If Only I Played the Violin ...

or self-medicated on heroin. (Or was it opium?) I'm never quite sure. Perhaps then I could alleviate the raging boredom. You know, like Sherlock Holmes. He of the notoriously low boredom threshold. Or maybe somewhere in the wide world of paintball SOMETHING INTERESTING COULD HAPPEN. It was so bad earlier I started reading the postings on Facebook. And I thought I was bored ...

Did you notice the recent PSP announcement (there never seems to be an off season when it comes to cluttering up my emailbox) that the new AES tourney series was a PSP affiliate series? (I deleted the first one too.) Seems they will be running 2 conferences with the northern conference in a region of the Midwest more or less overlapping that of the Vicious Series. And that the Vicious Series will be switching to a Millennium style of Race 2 (with 2 matches proceeding on the same field simultaneously or thereabouts.) Does that mean the Vicious Series is no longer a PSP affiliate? Oh and it's vaguely ironic that GP (& the Fergs) [formerly of DSS & Vicious] is headlining the AES series of events.

A query arrived in the mailbag recently wondering what I thought of the idea of trying to organize larger scale combination paintball events. Something like a Big Game and tournament to occur over the same weekend at the same venue--perhaps as the coordinated effort of multiple promoters. Part of the notion being that some of the logistical expenses overlap, some of the players interest may also overlap and the whole thing would have greater appeal to industry sponsors and supporters. What do you think? And while you're thinking take a moment to post those thoughts in the comments. (For those of you who weren't sure what to do with your thoughts.)

Periodically VFTD will receive requests for guidance or assistance from teams and players at different levels of competition that go well beyond the specific questions I'm (usually) happy to respond to in Baca's Mailbag. In the past I have tried to offer what is hopefully some helpful advice and encouragement but recently the numbers of this sort of request have been growing and as a practical matter I simply don't have the time to respond to each one individually. The language barrier has also become a more frequent issue as many of these requests come from all corners of the globe. For those who have lately received something of a stock reply, my apologies. And for those who are relatively new to VFTD there are quite a lot of posts in the archives covering practice routines, drills and the like. The search function isn't great but will help sort things out. As always I'm happy to respond to specific questions whether they become a mailbag post or not.

