is made up of a mix of people, ages and incomes and we are in a rual area.. (D) We have to buget and save to do what we do. We have no team sponsors and by no means do I think we have money to throw around.. We didnt go to a couple of major event due to the cost of traveling (air fare) How how do most players afford to play ...? (E) Do sponsors make up some of the difference, has it really become a rich man's sport? (F) What your feeling on the paintball landscape and the cost of playing competitive ball?


I'm going to respond to the questions in the order they come up and in order to keep things as clear as possible I've divided the query into sections.
(A)--from an economic perspective there is no type. I joke occasionally about the lack of diverse sports interest and background among tourney players but I doubt it's much different from the generalized norm. I just find it a bit curious since most competitive people are competitive about almost everything, and as kids, tend to try more things--or did a hundred years ago when I was a kid.
(B)--the usual way most players do. By prioritizing their spending in such a way that they can keep playing paintball. Figure out what you can afford and then spend more--is the way it frequently ends up. I'm not even sure it's all that much different, cost-wise, than it used to be. (But I do think there are a couple of contributing factors that are different today than in the past.) Back in the day we shot less paint but it cost a lot more. The last IAO I played Hellfire was $105 bucks a case of 2000 (including tax.) High end guns weren't much cheaper and national events were a larger time commitment, more days off school or work. A serious tourney jones has never been cheap. The biggest difference today is practice costs.
(C)--Nothing new here either although I do think it's tougher to get started in tourney paintball than it once was. My first team had players with money but no time and players with time but no money. Some were super gung ho, others a lot less so. Our biggest issue was getting enough time & money & commitment together for actual events. We were a decent practice team and a lousy competition team.
(D)--Again, not uncommon. So does most everybody else involved in the tourney side of the game. What often happens is one or two guys end up taking on extra financial burdens (to be paid back later) which almost inevitably turn into (more) problems later. Two things are required of a serious team; strong leadership and a plan. And once the plan is agreed to everyone needs to hold up their end--or they get replaced. More problems arise here in that lots of times the team is a mix of friends and ages and resources and that has always been and remains a recipe for frustration more often than not. Nobody wants to be the bad guy, everybody understands the difficulties but if the team is actually going to function there has to be a bottom line commitment from everyone actively involved. The big difference is today the level of commitment is higher lower down the divisional ladder than it once was, or so it seems to me. 
(E)--Sponsors make up some of the difference for very few teams any more. And the lion's share of what remains of real sponsorship, not discount product deals, is product. For example, Team A gets X number of guns from sponsor Q. The guns are for the team with the understanding the extra guns are sold to help fund the team. There are a relative handful of teams that do better than that.
(F)--In many respects very little has changed. Serious competition isn't cheap, it requires some level of commitment. A commitment in time & money. It is what it is. Beyond that I have one serious concern and I think there are a couple of factors in play today that are significantly different from times past.
My fear is decisions about the game's future direction will be based too much on the current rough economic times. Somewhere there's a boundary between keeping the sport alive and killing it in an effort to get more peeps to play.
Having said all that I also think there are things that make it more difficult to compete than in times past: fewer fields dedicated to supporting local team(s); a broadly younger demographic; what practice has become. The first one seems pretty straighforward. Toss into the mix the larger number of younger players and you've got kids without direction and fewer leaders. Fewer leaders and fewer homes that welcome competitive players and teams makes it more difficult to build teams. And somewhere during the last decade the romance of the grind has token hold of all divisions of competition. Which isn't a bad thing but it has upped the ante to competing in virtually every division of play. Kick in scrimming on the event layout and the game--for too many--becomes about reps, practice points played and nearly endless cases of paint shot--and we're talking about so-called introductory levels of play. The entry bar has been raised too high and it's going to be nigh on impossible to lower it. 

Baca's Mailbag, Dec 9

I can see the bottom of the mail bag from here, slackers. Just saying. Personally, I'm looking forward to my blogging vacation.

