Have you been able to find out anymore information about what actually happened at the merger talks? Who ended up sinking the deal? From a few posts around the internet it appears it was the NPPL that ended things.
To answer the first part of the question, yes, I've found out more about what happened. Without assigning blame here's roughly what happened at the end. As everyone (who cares) now knows the meeting in Vegas ended badly. There was an effort made after that via a series of conference calls to get back on track the day before the NPPL announced their 2012 event schedule. [The joint the-merger-is-off statement came out November 30th and the NPPL announced their complete 2012 schedule the next day, December 1st. The PSP announced their first two events on December 5th.] Proposals and counter-proposals were made and rejected and neither party apparently could agree to any middle ground between the proposals offered. To the best of my current knowledge format wasn't the make or break issue--it would have been dealt with after a basic deal was agreed to. It seems the core issues were ownership stake(s)--who ended up with what--and something VFTD remarked on back in September, uncertainty about the legal structure of the NPPL and the status of its team/owners in some instances. (Both parties agreed months ago, during the process, to release records to a third party for review and it took the NPPL months to comply.) How much bearing the later issue had on an inability to agree to the former I've no idea--nor can I break down the numbers or dollars being discussed. (If I can get the-rest-of-the-story and be reasonably certain of its accuracy I'll tell that tale when I can.)
I don't think either league left the bargaining table unhappy with the outcome and from here on out we will see what sort of line the industry takes, along with the players. (And I do mean players, not the etools who have never played either one but insist on repeatedly declaring their opinions.)
Showing posts with label merger talk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label merger talk. Show all posts
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
It's Official!
Below is the joint statement issued by the PSP & NPPL in the wake of a final effort to bring the merger to fruition. If VFTD was a paintball news site (or beholden to industry support and advertising) that's the way I'd leave it too. But VFTD isn't so ... it looks like CYA to me. "Remain committed and optimistic .." Yeah, right.
Here's the (rumored) dealio. Some time in the last day (or two?) a final ditch effort was made to see if a deal could be reached. As is clear in the statement it didn't work out. After the (apparent) debacle in Vegas--hey, that's the way that effort is rumored (there's that word again) to have gone--VFTD wants to know what really happened. The truth may never get out but--here's a prediction--the first stories are likely to be just that, stories. Who initiated this last ditch effort? Why? What did it amount to? So many questions. So few answers. So far.
_____________________________________________
Subject: PSP & NPPL joint Press Release
Dear Industry Members, Teams, Players and Supporters,
In June of this year, the PSP management and the NPPL management met in Las Vegas for a meeting to construct the framework for a merged or newly combined entity to host one paintball tournament event series for 2012 and beyond. Both the PSP and the NPPL supported by the majority of the industry felt that given the past erosion of our industry and the current economic uncertainty, that one league hosting a series of events would be the best thing for everyone involved. After additional meetings in New Jersey, Orlando and Las Vegas combined with countless phone conferences and email correspondence, we were unable to come to an agreement that satisfied both parties. Given the time that is left in the calendar year and the quickly approaching 2012 tournament season, we have exhausted the time to negotiate further.
The PSP & NPPL staff fully recognizes the benefits of a combined league for 2012 and with the most genuine of intentions, deployed all assets and made every effort to make one league a reality for the paintball community. We believe the PSP & NPPL organizations pursued the negotiations with the same intentions and shared our desire to be successful. The PSP & NPPL both recognize the termination of negotiations as a temporary setback but remain committed and optimistic to merging for one league in the future. We want to thank the staff of both the PSP & NPPL and sincerely appreciate the efforts they made to consummate a combined entity.
Regards,
The PSP & NPPL Management
Here's the (rumored) dealio. Some time in the last day (or two?) a final ditch effort was made to see if a deal could be reached. As is clear in the statement it didn't work out. After the (apparent) debacle in Vegas--hey, that's the way that effort is rumored (there's that word again) to have gone--VFTD wants to know what really happened. The truth may never get out but--here's a prediction--the first stories are likely to be just that, stories. Who initiated this last ditch effort? Why? What did it amount to? So many questions. So few answers. So far.
_____________________________________________
Subject: PSP & NPPL joint Press Release
Dear Industry Members, Teams, Players and Supporters,
In June of this year, the PSP management and the NPPL management met in Las Vegas for a meeting to construct the framework for a merged or newly combined entity to host one paintball tournament event series for 2012 and beyond. Both the PSP and the NPPL supported by the majority of the industry felt that given the past erosion of our industry and the current economic uncertainty, that one league hosting a series of events would be the best thing for everyone involved. After additional meetings in New Jersey, Orlando and Las Vegas combined with countless phone conferences and email correspondence, we were unable to come to an agreement that satisfied both parties. Given the time that is left in the calendar year and the quickly approaching 2012 tournament season, we have exhausted the time to negotiate further.
The PSP & NPPL staff fully recognizes the benefits of a combined league for 2012 and with the most genuine of intentions, deployed all assets and made every effort to make one league a reality for the paintball community. We believe the PSP & NPPL organizations pursued the negotiations with the same intentions and shared our desire to be successful. The PSP & NPPL both recognize the termination of negotiations as a temporary setback but remain committed and optimistic to merging for one league in the future. We want to thank the staff of both the PSP & NPPL and sincerely appreciate the efforts they made to consummate a combined entity.
Regards,
The PSP & NPPL Management
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
What Doesn't Happen In Vegas
I don't have anything new on the merger (Kaboom!) front but when has that stopped me before? If, in fact, this signals the end of serious talks about a merger for the foreseeable future--and there seems little doubt that it does--then a post mortem is in order. And if it's all some sort of misunderstanding--I didn't know she was your wife when she stepped out of my shower--we can consider it just another one of those wacky Vegas misadventures along the rocky road to happiness--but it's not. But seriously, odds are, given the rumors exploding last weekend in Vegas, and the sudden posting of an HB event schedule for 2012 it sure sounds like everything went Kaboom! So what happens now? Is top flight national competition paintball in trouble? And what about some of the reported rumors? And how does the sale of Procaps effect national level competitive paintball, if at all?
While I'm not privvy to any first person insider info--go figure--I think there are a few reasonable conclusions that can be drawn (and I'm willing to climb out on a limb and offer a few up.) Back in September I posted a couple of merger-related posts. The first one, Merger Counterfactual, addressed the possibilities of what happens if there is or isn't a merger. I stand by that post and have a rumor or two to toss into the pot as I go all in. In Monday's post I alluded to the rumor that KEE was threatening a hard line with its sponsored teams if there was no merger. A hard line that favors the PSP. (There's even been some talk of a united industry--minus PE--determined to break the 2 league sponsorship cycle--but color me skeptical of that one.) If true that would mean KEE would likely pressure teams like Dynasty, Infamous and XSV to abandon the NPPL. (Of course the reverse could also be true but that isn't the way the rumors were flying.) And think of all the teams shooting Axes & RPS paint. That doesn't paint a pretty picture for the NPPL's future success.
Merger Machinations was also posted in September. In that post I identified some impediments to the merger I believed to be accurate. (And I've had no reason or received any info to suggest otherwise since.) Admittedly there are more current rumors but only the folks in the room discussing the merger know what actually happened and why and I would be very surprised (shocked actually) if the whole process wasn't covered by non-disclosure agreements. [I use them with some regularity and while not foolproof non-disclosures provide some extra legal protections again sensitive or proprietary information being leaked.] That is however just a supposition on my part. That said all the "insider" rumors about the meeting are coming from one side; the NPPL side.