Post PSP Jersey Open Report

Yes, we're thrilled with the win in Jersey. The guys played great (for the most part) and we now have the rest of the season to live up to our standards. Thanks too to all the well wishers. Now to the rest of the story.
The venue was somewhere in north/central New Jersey and continued the by now well established pattern of hiding major league tournament paintball in plain site, er, sight. There was a giant Howdy Doody-looking figure out front but nary a sign for paintball or a PSP logo large enough for anybody not trying to find the place to notice. (I'm also not sure such efforts really make much if any difference anyway but I continue to hear about it from some peeps who consider it a failure of both imagination and to adequately promote events.) There was some talk prior to the event that the area we would be playing on was heavily overgrown and would needed to be cut down (or cut out) of the lushly wooded and verdant countryside. If that's what they did they did a good job of it. The fields weren't pristine but then they never are. (The NXL played a couple of years at Disney--yep, Disney--House of the Mouse--with green mats covering drainage grates on the field.) Our field was fine and the paint trucks were close. What else do you need? The vendors were arrayed in lozenge-shaped semi-circles around the entrance and I, for one, appreciate the fact the PSP didn't create a maze of vendors we were forced to walk through to get to the fields. (Can you say, Phoenix?) They were handy if you wanted to check them out but we weren't driven like a herd of cattle past them one by one. A good--and fair--impression of the venue can be seen in the Gary Baum aerial photo PSP events is using on their front page--oops, they've substituted that photo--(which you can probably see at PaintballPhotography)--with a photo of the winning team. Winner, winner, chicken dinner.
Once again the PSP provided a live webcast hosted by Matty Marshall & Friends and once again--except for some occasional weather-related difficulties--was a smashing success that enabled fans from around the world to tune in and watch the action. Always a good thing for competitive paintball so thanks to the PSP for making it possible--along with Patrick S. and the rest of the technical crew. Which is all well and good but I'm curious about a couple of things. Even with a reduced presence and fewer cameras, etc. it must still be a significant expense, right? Is it being underwritten by any particular sponsors? If you matched up the co-hosts with their employers or primary sponsors it seems to make sense--with one glaring exception. As I said, I'm just curious.
How 'bout a breakdown on each of the pro teams? (I know, I'm just asking for trouble but I want to make a couple of specific points. Players should be less fans and more students of the game when they are watching the pros play--and maybe it's just me but that seems to be lost on most of y'all. Why aren't most teams more consistent? A lot of what's going on is influenced by factors other than simply playing the game. And of course the field layout can have an impact as well. More later this week.)
Let's begin with CEP. I like this team and I like the kids playing for them. It's a positive organization focused on learning and improving--which they are doing. It hasn't shown up in their match results yet but they are a better team than the one that began the season. Not unlike Vicious in their first season but I think CEP is a more versatile team.
In their first outing without Greg Pauley Vicious looked on Friday like they were lost and demoralized. Somehow overnight Friday they turned it around and came out and played much improved hard paintball with an intensity they didn't have the day before. That is the kind of resilience teams & players must have in order to be successful at the highest level but the jury is still out on whether or not the team has the horses to really challenge the top teams.
In the case of Infamous I think a number of factors likely played into their unexpectedly poor performance. It was a difficult bracket regardless of the Russians misfortunes. It was not a layout that played to Infamous's strengths. Some bad luck and a penchant across the board to gunfight hard. While never a bad thing the team had some difficulty locking things down when they needed to and, so it appeared to me, tended to engage in some battles they didn't need to fight and lost more of them than they usually do. Given the layout of key positional loss frequently started the dominoes falling on a given point.
What to say about the Russian Legion? A very uncharacteristic performance punctuated by very poor performances from some of their best, most experienced players. Have they had poor events before? Yes, but I can't remember anything quite like NJ. I consider this an aberration and assume the "real" Russian Legion will be back at Cup. (More below in rumorology.)
X-Factor is a tough team to get a handle on. Any given day they are capable of being world beaters and other days they beat themselves. Fundamentally they don't make many mistakes and they tend to mix conventional tactical play with bursts of wild unpredictability though less so on this layout as it didn't provide those sorts of opportunities really. They played a lot of close points and at the end of the day they simply lost more of those than they won. Always a dangerous team to play.
It seems that almost every event one team or another falls foul of some rules arcana and unfortunately that's what happened to 'Shock in New Jersey. (If you were interested I'm sure you know by now how all that worked out from other sources.) Of more interest to me was the turnaround 'Shock made in Jersey over the first two events of the season. This was the first event the team played under the leadership of former Aftershock legend Mike Bruno and it was a telling change for whatever reason. (It may be as simple as providing active support to a group already gung ho.) Shock always plays hard and is always aggressive but can sometimes be scattershot in the process. In Jersey they were also an effective team playing with no pressure to perform and no where to go but up. It will be interesting to see how things progress for them up to Cup.
I had some doubts about Impact leading into the season. Not so much about their talent, which is first rate, but about their chemistry given the roster changes the team has been making over the last couple of years. Even so the team continues to contend event after event with great consistency and I think they remain capable of winning any event they enter. I tend to think of them like an X-Factor but less prone to extremes as their temperament and style matches that of their coach, Jason Trosen.
The Ironmen have done a remarkable job this seasons without Ollie. The mix of experienced pros with some young, hungry and coachable players has produced solid results. And the team has bought into the system and it allows them to play smart, aggressive and controlled paintball. It may coaches vanity but I tend to attribute much of that to SK's efforts and the fact he clearly has the support of the team's vets. They don't beat themselves even when battling through penalties. I'd also like to take a moment to suggest to all young divisional players you could do a lot worse than emulate Kyle Spicka. For those who have known him in and around paintball for a few years his determination, dedication, will & perseverance ought to be a model of the right way to overcome obstacles and achieve success as a player.
The mark of a truly great team is the ability to consistently perform at a high level and by any rubric that is Dynasty. Most teams can only dream about Dynasty level success and most players would consider it a great career to achieve the kind of success Dynasty has often managed in single seasons. Before this year Dynasty looked like they might be on the wane but the return of Ollie and the addition of Mike H. & the youth movement has proved to be just what the team needed to reinvent itself. While they don't have weaknesses in the normal sense on the NJ field there were a couple of elements we had some success focusing on. Some of the younger players tended to be impatient and try and force certain rotations and as a team Dynasty perhaps lacks some team speed and if they can be forced into situations where they have to get wide a disciplined team can make them pay. (Or anybody else for that matter, D'oh!)
Despite the lack of household names Damage has world class talent in a mix of experience and youth. Damage's only significant fault is the occasional loss of focus that at times leads to a sudden loss of confidence. When they play together, play in the moment, they are capable of contesting with the very best and being one of the best.
One ongoing discussion over the course of this season has been long points and paint usage. (We shot nearly 20 cases in the final match.) Heck, it's a subject VFTD has commented on numerous times. Within the context of the NJ event there are a couple of additional things to be said. The rain may have contributed to some long points on Sunday but the rain didn't cause them. Nor did the rain alter the way most teams chose to play the field. Everybody I saw was playing the same ways on Friday and Saturday. The field did not encourage fast play though it was sometimes possible to press a power point if it was timed correctly or executed in concert with a key elimination OTB. But what I want to address in more detail is this notion of defensive paintball versus offensive paintball because it comes up when there are a lot of long slow points. A key element of competition is the imposition of a team's collective will on their opponents and paintball is no different except we do it with paint and position. (I'll be discussing this in more detail in a separate post this week.)
In the rumorology department there was lots of Legion talk at the Open. (This is not Mr. Curious material, just the on site scuttlebutt.) There was curiosity about the apparent name change--the word being that Sergey was unhappy with the old NXL nomenclature of "Boston" and wanted Russia back front and center. Then there was also the rumor that the Legion had lost its backing from Sergey and was scrambling to reorganize. And this is where Bear D'Egidio fits into the picture. (There has also been a fair bit of discussion on how Bear got a spot on the Legion given the majority opinion seems to think he isn't a pro caliber player.) The dominant rumor being that his dad (a partner in a number of large Cali paintball operations) greased the skids, so to speak. Even if the rumors are accurate it wouldn't be the first time such things have happened in prime time paintball. Whatever the truth is the Legion struggled mightily at NJ and it seems to me there must have been more to it than missing a couple of players.
(Rumor segue: Remember when Mr. Curious told y'all HydroTec would begin producing paintballs in mid-August? Facefull confirms. Sort of. I know, but still ... would you believe HydroTec?)
In closing a VFTD shout out to all the Florida players and teams that performed well in New Jersey. Way to go, kids. Okay, that about covers it from my perspective. If any of y'all have any questions post them up in comments and I'll (probably) try to answer them.

