And prizes. (Such as they are.) I threw that last bit in for the D3 podium deserves fat cash crowd. Look, I don't have a lot to say about this yet. Maybe ever. I'ma wait until the PSP posts their series prizes but otherwise it seems okay to me. But then I don't favor big prizes to the lower divisions even if there are more teams there. the PSP is about the competition and that means, among other things, that everybody who thinks they belong in D3 or D4, legitimately or otherwise, don't believe they can compete in a higher division. And if the object of competition is to reward excellence and success one of the ways you encourage that is to help motivate players and teams to be excellent and succeed if they want the best prizes.
Mostly I'm surprised by the lack of a hue & cry today from the prize hunters because it's been such a popular topic in the past. (Of course, it's early yet.) Otherwise the only thing that gave me pause was double value points World Cup for divisions D3-X and below. (I'm good with less stringent series requirements for the lower divisions.) I'm not sure what I think of the double value Cup points just yet other than I would object long and loud if it had extended to the Pro division. More on this when series prizes are announced.
Showing posts with label prizes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label prizes. Show all posts
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Another PSP Pro Experiment
VFTD has it on good authority the PSP has decided--at relatively the last minute (certainly after most teams have made their reservations and bought their plane tickets) to alter pro division play. Again. And if the measure of communication with my team is indicative of the rest of the division nobody from the league bothered to discuss it with the teams first. (If that isn't correct then I'd like to know why we were left out.)
The league will be officially returning to two minutes between points and reducing the number of timeouts by one, to one per match. (You may recall the league experimented with 90 seconds between points last season. It ended up being done manually (and inconsistently) so that sometimes the 90 seconds was really 95 or 96 or 85 or whatever. Returning to two minutes and one timeout; no problem.
The other change is that the pro division will play Saturday and Sunday only. Two brackets of 5 teams will see each team play 4 prelim matches. 3 on Saturday and 1 on Sunday morning. 2 teams will move from each bracket directly into the semi-final round. And a 3-4 match will not be played. (For 2011 prizes are limited to first & second place only.) (Of course a distinction must be made for awarding ranking points--unless they decide to award the same ranking points--which only means it will still be necessary at the next event to make a differentiation for seeding purposes. And if they are seeded in different slots how will it be determined? Keeping in mind seeding has a potential impact in deciding tie-breakers.) This change also means no quarter-final round as only four teams go thru instead of 6.
In a bracket of 5 teams playing four matches there are a limited number of outcomes mathematically. If a team goes 4-0 in their bracket there are only three other relevant outcomes possible. Another team will go 3-1 and the top two will be clearly defined. If no team goes 3-1 with a 4-0 team the only other possible results will be either 2 or 3 teams tied and 2-2. What that means is that any time a team goes 4-0 the odds are the second team will be chosen by tie-breaker from as many as 3 different teams. In a bracket where the best record is 3-1 there are also three possible outcomes. Another team may also post a 3-1 record with the result being two teams with superior records to the rest of the bracket. Alternatively, if the best record is 3-1 it is possible for 3 teams to finish 3-1 which means that one team finishing 3-1 would be left out regardless of what the other bracket did. Or, the next 3 best records will be 2-2. As with a best record of 4-0 a best record of 3-1 results with odds favoring a tie-breaker to determine the second team out of the bracket. If the best record in a bracket is 2-2 all five teams will have identical records.
Assuming WC is organized according to this plan over the year 8 brackets will play a prelim round and either 5 or 6 of those 8 times one or more semi-finalist will be determined by tie-breaker. And when it comes to assigning seed points to non-semifinalists the majority of places will be determined by tie-breaker.
Now I don't know about you but that doesn't look like a competition to me when so many of the places will not be determined on the field but instead will come straight out of Tony's list of tie-breakers instead. (And how 'bout having those published in the rule book prior to Galveston?)