What's perhaps more interesting than speculating about exactly what happened is speculating about what will happen next. Rumorology has suggested (for some time now) that there will be more events next season--rumor says 5 but who knows, is back to the old schedule of 6 events possible? I would guess not but that would only be a guess. Further I would expect the PSP to maintain the status quo when it comes to rules and format and such. After a reputedly successful 2011 (and the general playership aversion to change) a little continuity would likely prove quite popular. (Although a return to the shorter field might be change everyone could appreciate--and would help reverse the more paint, fewer points trend of 2011.) And then there's the sale of Procaps. Richmond has always flagshipped his paint brand with high visibility sponsorships--the current GI Sportz line-up for example--and there's no reason to imagine that will change. The question really is--will DraXXus be retained as a separate brand line (that incidentally ends up competing with GI) or will Procaps be subsumed into GI? And what happens to DraXXus sponsored teams as a result? Does GI spread the wealth and go with the numbers or focus their resources on a few well chosen teams? (Last year, KEE picked up a number of teams on the relative cheap with their Axes & RPS deals because there wasn't any real alternatives available.) Will the Procaps sale force further belt tightening and if it does what will that mean? In the Pro division it will likely mean a number of the NPPL only Pro teams won't have any real option about where they play; it will be NPPL or nothing.
And then there are the players. How many players play for multiple teams? How many teams are made up largely of players who also play elsewhere? Back in the day the NXL attempted to restrict player movement and I can imagine a time, in the not so distant future, when that becomes a more viable policy. When the NXL tried to restrict player movement there was too much money and too many options available to make it stick but that isn't the paintball universe of today.
Recently the league wars have been relatively mild low grade conflicts, schoolyard pissing contests if you will, but if the industry really does pick a side will it signal a heating up of the war? In the aftermath of whatever caused the merger to fail are there hard feelings, bruised egos and bitter recriminations? Frankly that's the stuff of paintball wars past--will it be the basis for a hot war going forward?
So many questions. So much unknown and/or uncertain going forward. At least there will be something to talk about over the winter.
While I'm not privvy to any first person insider info--go figure--I think there are a few reasonable conclusions that can be drawn (and I'm willing to climb out on a limb and offer a few up.) Back in September I posted a couple of merger-related posts. The first one, Merger Counterfactual, addressed the possibilities of what happens if there is or isn't a merger. I stand by that post and have a rumor or two to toss into the pot as I go all in. In Monday's post I alluded to the rumor that KEE was threatening a hard line with its sponsored teams if there was no merger. A hard line that favors the PSP. (There's even been some talk of a united industry--minus PE--determined to break the 2 league sponsorship cycle--but color me skeptical of that one.) If true that would mean KEE would likely pressure teams like Dynasty, Infamous and XSV to abandon the NPPL. (Of course the reverse could also be true but that isn't the way the rumors were flying.) And think of all the teams shooting Axes & RPS paint. That doesn't paint a pretty picture for the NPPL's future success.
Merger Machinations was also posted in September. In that post I identified some impediments to the merger I believed to be accurate. (And I've had no reason or received any info to suggest otherwise since.) Admittedly there are more current rumors but only the folks in the room discussing the merger know what actually happened and why and I would be very surprised (shocked actually) if the whole process wasn't covered by non-disclosure agreements. [I use them with some regularity and while not foolproof non-disclosures provide some extra legal protections again sensitive or proprietary information being leaked.] That is however just a supposition on my part. That said all the "insider" rumors about the meeting are coming from one side; the NPPL side.
What's perhaps more interesting than speculating about exactly what happened is speculating about what will happen next. Rumorology has suggested (for some time now) that there will be more events next season--rumor says 5 but who knows, is back to the old schedule of 6 events possible? I would guess not but that would only be a guess. Further I would expect the PSP to maintain the status quo when it comes to rules and format and such. After a reputedly successful 2011 (and the general playership aversion to change) a little continuity would likely prove quite popular. (Although a return to the shorter field might be change everyone could appreciate--and would help reverse the more paint, fewer points trend of 2011.) And then there's the sale of Procaps. Richmond has always flagshipped his paint brand with high visibility sponsorships--the current GI Sportz line-up for example--and there's no reason to imagine that will change. The question really is--will DraXXus be retained as a separate brand line (that incidentally ends up competing with GI) or will Procaps be subsumed into GI? And what happens to DraXXus sponsored teams as a result? Does GI spread the wealth and go with the numbers or focus their resources on a few well chosen teams? (Last year, KEE picked up a number of teams on the relative cheap with their Axes & RPS deals because there wasn't any real alternatives available.) Will the Procaps sale force further belt tightening and if it does what will that mean? In the Pro division it will likely mean a number of the NPPL only Pro teams won't have any real option about where they play; it will be NPPL or nothing.
And then there are the players. How many players play for multiple teams? How many teams are made up largely of players who also play elsewhere? Back in the day the NXL attempted to restrict player movement and I can imagine a time, in the not so distant future, when that becomes a more viable policy. When the NXL tried to restrict player movement there was too much money and too many options available to make it stick but that isn't the paintball universe of today.
Recently the league wars have been relatively mild low grade conflicts, schoolyard pissing contests if you will, but if the industry really does pick a side will it signal a heating up of the war? In the aftermath of whatever caused the merger to fail are there hard feelings, bruised egos and bitter recriminations? Frankly that's the stuff of paintball wars past--will it be the basis for a hot war going forward?
So many questions. So much unknown and/or uncertain going forward. At least there will be something to talk about over the winter.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Inside the Merger Talk & Rumorology
Actually not so much really. At least not enough to merit that post title but it got your heart racing, didn't it? (Most of you excited, fewer of you horrified.) [I'd gladly apologize for leading you on except of course I'm not sorry 'cus I think it's kinda funny. In an admittedly cruel sorta way.] Rumor has it stuff like revisiting ROF and notions like limited paint have been part of the discussions. And I don't mind saying I find it a little disconcerting. Mostly because too many of the people at the table have no business being there unless you count enormous egos, entrenched opinions and self-interested motives as appropriate first principles. Did I sugarcoat that too much? Do I need to be more forthright? Was that really necessary? Naw, but I enjoyed it--and frankly, it's the truth. Hey, I always say once you start digging a hole, dig it deep!
As you might have guessed the real subject is paint usage. And as it happens I have some numbers available. But first I want to offer for the record, again, that there is no data that supports changing the ROF as a paint saving measure. (We've had ROF changes based on the notion that it will trickle down to local recreational fields and/or that it will lower the threshold to tourney entry. How's that worked out? We've had the PSP change their ROF three times and if there's any data to demonstrate those changes made any quantifiable difference in paint usage I haven't heard about it.) Now of course if the change is substantial enough, 12 bps to Billy Ball, yes, there will be lower paint consumption as a result. But with that significant a change you're also playing a different game too.
