Aight. The thing is I'm wondering if anybody but a relative handful of teams actually cares about this at all. It's a big deal, trust me, if you're playing for a pro spot or playing not to lose one but otherwise I'm beginning to think nobody else is all that interested. Sure, if asked most players will say it's good 'cus psychologically it keeps hope alive that anybody can play pro even if they know (like I know and you know) that it ain't true except with some extremely rare exceptions. Did I just hear somebody say, Greg Hastings? Or was that Tony Perez? (Ouch. Even I cringed a little. Man, that was cruel and totally uncalled for but still funny and I hate to say it but funny wins out.)
Do you think fans of paintball [all seven of them] would rather see Miami Rage or MOD? Do the Naughty Dogs have a bigger following than the second Impact team? Is the pro division really better off without Rage and Dogs?
So here's the burning question: Do you think promotion/relegation is an important part of the NPPL game and if so, why?
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
NPPL San Diego Recap
It's Tuesday. Yeah, I know. I was supposed to post this yesterday. Monday. Stuff happens. At least I hope we've all learned a valuable lesson in the process. Don't rely on idle bloggers. And if your life revolves around reading a blog--I'm sorry. So stiff upper lip, Bucko, and let's move on.
Unlike the NPPL I am not enamored with parking lots. Never have been though the first time in Denver was a novelty. The Qualcomm parking lot is particularly lousy (except in comparison to the recent Buffalo event which was like an imaginary lunar landscape formed out of granules of asphalt and gravel.)
The league tried out a new schema in event design for SD which was either quite clever or desperate or perhaps both. Imagine the fields as the outside of a large oval open at one end with all the vendors inside the oval facing outwards. Now envision the pro paddocks placed between the two feature fields with access to those fields put as far away as possible from the paddock so that the players needed to walk (and mingle) with the other players, spectators, fans (and other assorted dubious at best distinctions of persons on site) etc. between games. Finally put registration as far away as possible from the entrance area (without actually crossing the border into Mexico) and you have the basic plan. The idea is to keep traffic moving constantly in the vicinity of the vendors as much as possible and the pros in the vicinity of the public as much as possible. Both ideas have merit conceptually but I'm the sort of person who resists being manipulated, even passively, so I can't say that I liked it particularly.
The fields were carried over from Houston (and were pretty conventional with no gimmickry of design) so I was somewhat surprised to see such an uneven quality of play in the prelim round. It certainly wasn't lack of motivation or effort and maybe I'm completely misreading it but it just seemed then (and still seems now) like everything was off somehow.
Most of the leading series contenders had rough--to put it mildly--days which was totally unexpected. The Ironmen looked flat and the Canes had some bad luck and made some uncharacteristically poor decisions in a couple of games they were up in. Just goes to show confidence alone ain't enough and as Yogi Berra might have said, 100% of success is 50% mental. Dynarats dominated--and deserved the win--and a lot of teams that needed results this event played hard and had good showings and every report I've heard about the webcast said it was solid (with occasional sound outages) with entertaining games on view--so I'm not sure why I'm ambivalent about the event. I just am.
It coulda benefited by more teams and more peeps coming out but that almost always applies (how's that for alliteration?) and word from vendors row was that not as much transacting was going on as they would have liked or hoped for. Which isn't a big surprise.
Okay, now for the extras I promised.
Disclaimer: The pro teams had a meeting Friday evening [during the event] that saw a rep from every team in attendance. There will be no gossip, no out of turn revelations revealed and no names given. (This self-imposed restriction is much harder on me than you think because there's somebody I enjoy mentioning in any context just because I know how much it pisses him off and that, of course, is the fun part.) Issues only and my opinions. And the reason I'm doing this is because so much of what goes on in big time paintball is shrouded in secrecy and it's important for peeps who care about competitive paintball to know that there are other people (who may have more of a voice) sincerely trying to make a difference on behalf of the sport as a whole. (Wow. I think I need an insulin shot.)
Gonna start with number of events. You've heard the rumors. All the leagues seem to be discussing a reduction in number of events and this was no different. The consensus was 4 events spread out sufficiently to give the vendors as much latitude over the course of a year to reach customers as possible while still scheduling 2 events during summer vacation to encourage participation from the lower division teams most likely to have more young players.
Moving on to venues. The general opinion was that with some additional effort it ought to be possible to find workable venues that aren't excessively expensive (particularly in the current economic environment) that also offer ways to increase public participation in the same ways HB works. There were a number of good practical suggestions for how to get this done as well.
Game schedules is next and this was unique. The thought was twofold: how to improve player participation by limiting lost work and/or school days, hotel stays, etc. and encourage more fan participation in the pro games by creatively reworking how games are scheduled.
Referees and officiating. In general everyone thought the refs are motivated and doing their best but that ways exist to make real improvements. (And yes, if that seemed a bit stilted and awkward that's because it was and because it's a tough topic for a couple of reasons--and my opinion is forthcoming.)
And finally, relegation. No real consensus here though there was a majority view. You already know I'm not opposed to the process but don't favor it under the present circumstances. The principle argument was the continuity and loyalty one wherein teams with proven records of supporting the league and fielding competitive teams should receive some consideration and not to do so demonstrates no team "owns" its spot and that the league isn't interested regardless of past efforts made that benefited the league too.
