On Saturday at the St. Tropez event I bumped (figuratively) into M. Laurent Hamet in the VIP as I prepared to scout an Art Chaos match. M. Hamet is a leading board member of the Millennium Series. A very influential figure in French and European paintball. The founder of Facefull magazine and the boss at Adrenaline (Sup’Air) Games. Among other things. He is also the primary force behind the EPBF and a principle mover behind efforts to form and build national & international paintball federations. And he wanted to talk. I was happy to listen.
It seems he wanted to pre-empt any negative opinions I might have about the MS. (I have posted some less than flattering comments in the past.) He also wanted to be able to explain the Millennium’s perspective vis-a-vis European paintball and the state of competitive paintball. All well and good and I was grateful to have him volunteer any and all thoughts he had on those subjects. Most surprising–beyond his interest in promoting his, and the MS’s, views to VFTD (and make no mistake it was potential future blog content on his mind) was the change that came over him when the subject moved beyond the Millennium to the EPBF (European Paintball Federation).
He talked about the Millennium style of reffing. I asked about the logistics of setting up the fields. He explained the system behind the development and rating of Millennium (and future MS) referees. It’s not unlike what the PSP began doing a few years ago but the MS has a real advantage in that they have established national federations to help train officials and provide trainees from a wider yet more integrated pool of prospects. How they separate team members (in the divisional reffing ranks) and take nationality into account inasmuch as they want diversity represented on any given field. (A tacit admission that there have been issues and/or accusations of bias or favoritism in the past.) [Ulrich Stahr league rep in charge of officiating or something & the CPL Ultimate said similar things while poo-pooing the validity of any such claims in the past. Whatever the truth of the matter it is clear that unspoken league policy is to minimize the potential for and appearance of suspect reffing in every way possible.]
We talked about the logistics of running pan European events. How the MS made due with a fraction of the PSP’s annual budget. (I am inclined to think at that stage he was pleading a measure of poverty rather like a Vatican Archbishop but I could be wrong in that I haven’t tried to crunch even a hypothetical set of numbers.) In sum he is a very pleasant chap (when he chooses to be) and made an excellent flack for the league. (I do not, btw, mean that in a pejorative way either.) Part of his purpose was to spin the MS as positively as possible without going overboard and he did it well. I came away from our conversation more fully informed and perhaps more sympathetic to the league generally. Although that was really the result of the other portion of our conversation.
When M. Hamet talks about the EPBF and the future of competitive paintball operating (and internationally recognized) under a tiered umbrella of national, regional and international sports federations it is clear that this is where his passion currently resides. The EPBF is both model and flagship for the sports federations initiative Hamet is spearheading. Below the EPBF would be affiliated national federations within Europe. Sharing equal billing would be a possible Americas PB Federation and/or an Asian PB Federation serving as umbrella organizations to the collective of regional national federations. The whole to eventually elect reps to a single, unifying international body. To the American mind it may seem somewhat odd if not pointless but is the way most of the rest of the world is organized--and the way many national governments operate & recognize various sports in an official capacity. Whatever one may think of the Millennium’s place in such a scheme or Hamet’s multiple loyalties there is no doubt about his sincerity when it comes to the project of building such a future for competitive paintball. There is a tension in his voice and subtle light in his eyes when he talks about the progress made and the potential benefits it will bring to the game and its players around the globe.
Sadly I am naturally wary of anyone or anything that seeks power and/or control over others. (Probably why I'm a closet anarchist.) Despite my prejudices however the simple truth is this is a model that can work. And on its face there is nothing wrong with pursuing a well worn and widely accepted path to greater recognition and the prospect of broader acceptance for the game and its players. Some might find it less than ideal that the current power players are pushing for a particular future but if not them then who? Progress, real progress, is most often made by those with an investment or stake in the outcome. Realistically, putting in place over time representative institutions will remove (to one degree or another) the direct influence of industry & promoters. On the whole it promises to better serve the game than the present situation and Hamet is to be commended for his efforts.