"My team is looking to make the jump from Race 2-2 to D3 Race 2-4. We have been successful in the past despite being somewhat isolated with little to no access to other better teams for practice and training. My concerns are twofold; How is xball lite different, if it is, and is there anything other than what we're doing we can do to continue to get better considering our situation?" (Official VFTD paraphrase offered for clarity and succinctness.)

First, the tone of the question(s) expressed some hesitation about making the move to D3 xball lite. The move, compulsory or otherwise, needs to be reframed as a positive challenge, a good thing for the team. (Because it is.) On the other hand it's also a good thing to be as prepared as possible.
The steepest learning curve immediately is the turnaround on points. Your players need to be physically prepared and as a team you need to be properly organized to deal with the changes the quick turnarounds cause. Depending on how many players are on the team you will need to take into account; line up changes, in match tactical adjustments, basic logistical necessities. Your basic logistical necessities are potted paint, aired up working markers, assigned roles, unmarked players--all the usual basics. When you walk off the field and know you don't play again for between 10 minutes and an hour or whatever all those things are easily dealt with. When you're playing again in two minutes you have to have a plan--and everybody needs to know how they fit in the plan. Even if you will staff assistance it is worth talking through the process as a group and practicing getting ready within the turnaround time limit.
Depending on the size of your roster you may also need to prepare for shifting line-ups, different groups of five going out to play each point. Anything less than two complete lines means some number of players will be playing back-to-backs and will require priority coming off the field for things like air, getting cleaned up (paint free), etc. Even if shifting line-ups isn't new make sure you know how it's going to work within the limited time frame of the xball (Race 2) turnaround. It's between points, 2 players are going back-to-back and the pit is full of people trying to get ready and get on the field. The last thing you need is to know in advance how your team will determine what your next point is going to be. Do your players decide? Does a coach call prearranged plays? However the team functions you will need to make sure your routine for that too fits within your turnaround time. It may seem rather daunting at first but if you walk through it, get everybody on the same page and practice getting everything done within the time limit you'll be well ahead of the game. Keep in mind your first practical event experience may still be kinda chaotic because the one thing you can't prepare for is the real deal--but your advance prep will make the transition much easier.
(Based on the elements of practice you mentioned) the team should add laning OTB and Running & Gunning drills to your current regimen. (There are half a dozen or more posts in the archives covering those topics in how-to formats. Search stuff like laning, OTB, practice, playing the game, running & gunning and so on.) Otherwise the drills and mismatches (snap-shooting, 1on1's, 2on1's, 3on2's, etc.) and so on continue to be a solid base. With little or no local challenges to help keep the team sharp your group attitude and focus becomes critical to future success--which is one reason the move up to a new national level challenge is positive motivation. The other thing you need to focus on when it comes to your regular (routine) practice is execution. Practice can't degenerate into simply going through the motions, it needs to be about perfecting, always getting better.
Finally I would suggest, if it's at all possible, to arrange a special weekend practice trip--not unlike going to an event--to test your progress and scrimmage with better players and teams. Or, alternatively planning well in advance to schedule competing at a regional event where better than home grown competition will exist. Regardless, treat your first event or two in the new format as learning experiences and set your goals accordingly.
Good luck. 

A Bar Too High

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

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

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

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

Next time I'll talk about the two tracks.

Pushing Paintballs

Is there a new paint war coming? Calm down. I'm not suggesting there is or isn't. I'm just curious. For awhile the big boys played consolidate and gobble up some of the old paint makers; X.O., JT, Archon and Zap and whoever else. [Severe called it quits.] All the while the conventional wisdom plead poverty on behalf of the surviving paint manufacturers--which in Procaps' situation seemed to have some merit but there are/were other issues (Pulse litigation, etc.) beyond simply making and selling paintballs. Regardless, the North American market was whittled down to a couple primary players and all the while we continued to hear paint manufacturing was in dire straits as nobody had two nickels to rub together 'cus the prices were too low. (Price to whom?--but that's another post.) Meanwhile paint is being made in China, India & Europe among other places. Does our market settle down leaving RPS and Draxxus to split the market? Au contraire, despite the apparent failure of numerous other paint manufacturers all of a sudden we have a horse race again. Valken is pushing paint in a big way but not manufacturing. GI Sportz is cranking out paint and is looking to make a big splash and scoop up market share at a record pace. And even HydroTec remains in the game though their recent delays--despite re-tooling explanations--leaves their impact uncertain. Are all these people nuts or are we looking at some sort of paint Renaissance? Or will there be a bloodbath or will everybody be able to get along and survive or even thrive?