On all these subjects no league decisions have been made and apparently no decisions will be made any time soon.
My views on the listed topics are as follows: 4 events is the bare minimum and looks to me like survival mode--which it probably is--and is very likely what will happen. On venues--viva la change! Plenty of good ideas were forthcoming and the league(s) should be highly motivated. The virtue of the game schedule ideas was it offered some creative thinking on a subject few would have thought the pros cared much about. Given the logistics of putting on an event I don't see it working but it's worth looking at and the further idea of reviewing all the suppositions of how an event should operate is also worth doing.
Regarding the refs the problem now is one of ill-defined roles, rules and lack of leadership. What the corps of refs needs now is some clarity--what exactly is our job and how do we do that job and can we count on the league to support us? Any ambiguous rules need to be removed or tightened up. (Read: fix the gun rules yesterday. They are a joke.) For ambiguous situations the refs need their own guidelines for handling and there needs to be a defined chain of command and the buck needs to stop with the field ultimate. The only time Zinkham or anybody else should be put in a position to act with respect to what happened on field is if there is a clear misapplication of a rule or rules.
Relegation is getting a separate post because I'm curious about something. (You'll see shortly.)
There it is. If you've got any questions--ask away--and I may even answer them.
Unlike the NPPL I am not enamored with parking lots. Never have been though the first time in Denver was a novelty. The Qualcomm parking lot is particularly lousy (except in comparison to the recent Buffalo event which was like an imaginary lunar landscape formed out of granules of asphalt and gravel.)
The league tried out a new schema in event design for SD which was either quite clever or desperate or perhaps both. Imagine the fields as the outside of a large oval open at one end with all the vendors inside the oval facing outwards. Now envision the pro paddocks placed between the two feature fields with access to those fields put as far away as possible from the paddock so that the players needed to walk (and mingle) with the other players, spectators, fans (and other assorted dubious at best distinctions of persons on site) etc. between games. Finally put registration as far away as possible from the entrance area (without actually crossing the border into Mexico) and you have the basic plan. The idea is to keep traffic moving constantly in the vicinity of the vendors as much as possible and the pros in the vicinity of the public as much as possible. Both ideas have merit conceptually but I'm the sort of person who resists being manipulated, even passively, so I can't say that I liked it particularly.
The fields were carried over from Houston (and were pretty conventional with no gimmickry of design) so I was somewhat surprised to see such an uneven quality of play in the prelim round. It certainly wasn't lack of motivation or effort and maybe I'm completely misreading it but it just seemed then (and still seems now) like everything was off somehow.
Most of the leading series contenders had rough--to put it mildly--days which was totally unexpected. The Ironmen looked flat and the Canes had some bad luck and made some uncharacteristically poor decisions in a couple of games they were up in. Just goes to show confidence alone ain't enough and as Yogi Berra might have said, 100% of success is 50% mental. Dynarats dominated--and deserved the win--and a lot of teams that needed results this event played hard and had good showings and every report I've heard about the webcast said it was solid (with occasional sound outages) with entertaining games on view--so I'm not sure why I'm ambivalent about the event. I just am.
It coulda benefited by more teams and more peeps coming out but that almost always applies (how's that for alliteration?) and word from vendors row was that not as much transacting was going on as they would have liked or hoped for. Which isn't a big surprise.
Okay, now for the extras I promised.
Disclaimer: The pro teams had a meeting Friday evening [during the event] that saw a rep from every team in attendance. There will be no gossip, no out of turn revelations revealed and no names given. (This self-imposed restriction is much harder on me than you think because there's somebody I enjoy mentioning in any context just because I know how much it pisses him off and that, of course, is the fun part.) Issues only and my opinions. And the reason I'm doing this is because so much of what goes on in big time paintball is shrouded in secrecy and it's important for peeps who care about competitive paintball to know that there are other people (who may have more of a voice) sincerely trying to make a difference on behalf of the sport as a whole. (Wow. I think I need an insulin shot.)
Gonna start with number of events. You've heard the rumors. All the leagues seem to be discussing a reduction in number of events and this was no different. The consensus was 4 events spread out sufficiently to give the vendors as much latitude over the course of a year to reach customers as possible while still scheduling 2 events during summer vacation to encourage participation from the lower division teams most likely to have more young players.
Moving on to venues. The general opinion was that with some additional effort it ought to be possible to find workable venues that aren't excessively expensive (particularly in the current economic environment) that also offer ways to increase public participation in the same ways HB works. There were a number of good practical suggestions for how to get this done as well.
Game schedules is next and this was unique. The thought was twofold: how to improve player participation by limiting lost work and/or school days, hotel stays, etc. and encourage more fan participation in the pro games by creatively reworking how games are scheduled.
Referees and officiating. In general everyone thought the refs are motivated and doing their best but that ways exist to make real improvements. (And yes, if that seemed a bit stilted and awkward that's because it was and because it's a tough topic for a couple of reasons--and my opinion is forthcoming.)
And finally, relegation. No real consensus here though there was a majority view. You already know I'm not opposed to the process but don't favor it under the present circumstances. The principle argument was the continuity and loyalty one wherein teams with proven records of supporting the league and fielding competitive teams should receive some consideration and not to do so demonstrates no team "owns" its spot and that the league isn't interested regardless of past efforts made that benefited the league too.