Showing posts with label sport. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sport. Show all posts
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
For the Good of the Sport
We still don't have a definition except in the broadest terms and even those terms aren't agreeable to everyone. But maybe that isn't necessary. (Maybe it is. Who knows?)
Anyway I want to offer y'all an analogy by history. The history of American football to be precise. Played irregularly, often as an annual event, at a handful of eastern universities beginning in the 1830s it developed into a club sport (in a few places) as a game that was either mostly soccer or mostly rugby and the rules didn't begin to form the unique game of football until the 1880s. The impetus for those changes was a university football conference organized by 8 schools including Harvard and Yale. By 1900 there were 43 universities playing organized football. The forward pass came into vogue around the era of the first world war but the forward pass as we know it today wasn't part of the game until the 1930s. From its origins to the present rules and equipment have changed but the form of the core game hasn't changed much in the last 75 years. Of course it took, at a minimum, 50+ years to reach that point.
Which perhaps begs a certain chicken and the egg type question: Which came first, the game or the organization?
Meanwhile alternatives to the current loose association of mostly industry types and influential leagues (which are mostly owned by or tied to) more industry types are split between player organizations and federations (of some sort). The principle virtue of either one appears to be they aren't what we presently have. (Here's where I play Devil's Advocate for a moment.) What exactly makes a player's union--on any scale--a better choice? What is the collective wisdom of the players? And does simple participation in the game validate their view of where the game should go in the future? The same of course applies to any federations. Which are not democratic but representative at best. Where do the candidates come from? And who is permitted to vote? If the pool is sufficiently exclusive aren't you just exchanging one elite for another?
Now if the real purpose is some divesting of power and control from industry--over their dead bodies and/or corporate bankruptcies--into other hands I understand the motivation. And I'd probably agree in principle that was a good idea, but--
A) It's one thing to suggest an alternative, it's another to demonstrate why it's a better choice, and
B) A different idea is swell but the nuts & bolts of how it can actually be accomplished is the important part.
While I an not opposed to any of the "comments" suggestions or similar ideas that have made the rounds in the past neither am I convinced any of them necessarily lead to a better future than the track the game is presently on.
As a former card-carrying anarchist--nobody carries the card anymore--if I thought blowing stuff up and starting over was a viable option I'd light the fuse. (And it isn't like I haven't tossed a bomb or two in my day.) The thing is though I'm not convinced there's enough structure erected yet to bother tearing it down. I'm also beginning to think the process inevitably will take the time it takes no matter how many attempts are made to fast track this or invoke TV for that. Or any of a number of other means of making "progress." Does that mean that people who are interested in the development (dare I say growth?) of the game should just sit quietly on the sidelines? No but maybe it means investing more thought and less emotion and accepting the fact this is likely going to prove a much slower process than most of us want.
More next time. (Oh yes there will be a next time. Bounce this post all you like. There's nothing you can do to stop me. [cue evil laugh])
Anyway I want to offer y'all an analogy by history. The history of American football to be precise. Played irregularly, often as an annual event, at a handful of eastern universities beginning in the 1830s it developed into a club sport (in a few places) as a game that was either mostly soccer or mostly rugby and the rules didn't begin to form the unique game of football until the 1880s. The impetus for those changes was a university football conference organized by 8 schools including Harvard and Yale. By 1900 there were 43 universities playing organized football. The forward pass came into vogue around the era of the first world war but the forward pass as we know it today wasn't part of the game until the 1930s. From its origins to the present rules and equipment have changed but the form of the core game hasn't changed much in the last 75 years. Of course it took, at a minimum, 50+ years to reach that point.
Which perhaps begs a certain chicken and the egg type question: Which came first, the game or the organization?