One other thing. Look at how it's being done. In recent years paint sponsorships have been sinking faster than fabled Atlantis because we are told the value of high profile teams and players is no longer an effective method of marketing, if it ever was. GI apparently disagrees. They made a strong push to deliver the best paint at last year's World Cup and have built on that success by signing 4 top pro teams along with an aggressive program of league sponsorships. Valken hasn't jumped on the team sponsorship bandwagon but they are all over league sponsorships as well. Meanwhile DXS seems to have opted to back a single horse in the big time sponsorship sweepstakes by supporting Impact but that still reflects a move away from past practices. And the KEE peeps, while retaining a few pro teams with paint deals, have countered with both nationally announced sponsorship options for divisional teams as well as some other, related sponsorship options primarily aimed at divisional teams that were presented to retailers in their network end of last week-ish via email.

It looks to me like the new (old) kids on the block are building their new brands the same way everybody else once did. Are they making a mistake? Is there another way to go? A better way to go? Or were the previous entrenched paint makers figuring they no longer needed to compete and let their sponsorships dwindle as a consequence?

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.)

Formula One & Major League Paintball

This is gonna make perfect sense. No, really. It will. What do major league paintball and Formula One racing have in common? (The answer is not untold millions of dollars or enormous contracts for the leading figures. And it's not a chance to travel the world to compete though I will grant you a fortunate few can make the claim. Still, there remains a big difference from living the high life in Monte Carlo and driving a Monte Carlo.)

In football every game ball is as identical as the official manufacturer can manage to make them. In baseball every ball is, again, identical and produced by one manufacturer. Basketball, yeah, you guessed it. Identical. In most legit sports a conspicuous effort is made to assure that the equipment used doesn't confer any advantage to the competitors--particularly where a diversity of suppliers is allowed. Like golf or auto racing. But even where the technical rulebook looks like the Chicago white pages and a platoon of inspectors will practically tear apart the winning car to assure rules compliance the equipment varies. Perhaps most noticeably in Formula One where the latest engine management wizardry or chassis magic gives one team or another an obvious advantage that may last a season or more. Don't take my word for it though. Try this stat out. Of the 51 Constructor's championships awarded (since 1958) the same team also shared the Driver's title 40 times. Superior cars make good drivers better. Much better. This, of course, doesn't mean that great drivers can't succeed, only that it's an uphill battle when the competitive environment isn't equal.

At this point you're beginning to think you know what's coming next. You don't. (Unless you remember when I promoted this idea some many moons ago.) Sure, I could focus on the negatives--and have--just not this time.

The thing that makes the upper echelon of racing different is that the competition functions at a number of levels. It isn't exclusively about the drivers. Largely by necessity, as much of the money and motivation comes from the competition between various manufacturers (brands, chassis, motors, tires, etc.) vying for the right to claim they are the best, too. (Although it is somewhat ironic that F1 finally decided to go with a single tire manufacturer just a few years ago.) Given that competitive paintball finds itself in a similar circumstance--one unlikely to change anytime soon--it's time to make the best of it and improve the game at the same time. (When first suggested I want to say it was the then Pure Promotions version of the NPPL that briefly attempted to make it work but soon lost interest. My original column for PGi is in the Dead Tree Archive, somewhere, but I'm not sure which one it is. Yes, I looked but I couldn't find it. On the other hand I did enjoy revisiting some damn fine columns. Man, I used to be good.)