On all these subjects no league decisions have been made and apparently no decisions will be made any time soon.
My views on the listed topics are as follows: 4 events is the bare minimum and looks to me like survival mode--which it probably is--and is very likely what will happen. On venues--viva la change! Plenty of good ideas were forthcoming and the league(s) should be highly motivated. The virtue of the game schedule ideas was it offered some creative thinking on a subject few would have thought the pros cared much about. Given the logistics of putting on an event I don't see it working but it's worth looking at and the further idea of reviewing all the suppositions of how an event should operate is also worth doing.
Regarding the refs the problem now is one of ill-defined roles, rules and lack of leadership. What the corps of refs needs now is some clarity--what exactly is our job and how do we do that job and can we count on the league to support us? Any ambiguous rules need to be removed or tightened up. (Read: fix the gun rules yesterday. They are a joke.) For ambiguous situations the refs need their own guidelines for handling and there needs to be a defined chain of command and the buck needs to stop with the field ultimate. The only time Zinkham or anybody else should be put in a position to act with respect to what happened on field is if there is a clear misapplication of a rule or rules.
Relegation is getting a separate post because I'm curious about something. (You'll see shortly.)
There it is. If you've got any questions--ask away--and I may even answer them.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Here in Chilly San Diego
It's Saturday evening and last time I checked the final standings from the pro games still weren't posted--oops, now they're up. Could somebody put an event in Cali when it's actually warm? Geez. I'm not suggesting July and I'm sure it seems fabulous to most everybody else but every time I come to Cali it's colder here than at home. Fine, I'm done whining--'cus everybody hates a whiner.
I intended to do a mini event revue with a focus on the turnout, vibe, venue and the competition but you shoulda been watching the webcast and at this point you can check the scores to get up-to-date. All the rest will have to wait until Monday. If you were (foolishly) expecting any info on the latest from the vendors it ain't gonna happen. Look, I know it's actually important given the current marketplace but I've never been a gearhead or a gun whore so it's hard to fake real interest especially when it's late and I need sleep. Besides, there must a bunch of other places that will give you the scoop on the newest stuff.
On the plus side the Monday report will have some special extras. Call it a tease--call it a promise. Call me a slacker. It is what it is.
I intended to do a mini event revue with a focus on the turnout, vibe, venue and the competition but you shoulda been watching the webcast and at this point you can check the scores to get up-to-date. All the rest will have to wait until Monday. If you were (foolishly) expecting any info on the latest from the vendors it ain't gonna happen. Look, I know it's actually important given the current marketplace but I've never been a gearhead or a gun whore so it's hard to fake real interest especially when it's late and I need sleep. Besides, there must a bunch of other places that will give you the scoop on the newest stuff.
On the plus side the Monday report will have some special extras. Call it a tease--call it a promise. Call me a slacker. It is what it is.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Rockstar
I'm sitting around McCarren airport in Vegas waiting for my San Diego flight and besides all the bad news in the gaming industry--Sands (Is that ironic, or what?) is apparently already on the brink of bankruptcy--the place is dead. And that's with a big fight in town tomorrow night.
The latest gimmick from Planet is about your only shot--at having the word, rockstar, associated with you in any way, shape or form. Or you could buy a Dynasty jersey and say, Look at me! I'm a human billboard! And by gimmick I mean it's a pretty clever idea and nicely executed. (I first saw it in one of the insufferable NPPL email press releases that seem to arrive daily. Which, sadly, must mean they have some degree of effectiveness even though I hate getting them and only continue to tolerate them on the off chance I receive something I need to know and might otherwise miss. Take a deep breath.)
Actually the part about the Rockstar guns I find interesting is the nature of the deal made between Rockstar and Planet. Who approached who? And if any remunerations were part of the deal which way did they go--to Rockstar or Planet? Inquiring minds want to know but chances are I'll have to kidnap Nicky T. and threaten to tell him my paintball stories in order to find out. C'mon, Nicky, spill the beans. I got a million stories and all the time in the world. Let's start at the beginning. My first pair of goggles were ...
The latest gimmick from Planet is about your only shot--at having the word, rockstar, associated with you in any way, shape or form. Or you could buy a Dynasty jersey and say, Look at me! I'm a human billboard! And by gimmick I mean it's a pretty clever idea and nicely executed. (I first saw it in one of the insufferable NPPL email press releases that seem to arrive daily. Which, sadly, must mean they have some degree of effectiveness even though I hate getting them and only continue to tolerate them on the off chance I receive something I need to know and might otherwise miss. Take a deep breath.)
Actually the part about the Rockstar guns I find interesting is the nature of the deal made between Rockstar and Planet. Who approached who? And if any remunerations were part of the deal which way did they go--to Rockstar or Planet? Inquiring minds want to know but chances are I'll have to kidnap Nicky T. and threaten to tell him my paintball stories in order to find out. C'mon, Nicky, spill the beans. I got a million stories and all the time in the world. Let's start at the beginning. My first pair of goggles were ...