Meanwhile alternatives to the current loose association of mostly industry types and influential leagues (which are mostly owned by or tied to) more industry types are split between player organizations and federations (of some sort). The principle virtue of either one appears to be they aren't what we presently have. (Here's where I play Devil's Advocate for a moment.) What exactly makes a player's union--on any scale--a better choice? What is the collective wisdom of the players? And does simple participation in the game validate their view of where the game should go in the future? The same of course applies to any federations. Which are not democratic but representative at best. Where do the candidates come from? And who is permitted to vote? If the pool is sufficiently exclusive aren't you just exchanging one elite for another?
Now if the real purpose is some divesting of power and control from industry--over their dead bodies and/or corporate bankruptcies--into other hands I understand the motivation. And I'd probably agree in principle that was a good idea, but--
A) It's one thing to suggest an alternative, it's another to demonstrate why it's a better choice, and
B) A different idea is swell but the nuts & bolts of how it can actually be accomplished is the important part.
While I an not opposed to any of the "comments" suggestions or similar ideas that have made the rounds in the past neither am I convinced any of them necessarily lead to a better future than the track the game is presently on.
As a former card-carrying anarchist--nobody carries the card anymore--if I thought blowing stuff up and starting over was a viable option I'd light the fuse. (And it isn't like I haven't tossed a bomb or two in my day.) The thing is though I'm not convinced there's enough structure erected yet to bother tearing it down. I'm also beginning to think the process inevitably will take the time it takes no matter how many attempts are made to fast track this or invoke TV for that. Or any of a number of other means of making "progress." Does that mean that people who are interested in the development (dare I say growth?) of the game should just sit quietly on the sidelines? No but maybe it means investing more thought and less emotion and accepting the fact this is likely going to prove a much slower process than most of us want.
More next time. (Oh yes there will be a next time. Bounce this post all you like. There's nothing you can do to stop me. [cue evil laugh])
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Sport or Not Sport
VFTD first addressed this idea in Paintball Games International magazine back in the days when the printed word still existed. [If you're curious look here (circa 2003 for serious Baca) & here (circa 2005 for not-so-serious Baca) in the Dead Tree Archive.] Today there's not really a debate over the status of competitive paintball as sport so much as there is over just what paintball as sport is or ought to be (and become.) But even as most of us will agree that competitive paintball is sport there remain a lot of different ideas as to just what that really means. Are scenario leagues and the UWL, for example, on equal footing with the WCPPL or the CXBL? But deciding how elastic our definition of competitive paintball is is only an aspect of one of the current roadblocks. The bigger issue is that we all have a general idea of what paintball as sport means but not an agreed upon concrete definition or shared abstract vision and in even the most basic conversations there is a tendency to conflate "sport" with all the other bits & pieces that form the game as we see it today. Let me explain.
Here's an easy one for you. Making a buck off paintball isn't paintball the sport. (I said it was easy.) Satisfying the customer isn't paintball the sport either. (Think about that one for a second and you may see where this is leading.) The local recreational field isn't paintball the sport. Neither is PBIndustry. Players of competitive paintball aren't paintball the sport. Even competitive paintball leagues aren't paintball the sport.
Here's a different take. Is LeBron James basketball the sport? Or the Chicago Bears the sport of football? Does the MLB have a monopoly on the sport of baseball? In each instance the answer is no. (Despite the best efforts of the United States Congress.) In each preceding instance there is a connection but an association or relationship does not confer sports status on everything and everyone involved.
At this point you're either confused or going, yeah, so what? Here's the thing. There has been a lot of conversation lately in the comments about what is good for the sport of paintball and what isn't. And who ought to do what to make things better. Or who ought to be involved and who shouldn't and on and on. But it seems to me that most of that sort of talk is both premature and not particularly productive and one of the reasons is because we don't really know what competitive paintball the sport is yet. And until there is some sort of consensus a large portion of the ongoing dialogue is simply us talking past each other much of the time.
More on this subject next time but in the meantime here's a question or two to consider. How would you define paintball as sport? And once you've got that figured out: Whose in charge of protecting/preserving/promoting competitive paintball as sport? And who ought to be?