PSP Chicago 2011 Post Mortem

Yes, post mortem. Live with it. (There's a gag in there somewhere.) First, I'd like to commend the PSP for being able to regroup after storms demolished the venue & set-up. I'd like to be the first but I'm already too late as the PSP glowingly commended itself in one of the (I counted ten) email blasts sent out in the last week. (Despite the snarky joke they did do an amazing job with an assist from the CPX folks.) But at what point does the barrage of email (e-messages?) become obnoxious spam despite any informative value individual messages contain? I'm just asking--but if the PSP hasn't crossed that line they are dancing on it like the whole cast of Riverdance.
CPX was an adequate venue with the only real weakness being the walk from the parking lot(s) to the fields unless you were a vendor or lied about being a vendor--and vendor parking was pretty well packed every day. Draw your own conclusions. (It's where I parked every day.)
Prior to the event I expressed the opinion that I expected something of a repeat of Galveston in that I thought a lot of the divisional play in Race 2-X would result in games going to time. A review of the numbers only partially support my expectations. (And while the raw numbers don't measure up to Galveston's data there were lots of very long, drawn out points played in Chicago. Fortunately most of the Sunday webcast matches were also very close contests which made for some real suspense and drama.) In D4 only 8% of prelim matches went to time. That increased to 25% in Sunday play. In D3 22% of the prelims went to time with an increase to 44% on Sunday, In D2 34% went to time in the prelims with the percentages increasing to 50% on Sunday. In D1 36% went to time in the prelims increasing to 83% on Sunday. And in the Pro bracket 10% of the prelims and 66% of Sunday play went to time.
The return of the webcast was (or should have been considered) a great success. With limited cameras and angles Patrick and the crew did their usual outstanding job--and Matty continues to be the Voice of Paintball. The only possible weakness in the webcast is that I haven't yet had an opportunity to bore a video audience into submission. I broached the subject with Matty but alas, nothing came of it. At this point I have to assume everyone is just plain skeered. (I'm a loose cannon you know.) Perhaps next time, hoping there is a next time as the webcasts and YouTube video matches do a first class job of presenting competitive paintball in a very positive way. How much real measurable difference that makes today I don't think anyone can say.
There was, as is always the case, more yammering from the cheap seats about the weather, about going to Chicago in early summer, blah blah blah. Short of CPX building Thunderdome--two teams enter, one team leaves--you guys can have that idea gratis--with only four events on the seasonal schedule these days the Midwest needs an event. Traditionally Chicago has been a strong PSP location and while end of June probably isn't written in stone anywhere, if not Chicago, and if not then, where & when? Of course once the novelty of a New Jersey event wears off, day after tomorrow, I expect we'll hear the same sort of whining about the heat & humidity of Jersey in August too.
Oh, and I'm an official sell out. I took free swag from John of PBN. So the next time--the first time?--I have something positive to say about PBN you lot will know why. John hooked me up with a T-shirt soaked in Ed's tears 'cus VFTD isn't nice to them. The thing is PBN is a perfectly adequate all-encompassing portal for paintball peeps and serves a useful, perhaps even vital community service even if not everyone agrees with their occasional Draconian methods. What can I say, the tears moved me.
The other thing that moved me was missing Sunday play in the PSP for the first time since WC 2008. There are a number of really good teams--as there always are. It's never enough to be good as the finals match between Dynasty and Legion demonstrated. Both teams made mistakes. Neither team was dominating or perfect but both teams were confident and both teams were prepared to give it everything they had to win. It's an old sports cliche that between evenly matched teams the team that wants it more will win. I'm not totally convinced but it does speak to the idea that there is much more to winning than talent & skill.
Lastly, when the videos of the Pro matches go up check out TBD's Saturday matches for some sweet new gear they were sporting. (It's hiding in plain sight.) If you like what you see there's more, much more coming.

Top Down or Bottom Up? Fixing Tourney Paintball

This post is the follow-up to Interpreting History. Yes, it's finally here. And, yes, I know, you've forgotten what the subject was so go back and skim the old post first. Take your time. I'll wait. (Truth is I wrote 90% of this a week ago but news of the day items kept taking precedent.) Accepting the conclusions in that post it's time to do more. It's time to offer up a few answers. Or at least suggestions for how tournament paintball moves forward from here. This isn't a blueprint or an itemized list that can be checked off. It's not even the outline of a cohesive plan. Nor is it comprehensive. What it is is a few beginning points where changes could begin to turn things around.