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Relegate
Over at the new ProPaintball (Post title is the link. Cool, huh? Why the title? It's an automated feature for lazy bloggers, is why.) the kids from PBReserve are running a poll about the NPPL's promo/relegation system and I'm interested to see what happens--with the NPPL. That, and of course I have an opinion. Kinda goes with the territory.
Conceptually I like the current system just fine. However, I think there are some practical reasons not to do it. The first year or two there was a much healthier semi-pro division with established pro teams in the mix and a reasonable expectation that the teams being promoted were competitive. Currently the division is so weak I think it's hard to make the case the semi-pro competition is producing pro-worthy teams. Nor has the system encouraged developing teams to push for the next level as it's possible to count on both hands (minus a thumb) the number of teams that have competed for promotion over the course of the season.
Part of the relegation/promotion scheme is intended to force teams to be as competitive as possible all the time which ain't a bad thing. However, for the system to deliver it presumes a stable, active, maturing competition environment. And any way you measure it none of those factors apply. Promotion can only be viewed as valid if the upcoming teams are seen as having earned it and likely to be legitimately competitive. Personally I'm not convinced that being the best 3 of 9 proves much of anything. There is also the question of developing new talent. With few teams moving up the ranks and most of them with inconsistent (constantly changing) rosters if all that is really happening is mostly a giant game of musical chairs for many of the same players or an actual dilution of the competition then promo / relegation isn't working as envisioned. Nor is it a system in harmony with a developing pro league. From my perspective what you want is consistency and continuity--and playing musical teams is counterproductive to those goals. Additionally neither the team nor the league structure is so well established or populated as to accommodate failing teams without concern particularly when the league not only makes no effort to help support its teams, it is actively in competition with them for ever more limited industry support. That's why I think the NPPL would be better off without promo / relegation.
Conceptually I like the current system just fine. However, I think there are some practical reasons not to do it. The first year or two there was a much healthier semi-pro division with established pro teams in the mix and a reasonable expectation that the teams being promoted were competitive. Currently the division is so weak I think it's hard to make the case the semi-pro competition is producing pro-worthy teams. Nor has the system encouraged developing teams to push for the next level as it's possible to count on both hands (minus a thumb) the number of teams that have competed for promotion over the course of the season.
Part of the relegation/promotion scheme is intended to force teams to be as competitive as possible all the time which ain't a bad thing. However, for the system to deliver it presumes a stable, active, maturing competition environment. And any way you measure it none of those factors apply. Promotion can only be viewed as valid if the upcoming teams are seen as having earned it and likely to be legitimately competitive. Personally I'm not convinced that being the best 3 of 9 proves much of anything. There is also the question of developing new talent. With few teams moving up the ranks and most of them with inconsistent (constantly changing) rosters if all that is really happening is mostly a giant game of musical chairs for many of the same players or an actual dilution of the competition then promo / relegation isn't working as envisioned. Nor is it a system in harmony with a developing pro league. From my perspective what you want is consistency and continuity--and playing musical teams is counterproductive to those goals. Additionally neither the team nor the league structure is so well established or populated as to accommodate failing teams without concern particularly when the league not only makes no effort to help support its teams, it is actively in competition with them for ever more limited industry support. That's why I think the NPPL would be better off without promo / relegation.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Informal Survey
Subject: early release of field layouts prior to events
(It isn't your imagination. I am, once again, returning to a topic already covered to one degree or another. This will be the final word, for now. If you're wondering what compulsion moves me to this sorta behavior; it's the kids. Mine and the gaggle of paintball players I routinely deal with most weekends. Somehow it is never enough to hear a thing once. They must have everything repeated over and over so it has become my habitual practice. And your curse.)
The reason given for releasing the layouts early is to encourage teams to practice at paintball fields that have the up-to-date xball bunkers and can setup the latest layout. [Which always sounded to me like some quid pro quo arrangement with Adrenaline Games and not a terribly serious reason. Where, after all, is an xball team going to practice if not on an xball field whether they have a specific layout or not?]
In my informal World Cup survey--sounds authoritative, doesn't it?--most field owners I asked about it thought it did one of two things. A) made no real difference, or, B) tended to swamp them with teams ONLY when the layout was available. What B means is that for fields catering to tourney teams the field release practice has created cycles in their business; heavy use near an event and little or no use (from the teams) the rest of the time. Owners answering A didn't really cater to teams.
This is anecdotal, limited in scope and completely unscientific but it makes sense. Teams have limited resources so releasing layouts early only encourages them to practice when they can optimize their efforts and play the event layout. Contrary to its claimed purpose this ain't helpful to fields investing in xball bunkers and annual upgrades.
It remains an open question how NOT releasing the layouts would effect local field business but there are quality of play, player development, and player skill set implications as well. Think on that for a bit. I will be addressing the issue in an upcoming post called Robots versus Ninjas.
(It isn't your imagination. I am, once again, returning to a topic already covered to one degree or another. This will be the final word, for now. If you're wondering what compulsion moves me to this sorta behavior; it's the kids. Mine and the gaggle of paintball players I routinely deal with most weekends. Somehow it is never enough to hear a thing once. They must have everything repeated over and over so it has become my habitual practice. And your curse.)
The reason given for releasing the layouts early is to encourage teams to practice at paintball fields that have the up-to-date xball bunkers and can setup the latest layout. [Which always sounded to me like some quid pro quo arrangement with Adrenaline Games and not a terribly serious reason. Where, after all, is an xball team going to practice if not on an xball field whether they have a specific layout or not?]