Here's an easy one for you. Making a buck off paintball isn't paintball the sport. (I said it was easy.) Satisfying the customer isn't paintball the sport either. (Think about that one for a second and you may see where this is leading.) The local recreational field isn't paintball the sport. Neither is PBIndustry. Players of competitive paintball aren't paintball the sport. Even competitive paintball leagues aren't paintball the sport.
Here's a different take. Is LeBron James basketball the sport? Or the Chicago Bears the sport of football? Does the MLB have a monopoly on the sport of baseball? In each instance the answer is no. (Despite the best efforts of the United States Congress.) In each preceding instance there is a connection but an association or relationship does not confer sports status on everything and everyone involved.
At this point you're either confused or going, yeah, so what? Here's the thing. There has been a lot of conversation lately in the comments about what is good for the sport of paintball and what isn't. And who ought to do what to make things better. Or who ought to be involved and who shouldn't and on and on. But it seems to me that most of that sort of talk is both premature and not particularly productive and one of the reasons is because we don't really know what competitive paintball the sport is yet. And until there is some sort of consensus a large portion of the ongoing dialogue is simply us talking past each other much of the time.
More on this subject next time but in the meantime here's a question or two to consider. How would you define paintball as sport? And once you've got that figured out: Whose in charge of protecting/preserving/promoting competitive paintball as sport? And who ought to be?
Thursday, September 9, 2010
What is Tournament Paintball? part 3
It is evident now that competitive paintball is where the drive and desire to move tournament paintball into the realm of sport has taken us. It is what it is and it was inevitable. Competitive paintball will continue to develop. If the vehicle hadn't been xball it would have been something else. It is also evident that the current difficulties are the result of a number of factors some of which have nothing to do with playing the game. There will be no one stop easy fixes. Most of us have no way to affect the outcome regardless. But there may be some things that can be done in the present to help build a more sustainable and broader tournament base.
Before offering some practical suggestions I think it's also important to make the conceptual distinction between competitive paintball and tournament paintball. Of course both terms represent a form of competition but competition is also an aspect of all paintball. Today, wherever you are, the default definition of tournament paintball is related to the xball brand of competitive paintball. And if that is what potential and beginning tourney players think tournament paintball is they (and we) are limiting their options and reducing the number who will try it out. What I mean is the PSP needs to undo everything it's done in the last couple of years with the affiliates and universal classification. (Bet that got your attention.) No, that's not what I mean but I do think one option is to offer tourney play at the local level that isn't the first few steps up the national and international competition ladder. Alternatively (or in combination with) local and regional competitive paintball needs to lower the bar to participation.For example our local practice field also hosts a PSP affiliate series with the bulk of participating teams being D3, 4 & 5. And what do those teams do to get ready for their next regional event? They spend their weekends scrimmaging each other full points and burn through paint at tournament rates. It hardly matters if the events themselves are reasonably priced if teams can't afford to practice. And they are preparing to compete this way because that's what we taught them to do. If that is the minimum requirement to compete in D4 is it any wonder we're losing teams?
(Sorry. No easy button involved. And if you're still uncertain I am not throwing the PSP or anybody else for that matter under the bus. The further sport paintball moves from generic paintball the more intermediary steps it needs along the way to provide a conduit of future players.)
Ok, back to what to do. How to lower costs? Shoot less paint. Which can be accomplished a few ways. I do not favor limited paint or drastically lower ROF--at least not at the national sport paintball level of competition. Do not release the field layout prior to the event. (It's deja vu all over again. Yes, I've suggested this before.) Without the layout there's little point in shooting truckloads of paint weekend after weekend. Teams will have to adapt. Find new ways to train and not be forced by the system to try and keep up with the next team by shooting extreme amounts of practice paint. Teams could literally save thousands of dollars. The rest of my suggestions relate primarily to the local & regional tourney scene. Lower the bar to tournament play. Something that is already happening in places. We need to see more generic 3-man and 5-man paintball events. And keep those players out of the UCP (Universal Classification Program) of APPA [or on an alternate local track] until they begin playing the bottom rung affiliate league events. We need some reseeding stand alone Open events. And for the time being we need to trim the number of total events down.