What the major leagues need to do is follow Formula One's lead. Expand the competition. Incorporate necessity and make it pay dividends. Increase the value of sponsorship. Take control. Encourage sponsorship diversity. Differentiate between competitors and vendors. Formalize the manufacturers pre-existing competition(s) by awarding event points and crowning season-ending series titles for manufacturers with the imprimatur of the greatest paintball league(s) in the world. For example, the PSP's 2011 Goggle of the Year. Categories could include guns, goggles, hoppers, packs & paint. Distinguish between Pro & Am.

Fleshing this out a little more the manufacturers competition is separate from vending. Pro teams may not use equipment of non-competing manufacturers. Manufacturers have always used the top tier of the sport to promote their products indirectly--which they can still do by supporting the top teams--but now have the option to also do so directly. Each event the latest numbers will be revealed to see where the manufacturers stand. The advantage to the league is they control the competition the same way they do the tournaments played under their aegis. The manufacturers competition is a value added for the manufacturers. The scoring system can protect & promote sponsorship relations between teams and manufacturers. Now is the ideal time to institute a manufacturers competition because of the influx of new paint producers looking to separate themselves from their comeptition and grab market share. A likely added bonus related to paint is greater consistency in the quality provided event to event. This should have happened a long time ago. It should happen now. Should either major league be interested in greater practical detail you know where to find me.

PS--manufacturer's awards wasn't my idea. I credited the source I got it from in the magazine column--which is why I was looking for it--but don't remember anymore. Anyway, it was a clever Brit and if any of y'all recall (or find the column) he deserves the credit.
UPDATE: It was Steve Bull. The column was "Brave New Paintball World" from 2004 reprinted on the blog in 2008--and found by Kine (who posted in comments.)

In the News

Saw this item over at the Big Bullet. It's an interesting twist on the tourney norm, if it even qualifies as a tourney format. Whatever it is it's an intriguing hybrid and I'll be looking forward to see how it works out as it could unite all kinds of ballers behind a fun, flexible competitive format.

More news on the HydroTec paintball front too thanks to the Catshack. (Litter is not optional.) In an interview that recounts elements of the conversation instead of verbatim quotes it sounds like the new paintball may be underweight compared to current 68 cal paintballs. Depending on the variance it's unlikely to be a big deal except in the competitive arena where an underweight paintball could be at a performance disadvantage. And in discussing pricing it sounded like it may end up closer to current paint prices than a lot of the rumors have suggested even though no actual pricing was given. Something to keep an eye on anyway.

A Road Less Traveled

A Paintball love story. Not. If I wanted warm and gooey--get your minds out of the gutter--I'd go for some Cinna-minions down at the local IHOP. Actually I'm picking up where 'Broken Record' left off. I know I promised new ideas and they may in fact be new to some but there really isn't much that is truly new. Even in paintball. What I really have to offer is a variation on an old idea used in perhaps a new way. Now that you're thoroughly confused let's get started.
Paintball as sport is moving toward integration but that causes issues at the local and regional level where tourney ball is competitive but it's also a (struggling) business in many cases. Part of that process is pushing younger and younger players out of competitive opportunities because of their classification and the inability of the locals to accommodate those players within the framework of that integrating process. (And even without the integration process there has always been, or so it seems, the ever present sandbagging hysteria which does much the same often for less reason.) At the big maw end of beginning and developing players the integrating process needs to cookie cutter and categorize everybody new and up-and-coming. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that it's just that it is often contrary--or can be--to much of the motivation and fun for playing a competitive form of paintball at the local level. Sure the desire to win exists but so too the desire to hang out with friends and enjoy playing the game.
The driven players do what they have to do. The rest simply want to have fun playing the game.
As currently envisioned competitive paintball as sport has a tiered pathway that leads from the local field's D5 event all the way up to the major league's Pro division. It works (or could work) because it universalizes the competitive experience in format and classification. But as much as everyone may want it to it cannot accommodate everybody's interest in competitive paintball.
In the past we've discussed all sorts of alternatives; return to the woods, mechanical markers, pump guns, restricted ROF, limited paint and more but those "solutions" are aimed at throwing a wider net to attract more players. They don't directly address keeping the ones we've already got but this does: re-seeded open division play. (See, I told you there are no new ideas.)
No or very limited restrictions on team rosters. Institute whatever set of rules and format you want and organize it a couple of ways based on participation. The secret is relatively short rounds and reseeding of teams. To make it simpler you could have Open A that allows Pro/Semi-pro ranked players to be rostered and Open B that doesn't. Play a round and be re-seeded into a new division based on scores playing a traditional 5-man format, for example. After the second round everyone finds themselves seeded for the final round in competitive groups and you finish up playing for your division title. Mostly the best teams, most experienced players, rise to the top but not always. Early losses don't matter. Everybody gets to compete. The lower div teams and players get the benefit of competing part of the time against superior competition and still end the event with a chance to win their division. It could be a season ending "special" event or a bi-annual or if it proved popular it could be a semi-regular alternative to "serious" competitive events. It's also a way nearly everyone who wants to compete can play together.