Were similar issues at play in the past? Yes, but not to the same extent and taking 6 teams thru and having a quarter-final assured, as much as it possible, that the best teams earned their result. Remember, Impact won Phoenix last year as the lowest seed starting Sunday morning. If this change sticks we could see 2 teams in the semi-finals whose records were matched in the prelims by as many as four other teams--and frankly, that sucks--and begins to skirt the borderline undercutting the legitimacy of the pro division.
The league will be officially returning to two minutes between points and reducing the number of timeouts by one, to one per match. (You may recall the league experimented with 90 seconds between points last season. It ended up being done manually (and inconsistently) so that sometimes the 90 seconds was really 95 or 96 or 85 or whatever. Returning to two minutes and one timeout; no problem.
The other change is that the pro division will play Saturday and Sunday only. Two brackets of 5 teams will see each team play 4 prelim matches. 3 on Saturday and 1 on Sunday morning. 2 teams will move from each bracket directly into the semi-final round. And a 3-4 match will not be played. (For 2011 prizes are limited to first & second place only.) (Of course a distinction must be made for awarding ranking points--unless they decide to award the same ranking points--which only means it will still be necessary at the next event to make a differentiation for seeding purposes. And if they are seeded in different slots how will it be determined? Keeping in mind seeding has a potential impact in deciding tie-breakers.) This change also means no quarter-final round as only four teams go thru instead of 6.
In a bracket of 5 teams playing four matches there are a limited number of outcomes mathematically. If a team goes 4-0 in their bracket there are only three other relevant outcomes possible. Another team will go 3-1 and the top two will be clearly defined. If no team goes 3-1 with a 4-0 team the only other possible results will be either 2 or 3 teams tied and 2-2. What that means is that any time a team goes 4-0 the odds are the second team will be chosen by tie-breaker from as many as 3 different teams. In a bracket where the best record is 3-1 there are also three possible outcomes. Another team may also post a 3-1 record with the result being two teams with superior records to the rest of the bracket. Alternatively, if the best record is 3-1 it is possible for 3 teams to finish 3-1 which means that one team finishing 3-1 would be left out regardless of what the other bracket did. Or, the next 3 best records will be 2-2. As with a best record of 4-0 a best record of 3-1 results with odds favoring a tie-breaker to determine the second team out of the bracket. If the best record in a bracket is 2-2 all five teams will have identical records.
Assuming WC is organized according to this plan over the year 8 brackets will play a prelim round and either 5 or 6 of those 8 times one or more semi-finalist will be determined by tie-breaker. And when it comes to assigning seed points to non-semifinalists the majority of places will be determined by tie-breaker.
Now I don't know about you but that doesn't look like a competition to me when so many of the places will not be determined on the field but instead will come straight out of Tony's list of tie-breakers instead. (And how 'bout having those published in the rule book prior to Galveston?)
Were similar issues at play in the past? Yes, but not to the same extent and taking 6 teams thru and having a quarter-final assured, as much as it possible, that the best teams earned their result. Remember, Impact won Phoenix last year as the lowest seed starting Sunday morning. If this change sticks we could see 2 teams in the semi-finals whose records were matched in the prelims by as many as four other teams--and frankly, that sucks--and begins to skirt the borderline undercutting the legitimacy of the pro division.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
The Prize Conundrum
There was a rather modest (in numbers) yet boisterous resistance from the online community when the PSP modified their prize packages prior to the start of the 2010 season. Mostly from the affected lower division teams (players) who were seeing their possible winnings reduced or removed altogether. In hindsight it's perhaps worth reconsidering. Did the change in prizes offered affect the turnout? Most of the "lost" numbers--in the Race 2-X categories--compared to last year came from the lower divisions so it's not an unreasonable question.
I've also heard a disgusted mutter or two over the D1 prizes at the recent NPPL HB event--largely for the same reason; there wasn't enough of it. The deficient prizes (according to some) the result of two completely different approaches to the subject.