The specifics aren't important. Different areas will likely require different choices but the baseline goals need to be the same. Entry level tourney play that doesn't require the dedication, commitment and expense of competitive paintball as a gateway opportunity. Keep it simple with 3-man and/or 5-man. No pre-release of the layout. Strictly limit who can play. (I'd be sorely tempted to disallow anyone with an existing APPA i.d. but there's probably some room for consideration there.) Simplify divisions. Want to limit ROF? Give it a try. Or limited paint? Sure. The goal is a low pressure tourney environment a step or two above walk-on play for the most part. Ranking should be seasonal as long as divisions remain competitive and keep those players off the UCP. Let them track at their own pace as much as and as long as possible. Those that want greater challenges will make the necessary moves on their own.
The idea of open events is aimed at the D2 and D1 ranked players no longer playing because there are lots of them and very few options for them to keep actively involved short of trying to maintain a competitive commitment. Anyone can play an open event and skill level by team doesn't matter because by the final round of play all the teams are seeded against similar skill levels. Say the promoter decides on three divisions of play; A, B & C with prizes tiered as well with A having the best. Every team that signs up has a shot at all three packages. The teams are assigned divisions randomly and Round 1 is played. The reseed puts the most successful teams in bracket A, the mid-pack in B and C for the rest. Round 2 confirms the seedings but also allows some potential movement. Reseed and play Round 3 and there you have it. Round 3 winners receive the prizes for their brackets. It's a good way for lesser teams to get to compete against better ones and at the end of the day still vie for prizes and/or trophies and it doesn't penalize any player regardless of classification status.
There's also no reason not to run these kinds of events along with affiliate league play. What should be avoided is offering or trying to offer too many events over the course of the season. Too many choices dilutes the product and odds are, particularly in the current environment, the majority will end up picking & choosing. Far better to have a few rock solid events in place early so teams can see it's a do-able schedule and plan ahead.
A few words on the UCP. It's worlds better than it was. It's also appropriate for competitive paintball. I still wonder if it's flexible enough but I am not opposed to it or the concept behind it. I just think that in the here and now there is no good reason to push every tournament player onto a one size fits all fast track. Because it doesn't and there's no reason it should. What competitive paintball needs--among other things--isn't a larger pool of rec players but a larger pool of tournament players that have an opportunity to grow and develop at their own pace.
Before offering some practical suggestions I think it's also important to make the conceptual distinction between competitive paintball and tournament paintball. Of course both terms represent a form of competition but competition is also an aspect of all paintball. Today, wherever you are, the default definition of tournament paintball is related to the xball brand of competitive paintball. And if that is what potential and beginning tourney players think tournament paintball is they (and we) are limiting their options and reducing the number who will try it out. What I mean is the PSP needs to undo everything it's done in the last couple of years with the affiliates and universal classification. (Bet that got your attention.) No, that's not what I mean but I do think one option is to offer tourney play at the local level that isn't the first few steps up the national and international competition ladder. Alternatively (or in combination with) local and regional competitive paintball needs to lower the bar to participation.For example our local practice field also hosts a PSP affiliate series with the bulk of participating teams being D3, 4 & 5. And what do those teams do to get ready for their next regional event? They spend their weekends scrimmaging each other full points and burn through paint at tournament rates. It hardly matters if the events themselves are reasonably priced if teams can't afford to practice. And they are preparing to compete this way because that's what we taught them to do. If that is the minimum requirement to compete in D4 is it any wonder we're losing teams?
Let's review: At present competitive paintball is too expensive for its target demographic and simultaneously (and unnecessarily) restricts the opportunities of a significant number of the most dedicated players.