Want to make real progress?
1--Go back to the past and don't release field layouts in advance--at least at the major league level. I know, I've been harping on this for a while now but that's because it will save money without changing the game, again. It's a crucial component for sustaining and growing the upper divisions and it could be the key to restoring the mental game as an important part of the best players' skill set. But if that's too big a leap for a single jump then move to two layouts per event. Release a layout early for the lower divisions but have a separate, unreleased layout, for the upper divisions. Hardly ideal, I can hear the whining already, but it's a workable compromise that would benefit those who need it the most without disrupting the routine of the majority of teams.

2--Standardize the bunker set. Right now xball is played on a 17,500 sq. ft. field and 7-man on an 18,000 sq. ft. field. The status quo is to xball's advantage at the moment but if the larger issue is what's best for competitive paintball then a standardized bunker set is a must. It would mean teams can play the format of their choice everywhere and would facilitate the transition of players and teams between formats and tourney tracks. (More on that coming.) And its universality would lay the foundation for international standards & format. It would even benefit the manufacturer(s) who would no longer have to make unique, limited sets for different series as any bunker set could be sent anywhere in the world.

3--The local tourney scene needs to be more (and less) than a single track leading to national level play. I am convinced that the paintball-related damage done to 5-man is primarily the result of trickle down MLP. As the bar to being competitive was raised first at the pro level in xball we have since seen some of the same demands & practices work their way down the divisions into 5-man. Where links to the big league were the strongest is also where the greatest declines have come. While there is nothing wrong with the national level track, particularly if the longer term goal is a restructuring of what MLP is (something closer to my Pro Circuit concept) there needs to be some intermediate opportunities at the local and regional level where players and teams can compete in a less demanding, less intense but still competitive environment. The majority of tourney ballers should be playing local and regional events. And our first goal needs to be re-establishing grassroots tourney play and let that larger pool of players self-select for the MLP track.

4--even so, less is more. The risk of two tracks is too many events. MLP track events must be strictly limited--as must all other local & regional events whether they are part of a series or not. Too many events dilutes the value and desirability of any single event. (Easy to say, harder to do particularly when numerous promoters are competing against each other. [Though right now that's probably less a problem than in the past.]) I would also consider protecting the grassroots player by keeping them out of any classification database and keeping anyone already nationally classified out of the local events. This mostly assumes the regional already supports a MLP track.

5--MLP needs to stop cannibalizing the lower divisions. In 2006 D4 was added to the 5-man competition and D5 was added in 2009. The addition of D5 corresponded to a drop in prices and the move to Race 2-2 and the numbers competing continued to drop. What looked like a measure of 5-man consistency has been weaker than participation numbers might suggest and even those have been in decline over the last 5 years. Finally in 2010 5-man numbers dropped below Race 2-X numbers for the first time. A closer look shows a downward trend that was partially masked by the changes made that added new divisions and reduced entry. I'm not saying the move to draw D4 & D5 teams caused the decline in local teams that has occurred but I think it has contributed and will continue to undermine re-building the grassroots--particularly in the absence of tourney alternatives to the MLP track.

6--PBIndustry needs to get out of the discount sponsorship business. Part of re-building the grassroots will require local stores & fields to be involved and contribute to developing and supporting new teams. When the industry offers direct discount sales to players/teams it removes any incentive for the local retailer to get involved and in turn undermines the local retailer and network of relationships that they depend upon.

These suggestions won't fix every ill that ails competitive paintball but they would be a good start. After that the local and regional event promoters will still have to struggle with what works best for them and their customers but it's a start.

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?

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.

Talking Paintball

I really enjoyed seeing the ProPaintball kids come out with a pro ranking but I was disappointed to see how little conversation it generated. Disappointed but not surprised. Half the fun of being a sports fan is talking about your favorite sport, the games played, match-ups to come, the players, sharing opinions and talking smack, standing up for your favorite teams and players and all the rest. It's happening around the clock, 24/7 around the world. Sports radio is huge. There's at least a dozen television networks dedicated to sports available from your local cable provider. Sure the bulk of the talk is about the big time mainstream sports but that's not the point. The point is guys and more than a few gals (that didn't date me much, did it?) really enjoy talking about sports. So where is the competitive paintball equivalent? By and large it doesn't exist.
I'm not sure why. Unless it's partly the fact there's no language for talking competitive paintball as sport. Most sports have statistics. Ways to compare teams and players based on various aspects of performance. Paintball doesn't. We have "What a killer!" or "He sucks." That and player name recognition and reputation based largely on video clips and articles from a now nearly dead media. And without a language for discussing paintball as sport it's that much harder to actually educate both players and fans about the game. (If that wasn't quite clear, yes, I'm suggesting even many of the players either don't know their own sport or at best don't know how to explain it.) And, there remains little connection between the "fans" and many of the current batch of pro players. There's minimal info about actual games played in competition. Little known about many of the players. Teams with no history--it's small wonder it's hard to figure out how to be an active fan.
Which is why I like Cade's effort to get folks to predict event outcomes for the PSP tournaments on PBN. It's a start. As are the assorted league partnerships with what remains of old media and some recently forged relationships with new media. And if somebody came up with a workable fantasy paintball that would be a big plus. (As were the webcast statistics when they existed. See, they had more uses than just flushing out the webcasts.) I've even suggested the PSP set up a booth and encourage people at the events to "gamble" on Pro match results using PSP dollars. There's lots of things you could do; donate the purchase of PSP bucks to local charity, vendors could accept PSP bucks at some modest exchange percentage to in effect offer discounts and encourage more on site buying, build up the interest in pro games, etc. In the meantime (if the gambling angle is too complicated) there's always a tournament version of bracketology. One reason college basketball's season ending championship tournament is such a sports happening these days is because everybody can fill out the brackets and guess at the winners of each game over the two plus weeks of the event. Newspapers and websites and informal groups at work or from the neighborhood award prizes or collect pots to give the winners. More people are more invested when they have a stake in the outcome. So how 'bout some PSP bracketology? Not only would it get more people actively involved in the results of matches played it would provide a sort of value added to the proceedings. And it touches on an element of how the major leagues can and should promote themselves that they haven't. (More on that soon.)
So what are you waiting for? Let's talk paintball.