Btw, I'm going to avoid standing with one approach over the other as I have, at different times in the past, argued in favor of both approaches and find merit in both--for obviously different reasons. Consequently I don't have a dog in this hunt but it's a topic worthy of some time and consideration.
The PSP has decided that mediocre play shouldn't be rewarded and that prize money should instead go to motivating teams to improve, challenge themselves and advance if they want to win prize money. (For the record the PSP doesn't claim lower division play is mediocre play--that would be me--and that's not intended to be pejorative, just descriptive because I don't grade on a curve and my standard of excellence is ridiculously high.) In essence the PSP is saying that your entry entitles you to compete and if the league chooses to award prizes it's a bonus, not a given. [That's my take anyway. If an accredited rep of the league would like to offer a clarification we's all ears and I'll include it in the post.]
The NPPL 3.0 discovered last year that simply offering set prize purses didn't bring in "extra" teams for the most well-rewarded divisions (and while even higher prizes might have the league couldn't afford the ones on offer given the number of competing teams.) Teams that "know" or believe they can't compete at a certain level or against certain teams are almost always correct and when they don't think there's a chance to win the big prize they settle for the next available option. This year they modified the prize structure to reflect the number of teams participating in a given division and to encourage more upper division participation have graduated the percentage of entry fees returned as prizes so that the higher the division of play the greater the percentage returned. The result in HB was a much smaller payout in D1 compared to last season because the teams just weren't there.
Has the PSP gone too far? Will the lesser numbers of upper division teams in the NPPL see further erosion as the season goes on. What should be the purpose of the prize packages? Is it a participation bonus or should it be merit based? Can it be both?
I've also heard a disgusted mutter or two over the D1 prizes at the recent NPPL HB event--largely for the same reason; there wasn't enough of it. The deficient prizes (according to some) the result of two completely different approaches to the subject.
Btw, I'm going to avoid standing with one approach over the other as I have, at different times in the past, argued in favor of both approaches and find merit in both--for obviously different reasons. Consequently I don't have a dog in this hunt but it's a topic worthy of some time and consideration.
The PSP has decided that mediocre play shouldn't be rewarded and that prize money should instead go to motivating teams to improve, challenge themselves and advance if they want to win prize money. (For the record the PSP doesn't claim lower division play is mediocre play--that would be me--and that's not intended to be pejorative, just descriptive because I don't grade on a curve and my standard of excellence is ridiculously high.) In essence the PSP is saying that your entry entitles you to compete and if the league chooses to award prizes it's a bonus, not a given. [That's my take anyway. If an accredited rep of the league would like to offer a clarification we's all ears and I'll include it in the post.]
The NPPL 3.0 discovered last year that simply offering set prize purses didn't bring in "extra" teams for the most well-rewarded divisions (and while even higher prizes might have the league couldn't afford the ones on offer given the number of competing teams.) Teams that "know" or believe they can't compete at a certain level or against certain teams are almost always correct and when they don't think there's a chance to win the big prize they settle for the next available option. This year they modified the prize structure to reflect the number of teams participating in a given division and to encourage more upper division participation have graduated the percentage of entry fees returned as prizes so that the higher the division of play the greater the percentage returned. The result in HB was a much smaller payout in D1 compared to last season because the teams just weren't there.
Has the PSP gone too far? Will the lesser numbers of upper division teams in the NPPL see further erosion as the season goes on. What should be the purpose of the prize packages? Is it a participation bonus or should it be merit based? Can it be both?
Friday, January 8, 2010
Prizes & Procaps
For those who enjoy the insider paintball stuff Robbo, over at P8ntballer, has some interesting stuff to say about Procaps as do a couple commenters. Check it out. (That, btw, is the sum of the procaps content in this post so if that's what you're after you know where to go.)
The new prize structure in the PSP seems to be a minor talking point for the disaffected hopeful who may or may not have ever actually played a PSP event. (Granted one needn't be a PSP player to have an opinion, and perhaps even a worthwhile opinion but in lieu of overwhelming logical mastery it doesn't hurt to establish a credible basis for holding a particular opinion. Anyway--) I don't have a lot to add and I'm reasonably confident the puppet army doesn't require convincing but nevertheless there are a couple of items I want to add to the conversation.