Uncertain? Other paint usage factors include pack size, pod size, (total paint carried) bunker placement & game time. Without taking the other factors into account how can anyone categorically say--and possibly change the game again--on the basis the change will somehow save paint. Will it really? If so, how much? And what consideration is being given to potential peripheral consequences? If you really want to save paint leave the ROF alone and open up the OTB shooting lanes. If laners OTB increase their kill percentages you are guaranteed to save paint. First that eliminated player won't be shooting the paint on his back and when you remove 20% or more of your opponent's players off the bat the game transitions into a close almost immediately. Of course doing that may not make the current player base particularly happy, but hey, it saved paint.
The same applies to limited paint--which is a practice already in place. Everybody plays with limited paint. What is meant is a restricted by rule limit to the maximum paint allowed on the field at any one time. However, depending on just how limited an amount of paint is being discussed it will, without any doubt, alter the nature and play of the game. In the lower divisions this isn't necessarily a bad thing but it would a terrible decision at the pro level as it would dumb down the game considerably. (See the link to an old post below which discusses this in more detail.)
And now for the numbers I promised. For the sake of round numbers let's say the current ROF is 12. Let's also agree that a hopper (loader) holds 180 paintballs. And let's use D1/D2 Race 2 format of a 15 minute game Race 2-5. The game parameters then is fifteen minutes of game time or first team to 5 points with a max number of 9 points played per match. At 12 bps a player could conceivably shoot 10800 paintballs in 15 minutes. A team of 5 could shoot 54000 paintballs. In practice that potential is limited by the number of pods a player carries. If we assume an average of 7 pods--which is probably a little high--plus hopper a 5-man squad is carrying 5100 paintballs; around 2 and one half cases. How often does a team shoot that much paint in a point? (Almost never.) And what are the game conditions that promote heavy paint use?
At 12 bps a player empties his hopper in 15 seconds. At 10 bps the same player empties the same hopper in 18 seconds. Is that 3 seconds a hopper fill going to save paint? (No.) Does it reduce the amount of paint in hand? (No.)
Take a moment and revisit the PSP Galveston event where an attempt was made to both encourage older, fatter, slower players into coming back to tourney play along with a field layout that would promote faster points. (Faster points equal less paint shot per point potentially.) How did that work out? My point isn't that the league screwed up. My point is that making singular changes alone, especially the ones being discussed, are unlikely to achieve the results desired unless the change is so dramatic it changes the game too--and even when an effort was made to "improve" the pace of play the desired results didn't occur because even with the best intentions and best efforts the complexity of the game wasn't properly evaluated or understood.
The last thing a newly unified league needs is a host of changes the results of which can't be predicted with anything like certainty.
For more on ROF and its relationship to how the game is played today read this post from the archives. (I'm feeling more lazy than usual today and didn't feel like repeating myself. Again.)
In other rumorology there's lots of behind-the-scenes talk about the off season musical chairs of pro players already--along with some speculation about the future of a few pro teams as well. It's too soon to start talking names and details because as far as I know nothing (much) has been finalized just yet. But as soon as these rumors start turning into near factoids I'm sure Mr. Curious will have the skinny. (And I don't mean Kevin.) Okay, here's a taste; could be some Ironmen on the move and apparently Yaya is dialling up a serious phone bill calling ballers.
As you might have guessed the real subject is paint usage. And as it happens I have some numbers available. But first I want to offer for the record, again, that there is no data that supports changing the ROF as a paint saving measure. (We've had ROF changes based on the notion that it will trickle down to local recreational fields and/or that it will lower the threshold to tourney entry. How's that worked out? We've had the PSP change their ROF three times and if there's any data to demonstrate those changes made any quantifiable difference in paint usage I haven't heard about it.) Now of course if the change is substantial enough, 12 bps to Billy Ball, yes, there will be lower paint consumption as a result. But with that significant a change you're also playing a different game too.
Uncertain? Other paint usage factors include pack size, pod size, (total paint carried) bunker placement & game time. Without taking the other factors into account how can anyone categorically say--and possibly change the game again--on the basis the change will somehow save paint. Will it really? If so, how much? And what consideration is being given to potential peripheral consequences? If you really want to save paint leave the ROF alone and open up the OTB shooting lanes. If laners OTB increase their kill percentages you are guaranteed to save paint. First that eliminated player won't be shooting the paint on his back and when you remove 20% or more of your opponent's players off the bat the game transitions into a close almost immediately. Of course doing that may not make the current player base particularly happy, but hey, it saved paint.
The same applies to limited paint--which is a practice already in place. Everybody plays with limited paint. What is meant is a restricted by rule limit to the maximum paint allowed on the field at any one time. However, depending on just how limited an amount of paint is being discussed it will, without any doubt, alter the nature and play of the game. In the lower divisions this isn't necessarily a bad thing but it would a terrible decision at the pro level as it would dumb down the game considerably. (See the link to an old post below which discusses this in more detail.)
And now for the numbers I promised. For the sake of round numbers let's say the current ROF is 12. Let's also agree that a hopper (loader) holds 180 paintballs. And let's use D1/D2 Race 2 format of a 15 minute game Race 2-5. The game parameters then is fifteen minutes of game time or first team to 5 points with a max number of 9 points played per match. At 12 bps a player could conceivably shoot 10800 paintballs in 15 minutes. A team of 5 could shoot 54000 paintballs. In practice that potential is limited by the number of pods a player carries. If we assume an average of 7 pods--which is probably a little high--plus hopper a 5-man squad is carrying 5100 paintballs; around 2 and one half cases. How often does a team shoot that much paint in a point? (Almost never.) And what are the game conditions that promote heavy paint use?
At 12 bps a player empties his hopper in 15 seconds. At 10 bps the same player empties the same hopper in 18 seconds. Is that 3 seconds a hopper fill going to save paint? (No.) Does it reduce the amount of paint in hand? (No.)
Take a moment and revisit the PSP Galveston event where an attempt was made to both encourage older, fatter, slower players into coming back to tourney play along with a field layout that would promote faster points. (Faster points equal less paint shot per point potentially.) How did that work out? My point isn't that the league screwed up. My point is that making singular changes alone, especially the ones being discussed, are unlikely to achieve the results desired unless the change is so dramatic it changes the game too--and even when an effort was made to "improve" the pace of play the desired results didn't occur because even with the best intentions and best efforts the complexity of the game wasn't properly evaluated or understood.
The last thing a newly unified league needs is a host of changes the results of which can't be predicted with anything like certainty.
For more on ROF and its relationship to how the game is played today read this post from the archives. (I'm feeling more lazy than usual today and didn't feel like repeating myself. Again.)
In other rumorology there's lots of behind-the-scenes talk about the off season musical chairs of pro players already--along with some speculation about the future of a few pro teams as well. It's too soon to start talking names and details because as far as I know nothing (much) has been finalized just yet. But as soon as these rumors start turning into near factoids I'm sure Mr. Curious will have the skinny. (And I don't mean Kevin.) Okay, here's a taste; could be some Ironmen on the move and apparently Yaya is dialling up a serious phone bill calling ballers.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Random (paintball-related) Rants
I'm in the middle of part 3 of the World Cup Practice posts but didn't feel like finishing it. Or perhaps more accurately got side-tracked, again. One thing I've been meaning to talk about are the logistics of a merger in the sense of how it might affect the actual competition irrespective of any format change. And then there's a couple of items that came up today.