The Monday Poll

This week's poll continues on the general topic of competitive paintball. Last week's poll was looking for the source(s) of the apparent decline in participation. This week VFTD wants to know what you think needs to be done to help fix the decline in competitive paintball, if anything.

What's the first thing you would do to try and "fix" competitive paintball?

The first thing you will notice is that there is no reduce entry fees or similar options related to making the events cheaper. The reason is it would skew the poll as all you lazy slackers would immediately opt for the easy answer that costs somebody else money. Most of the options might impact cost but those that apply directly don't allow you, the voter, to choose how costs are reduced so if you pick one of those options you are agreeing with the general idea that reducing costs is necessary no matter what it entails. And as usual, if you choose 'Other' and actually have something else in mind please post it up in comments and it will be greatly appreciated. (Otherwise I twist and turn at night unable to sleep wondering what 'Other' you meant when you voted.)

Here's your opportunity to solve one of the nagging problems facing paintball today and it's as simple as clicking a mouse.

Monday Poll in Review
Last week's poll was about the decline in competitive paintball participation and the one certain thing we can take from the poll is that the nearly unanimous opinion (98% - 2%) is that competitive paintball is definitely in decline. (While believing it to be true doesn't make it necessarily true that's not relevant to the poll--though it may be relevant in the real world.) 23% either couldn't make up their minds or thought it was a goulash of factors all contributing to the downturn. 21% laid the bulk of the blame on the economy at large while another 14% claimed it was simply too expensive. Add 'em up and you have 58% of the vote that attributes the decline to cost in one way or another.
The other double digit response was that there are too few new players entering the ranks of competitive ballers. Followed by it's not as much fun (9%) the new generation is too young (7%) the new formats are too demanding (5%).

The Mech Warrior

The following post appeared originally in Baca's Blog over at the Big Bullet.

No, this piece isn't about some new manga fad or a fantasy combat game posted here by accident. It's also not about some new scenario game or the latest spec ops gear intended for the mil-sim crowd. It's about tournament paintball, sort of. But maybe it has applications that are bigger than just tourney ball. So you can either surf over to the next page or site or kill a couple of minutes and keep reading. What could it hurt? (Don't answer, that was a rhetorical question.)

Some of the big players in industry and tournament promotion have become concerned that the base for future tourney players has been shrinking and high ROF guns have received the lion's share of the blame. One of the "answers," though not aimed at tourney play, is Billy Ball which revolves around using a gun with very limited ROF capability. I'm not altogether convinced that high ROF is hurting paintball but I am convinced a failure to properly control high ROF is a significant danger to paintball.

Lately, the tourney world has seen a growing, if still relatively modest, interest in pump events. The PSP, which promotes a national series and hosts the World Cup, has resorted to incremental limits on ROF at their competitions in an effort to make introductory play less intimidating. The league is also hopeful that their changes will trickle down to regional and local events and encourage regular recreational players to be satisfied with something less than the ultimate performance of the modern electronic markers. Will it work? If ROF is the core issue maybe it will. Some have suggested bringing tourney play back to the woods as an alternative solution and that's just what SPPL and the new UWL (Ultimate Woodsball League) are doing. The UWL has gone so far as to offer a separate division of play based on limiting the number of electronic markers used. So how about a mechanical marker only tournament? If tourneys can go back into the woods and be played by pumps again, why not? If the biggest, most competitive league in the world is restricting the ROF of the almighty electros, why not?

This is hardly an original idea. I read a comment somewhere a week or two ago talking about using mechanical markers and I liked the idea but dismissed it almost immediately. Players buy and shoot what they want and even with the recent resurgence of pump and the Old Skool interest in some of the classic markers the mech guns aren't going to supplant the electros in the foreseeable future. And organizing a whole event around the hope that enough tourney-oriented players who want to play with mech guns would support it sounds like pie in the sky to me. But there is one way it might work in the current environment. As a separate division of play. A few years ago the PSP was talked into adding the Masters Division of play at World Cup. (Their only error was insisting it be xball instead of 5-man but even so it has continued every year since its introduction.) What if the PSP offered divisions of play with the only restriction being the use of mechanical markers? Say an Open division and an Amateur division. If available in conjunction with a massive event like World Cup if nobody wants to play mech warrior there's no harm done. Even the current PSP rulebook addresses the use of mechanical markers so that wouldn't be an issue. And who knows, it might get a new group and an old group back into the tourney game.