This is my second go round on this. The first effort has been ejected out the Blogger airlock into he infinite reaches of cyberspace destined to go eternally unread, lost in the void. And good riddance. The truth is I can see both sides of the prize argument (and, in the past have argued both sides) but at the end of the day I am siding with unfairness. It seems to me to boil down to two things; what is the PSP? and what is the purpose of the prize? To argue that the lower divisions deserve prizes because they tend to be more numerous makes a couple of false assumptions. One, that the PSP should reward participation instead of excellence and two, that the league is a lottery and not a competition. The PSP is the leading advocate of competitive paintball as sport and as such it seeks to provide players and teams with an opportunity to compete. Not to win and not to take home cash to help defray the cost of competing. And the obvious purpose of the new prize structure is to encourage the desire to be excellent and reward it within a context of competitive balance. One might argue about where the dividing line ought to be--is D2 too low?--but that is a different argument. For those who insist on fairness and equal opportunity in competitive paintball the only way to achieve that would be to create one big random draw for all competing teams. That way everyone would have the same relative chance to win and earn their prize. I haven't heard anyone demanding that option lately so until I do I can live with unfairness in the service of superior competition.
The new prize structure in the PSP seems to be a minor talking point for the disaffected hopeful who may or may not have ever actually played a PSP event. (Granted one needn't be a PSP player to have an opinion, and perhaps even a worthwhile opinion but in lieu of overwhelming logical mastery it doesn't hurt to establish a credible basis for holding a particular opinion. Anyway--) I don't have a lot to add and I'm reasonably confident the puppet army doesn't require convincing but nevertheless there are a couple of items I want to add to the conversation.
This is my second go round on this. The first effort has been ejected out the Blogger airlock into he infinite reaches of cyberspace destined to go eternally unread, lost in the void. And good riddance. The truth is I can see both sides of the prize argument (and, in the past have argued both sides) but at the end of the day I am siding with unfairness. It seems to me to boil down to two things; what is the PSP? and what is the purpose of the prize? To argue that the lower divisions deserve prizes because they tend to be more numerous makes a couple of false assumptions. One, that the PSP should reward participation instead of excellence and two, that the league is a lottery and not a competition. The PSP is the leading advocate of competitive paintball as sport and as such it seeks to provide players and teams with an opportunity to compete. Not to win and not to take home cash to help defray the cost of competing. And the obvious purpose of the new prize structure is to encourage the desire to be excellent and reward it within a context of competitive balance. One might argue about where the dividing line ought to be--is D2 too low?--but that is a different argument. For those who insist on fairness and equal opportunity in competitive paintball the only way to achieve that would be to create one big random draw for all competing teams. That way everyone would have the same relative chance to win and earn their prize. I haven't heard anyone demanding that option lately so until I do I can live with unfairness in the service of superior competition.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Thoughts on PSP Changes for 2010
This post is only my initial reaction to the raised ROF and new fee/prize structure announcement and I won't spend a lot of time on either now. Once all the changes are announced VFTD will break it all down in more detail.
For the most part this is all good news. The original ROF moves last year were justified by making some rather dubious claims about trickling down and saving paint. (Which apparently are no longer desirable results or else nobody believes it anymore. And why should they since neither one was correct.) The lower ROF however did have the potential to make better players faster at the lower levels. (I posted on the concept extensively last year.) Anyway, I think this had less to do with the PSP and more to do some future announcements that should be upcoming. Overall, it's a relatively neutral change (and will make a vocal internet crowd of forever D3 players happy so what's not to like?)