What to do? We broaden the definition of tournament paintball in order to legitimize a wider variety of tournament options. (Sure, this already happens as a practical matter but only in a piecemeal haphazard way.) Lower costs for competitive paintball. Lower the bar to tournament play with alternatives to competitive paintball. Slow down the "career" track and also offer options that don't involve a "career" track. Reconnect with the disenfranchised players.(Sorry. No easy button involved. And if you're still uncertain I am not throwing the PSP or anybody else for that matter under the bus. The further sport paintball moves from generic paintball the more intermediary steps it needs along the way to provide a conduit of future players.)
Ok, back to what to do. How to lower costs? Shoot less paint. Which can be accomplished a few ways. I do not favor limited paint or drastically lower ROF--at least not at the national sport paintball level of competition. Do not release the field layout prior to the event. (It's deja vu all over again. Yes, I've suggested this before.) Without the layout there's little point in shooting truckloads of paint weekend after weekend. Teams will have to adapt. Find new ways to train and not be forced by the system to try and keep up with the next team by shooting extreme amounts of practice paint. Teams could literally save thousands of dollars. The rest of my suggestions relate primarily to the local & regional tourney scene. Lower the bar to tournament play. Something that is already happening in places. We need to see more generic 3-man and 5-man paintball events. And keep those players out of the UCP (Universal Classification Program) of APPA [or on an alternate local track] until they begin playing the bottom rung affiliate league events. We need some reseeding stand alone Open events. And for the time being we need to trim the number of total events down.
The specifics aren't important. Different areas will likely require different choices but the baseline goals need to be the same. Entry level tourney play that doesn't require the dedication, commitment and expense of competitive paintball as a gateway opportunity. Keep it simple with 3-man and/or 5-man. No pre-release of the layout. Strictly limit who can play. (I'd be sorely tempted to disallow anyone with an existing APPA i.d. but there's probably some room for consideration there.) Simplify divisions. Want to limit ROF? Give it a try. Or limited paint? Sure. The goal is a low pressure tourney environment a step or two above walk-on play for the most part. Ranking should be seasonal as long as divisions remain competitive and keep those players off the UCP. Let them track at their own pace as much as and as long as possible. Those that want greater challenges will make the necessary moves on their own.
The idea of open events is aimed at the D2 and D1 ranked players no longer playing because there are lots of them and very few options for them to keep actively involved short of trying to maintain a competitive commitment. Anyone can play an open event and skill level by team doesn't matter because by the final round of play all the teams are seeded against similar skill levels. Say the promoter decides on three divisions of play; A, B & C with prizes tiered as well with A having the best. Every team that signs up has a shot at all three packages. The teams are assigned divisions randomly and Round 1 is played. The reseed puts the most successful teams in bracket A, the mid-pack in B and C for the rest. Round 2 confirms the seedings but also allows some potential movement. Reseed and play Round 3 and there you have it. Round 3 winners receive the prizes for their brackets. It's a good way for lesser teams to get to compete against better ones and at the end of the day still vie for prizes and/or trophies and it doesn't penalize any player regardless of classification status.
There's also no reason not to run these kinds of events along with affiliate league play. What should be avoided is offering or trying to offer too many events over the course of the season. Too many choices dilutes the product and odds are, particularly in the current environment, the majority will end up picking & choosing. Far better to have a few rock solid events in place early so teams can see it's a do-able schedule and plan ahead.
A few words on the UCP. It's worlds better than it was. It's also appropriate for competitive paintball. I still wonder if it's flexible enough but I am not opposed to it or the concept behind it. I just think that in the here and now there is no good reason to push every tournament player onto a one size fits all fast track. Because it doesn't and there's no reason it should. What competitive paintball needs--among other things--isn't a larger pool of rec players but a larger pool of tournament players that have an opportunity to grow and develop at their own pace.
This is hardly a conclusive post but it's a start. There's so much more to all this that hopefully I've made a dent. Regardless, I have no doubt it's a topic that will be revisited again and again.