In my informal World Cup survey--sounds authoritative, doesn't it?--most field owners I asked about it thought it did one of two things. A) made no real difference, or, B) tended to swamp them with teams ONLY when the layout was available. What B means is that for fields catering to tourney teams the field release practice has created cycles in their business; heavy use near an event and little or no use (from the teams) the rest of the time. Owners answering A didn't really cater to teams.
This is anecdotal, limited in scope and completely unscientific but it makes sense. Teams have limited resources so releasing layouts early only encourages them to practice when they can optimize their efforts and play the event layout. Contrary to its claimed purpose this ain't helpful to fields investing in xball bunkers and annual upgrades.
It remains an open question how NOT releasing the layouts would effect local field business but there are quality of play, player development, and player skill set implications as well. Think on that for a bit. I will be addressing the issue in an upcoming post called Robots versus Ninjas.
Burning Question
This is the first of what I see as an ongoing, if irregular, series for those rare occasions--you probably ought to sit down--when something comes up and I have to admit some degree of ignorance on a currently hot topic.
Today's question is a bit technical and relates to economies of scale in paint ball manufacture. I'm curious about how it breaks down. Plainly the key elements are volume and efficiency in the economy of scale but it must be matched against materiel cost and cost of operation. [Which, I'm guessing, along with debt load is where the big boys are getting into trouble.] My question is this: How competitive can a small scale operation be in terms of cost per ball? (No, I'm not planning on buying the Encapsulator Jr. and starting a home business.) I'm just wondering if there is some middle ground that can be price competitive.
If you've got an answer or an idea I'm listening.
Today's question is a bit technical and relates to economies of scale in paint ball manufacture. I'm curious about how it breaks down. Plainly the key elements are volume and efficiency in the economy of scale but it must be matched against materiel cost and cost of operation. [Which, I'm guessing, along with debt load is where the big boys are getting into trouble.] My question is this: How competitive can a small scale operation be in terms of cost per ball? (No, I'm not planning on buying the Encapsulator Jr. and starting a home business.) I'm just wondering if there is some middle ground that can be price competitive.
If you've got an answer or an idea I'm listening.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Pro Ball Blues
This is in response to a comment in the earlier post, Paradigm Shift? (posted below). For some helpful context read Paradigm Shift? before reading this.
The comment that inspired this post asked if it was possible pro players might have to start paying for things, like paint. I'm going to use the NXL situation but it's not just an NXL problem. PBReserve has reported on related factors in recent months like Procaps getting tough regarding overages, the Procaps / Archon (Zap) merge--which effectively took the Zap brand off the market--and the rumor GAP may consider closing up shop. (While other unsubstantiated rumors suggest at least one paint maker is currently on the block.)
The NXL began the season with 12 teams and finished with 10. Is it coincidence that the two that dropped out were Procaps teams? Maybe. I don't know but I do know a little something about pro teams and paint usage.
This past season the NXL had 3 factory teams and 9 independents. You could argue that either Infamous and Aftershock were both factory or neither were so I split the difference. You could also argue a better distinction is franchise / non-franchise--in which case you'd be wrong. End of the day what matters here is money and the motivation to spend it.
Two indies crashed and burned before season's end. Of the remaining independents 2 are shoestring operations that survived last year's team losses getting by on the minimum and 3 others have a single principle benefactor. None of them, including Dynasty, got the level of sponsorship you think they got--although Dynasty, as the only legit brand among the indies, was head and shoulders above the rest.
So how much paint do they use? I'm gonna keep the numbers simple and the totals low. Each event every team plays a minimum of 5 matches. Figure 20 cases a match. Since the prelims got screwed up the last two events let's skip Sunday usage altogether and call it even. The result is 200K per team per event or 1 million for the season. For practice let's say 2 a month at 50 cases per (and that's low paint usage for a typical two day practice.) The result is another 2 million balls. There's 3 million balls used in one league based on very modest numbers and MOST of the NXL teams didn't get 3 mil or more freebies this past year. Now start your calculations for those teams playing both leagues and it isn't hard to see that something is going to give.
Does this mean pro players are gonna have to start paying for stuff? In some cases it probably will but there are still a couple of problems with that scenario. One, it simply transfers the cost from team to players and Two, the majority of pro players are chosen on their ability to play, not pay. As it stands now if the pro game is too expensive for the current teams it's going to be too expensive for the players and simply shifting the burden likely means pro ranks populated by wealthier, not better, players. Alternatively some mix of costs might work for some teams and players but doesn't do anything to address the larger issues.
(Incidentally, this is why I recommended last year in the off season that field layouts NOT be released prior to events. The reasoning was it would force teams to find alternative, less paint intensive ways to prepare, among other virtues.)
What it is going to boil down to is what value does PBIndustry and the Big Leagues place on the pro game--as it exists now--and can they afford to keep it alive as the pinnacle of competitive paintball? My view is the current system will not sustain the current teams and the current environment does not promote the creation of new pro caliber teams to take their place. Which is why I'm advocating looking for creative ways to change the system.
Of course it could be we'll all just have to take our lumps. Long term the game isn't going anywhere even if some of us lose out in the short term.