The new pricing and prize structures signals a change in direction for the PSP that is a very positive one. It is incentivizing excellence. After all we are supposedly playing a game with the purpose of being the best we can be, right? So why reward mediocrity? If the league wants teams to move up, don't force them, give them a reason. Give them an incentive to improve. Next step is to see if classification rule changes are adopted more in line with these pricing and prize concepts. And while I certainly appreciate the new pro pricing--after years of paying huge fees (relatively) for somebody else's decisions--I think all the prize money divisions ought to be the same. If D2 & D1 are $2750 then semi-pro and pro should not be less but should probably be a match. After all, s-p and pro already have game play benefits over D1 and D2 as it is. I'm not complaining, I just think identical pricing would seem fairer to the majority and the difference is negligible anyway. Just a thought.
UPDATE: ROF. In the original post above I allude to a reason why the PSP would make this change now--after saying no change a few days ago--and after seeing the threads at PBN it seems I ought to explain. If for no other reason than just for fun. Well, and to demonstrate one more time why it is VFTD is the only place for unique competitive paintball commentary. The decision was made yesterday at the "secret" PSP meeting in San Diego at the behest of the very guys who are busy crediting the PSP for listening to the players' cry for change. (For those trying to keep score that would be Hinman and Pauly so far.) It sounds swell and if it plays in Peoria it's a small (and harmless) deceit by paintball standards. I will explain further when more of the meeting's details are released.
I am not, btw, calling anyone out here because it's not really important. I just find it amusing how paintball public relations tends to work no matter whose responsible for it. Are you having fun today?
For the most part this is all good news. The original ROF moves last year were justified by making some rather dubious claims about trickling down and saving paint. (Which apparently are no longer desirable results or else nobody believes it anymore. And why should they since neither one was correct.) The lower ROF however did have the potential to make better players faster at the lower levels. (I posted on the concept extensively last year.) Anyway, I think this had less to do with the PSP and more to do some future announcements that should be upcoming. Overall, it's a relatively neutral change (and will make a vocal internet crowd of forever D3 players happy so what's not to like?)
The new pricing and prize structures signals a change in direction for the PSP that is a very positive one. It is incentivizing excellence. After all we are supposedly playing a game with the purpose of being the best we can be, right? So why reward mediocrity? If the league wants teams to move up, don't force them, give them a reason. Give them an incentive to improve. Next step is to see if classification rule changes are adopted more in line with these pricing and prize concepts. And while I certainly appreciate the new pro pricing--after years of paying huge fees (relatively) for somebody else's decisions--I think all the prize money divisions ought to be the same. If D2 & D1 are $2750 then semi-pro and pro should not be less but should probably be a match. After all, s-p and pro already have game play benefits over D1 and D2 as it is. I'm not complaining, I just think identical pricing would seem fairer to the majority and the difference is negligible anyway. Just a thought.
UPDATE: ROF. In the original post above I allude to a reason why the PSP would make this change now--after saying no change a few days ago--and after seeing the threads at PBN it seems I ought to explain. If for no other reason than just for fun. Well, and to demonstrate one more time why it is VFTD is the only place for unique competitive paintball commentary. The decision was made yesterday at the "secret" PSP meeting in San Diego at the behest of the very guys who are busy crediting the PSP for listening to the players' cry for change. (For those trying to keep score that would be Hinman and Pauly so far.) It sounds swell and if it plays in Peoria it's a small (and harmless) deceit by paintball standards. I will explain further when more of the meeting's details are released.
I am not, btw, calling anyone out here because it's not really important. I just find it amusing how paintball public relations tends to work no matter whose responsible for it. Are you having fun today?
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Major League Paintball Held Hostage, Day 27
I wonder if VFTD can get Ted Koppel to do daily podcast updates for MLP held hostage? (That one dated me, didn't it?)
Okay, PSP has announced prizes for '09. If you're up in arms over this, seriously, what did you expect? And if you haven't seen it yet and don't know what to do with your arms go check it out at pspevents.com (Link in sidebar, Paintball on the Web)
ProPaintball is reporting that the USPL is planning a surcharge on cases of paint sold at their events. (Or should that be our events? I get so confused sometimes.) If accurate all I can say is Paintball has a lot of leading feet and not all of them have been shot yet but not because peeps ain't trying. (Work on that for a second and you'll get it.) Promote marginally cheaper entry fees and then find ways to make it up with extra charges. That's the ticket!