Monday, December 29, 2008
The Conventional Wisdom
This isn't the first draft of this post. Or the second. In fact this post isn't anything like what I thought I wanted to say. The easy part was starting. It's been a lot tougher finding my way through to any sort of conclusion but the mighty maw of the blogosphere doesn't long tolerate deliberation. (Much like my absurdly low threshold for boredom.) Truth is I've left out most of my conclusions, mostly so you can draw your own. I don't know if there's a meal here or only table scraps. You decide.
One long-standing, grey-bearded item of conventional wisdom in paintball states: Tourney ballers (and tournament paintball) are in the minority and it's not even close. No doubt you've heard that one. May even have repeated it yourself. Me too. If it's true (and it has to be, doesn't it?) then tournament paintball has been the tail that wags the dog. How did that come about? The industry has for a long time (in paintball years) marketed paintball via the tourney game and players. The media (when it existed) focused on tournament paintball. Tourney ball drove the tech developments and the notion of paintball as sport motivated many and inspired the push for mainstream acceptance and TV. I know how this looks but don't be too hasty about drawing any conclusions just yet. Is there a danger of the pendulum swinging too far the other way? What doesn't the conventional wisdom tell us that we need to know?
Here's some Old Skool conventional wisdom: Moving paintball out of the woods was a, and perhaps even the, critical step in the development of competitive paintball. (Ever notice how certain bits of conventional wisdom don't seem to fit with other bits of conventional wisdom and yet it doesn't seem to matter. I wonder why that is? /end Andy Rooney riff) Who can argue with that? But tell me how much impact moving out of the woods had, if any, on the player explosion of a few years ago. Are they related? If they are related is there any disconnect between the notion that the vast majority of players are rec/woods/scenario players? I'm just asking but with what little hard data there seems to be it looks like a case could be made that moving out of the woods also broadened paintball's appeal across the board. I realize that in some quarters that's sacrilege and I also think that some measure of paintballers preferences are regional but does the idea put a different face on the "typical" rec player? What else could have moved the majority of local fields to invest in some brand of airball or other? You know, given the conventional wisdom about the limited number of tourney ballers and all. I'm beginning to wonder about the utility of conventional wisdom in general.
How about another piece of classic conventional wisdom? The transition to xball happened because 10-man was dying out. Is that really what happened? Not according to the numbers. The last year that 10-man was the featured event ('02) was also the largest WC 10-man turn out ever and the Chicago event that year featured more 10-man teams than the WC of only two years earlier. In terms of numbers of teams xball has yet to match the 10-man numbers of WC '01. So what precipitated the sharp rise in 10-man participation? And what was the cause of the switch to xball? And if you really want to make yourself crazy figure out which years were the fat years for industry and try and relate those to event turnout. And if you can't does that make our first item of conventional wisdom seem all the more correct? Or are things becoming so complicated it's hard to know what to think?
Here's another bit of more current conventional wisdom: irresponsible punks and their high ROF guns are destroying paintball. Hard to argue with this one, right? I mean the signs are everywhere. PBIndustry is reputed to be in serious trouble. Sponsorships are definitely shrinking. The number of peeps playing paintball is on the decline, or so it's said. The NPPL is gone and if folks are to be believed some of the paint giants are struggling to survive. Nobody seems to know how tourney participation will shake out this coming season but plenty of peeps are worried. Local fields and stores are struggling too and some are closing. All true as far as it goes.
Except there's a problem. One problem with conventional wisdom is that it's not always true. Another problem is it can be an easy shortcut that appeals to Paintball's herd mentality. (You know, the one where everybody agrees instead of thinking.) In this case the problem is the disconnect between the legitimate trials facing Paintball and the purported cause. Irresponsible punks and their high ROF guns. How did the industry get into trouble? Are there more or less people playing paintball today than 10 years ago? If the answer is more, and it certainly appears to be, then were the paint companies even worse off 10 years ago? How did industry survive at all? On the local level is it numbers of players or gross sales that are the real issue? How does the current economy figure into the equations?