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.

Robots versus Ninjas

Time flies when you're blogging and so this post is about two weeks late, give or take, but now that it's here, who cares, right? For a quick refresher on the topic go here. Now that you're up to speed it's full throttle robots v. ninjas. The argument aimed by the ninjas (proponents of 7-man) against the robots (xball players) is both ironic and misguided. The core of it is that coaching turns the xball player into a robot simply following commands and if that wasn't bad enough these same coaches kill the ninja style of play by making game-breaking run-thrus almost impossible. At least the kind where the player making the move also survives. This view has a lot of advocates not least a chunk of the Middle Skool pros–those guys whose careers span most of the out-of-the-woods era of competitive paintball and perhaps even a few Old Skoolers. Doesn't however make them right.
Coaching is communication. And communication is a basic tennant of competitive paintball going deep into the forests of yesteryear. No one objects to a back player rolling his gun and telling his insert to make the move they worked out before the game started. Yet when a coach tells a player to go–bumping a gap in the snake or the like it's the ruination of the game. The plain truth is the xball player still must have the full complement of individual skills in order to be successful. All that those within the sound of the coach's voice get extra is information about the unfolding point. And more and more the notion of a coach "operating" a player, any player, like his robot is failing the practical test–it doesn't work very well and most of the time that's not the focus of the coaching going on–which is simply to provide more info in a changing environment. (The obvious "secret" to neutralizing coaching is rate of change; how fast things keep happening.) Even so, coaching can and does alter some things and it's a fair debate to question just how much. That said, coaching never eliminated anybody or stopped a single run-thru.
The real argument is over the nebulous skill called timing. Timing being that sense a player either develops or doesn't of when to do things though it's usually associated with making moves, judging the opportune moment and going for it. Hence the objection to robot-like players and "ruined" run-thrus. Of course the critical element that made (makes) timing valuable is LACK of information.
The irony in the whole argument is that xball has altered all of competitive paintball in ways those making the argument have apparently failed to recognize.
You gotta crawl before you can walk or run. Remember the example in the original post of how crawling has changed? 15 years ago crawling was the ninja style of paintball. And what changed it? The game environment.
How long has 7-man been a major format in the U.S.? Less than a decade or about the same amount of time as xball has been around. Is 7-man a more natural progression from the prior generation's 10-man than xball is? I think that's a fair statement but neither format is played the way 10-man was in the past. 10-man was a gun dominant game. Yes, the same basic rules applied and peeps worked for angles, moved up field etc. but the guns controlled the rhythm of the games and the first teams to push the pace were changing the way the game was played. I'd start the transition with Image followed by Dynasty but you might want to throw in turn-of-the-century Shock and old Lanche, too. (I've often wondered if the early electronic cheats weren't motivated by a desire to reestablish the old order of the game. Okay, too philosophical and not to the point.)
Regardless Dynasty epitomized the new game of speed and movement and xball formalized it with a tiny unforgiving field of play that demands skills sharpened to a knife's edge.
For those of you who've been around long enough the differences in the 7 minute 7-man game of today from even the last incarnation of 10-man is pretty stark and the style of play and broad skill sets demanded of players today owe far more to xball and teams like Dynasty than they do to the historic game.
There are no robots or ninjas, only ways to play the game that demand a different balance of skills. [Which reminds me, one of the better ways to introduce rookies to tourney ball would be on larger scale fields.]
I've little doubt this debate will continue but the important part of all this isn't who is right or wrong in the robots versus ninjas debate. The lesson is that so far in paintball's brief history very little prior consideration has been given to the consequences of the changes being made. Or the corallary that future changes will, whether intended or not, mold and shape the game in new and different ways. And, lastly, that any contemplated change should be rigorously examined for its likely consequences before being instituted.