Though I have no reason to doubt the report I do have an alternate theory that fits the evidence--if a couple of the details were misunderstood. It could be a clever "sponsorship" formula for paint manufacturers instead as once described to me. At least I thought it was clever. A lot cleverer (if that's a word) than charging your customers a paint surcharge.
UPDATE: In the comments section of the report at ProPaintball FrankdaTank opens mouth and inserts ... he reassures all the readers that nothing is set in stone. Could a six figure PR job be far behind? Camille follows up and states categorically the info is wrong. That, boys and girls, is how you do it. Off to bed without their dinner tonight for the ProPaintball kids.
I can't quite let go of the Craig Miller interview over at 68 Caliber 2.0 just yet. (I'd apologize but you should know by now I get fixated on stuff in completely arbitrary ways.) I am, however, gonna limit myself to two observations: 1. If you follow the explanations for how the PSTA got started you discover that paintball's Big Boyz sat down in a room and decided the best way to move forward was for paintball's Big Boyz to run the show because it might create internal divisions down the road if paintball's Big Boyz weren't in charge. (Which I find uproariously funny.) 2. One of the benefits of aligning with SGMA is the Industry Shipment reports which provide unique info and began in 2006. And it has only taken until 2009 to figure out how to begin an initiative to invite wider industry participation. At this rate the PSTA might start answering their phone in 2011. Gotta love those all volunteer committees. What a hoot.
Lastly, working (but not very hard) on a post called 'The Iron Law of Tournament Logistics' which will post whenever I finish it. (See, no more broken promises.) I mention it because it has some relevance given the laundry list of PSP changes this year and the nascent efforts of the USPL to figure out how to operate a hopefully successful league.
Okay, PSP has announced prizes for '09. If you're up in arms over this, seriously, what did you expect? And if you haven't seen it yet and don't know what to do with your arms go check it out at pspevents.com (Link in sidebar, Paintball on the Web)
ProPaintball is reporting that the USPL is planning a surcharge on cases of paint sold at their events. (Or should that be our events? I get so confused sometimes.) If accurate all I can say is Paintball has a lot of leading feet and not all of them have been shot yet but not because peeps ain't trying. (Work on that for a second and you'll get it.) Promote marginally cheaper entry fees and then find ways to make it up with extra charges. That's the ticket!
Though I have no reason to doubt the report I do have an alternate theory that fits the evidence--if a couple of the details were misunderstood. It could be a clever "sponsorship" formula for paint manufacturers instead as once described to me. At least I thought it was clever. A lot cleverer (if that's a word) than charging your customers a paint surcharge.
UPDATE: In the comments section of the report at ProPaintball FrankdaTank opens mouth and inserts ... he reassures all the readers that nothing is set in stone. Could a six figure PR job be far behind? Camille follows up and states categorically the info is wrong. That, boys and girls, is how you do it. Off to bed without their dinner tonight for the ProPaintball kids.
I can't quite let go of the Craig Miller interview over at 68 Caliber 2.0 just yet. (I'd apologize but you should know by now I get fixated on stuff in completely arbitrary ways.) I am, however, gonna limit myself to two observations: 1. If you follow the explanations for how the PSTA got started you discover that paintball's Big Boyz sat down in a room and decided the best way to move forward was for paintball's Big Boyz to run the show because it might create internal divisions down the road if paintball's Big Boyz weren't in charge. (Which I find uproariously funny.) 2. One of the benefits of aligning with SGMA is the Industry Shipment reports which provide unique info and began in 2006. And it has only taken until 2009 to figure out how to begin an initiative to invite wider industry participation. At this rate the PSTA might start answering their phone in 2011. Gotta love those all volunteer committees. What a hoot.