Happy happy joy joy
The comment that inspired this post asked if it was possible pro players might have to start paying for things, like paint. I'm going to use the NXL situation but it's not just an NXL problem. PBReserve has reported on related factors in recent months like Procaps getting tough regarding overages, the Procaps / Archon (Zap) merge--which effectively took the Zap brand off the market--and the rumor GAP may consider closing up shop. (While other unsubstantiated rumors suggest at least one paint maker is currently on the block.)
The NXL began the season with 12 teams and finished with 10. Is it coincidence that the two that dropped out were Procaps teams? Maybe. I don't know but I do know a little something about pro teams and paint usage.
This past season the NXL had 3 factory teams and 9 independents. You could argue that either Infamous and Aftershock were both factory or neither were so I split the difference. You could also argue a better distinction is franchise / non-franchise--in which case you'd be wrong. End of the day what matters here is money and the motivation to spend it.
Two indies crashed and burned before season's end. Of the remaining independents 2 are shoestring operations that survived last year's team losses getting by on the minimum and 3 others have a single principle benefactor. None of them, including Dynasty, got the level of sponsorship you think they got--although Dynasty, as the only legit brand among the indies, was head and shoulders above the rest.
So how much paint do they use? I'm gonna keep the numbers simple and the totals low. Each event every team plays a minimum of 5 matches. Figure 20 cases a match. Since the prelims got screwed up the last two events let's skip Sunday usage altogether and call it even. The result is 200K per team per event or 1 million for the season. For practice let's say 2 a month at 50 cases per (and that's low paint usage for a typical two day practice.) The result is another 2 million balls. There's 3 million balls used in one league based on very modest numbers and MOST of the NXL teams didn't get 3 mil or more freebies this past year. Now start your calculations for those teams playing both leagues and it isn't hard to see that something is going to give.
Does this mean pro players are gonna have to start paying for stuff? In some cases it probably will but there are still a couple of problems with that scenario. One, it simply transfers the cost from team to players and Two, the majority of pro players are chosen on their ability to play, not pay. As it stands now if the pro game is too expensive for the current teams it's going to be too expensive for the players and simply shifting the burden likely means pro ranks populated by wealthier, not better, players. Alternatively some mix of costs might work for some teams and players but doesn't do anything to address the larger issues.
(Incidentally, this is why I recommended last year in the off season that field layouts NOT be released prior to events. The reasoning was it would force teams to find alternative, less paint intensive ways to prepare, among other virtues.)
What it is going to boil down to is what value does PBIndustry and the Big Leagues place on the pro game--as it exists now--and can they afford to keep it alive as the pinnacle of competitive paintball? My view is the current system will not sustain the current teams and the current environment does not promote the creation of new pro caliber teams to take their place. Which is why I'm advocating looking for creative ways to change the system.
Of course it could be we'll all just have to take our lumps. Long term the game isn't going anywhere even if some of us lose out in the short term.
Happy happy joy joy
Monday, November 10, 2008
New & Improved
Okay. I'm lying again. It's not new--except for the Dead Tree Archive and we've been there and done that. But I've added a couple new features. One is the visible link which appears at the bottom of any post that somebody else has linked to. That way you can follow the links and see what somebody else is saying on the same or a related topic. The other is the Reax (reaction) also at the bottom of each post which is intended to be a shorthand way for you slackers to express your opinions without having to go to all the trouble of posting a comment. The standard blogger offering was really lame (funny, interesting, cool) *yawn* and I'm not convinced mine is much better (dynamite!, cherry bomb, dud) but it will at least communicate your response to each post you care to react to. [Could that have ended more awkwardly? I didn't think so either.]
If you've got any other ideas for Reax let me know. I'll probably change it periodically because I'm easily bored.
UPDATE: for some reason reax isn't working yet. Nothing is wrong with your computer and I'm not insane. (Honestly that second part is open for debate.
SUPER DUPER UPDATE: Hurrah! It's all working correctly. It only took two days and what was left of my hair.
If you've got any other ideas for Reax let me know. I'll probably change it periodically because I'm easily bored.
UPDATE: for some reason reax isn't working yet. Nothing is wrong with your computer and I'm not insane. (Honestly that second part is open for debate.
SUPER DUPER UPDATE: Hurrah! It's all working correctly. It only took two days and what was left of my hair.
It's Alive!
The dead tree VFTD archive, that is. Finally. Check out the link Dead Tree Archive below the blog archive on the sidebar. Had a couple technical problems yesterday to iron out and there's still 2 bad links, Views 165 & 175, but those shouldn't take long to fix (once I figure out why they aren't working.) Otherwise it should all be good. If you have any problems checking the archive out please take the time to drop me a line and let me know.
Each entry that originally appeared in PGi is listed by month/year and number of the issue it appeared in. The link is my title for that column (so it may vary from the title PGi used.) Also included is a brief summary to give you an idea of the topic that month. The remaining entries either appeared in PB2x or went unpublished.
If you read something in the dead tree archive you want to comment on or argue about feel free to drop me a line anytime. Either I or one of the kids will be happy to respond. Oh, the kids? My new business. Taking my cue from PBIndustry I've got a start-up in Shanghai populated with hungry, motivated (One might almost say starving and desperate) youngsters with English language skills to match the best Indian subcontinent IT customer service worker. It's all pretty hush-hush for now ...