Could a move to encourage mechanical marker play in competition then spread to other parts of paintball?

Intro to the Iron Laws of Tournament Logistics

Finally, and especially for Geoff (so you can knock off with the threats left on my answering machine)--here is part 1 of the 'Iron Laws of Tournament Logistics.' If you were expecting the long build-up to result in a brilliant post, think again. This isn't comparable to revealing the mysteries of the Illuminati or exposing the truth about Area 51. (Which, if the NSA is listening in, I know absolutely nothing about.) This post is not going to be anything like 12 Easy Steps To Organizing Your Own Tourney. Nor will it be anything like Complete The Following Checklist And You Too Can Be A Successful Event Promoter. While I'm at it there won't be any specific laws, iron or otherwise, but it sounded really good and I couldn't resist.
Relax, would you? Don't be getting all fidgety and impatient on me. This is progress. Knowing what the post isn't is almost as good as knowing what it is. Narrows the focus.
And, hey, since I just thought of a couple it turns out there will be some iron laws of tournament logistics after all.
But here's the thing–and the reason for all this what-it's-not. It's not a mystery or a secret or a how-to. It's mostly just a few common sense observations of the yeah, well duh sort.

Tournament logistics refers to all the essential physical equipment; netting, poles, bunkers, etc. and all the equipment necessary to set-up and tear down. The non-physical component is time. Here time refers to the length of the event, the scheduling of matches and team participation and also to the pre- and post event time used in set-up, tear down and organization.
Why all that before and after the event stuff? Because the critical calculus is cost to revenue and you can't get an accurate handle on cost without the before and after stuff. And the time stuff sounds kinda confusing. Not to worry, it will be explained in detail. This post is mostly a simple outline and a teaser that gives you a head start, if you are so inclined, on working out an understanding of the subject on your own. (Then you can skip the rest of the series.)

Law 1–No aspect of the event functions independently of any (and every) other aspect.
Law 2–What you don't know costs more or at least creates a range of uncertainty.

There is one factor in all this that makes a crucial practical and cost difference. It is the difference between an established paintball venue and the construction of a temporary event site, hence the renewed interest in using established paintball venues as event sites. The bulk of the continuing series will focus on the traveling national series type of event but will also juxtapose those events against the fixed established paintball venue.

The purpose of these posts is to provide a framework for forming slightly more informed opinions related to operating paintball tournaments. Despite the fact it ain't rocket science it appears, from the vantage point of VFTD anyway, there is an awful lot of ill-informed opinion out there (present company excluded, of course) and it is hoped these posts might go part of the way toward a remedy.

Next up will be the first of a possible long-term series on field design offering a breakdown of the PSP Phoenix layout. Talking field design theory is, I fear, an excellent way to test your loyalty to VFTD but it is a topic I want to discuss. By discussing the most recent layout played I'm hoping to match-up real world experience with theory in little, bite-size pieces. If it seems to be working--or I just like doing it--it can be turned into an ongoing series of recently played tournament fields.

Monday's Baca's Blog over at 68 Caliber is about the demise of the old paintball media and the rise of the new paintball media.

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?

Being Pacific Paintball

Upfront I want to apologise for the miserable *prediction* that is the Richter or Beaufort? post. It's mostly not particularly informative. If you can make heads or tails of it (or think you can) odds are it's even more disconcerting. You are either excited or terrified. Or a little bit of both or perhaps, like me, you're thinking it's a day late and a dollar short.
This post is my attempt to make it up to you and follow-up on my threat in Last Word on Relegation to drop a dime on Pacific Paintball.

Disclaimer: all the following is nothing more than my interpretation of the factoids. (Your opinions may vary so feel free to add your comments.)

In some bizarro alternative universe (or if you're into speculative quantum mechanics, a different multiverse) I could be way off base but if I've got it wrong at least I've been consistently wrong. In the Dead Tree Archive there are 3 columns related to this topic; The 18 was published in Feb, 05 and An Inconvenient Truth in Mar, 07. Is the Honeymoon Over? was written in 07 and is among the too-dangerous-to-publish unpublished pieces listed towards the bottom of the archive. The columns will also fill in some detail the post doesn't include for those interested. (Why the Dead Tree Archive? It's all part of my grand scheme to generate massive multiple page views and boost my advertising ... er, hang on, I don't actually have any advertising. Apparently the grand scheme needs a little work.)