Lastly, working (but not very hard) on a post called 'The Iron Law of Tournament Logistics' which will post whenever I finish it. (See, no more broken promises.) I mention it because it has some relevance given the laundry list of PSP changes this year and the nascent efforts of the USPL to figure out how to operate a hopefully successful league.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Major League Paintball Held Hostage, Day 18
Did you know the USPL will not be awarding a pro prize package? What, after all, is the point of spending your own money to give yourself a prize? (Or something like that.) And before that, at San Diego's NPPL curtain closer the pro teams were entertaining the idea of doing away with the pro prize money in exchange for entry reductions.
Why do I bring it up?
Because I thought, ah-ha!, here's a subject where VFTD can make real inroads in alienating some of the readers--that would be you--and then I'll get to see what it's like to be the PSP. Actually it's because (apparently) the PSP hasn't announced the prize packages yet and it's generating some anxiety. I'm kinda torn when it comes to prizes. On one hand I remember a time when winning some stuff--back then it was stuff, not cash--actually helped finance the next event. On the other hand I think prizes ought to be about rewarding the best and incentivizing teams to seek improvement. I'm not opposed to awarding prizes in the lower divisions but at the national level the competition is really about being the best and the teams that make the move into the national arena are focused on being the best they can be, not winning a bigger prize. Or ought to be. (Easy for me to say.) Of course back in the day we took it for granted we could win bigger prizes more easily playing local than we could in the lower divisions at the national level.
The great state of Cali is so far in the red that as of February 1st numerous routine payments the state makes will be discontinued to meet the immediate shortfall. By as early as March that may not be enough to keep to the state from becoming insolvent, going bust, broke. Belly up. Once those payments stop, what's next? How quickly does it all start to come apart? The wheels on the Cali bus go round and round. Faster and faster 'cus there's no money left to fix the brakes. Could there be a better time to expect 150+ 7-man teams to come to HB?
UPDATE: With today's (Tuesday) announcement that HB will be limited to 130 teams it's all good. I mean, like, that's way less.
With the above comment(s) VFTD is taking a moratorium on nay-saying the USPL. It should be eminently clear at this point I have serious reservations about the wisdom of the whole project even if I'm selfishly glad for another opportunity to pursue 7-man.
Why do I bring it up?
Because I thought, ah-ha!, here's a subject where VFTD can make real inroads in alienating some of the readers--that would be you--and then I'll get to see what it's like to be the PSP. Actually it's because (apparently) the PSP hasn't announced the prize packages yet and it's generating some anxiety. I'm kinda torn when it comes to prizes. On one hand I remember a time when winning some stuff--back then it was stuff, not cash--actually helped finance the next event. On the other hand I think prizes ought to be about rewarding the best and incentivizing teams to seek improvement. I'm not opposed to awarding prizes in the lower divisions but at the national level the competition is really about being the best and the teams that make the move into the national arena are focused on being the best they can be, not winning a bigger prize. Or ought to be. (Easy for me to say.) Of course back in the day we took it for granted we could win bigger prizes more easily playing local than we could in the lower divisions at the national level.
The great state of Cali is so far in the red that as of February 1st numerous routine payments the state makes will be discontinued to meet the immediate shortfall. By as early as March that may not be enough to keep to the state from becoming insolvent, going bust, broke. Belly up. Once those payments stop, what's next? How quickly does it all start to come apart? The wheels on the Cali bus go round and round. Faster and faster 'cus there's no money left to fix the brakes. Could there be a better time to expect 150+ 7-man teams to come to HB?
UPDATE: With today's (Tuesday) announcement that HB will be limited to 130 teams it's all good. I mean, like, that's way less.
With the above comment(s) VFTD is taking a moratorium on nay-saying the USPL. It should be eminently clear at this point I have serious reservations about the wisdom of the whole project even if I'm selfishly glad for another opportunity to pursue 7-man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