UPDATE: missing links should be fixed. (No, that's nothing to do with spaying or neutering your Yeti.)
Each entry that originally appeared in PGi is listed by month/year and number of the issue it appeared in. The link is my title for that column (so it may vary from the title PGi used.) Also included is a brief summary to give you an idea of the topic that month. The remaining entries either appeared in PB2x or went unpublished.
If you read something in the dead tree archive you want to comment on or argue about feel free to drop me a line anytime. Either I or one of the kids will be happy to respond. Oh, the kids? My new business. Taking my cue from PBIndustry I've got a start-up in Shanghai populated with hungry, motivated (One might almost say starving and desperate) youngsters with English language skills to match the best Indian subcontinent IT customer service worker. It's all pretty hush-hush for now ...
UPDATE: missing links should be fixed. (No, that's nothing to do with spaying or neutering your Yeti.)
Friday, November 7, 2008
Pro Circuit News
Okay, the post title was kinda deceptive but what isn't these days? There are some grumblings and rumblings going on out in the hinterland with talk of forming some new regional series around the xball format. Talk is just talk and this is probably not the best time to launch but the prospect of putting into place a couple more foundation pieces to the puzzle is a good thing and irrespective of the Pro Circuit concept it's good for competitive paintball. The fact there are peeps out there willing to consider doing it and excited by the prospect is a good thing in its own right. We'll see.
Got recent quasi-confirmation on another Pro Circuit-like conception percolating as well. And that is all I'm gonna say about it. Yes, I know, that's unsatisfactory and provides less information than a Bill Belichick midweek injury report or a redacted FOIA copy of a Guantanamo interrogation. Can't be helped. Well, of course it could be helped but the best you're gonna get is a hint: I've written about this before, just not on the blog. Only in an old deadtree column or two. (Which makes this as good a time as any to say the deadtree archive will go live tomorrow sometime.)
Got recent quasi-confirmation on another Pro Circuit-like conception percolating as well. And that is all I'm gonna say about it. Yes, I know, that's unsatisfactory and provides less information than a Bill Belichick midweek injury report or a redacted FOIA copy of a Guantanamo interrogation. Can't be helped. Well, of course it could be helped but the best you're gonna get is a hint: I've written about this before, just not on the blog. Only in an old deadtree column or two. (Which makes this as good a time as any to say the deadtree archive will go live tomorrow sometime.)
Paradigm Shift?
The paint situation looked bleak and bleaker where we left off in the last post, Paint It Blue, but here's a thought for all the big leagues – (and the paint guys?) to consider. In keeping with the Pro Circuit concept what would happen if the NXL (or the NPPL repping the pro division) worked out a deal for an official paint sponsor of the league to provide paint to all the competing pro teams during the event(s)? Or if that seems too daunting and costly what if the individual events were offered up to paint sponsors? Draxxus sponsors the Chicago Open, for example. The sponsor can't lose whoever wins and gets the value added of associating the brand with pro paintball, not just a single team. Within that framework there also exists some creative ways to structure the deals that might be beneficial during the difficult period coming. The potential advantages are both practical and competitive. With everyone shooting the same paint there's no advantage or disadvantage on the field; it would be a big plus for teams struggling in a reduced sponsorship environment while leaving teams free to pursue alternatives for practice; it would instantly justify the current entry fee structure (in the NXL) and it would be a step toward legitimizing the NXL brand as distinctive from the PSP (which may have real relevance in the future and was a goal in the original formation of the league.)
Would the result be a better, more stable model?
Would the result be a better, more stable model?
Paint It Blue
The post I'm not a seismologist was about the kerfluffle coming for the paint manufacturers. (I've decided I don't much like the word, crisis, as the urge is to use it so often lately it begins to have the same force as the threat of terrorism color code of the day so from now on unless it's an actual crisis kerfluffle will stand in for the possibility of destruction, chaos and the imminent imploding of the known paintball universe.) The later post monopoly 101 was about the ongoing dialogue considering the prospect of the MS (and possibly) the PSP restricting event gear sales and usage to league sponsors only. What intrigues me about this pair of posts is what conclusions might be drawn from information already in hand. (That, and I get to rehash in greater detail topics already commented on because I never know when to stop.)
This off season's paint sponsorships will go a long way to predicting the viability of the pro game and teams for next season. Sponsorship was down last year and if the rumors and restructuring have any validity availability is likely to tighten further.
The current practice – restricting brands available to league sponsors – for selling paint at events would seem to make the case for extending that policy across the board. But it doesn't, not when examined in any detail. For starters paint is unique in that it's meant to be used up. Like buying a hamburger. Or keeping it to paintball, batteries. Your purchase assumes consumption and has no long term consequences. Unlike virtually everything else you might buy in order to play the game. Even so, paint choice isn't irrelevant and is frequently simply tolerated by non-sponsored teams who are more price sensitive than brand sensitive. And the current practice must raise the price of any case of paint regardless of how reasonable it may seem because the vendors have to not only cover their ordinary expenses but also the premium the league charges. And at this point in time that is becoming prohibitive for the vendors – end of the day their wallet is bare, too. The larger problem is the old economies are failing to apply anymore. As everyone gets squeezed it becomes harder and harder to make the process, at any stage, profitable.