The Boundary of Sport

Aight, kids. Cup is over for another year and here we are. I've got quite a lot to get off my chest and it begins with not having internet access where I was staying in Orlando--but I intend to make up for that.

The boundary of (any) sport is its rulebook and the frontline guardians of sport are the officials. Puts a bit of a twist on things, doesn't it? [If you're not sure what I mean it's this: the rules define what is and isn't part of the play of the game and the refs enforce those rules. It also means the willful failure to play by the rules is disrespecting the game. It also means the refs deserve our respect for their role--but it also means they have to treat their role with respect too. More on this in a minute.]
The place where competitive paintball gets into trouble is accountability. Here's how it shakes out: the players are accountable and nobody else is. If that doesn't sound right to you then pay close attention to this next part. On the field the players are accountable to the rules as enforced by the officials. Off the field they are accountable to sponsors, team management, each other. Failures of enforcement (on and off the field) aren't a lack of accountability. All the power and discretion reside with somebody other than the player.
Here's where the guardians of the sport stuff fits. The refs, the leagues and ownership are the ones responsible for maintaining the integrity of the game and none of them is accountable in any obvious way. The refs owe the game their best most impartial effort. The leagues owe their customers and the game fair oversight of their officials and it's the owners responsibility to see it all happens. Sure, the leagues may say they do their best to put good refs on the field but what does that really mean and can anybody offer up an example of how that works as a practical matter? You and I both know the leagues will almost inevitably back their refs against any accusations and whatever actions might be taken aren't made public. And who holds the owners accountable for their obligation to the game? They're making decisions about everything from format, to rosters, to time, to number of officials, and on and on. Every decision made or unmade can alter the game. How seriously is that responsibility taken?
Now I'm not saying all players are noble and virtuous and all the others are power mad and corrupt. Not at all. What I am saying is both sides need to respect the game, not just the players. In fact the refs, the leagues, the owners need to respect it more keeping in mind that part of their job is to protect the integrity of the game by actually doing the best job possible--not just giving it lip service. Or worse, thinking it's their game to do with as they please. That means that not only their attitude matters but also their competence and personal integrity. It seems like it's fair game to routinely call the players out--and it is when they are in the wrong--but out of line to call out the refs, the leagues or the owners. Or PBIndustry. (Which is frequently the same thing.)
Uncle Ben gave Peter Parker the creed he lives by (C'mon, you may not read Spiderman comix but you've seen the movie) when he told Peter that with great power comes great responsibility and in the realm of competitive paintball ALL the power is held by peeps other than the players. If you accept Uncle Ben's formulation that puts the players, regardless of their behavior, out of the loop and puts ALL the responsibility, in ascending order, on the refs, the leagues, the owners.
My purpose here isn't to suggest anyone indulge in wholesale blaming of refs, leagues and owners now for the perceived ills of the game instead of the usual blame the player. My purpose is to remind those who do have the power that they are indeed responsible for whatever becomes of the game precisely because we have no way to hold them accountable except by refusing to participate. And if they won't hold themselves to a high standard they've no right to expect it from anyone else–and further if it all comes crashing down they will have no one to blame but themselves.