The trick to understanding the NPPL is to realize that paintball is a means, not an end. That was true of the Pure Promotions version of the NPPL as well. I don't mean that to necessarily imply anything negative but I do think it's had consequences. I also don't mean to suggest that you can't do one thing and have multiple reasons for doing it but, again, I think the ultimate or primary purpose will necessarily influence every decision that follows. This can be good or bad and, depending on your point of view, both at the same time.
So if a renowned international tournament series isn't focused on paintball what is it focused on? In the Pure Promotions (PP) days part of it was to show the Old Guys that the New Guys knew better and could do it better. And the largest part of that was tourney as festival. Tourney as festival was also a key to "selling" paintball and TV was seen as the medium to making it happen. And it so happens that Pacific simply picked up where PP dropped out and is also in the business of selling paintball. It's more complex than that and Pacific has more than one goal but all of them boil down to ways of selling paintball (not operating successful tournaments.) Which, if it actually brought more money and profile to competitive paintball would be hailed as a great success. (And it might even be one.)
However as a black-hearted cynic I am inclined to see the dark cloud rather than the silver lining. So what I see is a league that is fundamentally clueless in addressing paintball issues and doesn't have anyone in the organization today who is likely to succeed where others failed. Pacific expended all their capital (cash & goodwill) pacifying the pro teams while the rank and file voted with their feet and left. The question for them then is what comes next? More of the same or something different or ...?
If I were you I might be wondering about a couple of things; Who are these imaginary buyers and what's that pacifying the pro teams all about? 'TV' was shorthand for future paintball success. That has changed to 'outside sponsors' (the imaginary buyers.) Kinda like global warming has morphed into the more all-inclusive, climate change. The part that's for "sale" is the pro division competition on TV. What is on offer is the premier paintball event to connect to the wide world of all things paintball and its prime demographic, etc. The medium, and the seller, is the NPPL who can deliver all that. Or so the pitch goes. And in order to validate the pitch (prior to the first big deal) the league needs the pro teams participation. Once, if it were ever to happen, the league became the de facto face of paintball the actual participating teams matter much less.

Tomorrow the PSP. (Is that a promise or a threat? You decide.)

Limited Paint

One of the lost comments to the ROF post suggested not worrying overmuch about actual ROF and instead limit the amount of paint. (That's my paraphrase and may not represent precisely the commenter's intent. Whatever.) Both in tourney play and recreationally. In tourney play this could be done by fiat and in rec play the suggestion was to do it by price. There are a few reasons why this isn't the best option in either case but my interest here relates to tournament play.
A brief observation: All tourney paintball is limited paint. Limited to what a player chooses to carry on the field. In 10-man days I never carried fewer than 12 pods. Nowadays you seldom see more than 7 though one of my guys likes 9. Either way there is a limit.
And, in point of fact, there is absolutely nothing keeping players and/or teams from shooting as little paint as they want. There is a PSP D1 xball team where nobody carries more than 4 pods and most of them only 2 or 3. Their choice. Nobody is making anybody shoot "lots" of paint unless you want to say the nature of the game demands it. (And if you go that route you have to be willing to say that any significant change in paint allowed would also alter the nature of the game.)
Of course what is meant is an intentionally restrictive limit that is enforced on everyone. Which is okay and probably even commendable as an introductory tournament format in say a 3-man or even 5-man rookie and/or young guns level event. Even beyond that I'm not going to object, given that all tourney paintball is limited in fact (if not by rule) except to point out what should be obvious. Namely, that any change made to "fix" a specific problem tends to be of greater significance than anyone intends, expects or prepares for. I'm not even saying that change is necessarily a bad thing given competitive paintball's relative youth–and considering some of the things I've advocated--but if the peeps who make these decisions are serious about their responsibility to the game it's the sort of thing that shouldn't be done without taking the time to consider the possible ramifications.
Think of it as Baca's Rule #11: Don't Screw With The Game Unless You've Got A Damned Good Idea What The Result Will Be.
Limited paint in broad application across the tournament spectrum would be a game altering factor and this is where I have some serious reservations. The same is true of factors like field dimensions, number and shape of props and certain features of layout design that have all influenced the way the game is played. As has the technology. I won't detail here the ways I think limited paint as a standard would alter (and in this case probably diminish) the competitive game as all I'm shooting for with this post is to encourage keeping the Big Picture in mind when looking at ways to "solve" problems. [I'll do something on how the game changes us soon which will include volume of paint in play.]