Instead the place Big League paintball finds itself is with the leagues facing unpredictable but almost certainly tougher times (think Richard Harris in A Man Called Horse) in the immediate future in part because of the precarious position of the paint manufacturers. In an environment where mid-sized and small vendors struggle to justify participating in Big League paintball instituting sponsor only restrictions across all paintball related gear sales and use is suicidal folly. The rationale with paint was to justify the promotion charging the paint manufacturers for the right to sell at the event. [The leagues can't charge the sellers for the right to sell if somebody who doesn't pay can sell, too.] Not only won't that work to improve league revenues with respect to gear it will drive all but a handful of heavily invested vendors away as well as some (probably significant) number of teams and players beyond the likely losses from the economic downturn. Beyond that it will raise the bar on future participation to a prohibitive level that will keep business and teams away.
Among other things it badly misjudges the current market trends and the value of participating in Big League paintball at every level.
Kay, I think that (hopefully) dead horse has been thoroughly and sufficiently beaten.
This off season's paint sponsorships will go a long way to predicting the viability of the pro game and teams for next season. Sponsorship was down last year and if the rumors and restructuring have any validity availability is likely to tighten further.
The current practice – restricting brands available to league sponsors – for selling paint at events would seem to make the case for extending that policy across the board. But it doesn't, not when examined in any detail. For starters paint is unique in that it's meant to be used up. Like buying a hamburger. Or keeping it to paintball, batteries. Your purchase assumes consumption and has no long term consequences. Unlike virtually everything else you might buy in order to play the game. Even so, paint choice isn't irrelevant and is frequently simply tolerated by non-sponsored teams who are more price sensitive than brand sensitive. And the current practice must raise the price of any case of paint regardless of how reasonable it may seem because the vendors have to not only cover their ordinary expenses but also the premium the league charges. And at this point in time that is becoming prohibitive for the vendors – end of the day their wallet is bare, too. The larger problem is the old economies are failing to apply anymore. As everyone gets squeezed it becomes harder and harder to make the process, at any stage, profitable.
Instead the place Big League paintball finds itself is with the leagues facing unpredictable but almost certainly tougher times (think Richard Harris in A Man Called Horse) in the immediate future in part because of the precarious position of the paint manufacturers. In an environment where mid-sized and small vendors struggle to justify participating in Big League paintball instituting sponsor only restrictions across all paintball related gear sales and use is suicidal folly. The rationale with paint was to justify the promotion charging the paint manufacturers for the right to sell at the event. [The leagues can't charge the sellers for the right to sell if somebody who doesn't pay can sell, too.] Not only won't that work to improve league revenues with respect to gear it will drive all but a handful of heavily invested vendors away as well as some (probably significant) number of teams and players beyond the likely losses from the economic downturn. Beyond that it will raise the bar on future participation to a prohibitive level that will keep business and teams away.
Among other things it badly misjudges the current market trends and the value of participating in Big League paintball at every level.
Kay, I think that (hopefully) dead horse has been thoroughly and sufficiently beaten.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Last Mag Standing
Is it APG's world and we're just living in it? How far removed are we from the next feature article on dealing with snake bite and a pictorial of scenario "tanks"?
Time for a new game that none of you slackers will play. In fact, it's two games in one.
First game is predicting next deadtree mag to do the el foldo (or move exclusively into cyberspace) and give a month and year. (And, no, I don't have a morbid fascination with the demise of others. I'm just playing shuffleboard on the deck of the Titanic whistling a happy tune. C'mon, join me, it's fun!)
Second game is predicting which paintball website will be the first to suffer the Deathstar's fate and cease to be a force. [*] (PBStar doesn't count, btw.) Same rules apply. Only commercial websites are eligible.
What do the two games have in common?
Advertising revenue. Or more precisely, the lack thereof in the case of the "winners."
Winners will receive the coveted VFTD e-prize and a gold embossed certificate recognizing your status as yet another paintball no-lifer.
[*] Yes, another terrible joke. Get used to it. Expect it. Enjoy.
UPDATE: Thanks to the link and promo from the kids at PBReserve I'll keep this post at the top of the stack for a few days. Play the game, losers.
Time for a new game that none of you slackers will play. In fact, it's two games in one.
First game is predicting next deadtree mag to do the el foldo (or move exclusively into cyberspace) and give a month and year. (And, no, I don't have a morbid fascination with the demise of others. I'm just playing shuffleboard on the deck of the Titanic whistling a happy tune. C'mon, join me, it's fun!)
Second game is predicting which paintball website will be the first to suffer the Deathstar's fate and cease to be a force. [*] (PBStar doesn't count, btw.) Same rules apply. Only commercial websites are eligible.
What do the two games have in common?
Advertising revenue. Or more precisely, the lack thereof in the case of the "winners."
Winners will receive the coveted VFTD e-prize and a gold embossed certificate recognizing your status as yet another paintball no-lifer.
[*] Yes, another terrible joke. Get used to it. Expect it. Enjoy.
UPDATE: Thanks to the link and promo from the kids at PBReserve I'll keep this post at the top of the stack for a few days. Play the game, losers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