How many irresponsible punks with high ROF guns does it take to collapse an industry?
And if they all disappeared overnight would all of Paintball's problems go with them?
One long-standing, grey-bearded item of conventional wisdom in paintball states: Tourney ballers (and tournament paintball) are in the minority and it's not even close. No doubt you've heard that one. May even have repeated it yourself. Me too. If it's true (and it has to be, doesn't it?) then tournament paintball has been the tail that wags the dog. How did that come about? The industry has for a long time (in paintball years) marketed paintball via the tourney game and players. The media (when it existed) focused on tournament paintball. Tourney ball drove the tech developments and the notion of paintball as sport motivated many and inspired the push for mainstream acceptance and TV. I know how this looks but don't be too hasty about drawing any conclusions just yet. Is there a danger of the pendulum swinging too far the other way? What doesn't the conventional wisdom tell us that we need to know?
Here's some Old Skool conventional wisdom: Moving paintball out of the woods was a, and perhaps even the, critical step in the development of competitive paintball. (Ever notice how certain bits of conventional wisdom don't seem to fit with other bits of conventional wisdom and yet it doesn't seem to matter. I wonder why that is? /end Andy Rooney riff) Who can argue with that? But tell me how much impact moving out of the woods had, if any, on the player explosion of a few years ago. Are they related? If they are related is there any disconnect between the notion that the vast majority of players are rec/woods/scenario players? I'm just asking but with what little hard data there seems to be it looks like a case could be made that moving out of the woods also broadened paintball's appeal across the board. I realize that in some quarters that's sacrilege and I also think that some measure of paintballers preferences are regional but does the idea put a different face on the "typical" rec player? What else could have moved the majority of local fields to invest in some brand of airball or other? You know, given the conventional wisdom about the limited number of tourney ballers and all. I'm beginning to wonder about the utility of conventional wisdom in general.
How about another piece of classic conventional wisdom? The transition to xball happened because 10-man was dying out. Is that really what happened? Not according to the numbers. The last year that 10-man was the featured event ('02) was also the largest WC 10-man turn out ever and the Chicago event that year featured more 10-man teams than the WC of only two years earlier. In terms of numbers of teams xball has yet to match the 10-man numbers of WC '01. So what precipitated the sharp rise in 10-man participation? And what was the cause of the switch to xball? And if you really want to make yourself crazy figure out which years were the fat years for industry and try and relate those to event turnout. And if you can't does that make our first item of conventional wisdom seem all the more correct? Or are things becoming so complicated it's hard to know what to think?
Here's another bit of more current conventional wisdom: irresponsible punks and their high ROF guns are destroying paintball. Hard to argue with this one, right? I mean the signs are everywhere. PBIndustry is reputed to be in serious trouble. Sponsorships are definitely shrinking. The number of peeps playing paintball is on the decline, or so it's said. The NPPL is gone and if folks are to be believed some of the paint giants are struggling to survive. Nobody seems to know how tourney participation will shake out this coming season but plenty of peeps are worried. Local fields and stores are struggling too and some are closing. All true as far as it goes.
Except there's a problem. One problem with conventional wisdom is that it's not always true. Another problem is it can be an easy shortcut that appeals to Paintball's herd mentality. (You know, the one where everybody agrees instead of thinking.) In this case the problem is the disconnect between the legitimate trials facing Paintball and the purported cause. Irresponsible punks and their high ROF guns. How did the industry get into trouble? Are there more or less people playing paintball today than 10 years ago? If the answer is more, and it certainly appears to be, then were the paint companies even worse off 10 years ago? How did industry survive at all? On the local level is it numbers of players or gross sales that are the real issue? How does the current economy figure into the equations?
How many irresponsible punks with high ROF guns does it take to collapse an industry?
And if they all disappeared overnight would all of Paintball's problems go with them?
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