The first isn't really new but my resolve to do something about it coalesced today. I am referring to the seemingly endless fount of email pressers the big event series spam you with as part of their "service" to their sponsors. I have objected to the volume in the past and nobody cared. (Which is fine.) But even as I ranted about it I let it continue resignedly accepting it as a personal sacrifice for the good the game sorta thing. Yeah, well, I'm done with that. Before I continue maybe I ought to make it plain that I am not a gearhead. Never have been. (If you are your tolerance of such mailers may accordingly differ from mine.) Never had more than a passing interest in the stuff of paintball so getting slammed with notices of those new barrels or that new shoe or whatever I couldn't care less and with the rising volume it has just become a nuisance. But the good folks at PALS have taken it beyond annoying and into stalker-ish territory. 18 email promotions in the last four days was the final straw. I couldn't easily unsubscribe so I relegated all PALS email to my Junk folder. And odds are they won't be the only ones. (I don't like direct mail either.)
In the last day or so somebody started a thread in the PSP forum over at the Nation ostensibly querying views on the Coaching Question. Referring, as usual, to sideline coaching, hollering, incoherent screaming, sign waving and the like. He did so by setting up the false dichotomy of more run throughs versus sideline coaching and equating run throughs as competitive paintball's version of the slam dunk. Once upon a time in basketball the dunk was exciting. When it didn't happen that often. Today, the way the pro game in particular is played, there may be a dozen dunks in a game. Whoop-de-doo. The more routine an action becomes the less interesting or special it becomes--not the other way 'round. Personally I'd rather see 48 minutes of good hoops than a highlight reel of outsized men jamming the rock through the hole at close range. But I get the analogy--even if it is flawed. The problem here is, that much like the OWS (and all the lookalike protests it has spawned) they may have identified a legit issue but their "fix" doesn't actually address that issue. A sideline coach never stopped a well-executed take down. Period. End of story. Now if the real issue is getting the take down and living to tell the tale that's a different issue--but even that isn't because sideline coaching makes it impossible or even nearly so. Time to move on.
Separate from the will-a-merger-change-the-format chatter is the question of what the Pro division looks like in the aftermath and how the merger might impact the other divisions. In recent years the Pro field in the PSP has been the exclusive province of the Pro teams until Sunday and even then the pro refs are exclusive to pro matches. In the PSP not only does the format contribute to a best outcome but so does the quality of the officiating. (It's not perfect but it's a damn sight closer than anything the NPPL has ever put on their center court--with one exception.) A continuation of the basic practices will either limit the number of pro teams or force an expansion of the pro reffing cadre and its supervision. And that is not a minor consideration. There has also been some talk of bringing back the Semi-Pro Division. Part of the problem is that NPPL has 10 pro teams that do not already participate in the PSP and the showing of (Pro 7-man competitive) Portland Uprising recently has to be viewed as a cautionary tale by the rest. So, A) there isn't room under the current system for everyone, and B) it isn't unreasonable to assume that some number of the potential new guys aren't going to be competitive--at least initially. Toss into the mix that only 11 of the current participants in the NPPL have "owner" status (and that may not mean 11 teams) and the plot thickens some more. One would have to assume that "owners" have a leg up but even then there are a few teams that currently have rostered players who also play on other teams and there's no telling exactly how that could shake out--although that is almost certainly part of the reason there are board members dead set against a merger. Whatever happens it isn't going to be as easy as simply deciding to do it. Part of whatever happens will be predicated on what already is.
The first isn't really new but my resolve to do something about it coalesced today. I am referring to the seemingly endless fount of email pressers the big event series spam you with as part of their "service" to their sponsors. I have objected to the volume in the past and nobody cared. (Which is fine.) But even as I ranted about it I let it continue resignedly accepting it as a personal sacrifice for the good the game sorta thing. Yeah, well, I'm done with that. Before I continue maybe I ought to make it plain that I am not a gearhead. Never have been. (If you are your tolerance of such mailers may accordingly differ from mine.) Never had more than a passing interest in the stuff of paintball so getting slammed with notices of those new barrels or that new shoe or whatever I couldn't care less and with the rising volume it has just become a nuisance. But the good folks at PALS have taken it beyond annoying and into stalker-ish territory. 18 email promotions in the last four days was the final straw. I couldn't easily unsubscribe so I relegated all PALS email to my Junk folder. And odds are they won't be the only ones. (I don't like direct mail either.)
In the last day or so somebody started a thread in the PSP forum over at the Nation ostensibly querying views on the Coaching Question. Referring, as usual, to sideline coaching, hollering, incoherent screaming, sign waving and the like. He did so by setting up the false dichotomy of more run throughs versus sideline coaching and equating run throughs as competitive paintball's version of the slam dunk. Once upon a time in basketball the dunk was exciting. When it didn't happen that often. Today, the way the pro game in particular is played, there may be a dozen dunks in a game. Whoop-de-doo. The more routine an action becomes the less interesting or special it becomes--not the other way 'round. Personally I'd rather see 48 minutes of good hoops than a highlight reel of outsized men jamming the rock through the hole at close range. But I get the analogy--even if it is flawed. The problem here is, that much like the OWS (and all the lookalike protests it has spawned) they may have identified a legit issue but their "fix" doesn't actually address that issue. A sideline coach never stopped a well-executed take down. Period. End of story. Now if the real issue is getting the take down and living to tell the tale that's a different issue--but even that isn't because sideline coaching makes it impossible or even nearly so. Time to move on.
Separate from the will-a-merger-change-the-format chatter is the question of what the Pro division looks like in the aftermath and how the merger might impact the other divisions. In recent years the Pro field in the PSP has been the exclusive province of the Pro teams until Sunday and even then the pro refs are exclusive to pro matches. In the PSP not only does the format contribute to a best outcome but so does the quality of the officiating. (It's not perfect but it's a damn sight closer than anything the NPPL has ever put on their center court--with one exception.) A continuation of the basic practices will either limit the number of pro teams or force an expansion of the pro reffing cadre and its supervision. And that is not a minor consideration. There has also been some talk of bringing back the Semi-Pro Division. Part of the problem is that NPPL has 10 pro teams that do not already participate in the PSP and the showing of (Pro 7-man competitive) Portland Uprising recently has to be viewed as a cautionary tale by the rest. So, A) there isn't room under the current system for everyone, and B) it isn't unreasonable to assume that some number of the potential new guys aren't going to be competitive--at least initially. Toss into the mix that only 11 of the current participants in the NPPL have "owner" status (and that may not mean 11 teams) and the plot thickens some more. One would have to assume that "owners" have a leg up but even then there are a few teams that currently have rostered players who also play on other teams and there's no telling exactly how that could shake out--although that is almost certainly part of the reason there are board members dead set against a merger. Whatever happens it isn't going to be as easy as simply deciding to do it. Part of whatever happens will be predicated on what already is.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Last Word On Merger Madness
Okay, probably not really the last word but hopefully the last for a while. Mostly I wanted to reiterate a couple of past comments on this subject. First, a prediction: If the merger results in a format change it will take about three weeks for new state and regional leagues to pop into existence offering Race 2 variants and perhaps six months after that for some of those leagues, plus some of the ones already operating, to plan on a cooperative national championship event to be held wherever. Nature abhors a vacuum and if the mergents, in their collective wisdom, move away form the most popular format functioning today somebody else will make sure it's available. (Yes, mergents is a made up word. It means those participating in a merger.) And since the local and regional level can offer the format for considerably less cheddar than the national league those lower level leagues will instantly cannibalize some significant percentage of the divisional teams.
