2012 PSP Divisions & Entries

And prizes. (Such as they are.) I threw that last bit in for the D3 podium deserves fat cash crowd. Look, I don't have a lot to say about this yet. Maybe ever. I'ma wait until the PSP posts their series prizes but otherwise it seems okay to me. But then I don't favor big prizes to the lower divisions even if there are more teams there. the PSP is about the competition and that means, among other things, that everybody who thinks they belong in D3 or D4, legitimately or otherwise, don't believe they can compete in a higher division. And if the object of competition is to reward excellence and success one of the ways you encourage that is to help motivate players and teams to be excellent and succeed if they want the best prizes.
Mostly I'm surprised by the lack of a hue & cry today from the prize hunters because it's been such a popular topic in the past. (Of course, it's early yet.) Otherwise the only thing that gave me pause was double value points World Cup for divisions D3-X and below. (I'm good with less stringent series requirements for the lower divisions.) I'm not sure what I think of the double value Cup points just yet other than I would object long and loud if it had extended to the Pro division. More on this when series prizes are announced.

Thoughts on Officiating

It's easy to find things to criticize when it comes to officiating--particularly as much of the routine complaints are generated by heat-of-the-moment reactions to disputed calls. VFTD tries to avoid discussing officiating in that context but it's impossible to be completely impartial. That's one reason to conduct these posts in the off season. Another reason is the timing would allow for change(s) prior to next season.
Since most officiating related posts are critical I thought it might be worthwhile to be reminded why reffing--and making improvements--continues to be problematic. This is about reffing at the MLP level but may apply (in parts) across the board. Even though league-certified refs have a day of special training that's really no more than a basic foundation, a framework within which to understand the role. There's nothing like experience. Additionally, being familiar with the rulebook is not the same thing as knowing the rulebook and too few refs know the rulebook. Then there is the issue of refs discretion that tends to creep into the process when either the original rule is poorly conceived or institutional control becomes lax--or both. Beyond that field design can play a role in making the officials job difficult as can some zone theories of coverage responsibility and just plain poor communications.
I know what you're thinking--if this is my idea of cutting the refs some slack you'd hate to be them when I'm giving them grief. Au contraire, mon slacker frere. My point is that there are lots of pieces to the puzzle and it's very easy for things to not go as planned--or, more to the point, it's hard to operate efficiently and consistently particularly when you take into account how little time these crews of officials work together. Even on the pro field when you consider what officials in other sports go through the actual preparation and development time is marginal at best.
I'm not suggesting they can't do a better job. I'm saying that we need to acknowledge the limitations that currently exist in our sport and focus on things we can do to improve the situation instead of focusing on the failures that do occur. If there are limits--and there are--perhaps the best that can be done in the near term is to focus on things that can be done to make the job easier. And if we can't instantly endow the refs with more experience or assure regular, consistent crews maybe the areas to focus on are the rulebook and consistent practices when implementing the rules.

Next time a few suggestions.

Robots versus Ninjas, Part 2

Given that the most recent related post, Robots vs. Ninjas (Part 1) is a month old already here's a linked list of the related posts in chronological order; Saving Xball, Defining the Game, An Informal Survey, Robots vs. Ninjas, Part 1 if you'd like to catch up or refresh your memory. If not I'll be happy, no thrilled, to summarize the previous posts for all you lazy slackers. Like hell I will. Exercise your finger and click your mouse.