ROF

This was actually a subject I was gonna do a magazine piece on last year (before I stopped writing for PB magazines) because it cuts across all facets of paintball and seems to be a focal point for many if not most of the disgruntled within the grassroots paintball biz. Word of warning: If you are among the disgruntled you're probably gonna like part of this and want to throw something at your monitor for other parts. If you feel a surging pain up your left arm stop reading. S'all I'm saying.
There's two parts to this: tourney ball & the so-called trickle down effect seen at the local level around the country. Let's begin with the fun one, tournament paintball. [But first, one caveat: Don't start in about the evils of ramping with me while defending electronic guns that can be shot at 10-15 bps in "semi-auto". That just tells me either you don't know what you're talking about or you have a particular axe to grind and reality a mere inconvenience. It is all one issue. So here's the deal; don't try making a nonsensical argument and I won't call you rude names. Seems fair to me.]
There has been, for a couple of years, a call from some quarters to reduce the ROF allowed in tournament play. One reason given is current ROF creates too high a barrier at the rookie and young gun level and scares players off with firepower that overwhelms beginner skills. Other reasons include makes the game stagnant, takes the fun out, costs too much in paint and turns local fields into shooting galleries 'cus all the baby ballers want to blaze just like the pros. We'll leave that last one out for now 'cus it's got nothing to do with actual tourney play.
Let me take a moment to ask a question or two. Where is the hue and cry aimed at the NPPL's irresponsible gun rules? (If you are under the misapprehension that NPPL is controlling ROF you are way behind the curve or easily duped in which case I'd like to tell you about this property for sale in south Florida ... ) And who among you rips PSP for ramping guns even though they's the only ones actually controlling ROF? Consider those rhetorical questions.
I'm in favor of regulating ROF in tourney play. But only to a point. I think there is a case to be made for matching ROF to developing levels of skill. I am NOT in favor of a universal ceiling ROF though I can live with the PSP's current 13. The reason I am not in favor of a universal ceiling is that ROF corresponds to skill level in a positive way as well as in the negative way everyone tends to think of. And one thing I'd hate to see is a needless artificial limit placed on the upper levels of competitive paintball. Pro football isn't played by Pop Warner rules. Pro level paintball shouldn't be held hostage to rookie skill, or the lack thereof. ROF in the recent PSP context both defines and refines much of the tournament skill set directly and indirectly. That said I'd tier ROF at 8, 10, 12 and 15 and if you think that's overdoing it I'd settle for 10 and 13. 10 bps for everyone either at or below D3 and 13bps for everyone above. As to the common reasons given above the only one I buy into at all is that there is merit in not driving young players away before they develop the skills to appreciate the game and discover if the competition is what they really want. Stagnant games are the result of deficient skills and tactics. Lack of fun is not really wanting to compete in a tourney context and/or routinely getting your ass whooped. Paint consumption is more directly tied to time played--at least when the difference is 15.4 to 13.3 bps. And now for the impact on local fields.

I don't deny ROF is a serious issue at the local level but imagining that changing tourney ROF to some lowest common denominator will fix the problem is wishful thinking, a desire to shift the blame and/or a refusal to take some personal responsibility. How's that left arm doing? Remember those rhetorical questions? You can answer them now.
I visited a local field with some old friends awhile ago that was mostly woodsball. Much to my surprise, not, the majority of the camo jockeys were shooting the latest high tech hardware including of course some raging Tippmanns as well as Egos and Dms and the rest. Here's another question for you: Were those guys mere puppets of Evil Paintball Marketing who wanted to be just like the "pros" and couldn't help themselves? Or were they seduced by firepower? Or were they just keeping up with the Joneses? Nor was it an isolated unique situation. Check out your next local Big Game and see what the other side of paintball is shooting. [Once upon a time the major gun manufacturers had a max bps agreement. It lasted less than a year.]
It just doesn't add up for me. There are a lot of conflicting claims depending on just what argument is being framed. Tourney made them want it. Yet, the numbers say tourney is a small piece of the whole paintball pie. And rec and scenario players are supposedly uninterested (and used to be viewed as hostile) to tourney except when they aren't. And all that media pressure presenting fast guns as cool has brainwashed every baller from here to Missoula which is why the magazines and DVD business is exploding... Doesn't Blues Crew have a gun sponsorship with one of those big bad mainstream gun manufacturers?
When I started playing paintball field rentals were a mix of pumps and early semis but guns like the Illustrator were beginning to appear. Guess what. In short order there was a firepower disparity at work. Not as pronounced as today nor with the capability of today's guns to transform anybody with a finger into a paint chucking machinegun but a version of the same problem. So it's not really new.
More questions. Do you sell machineguns and factory and aftermarket multi-function boards in your pro shops and stores? Do you sell everybody who has the cash as much paint as they want to buy? So let me see if I've got this right: you supply anyone who wants it with the stuff you want somebody else to control for you. Is that about it?
The technology complicated a preexisting issue by making the disparity (the potential difference in equipment) a wider gulf and by making the consequences so unpleasant (unsuspecting and/or unprepared peeps getting blowed up). And some of you advocate tourney ball putting that genie back in the bottle for you. Not gonna happen. Got a couple of ugly little secrets for you. Technology has been driving tourney ball too, not the other way around and as long as the technology is out there people will want to use it.
So what are local field operators to do? They could sack up and regulate what they can control or not. Be like the NPPL or be like the PSP. Simple choice. Take a look at which one is working and which one isn't. I'm not suggesting it's all down to controlling guns but it is certainly part of the difference. What the vast majority of competitors want is a level playing field, an honest competition. Which isn't really all that different from what the average rec player wants--an equal opportunity and a fair game. And in both cases it isn't superfast guns that deny that opportunity, it is the lack of proper regulation. IT IS THE LACK OF PROPER REGULATION.
Try these:
Depending on the size of your field prioritize according to your desired market.
Segregate players by both skill and equipment as well as inclination; play tourney style vs. play rec ball.
Be specific about the rules of play on your website and in your safety briefings so everyone knows what to expect. Include upfront the penalties for gun violations and enforce them rigorously. For every loose cannon you "lose" you gain more from everyone else who see the rules work.
Invest in a PACT timer and teach your refs how to use it. When you chrono a player you can also check ROF.
Build some pride and purpose into your ref staff as they are the front line to your success.
(There's other stuff that could be included and each situation is a bit different but that's the foundation for getting control of ROF.)

Or, you know, you could go find somebody who really will do it for you. Try your insurance company or your local government and explain the situation to them. I'm sure given the right horror stories and a bit of pleading they'd be happen to tell you how to run your business.