One reason that will prove to be true--should those conditions emerge--is because everyone who claims they don't care about the format is either a liar or a poseur, or both. Now there surely are a few players and/or teams prepared to go with whatever format but that doesn't mean they don't have a preference--it just means they are unwilling to admit it.
Then of course there's the fact none of this would even reach the discussion stage if the Industry could police itself. Virtually all the impetus to make this happen comes from a collective that can't seem to make a decision either individually or collectively as to where their actual interests lie. They say they want one league to support but that's a red herring, a blue mackerel even. Nobody has ever put a marker to any of their heads and forced them to support anything. And a merger of the NPPL & PSP does not, I repeat, does not, guarantee that there will only and ever be only one national league. At some point the Industry has to decide who and what they will support (or won't support) and it isn't the leagues, either one of them, that put the Industry in that position--it is their fellow industry members and their own intransigence. In essence the Industry is pressing for the merger in the hope one league will protect them from themselves. (Until another league, or leagues, come along and then it's right back where we started.)
Those of you who have been around long enough will know that I'm not a big supporter of the Race 2 format. That, in fact, each time Xball was watered down I railed (even "raehled") against those changes and would love to see something more like Xball return. Nor, despite some of the naysayers, do I dislike or disdain 7-man. (I've coached teams to series championships in both Semi-Pro & Pro in the NPPL.) Personally, I'm content to see two national leagues. I understand and sympathize with the aspirations of the pro team owners in the NPPL. The fact that I comment on the weaknesses and/or failures of one or the other league only means I'd like to see them get better and deliver a superior service to all the competitors. However, at this stage, if there is to be only one national North American league it makes zero sense to insist on some 7-man variant as the format. Look at the rest of the world. If Xball Lite has been good for anything its real claim to fame is that it has largely united the competitive paintball world. It would be foolish to move away from it now or make it even more difficult to compete. 7-man xball? Really? How big will that field need to be? Look at the chaos and ruckus adding twenty feet to the PSP field length caused last year. Are we in for a repeat performance of that? My point is simple. For better or worse the world plays Race 2. And so does most of North America and that is what the vast majority of fields that cater to competitive players is set-up to offer. It makes no sense to kowtow to the wishes and egos of a handful of team owners in order to effect a merger that will not, cannot, do what the Industry that is pushing for it wants.
Merge. Don't merge. Whatever. Try not to screw it up for everybody else.
World Cup field posts & practice coming next. (I didn't forget.)
One reason that will prove to be true--should those conditions emerge--is because everyone who claims they don't care about the format is either a liar or a poseur, or both. Now there surely are a few players and/or teams prepared to go with whatever format but that doesn't mean they don't have a preference--it just means they are unwilling to admit it.
Then of course there's the fact none of this would even reach the discussion stage if the Industry could police itself. Virtually all the impetus to make this happen comes from a collective that can't seem to make a decision either individually or collectively as to where their actual interests lie. They say they want one league to support but that's a red herring, a blue mackerel even. Nobody has ever put a marker to any of their heads and forced them to support anything. And a merger of the NPPL & PSP does not, I repeat, does not, guarantee that there will only and ever be only one national league. At some point the Industry has to decide who and what they will support (or won't support) and it isn't the leagues, either one of them, that put the Industry in that position--it is their fellow industry members and their own intransigence. In essence the Industry is pressing for the merger in the hope one league will protect them from themselves. (Until another league, or leagues, come along and then it's right back where we started.)
Those of you who have been around long enough will know that I'm not a big supporter of the Race 2 format. That, in fact, each time Xball was watered down I railed (even "raehled") against those changes and would love to see something more like Xball return. Nor, despite some of the naysayers, do I dislike or disdain 7-man. (I've coached teams to series championships in both Semi-Pro & Pro in the NPPL.) Personally, I'm content to see two national leagues. I understand and sympathize with the aspirations of the pro team owners in the NPPL. The fact that I comment on the weaknesses and/or failures of one or the other league only means I'd like to see them get better and deliver a superior service to all the competitors. However, at this stage, if there is to be only one national North American league it makes zero sense to insist on some 7-man variant as the format. Look at the rest of the world. If Xball Lite has been good for anything its real claim to fame is that it has largely united the competitive paintball world. It would be foolish to move away from it now or make it even more difficult to compete. 7-man xball? Really? How big will that field need to be? Look at the chaos and ruckus adding twenty feet to the PSP field length caused last year. Are we in for a repeat performance of that? My point is simple. For better or worse the world plays Race 2. And so does most of North America and that is what the vast majority of fields that cater to competitive players is set-up to offer. It makes no sense to kowtow to the wishes and egos of a handful of team owners in order to effect a merger that will not, cannot, do what the Industry that is pushing for it wants.
Merge. Don't merge. Whatever. Try not to screw it up for everybody else.
World Cup field posts & practice coming next. (I didn't forget.)
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Merger Machinations
As long as I'm already digging myself a hole, what the hell, let's keep digging! This post is in response to some of the comments in the 'Behind the Scene at DC' post questioning the possibility of a merger or assuming it's a dead issue or ought to be after the DC shens. I won't address what ought to be but I do want to shine a bit of light on the situation. As I have stated before the impetus for the merger is coming from outside either league and is being spearheaded from within the PBIndustry. The industry wants one league because they are incapable of acting cooperatively even in situations where they all might be best served if they could cooperate. Instead they are pushing the leagues to merge, regardless of outcome, to achieve a result they (the industry) can't accomplish themselves. (If there is only one league to support it will be cheaper than two and there won't be any room to maneuver for advantage by any of the industry players. At least in the short term.) That is the core of the merger effort.
It's rubbish but it's their rubbish. (For more on the subject check out 'Merger Counterfactual'.)
Frankly I'd be tempted to call their (industry's) bluff because somebody would break ranks and as soon as that happened they'd all fold--like they've always done before--but then I'm not the one risking the league 80% of the players play which makes it an easy call for me.
However there are impediments to a deal being done. (I suspect the conduct at DC wasn't helpful but also probably wasn't a deal-breaker either.) I have, in the past, alluded to a larger problem when it comes to the merger. (A problem beyond personalities and personal priorities and egos even. Who'd a thunk it, right?) I'm talking about the practical fact that there is no NPPL really. At least not the sort where you can review the ownership structure, the participating teams or individuals, the terms of their internal agreements, shared assets and liabilities, etc. There's a few teams and owners who have, or think they have, some claim on an ownership stake but there is no legal entity for the PSP to deal with. Which is going to make doing a deal a little tricky unless or until that "problem" is addressed.
But it could also be that there's a solution within the "problem." We know that the current NPPL board is split on the merger. (Those against it would either have no team as the majority of their players also play elsewhere or they couldn't afford it or be competitive.) And therein lies the beauty of the "problem." What if the PSP, instead of negotiating a merger, proposed, by invitation, to negotiate with a limited number of teams and owners--largely those already receptive to the idea--and simply ignored the rest? (As it stands now if there's no Bart Y. in the NPPL there's no NPPL. You gotta wonder how much Bart enjoyed getting screwed by his own league.) If there is no legal entity that identifies and gives substance to the NPPL there's no need to pretend there is and deal with the collective. Instead come to terms with the stable, substantive teams and owners and call it a day. Tell the industry if they can't say no to whatever scraps of the former NPPL are left over that's their problem and as far as the PSP is concerned they are the only legitimate national tournament series organization.