Robots vs. Ninjas, Part 1 puts the differences between the two dominant formats into perspective–though with the bankruptcy of Pacific Paintball the differences, both real and apparent, are rather a moot point. Xball, of one sort or another, is the competitive paintball format for the foreseeable future. The issue now becomes if Xball promotes a certain kind of player–and, broadly defined, I think it does–is it the kind of player we want? And if it isn't what can be done about it? In one sense the robots vs. ninjas debate is resistance from the traditionalists to what they perceive as a diminished game or a less desirable game than the one they played. Without arguing the merits it is important in moving forward to define what the game should be and then what are the skills and abilities required to compete effectively. Or perhaps vice versa. Start with the play of the game as players and go from there in building the game around the desired skills and abilities.
Let's take a brief look at the Russian Legion as their example is instructive. The Legion burst onto the international pro scene on the basis of a new-to-paintball method of training players. It inspired imitation (to varying degrees) and has had a significant impact on competitive paintball. Their methodology also is (was) clearly better suited to the Xball format than to 7-man. The abbreviated reason for this is in Xball it is possible to prepare for, and exert some influence over, more aspects of the actual play of the game than in 7-man. (It is the element of relative unpredictability (more or less) in 7-man that is the missing element for many of the traditionalists because within the window of unpredictability there exists more time and more freedom to make individual play of the game decisions.) For the Legion then the status quo would seem to be ideal yet in recent seasons they have moved to a roster mix that is nearly evenly split between U.S.-based players and Russians.
So what do we want? What should separate the best from the rest? Is it purely gun skills? Physical tools? Something else? Something more? If we can't define the skill set(s), both physical and mental, that comprise the ideal player the players will still be subject to forces that shape their development. Those forces are our training routines and the rules of the game we play.
Paintball has been developing more sophisticated training methods but still relies heavily on scrimmaging. This isn't unreasonable but it is inefficient. Scrimmaging is a necessary element but it is very paint intensive and is only a valuable learning tool when conducted by knowledgeable players and/or coaches focused on learning and improving. It easily reduces to just playing paintball, which is more fun but not always very productive.
Right now in the U.S. there is a bias toward scrimmaging regardless of other factors. In part that is because that is how it's 'always' been done. And among the pros the growing scarcity of resources and time for practice forces hard decisions and tends to push teams toward the familiar. And finally the early release of competition layouts makes the scrimmage imperative. No team would willingly cede practical knowledge of and familiarity with the competition layout when they are convinced their competition will have that knowledge and familiarity. If the layout is available it must be played.
In the short term the only viable way to have a dramatic impact in shaping the ideal player is to not release the layouts in advance. (Here I'm really focusing on the pro–and new semi-pro–division where the impact would be the greatest.) This is so because we are in an era of mostly very limited resources and as a consequence less time to prepare. And until (if ever) paintball can boast real professionals the time, resources and commitment will always be an issue. The non-release would free up the teams to develop different training regimes that would focus on a player's adaptability and capacity to read the changing field and react on the fly. The physical skills would remain the same but this change would dramatically alter the mental game and it's application to the Xball format. The result would be a much more demanding and intense game given the speed Xball tends to promote. (You'd eventually have better players and a better game. IM not very HO, of course.) There would also be a variety of other, I think, positive results as well from this one change.

This post takes some shortcuts in the interest of brevity (can you believe it?) and may as a consequence be a fairly demanding read. If you have any questions or just want to be argumentative don't hesitate to post a comment.

Yes, I know what I posted on Saturday. Get off my back. It's still Saturday somewhere in the South Pacific, right? You know, the whole international dateline thing.

Divided We Fall

Aight, here's some late night (or early morning) ramblings after an evening of reviewing the continuing crisis over the bubbles and the bailout I'm ratcheting things down to the level of paintball where the supreme stupidity and cupidity of the Keynesians and the criminals isn't going to cause a global "correction." (The only "good" thing is that a lot of that grostesquely leveraged debt along with billions upon billions of increasingly worthless greenbacks sit in foreign banks and was institutionalized by foreign governments which will mitigate the short term pain some.) Enough of that.
The likely effect of this economic upheaveal on competitive paintball isn't a net positive. (That's the sort of linguistic spin that when offered in a British accent [non-Cockney] implies massive understatement.) The tourney marketplace as a whole is going to experience decline pretty much across the board as may every other aspect of paintball. It begins to close the window on Pacific Paintball sooner than I previously expected and force some crucial decisions on them for '09. PSP will see around a 30% drop (at worst I hope) next year over the course of the season if it remains a national multi-divisional series. Now would be the time to buckle down and at least get the classification rules in order to make the league as user friendly as possible. If you thought sponsorship sucked this year just wait. If NASCAR sponsorship is suffering the environment is tightening. (That's a scary thing if you're hoping for a piece of that pie but it may also signal an opportunity if you know how to go get it.) The current business model standard is going to take a beating in '09 too. Even Eclipse. It's coming.
I'm beginning to think this would be a very propitious time to start making serious moves. Paintball needs to be positioned to deal with the short term and to take advantage of the long haul. I think all of us with no say in the matter support PBIndustry Standards & Practices as do some of PBIndustry. It's gotta happen and stick if paintball is going to get anywhere.
The other thing I'd like to see change is the fragmentation of paintball; tourney, rec, scenario, etc. Clearly everybody has different interests and reasons for playing their type of paintball and I'm not advocating a Hands Across the Speedball Field moment but as I'm in the mood for unifying around common purposes why not the players too?
I'm working on some ideas but if you've got an idea or three let's hear it.