Defining the Game

Decided the last post was too much of a downer to skip out on for the rest of the week. Chances are I won't post during Cup but I will have a computer with me just in case I change my mind or something good comes up.

I'm frequently amused by the ongoing "debate" over what is the superior format as it usually devolves into robots vs. ninjas. You know, Xball versus 7-man from the proponents of 7-man. The Xball side usually musters the effective rebuttal, "Is not." And so it goes.
I'm not interested in arguing the relative merits of the formats, so I won't. But I do have one word for all you robots and ninjas.
Crawling.
You see, when competitive paintball left the woods it eventually left some things behind, like crawling. Oh, not right away and not altogether but what an Old Skooler thinks of when he thinks crawling in a paintball context isn't the crawling most of you know. And the distinction is instructive.
The introduction of hyperball began the intentional move out of the woods. Even so early hyperball fields were specifically designed to incorporate elements of play that acknowledged the then accepted skill set of competition paintball--and it included crawling. In time airball altered the game some more--but again, where do you think the notion of a snake came from? Crawling. So, in a sense we still incorporate crawling as an accepted (and valued) skill in competition paintball but it isn't really anything like it once was. As the competition environment changed so did the skill and its utility.
There are more than a few insights to be drawn from the example of crawling as it applies to the whole robots versus ninjas debate. I'll leave you to think on it and next week I'll get into in depth until I make you cry, 'Uncle.'

The Econometric of the Commons: Productive Competition and Unproductive Competition

Aight, kids, here's Part Two.
With the first post up less than 6 hours it was suggested to me that I must be looking to be run outta paintball on a rail after being liberally tarred and feathered. I want to say categorically that wasn't the plan. So save your tar and feathers and don't bother going to Home Depot and picking up that rail.

Once upon a time there were 3 paintball fields located around a major metropolitan area. (Everybody loves a story, right? Well, you're getting one anyway. This one is more of a fable really–a story with a moral. And pay close attention because there will be a quiz at the end.) 2 of the 3 fields were model operations. The third was a fly-by-night, next thing to pirate paintball, make some quick cash dealio. Imagine you own one of the model operations. Now imagine that in the next year 1000 people who have never played paintball before will play one of those 3 local fields. Here's the twist: You get to decide which field they play at it except it can't be yours. What do you do?
The single overriding characteristic of all paintball that drives every aspect of the endeavor at every level is the player. Singular. Yes, it's an aggregate of players that eventually makes the difference between success and failure in a given circumstance but thinking about the players as a group is misleading. The thing that matters is a quality all players share. The player plays the game when and where the player chooses to play. The player is a free consumer of paintball. I know, no duh, but think about it for a second. Besides the obvious it means the player can't be coerced and the paintball market in total is made up of the pool of players. I know, another no brainer when you stop to think about it but it's important nonetheless. For PBIndustry (everybody with fields, stores, factories and the materiel components of events) this means they are all selling to the same pool of players--and, the players are a freely self-identifying association.
So how did you divvy up the 1000 players? If you sent any of them to Blackbeard over at Pirate Paintball–BZAAPPP! You lose. Thanks for playing and don't let the door hit you on the way out. As an isolated situation it may seem like a tough call no matter what choice is made but it really isn't. The 1000 players aren't yours. (Yet.) So those players don't affect your bottom line. (Today.) But if you send them to pirate paintball for bloody welts, eye patches and machine gun massacres what percentage ever play again? And how many haven't-tried-it-yet players do they sour afterwards because of their experience? Now if you sent them all to the other model operator you know the 1000 players were far more likely to have a positive, safe, fun day of paintball. And the likelihood is a much higher percentage become repeat customers. And as repeats you now have an opportunity to compete for their business.
The other guy's loss isn't your gain. Players choose. The first goal all PBI hold in common is getting the non-player to choose to play. When they become a player is the time you compete for the choices they make.
A couple of factors have blinded PBIndustry to the merits of operating in common. Manufacturers tend to be wholesalers primarily dealing with retailers so are one further remove from the player and are in day-to-day competition with the other manufacturers for market share and indirect sales. (Let's skip what happens when manufacturers become retailers for now.) Retailers are local and tend to see the other guy's success as their loss. And of course when things were good there's little incentive to make that extra effort and take on extra work.
Additionally, the calculation everybody is determined to make is where do I lose on this proposition. Not what do I gain, but what's it gonna cost me? What advantage am I giving up? I'm not gonna argue cost or rate of return or shrinking margins. What I will say is this: operating in common where it serves everyone's interest doesn't alter the competitive environment except to acknowledge that everybody's life blood is the player base and building and sustaining that base is something that none of y'all can do as effectively alone as cooperatively.
To date the bulk of the energies expended by PBIndustry have been aimed at selling to more of the existing players than the next guy. Which, on its face, isn't unreasonable. What it does however is cede a significant avenue of potential growth to random happenstance or at best the skill of each local field and store. Grow the player pool and there's more market for everybody. Which is another no brainer and not news to anybody. And yet--