Next time, Format War.
It's rubbish but it's their rubbish. (For more on the subject check out 'Merger Counterfactual'.)
Frankly I'd be tempted to call their (industry's) bluff because somebody would break ranks and as soon as that happened they'd all fold--like they've always done before--but then I'm not the one risking the league 80% of the players play which makes it an easy call for me.
However there are impediments to a deal being done. (I suspect the conduct at DC wasn't helpful but also probably wasn't a deal-breaker either.) I have, in the past, alluded to a larger problem when it comes to the merger. (A problem beyond personalities and personal priorities and egos even. Who'd a thunk it, right?) I'm talking about the practical fact that there is no NPPL really. At least not the sort where you can review the ownership structure, the participating teams or individuals, the terms of their internal agreements, shared assets and liabilities, etc. There's a few teams and owners who have, or think they have, some claim on an ownership stake but there is no legal entity for the PSP to deal with. Which is going to make doing a deal a little tricky unless or until that "problem" is addressed.
But it could also be that there's a solution within the "problem." We know that the current NPPL board is split on the merger. (Those against it would either have no team as the majority of their players also play elsewhere or they couldn't afford it or be competitive.) And therein lies the beauty of the "problem." What if the PSP, instead of negotiating a merger, proposed, by invitation, to negotiate with a limited number of teams and owners--largely those already receptive to the idea--and simply ignored the rest? (As it stands now if there's no Bart Y. in the NPPL there's no NPPL. You gotta wonder how much Bart enjoyed getting screwed by his own league.) If there is no legal entity that identifies and gives substance to the NPPL there's no need to pretend there is and deal with the collective. Instead come to terms with the stable, substantive teams and owners and call it a day. Tell the industry if they can't say no to whatever scraps of the former NPPL are left over that's their problem and as far as the PSP is concerned they are the only legitimate national tournament series organization.
Next time, Format War.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Merger Counterfactual
This isn't the next coaching post. Big shock, huh? Relax, I will get around to doing them, the other coaching posts, that is, because the topic interests me (too) so be patient. In the meantime I couldn't resist a follow up of sorts on the latest NPPL rumorology particularly in light of a couple of comments under that post.
Oh yeah, before I get started a counterfactual (for those of you not steeped in geek speak) is basically a What If scenario. Roughly the idea is to create a scenario based on a set of conditions that might have been or could still be. At one end of the scale you get alternative history novels and at the other end you get hypothetical models that are (theoretically) useful in thinking about all manner of complex situations. For paintball purposes we's gonna keep things simple and stick with the What Ifs.
In the Mr. Curious comments Joe suggests that no merger means the end of pro paintball. Joe's statement is predicated (I assume) on the notion that the industry support of the leagues has been shrinking for years and that elements of industry have been making noises like they intend to play hardball over this merger issue. They want one league and one league only. So Joe's comment seems to have some merit but--
What If one league makes a good faith effort? What If the industry isn't united? (And we know that it isn't.) What If a merger happens? What does it mean and what will happen in the aftermath?
What If one league makes a good faith effort and no merger results? I ask the question that way given the split on the NPPL board but we could as easily ask What If both leagues make a good faith effort and no merger results? Will the PB Industry refuse to support either league or any of the pro teams as a consequence? It seems highly unlikely. For one I think it's impossible to make the case that industry is united--which it would have to be to enforce a no support decision. Two, it's not in industry's best interest to offer no support. For example, KEE is believed to be doing well with their new Axe in part because of the number of pro & divisional tourney teams using the marker. And if the rumors are true KEE signed up a number of pro teams for a relative pittance of paint. The cost versus the potential return definitely favors KEE. So while the industry, or elements within industry, may be making hardline noises it seems unlikely it would actually happen regardless of the circumstances.
What If the PB Industry isn't united? I ask this as the follow-up even though I've already decided it isn't because it's important to see what the ramifications of that lack of unity might be. Let's say for the moment no merger occurs and the industry--or some key players--announce they will no longer support the NPPL as a result. (Insert PSP for NPPL if you prefer as it makes no difference.) How long before some element--Let's, for the sake of the example say, Oh I don't know, Valken--steps in and offers to support the league? Five minutes? How long after that before everyone else jumps back in out of fear of somehow losing out? The point is that without a unified industry elements within the industry will seek to advance themselves if the opportunity presents itself. The issue has never been two leagues; it's been a divided industry that is constantly at odds and unwilling and/or unable to formulate a policy with respect to tournament paintball and two national leagues. The merger matters to parts of industry because they want forces outside the industry to do for them what they can't (or won't) do for themselves.
What If a merger happens? Does it preclude the possibility of another league forming? No. All it really can do is limit or preclude the participation of any of the principles involved in the merger. Is that enough to merit merging? I don't know but if it were me I would be taking a very hard look at what benefits I derive from a merger. I would also be looking at how such a deal would be accomplished. (Rumor has it the NPPL isn't in any legal sense a formal entity. If true who does the PSP make a deal with? A dozen different individuals or teams? And how do each of the "owners" represent and protect their interests if the NPPL exists in name only? That's a whole other What If post all by itself. And a serious complication to a merger if true.) If the best we can say is that a merger unites the existing leagues and leadership but does nothing to limit future league formation and competition how much does it really accomplish? If a merger occurs will the industry all of a sudden start throwing more support at the new unity league? (If you said when pigs fly, you guessed the likely correct answer.) It seems to me the industry hardball line is all threatened stick and no carrot at a time when the leagues have gotten used to barely enough carrots to flavor a weak broth. Not a whole lot of incentive to make a merger work (or so it seems to me.)
What does it mean and what will happen in the aftermath? I'm not sure there any answers to those questions except to suggest that perhaps a merger doesn't solve all of competitive paintball's problems--it may only defer some of them--and it may create new ones. It doesn't mean that multiple leagues will never again compete at the national level. It doesn't even guarantee united industry support--though that may be the default short term result. Is that good enough? For anybody?
Oh yeah, before I get started a counterfactual (for those of you not steeped in geek speak) is basically a What If scenario. Roughly the idea is to create a scenario based on a set of conditions that might have been or could still be. At one end of the scale you get alternative history novels and at the other end you get hypothetical models that are (theoretically) useful in thinking about all manner of complex situations. For paintball purposes we's gonna keep things simple and stick with the What Ifs.
In the Mr. Curious comments Joe suggests that no merger means the end of pro paintball. Joe's statement is predicated (I assume) on the notion that the industry support of the leagues has been shrinking for years and that elements of industry have been making noises like they intend to play hardball over this merger issue. They want one league and one league only. So Joe's comment seems to have some merit but--
What If one league makes a good faith effort? What If the industry isn't united? (And we know that it isn't.) What If a merger happens? What does it mean and what will happen in the aftermath?
What If one league makes a good faith effort and no merger results? I ask the question that way given the split on the NPPL board but we could as easily ask What If both leagues make a good faith effort and no merger results? Will the PB Industry refuse to support either league or any of the pro teams as a consequence? It seems highly unlikely. For one I think it's impossible to make the case that industry is united--which it would have to be to enforce a no support decision. Two, it's not in industry's best interest to offer no support. For example, KEE is believed to be doing well with their new Axe in part because of the number of pro & divisional tourney teams using the marker. And if the rumors are true KEE signed up a number of pro teams for a relative pittance of paint. The cost versus the potential return definitely favors KEE. So while the industry, or elements within industry, may be making hardline noises it seems unlikely it would actually happen regardless of the circumstances.
What If the PB Industry isn't united? I ask this as the follow-up even though I've already decided it isn't because it's important to see what the ramifications of that lack of unity might be. Let's say for the moment no merger occurs and the industry--or some key players--announce they will no longer support the NPPL as a result. (Insert PSP for NPPL if you prefer as it makes no difference.) How long before some element--Let's, for the sake of the example say, Oh I don't know, Valken--steps in and offers to support the league? Five minutes? How long after that before everyone else jumps back in out of fear of somehow losing out? The point is that without a unified industry elements within the industry will seek to advance themselves if the opportunity presents itself. The issue has never been two leagues; it's been a divided industry that is constantly at odds and unwilling and/or unable to formulate a policy with respect to tournament paintball and two national leagues. The merger matters to parts of industry because they want forces outside the industry to do for them what they can't (or won't) do for themselves.
What If a merger happens? Does it preclude the possibility of another league forming? No. All it really can do is limit or preclude the participation of any of the principles involved in the merger. Is that enough to merit merging? I don't know but if it were me I would be taking a very hard look at what benefits I derive from a merger. I would also be looking at how such a deal would be accomplished. (Rumor has it the NPPL isn't in any legal sense a formal entity. If true who does the PSP make a deal with? A dozen different individuals or teams? And how do each of the "owners" represent and protect their interests if the NPPL exists in name only? That's a whole other What If post all by itself. And a serious complication to a merger if true.) If the best we can say is that a merger unites the existing leagues and leadership but does nothing to limit future league formation and competition how much does it really accomplish? If a merger occurs will the industry all of a sudden start throwing more support at the new unity league? (If you said when pigs fly, you guessed the likely correct answer.) It seems to me the industry hardball line is all threatened stick and no carrot at a time when the leagues have gotten used to barely enough carrots to flavor a weak broth. Not a whole lot of incentive to make a merger work (or so it seems to me.)
What does it mean and what will happen in the aftermath? I'm not sure there any answers to those questions except to suggest that perhaps a merger doesn't solve all of competitive paintball's problems--it may only defer some of them--and it may create new ones. It doesn't mean that multiple leagues will never again compete at the national level. It doesn't even guarantee united industry support--though that may be the default short term result. Is that good enough? For anybody?
Friday, September 9, 2011
Mr. Curious Hears A Coup
Yes, the title is a rather awkward play on words that isn't precisely true but I find amusing. Hey, you get what you pay for. (Whatever that means.)
But before I loose Mr. C on y'all I have a correction (and an admission) to make. VFTD incorrectly identified one of the two new-for-WC pro division teams as Seattle Thunder. It is, in fact, Portland Uprising. While not altogether my fault--yes, I was still wrong--enjoy it while you can--I'm still perfect statistically--I could have checked as I had some roster info but that would have been work. And really who cares? No disrespect to the teams or players but Portland? Seattle? What's the big difference? They drink ridiculously expensive coffee, eat soggy croissants and never need sunglasses 'cus it's dark, dreary and rainy all the time. It was an easy mistake to make is all I'm saying.
Mr. C's latest big news comes from the NPPL camp. Where else? That could have an impact on future merger negotiations. (Btw, if the NPPL crowd find this post either irritating or embarrassing feel free to take potshots at the messenger but the facts is the higher ups in the PSP were well aware of this stuff before Mr. C was although the info didn't come from the PSP side. Mr. C is just a lot more diligent than I am in following up. Apparently.) My, I wonder, what that info could be? Trying to drag out the revelation to build suspense doesn't work in print very well, does it? At some point you're just going to skip ahead and ruin all my fun. So I might as well get on with it.
It seems the NPPL board, whoever they are, are divided--nearly evenly--over whether to proceed with the merger talks or not with a narrow majority favoring ongoing talks. That's a new wrinkle, isn't it?
But before I loose Mr. C on y'all I have a correction (and an admission) to make. VFTD incorrectly identified one of the two new-for-WC pro division teams as Seattle Thunder. It is, in fact, Portland Uprising. While not altogether my fault--yes, I was still wrong--enjoy it while you can--I'm still perfect statistically--I could have checked as I had some roster info but that would have been work. And really who cares? No disrespect to the teams or players but Portland? Seattle? What's the big difference? They drink ridiculously expensive coffee, eat soggy croissants and never need sunglasses 'cus it's dark, dreary and rainy all the time. It was an easy mistake to make is all I'm saying.
Mr. C's latest big news comes from the NPPL camp. Where else? That could have an impact on future merger negotiations. (Btw, if the NPPL crowd find this post either irritating or embarrassing feel free to take potshots at the messenger but the facts is the higher ups in the PSP were well aware of this stuff before Mr. C was although the info didn't come from the PSP side. Mr. C is just a lot more diligent than I am in following up. Apparently.) My, I wonder, what that info could be? Trying to drag out the revelation to build suspense doesn't work in print very well, does it? At some point you're just going to skip ahead and ruin all my fun. So I might as well get on with it.
It seems the NPPL board, whoever they are, are divided--nearly evenly--over whether to proceed with the merger talks or not with a narrow majority favoring ongoing talks. That's a new wrinkle, isn't it?
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Paintball Miscellany
One quick additional word on the errant story Facefull posted yesterday and then pulled at the NPPL's request (apparently). Seriously, the sources must have been either NPPL people or bigwigs at KEE 'cus none of the primary PSP movers were present. Missed the story? Facefull was claiming the merger a veritable done deal until told their "facts" were mistaken and they should post haste pull their story. Which they did.
ProPaintball has a follow-up today on the latest rumorology regarding a merger and given the information in their latest missive VFTD will be doing a pre-merger analysis next week after the NJ Open as ProPaintball's sources are sufficiently well-informed (and willing to talk) that I no longer feel under any obligation to keep things under wraps at least in a general sense because plainly some NPPL sources have been talking.
Regarding last weekend's Paintball Festival I am hearing it was sparsely attended pretty much across the board. A couple hundred scenario players--maybe. A dozen teams competing in the UWL event--which is pretty typical. And perhaps as many as three or four dozen of the bread-and-butter field & store owner types which must have been a huge disappointment--but was readily predictable. And I'm not sure you can legally call it a trade show if there are fewer than 10 vendors present. The same people who ran the once mighty cash cow of the IAO into the ground show up a few years later trying to run a variation on the same theme and it is somehow supposed to magically fill up as the little people come from far and wide grateful for the privilege of attending? Really? Debra Dion Who? Oh, sure, apparently there was a decent turnout of bigwig types prepared to be seen and pontificate but it's easy to get them to come. They'll gather faster than you can say open bar. And it seems they were all a-twitter over airsoft which makes absolutely no sense to me at all. (We got into this a bit last week but it's back!) The fact is plenty of local fields already accommodate airsofters but how exactly does that help paintball and the paintball industry? Airsoft isn't a gateway to paintball play, it's a direct competitor to a (supposedly) strong element of paintball. And inviting airsoft in now only provides another non-paintball alternative to the new or occasional player. Unless the paintball industry is looking to morph into the airsoft industry--and last time I checked there already was an airsoft industry--none of their enthusiasm makes any sense. Unless Tom Cole is a master hypnotist too.