Part Three: been there done that & the (next wave) Paintball Sports Trade Assoc.

The Econometric of the Commons or What the Hell is Wrong with Everybody?

Here's the deal. I'm trying something different. I'm gonna start with the punchline and if (or when) you disagree then you can read the reasons why I'm right and you're wrong or you can skip that part completely and continue to deny reality. Hey, if it's good enough for Congress ... (Although I'm inclined to think Congress isn't so much denying reality as imagining they can alter reality by ballot.) I'm also gonna break the post into sections. This is Part One.

Warning: Conceptual Stuff ahead. Boring and uncool. Devoid of rumor and gossip.

PBIndustry as a whole has failed to act on significant opportunities to improve the economic environment in the past and the time is rapidly approaching when this failure could have dire consequences and ought to be addressed. I can't tell you why this failure has occurred and it's all the more baffling because PBI(ndustry) is well aware of the concept I'm about to promote and aspects of its utility and yet only a few piecemeal efforts seem to have been made.
The idea is simple. That PBI shares a large proportion of all things paintball in common and it would be beneficial to PBI to acknowledge that fact and then act on it.
It begins with Standards & Practices. (See prior posts for related commentary, search by label) S&P is shorthand for a system of general agreements consented to by PBI (broadly) and accepted as beneficial to paintball and all its participants. S&P has internal and external applications as well as overlapping applications.
Here's an example: goggles. PBI that makes and sells goggles compete over looks, comfort and ease of use--not safety. There is an industry standard for safety set by the ASTM. There are liability and practical reasons. Safety standards as judged by an impartial authority minimize liability and assure that no reputable PBI is poisoning the well with unsafe, inferior equipment. This is a common interest.
Why does this matter? It is going to become increasingly important that PBI take the necessary steps to implement S&P as the working foundation for building and maintaining (sustaining) the paintball marketplace. And by paintball marketplace I mean every aspect of the infrastructure that makes playing paintball possible.
The reason this is, in my view, a necessity is because a contraction is coming, not simply the previously unexpected plateau of a couple of years ago. [The contraction I'm referring to is a real decline in the Pool of All Players. (All Players is defined by raw numbers and frequency.) That contraction will be precipitated by a widespread economic contraction.] The duration of the contraction as it affects PBI may be influenced by actions PBI can begin to take now. And related to that is the experience of not being prepared to take an active role in the development and maintenance of the paintball marketplace which has already caused a few members of PBI to reconsider their future strategies and which I'm advocating should be held in common.
S&P is the first step because it begins the process of general agreements that will provide stability for the more wide ranging and proactive possibilities (which I'll get into in future installments.) It is, after a fashion, baby steps in cooperation, trust building and shared goals and values. S&P would also serve to provide a baseline universal guarantee to customers and create membership value within PBI. S&P would also be a hurdle to potential start-up PBI.
S&P would also begin the conversation about the future of paintball and include a wider circle of participants.

Part Two: productive competition and unproductive competition