Did you see the new Tippmann multi-purpose Tippmann tool? (Designed specifically for Tippmann markers.) It's blunt, sturdy, nearly indestructible and fits in your pocket like a stubby, fat wrench. Am I the only one disappointed that it won't attach to my pickatinny rail system?
This last item is about the sold out, over sold even, final MS event of the season and more specifically about the size of the D2 division. For the 2011 season the MS cleverly disguised a shrinking base and incorporated scarcity into the mix by limiting the size of each competing division. This also helped in determining well in advance the scale of each event, fields required, etc. Consequently each event maxed out in all the divisions except M5 which has been discontinued. (And that one London event division that came up a couple teams shy.) Anyway the demand for Paris-Disney was apparently such that the MS has oversold D2 by 75% and D3 by 20%. In actual team numbers that means there will be an additional 30 teams competing, 24 of them in an enormous D2 of 56 total teams, on the same number of fields as an MS event intended for 30 fewer teams. (Or so I'm told.)
I have no idea if the days are long enough in Paris in early October to avoid playing under the lights or if there was enough scheduling time leeway that fitting an extra 30 teams in won't be an issue but what I do know is there are some teams and players who are concerned about how it's all going to play out. Unfortunately there is nothing VFTD can do for them so I hope they also mentioned their concerns to the MS. (haha) And I further hope the MS doesn't screw up what has proved to be a very good season for them at the last minute because they got too greedy--again. VFTD will wait and watch and see what happens.
ProPaintball has a follow-up today on the latest rumorology regarding a merger and given the information in their latest missive VFTD will be doing a pre-merger analysis next week after the NJ Open as ProPaintball's sources are sufficiently well-informed (and willing to talk) that I no longer feel under any obligation to keep things under wraps at least in a general sense because plainly some NPPL sources have been talking.
Regarding last weekend's Paintball Festival I am hearing it was sparsely attended pretty much across the board. A couple hundred scenario players--maybe. A dozen teams competing in the UWL event--which is pretty typical. And perhaps as many as three or four dozen of the bread-and-butter field & store owner types which must have been a huge disappointment--but was readily predictable. And I'm not sure you can legally call it a trade show if there are fewer than 10 vendors present. The same people who ran the once mighty cash cow of the IAO into the ground show up a few years later trying to run a variation on the same theme and it is somehow supposed to magically fill up as the little people come from far and wide grateful for the privilege of attending? Really? Debra Dion Who? Oh, sure, apparently there was a decent turnout of bigwig types prepared to be seen and pontificate but it's easy to get them to come. They'll gather faster than you can say open bar. And it seems they were all a-twitter over airsoft which makes absolutely no sense to me at all. (We got into this a bit last week but it's back!) The fact is plenty of local fields already accommodate airsofters but how exactly does that help paintball and the paintball industry? Airsoft isn't a gateway to paintball play, it's a direct competitor to a (supposedly) strong element of paintball. And inviting airsoft in now only provides another non-paintball alternative to the new or occasional player. Unless the paintball industry is looking to morph into the airsoft industry--and last time I checked there already was an airsoft industry--none of their enthusiasm makes any sense. Unless Tom Cole is a master hypnotist too.
Did you see the new Tippmann multi-purpose Tippmann tool? (Designed specifically for Tippmann markers.) It's blunt, sturdy, nearly indestructible and fits in your pocket like a stubby, fat wrench. Am I the only one disappointed that it won't attach to my pickatinny rail system?
This last item is about the sold out, over sold even, final MS event of the season and more specifically about the size of the D2 division. For the 2011 season the MS cleverly disguised a shrinking base and incorporated scarcity into the mix by limiting the size of each competing division. This also helped in determining well in advance the scale of each event, fields required, etc. Consequently each event maxed out in all the divisions except M5 which has been discontinued. (And that one London event division that came up a couple teams shy.) Anyway the demand for Paris-Disney was apparently such that the MS has oversold D2 by 75% and D3 by 20%. In actual team numbers that means there will be an additional 30 teams competing, 24 of them in an enormous D2 of 56 total teams, on the same number of fields as an MS event intended for 30 fewer teams. (Or so I'm told.)
I have no idea if the days are long enough in Paris in early October to avoid playing under the lights or if there was enough scheduling time leeway that fitting an extra 30 teams in won't be an issue but what I do know is there are some teams and players who are concerned about how it's all going to play out. Unfortunately there is nothing VFTD can do for them so I hope they also mentioned their concerns to the MS. (haha) And I further hope the MS doesn't screw up what has proved to be a very good season for them at the last minute because they got too greedy--again. VFTD will wait and watch and see what happens.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Facefull Scoop
Kidding. Seriously, kids? Is Facefull no longer Rich Telford's Wide World of Paintball? Surely a call or email to Rich would'a gotten the insider scoop long ago. (The link to their reportage is in the title.) Oh. Wait a sec. The story is gone. Pulled, apparently.
Here's the dealio. It seems Facefull was reporting earlier today that there was merger talk (and another recent meeting at the Paintball Festival) and a number of sources were confident it--a merge--was likely to happen. Among those sources Chuck Hendsch was named specifically.
I have two questions. How is this news exactly? Didn't VFTD report weeks ago that a meeting between the leagues was gonna happen? Didn't ProPaintball then tell you about the meeting after the fact? Didn't VFTD (kinda, sorta) confirm the rumors and just finish running a poll about the rumored impending merger? Okay, more than two questions. So Facefull finally catches up, talks to some peeps in Pennsylvania, posts a report--and then a few hours later pulls the report.
I was gonna ask if the Facefull story meant the wraps were off the merger rumors and Mr. Curious could unzip his lip--but I guess not. Did anybody save the page before it disappeared? Can't Google regurgitate that pulled story?
UPDATE: Check out this link to NPPL on Facebook. What a hoot! There's also a thread about same on PBN. Didn't Facefull get their story from NPPL sources in the first place?
Here's the dealio. It seems Facefull was reporting earlier today that there was merger talk (and another recent meeting at the Paintball Festival) and a number of sources were confident it--a merge--was likely to happen. Among those sources Chuck Hendsch was named specifically.
I have two questions. How is this news exactly? Didn't VFTD report weeks ago that a meeting between the leagues was gonna happen? Didn't ProPaintball then tell you about the meeting after the fact? Didn't VFTD (kinda, sorta) confirm the rumors and just finish running a poll about the rumored impending merger? Okay, more than two questions. So Facefull finally catches up, talks to some peeps in Pennsylvania, posts a report--and then a few hours later pulls the report.
I was gonna ask if the Facefull story meant the wraps were off the merger rumors and Mr. Curious could unzip his lip--but I guess not. Did anybody save the page before it disappeared? Can't Google regurgitate that pulled story?
UPDATE: Check out this link to NPPL on Facebook. What a hoot! There's also a thread about same on PBN. Didn't Facefull get their story from NPPL sources in the first place?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
