D
2004 - It's Done- Merged
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
What's important, is who will play in the series, who will pay for the teams to pay, who will get it onto television, and who will run the organisation. 
As most people I know have digital TV these days, what the viewer sees is not entirely up to the camera.
Wimbledon this year, I was watching about three courts at a time (like channel surfing) and this was the BBC! Sky's been broadcasting football this way for ages.
With multi-angle viewing, it would be possible to have one camera above the field looking down, possibly a couple of behind-the-player cameras and even small, field-mounted cameras like are mounted on the exits to corners in formula one (you know, the ones that the cars drive over).
Unfortunately, this would require a great deal of funding.
My thoughts on the formula relate to the uselessness of the flags. Of course once everyone is shot out, the other team will be able to get the flag and return it to their base with no problems. Does center flag provide a better spectator game? Is there some way we could change the format a little so that eliminating the other team is not the be-all and end-all?
I have one idea, but this may not be the answer to the question. I mean if so many people love the sport as it is, does it need that much changing, or do we just need a mega-marketing campain (again costing a lot of money, but not as much as the TV show above)?
Wimbledon this year, I was watching about three courts at a time (like channel surfing) and this was the BBC! Sky's been broadcasting football this way for ages.
With multi-angle viewing, it would be possible to have one camera above the field looking down, possibly a couple of behind-the-player cameras and even small, field-mounted cameras like are mounted on the exits to corners in formula one (you know, the ones that the cars drive over).
Unfortunately, this would require a great deal of funding.
My thoughts on the formula relate to the uselessness of the flags. Of course once everyone is shot out, the other team will be able to get the flag and return it to their base with no problems. Does center flag provide a better spectator game? Is there some way we could change the format a little so that eliminating the other team is not the be-all and end-all?
I have one idea, but this may not be the answer to the question. I mean if so many people love the sport as it is, does it need that much changing, or do we just need a mega-marketing campain (again costing a lot of money, but not as much as the TV show above)?
http://www.webdogradio.us/shorts/1995Knox.wmv
This was taken from a "live feed" broqadcast, edited down slightly for time considerations. If CAN be done.
The Knox Indoor used to run about 4-5 cameras, and it was aired on local access cable while the event was on.
That being said, I understand the point you were trying to make. Paintball does need some monsterous post-produciton to make it more entertaining to the TV audience. Highlight reels are good, but it's not really what happened. The losing team can make some killer moves and make the "Best of" reel, if you get my drift.
Cam : about "usetr defined" angles, it's cool and all, but even "Hi-def" TV's dont' have the option to swap angles yet. The pre-set camera angles are very precicely placed, in paintball you'd have to do it behind bunkers you know people will be running to. It canbe done, but paintball needs to change for TV, like it's being said already.
-Tyger
...I shudder to think of Nick's response to this but...
The thing the USPL format did (amongst other things) was to provide a 'ball' in moveable, passable flags. The only way to score was to get it across the goal line.
Now, other's out there have suggested that we get rid of the flag entirely. I said I would work on it and I have been, but to return to the central issue:
There is no reason why there can not be an international league that would let everyone/anyone who wants to play; it could have meaningful cross-ocean competition; here's one example:
a rotating championship - one year north america, next rear europe, repeat as needed:
each 'conference' (Euro, NA) does their own regular seeding; these events lead to a 'conference' title. Games out of conference do not count - except for that all important 'playing against future opponents' contribution.
At the championship, conference results are used to seat the teams, where all play is 'cross-conference'; that event then confers the 'world championship' title.
More detail: confer upon a national league the right to select their national championship team during regular season. Have the championship rotate amongs the member countries. Leagues that are selected provide transportation/support to their champion to the championship event.
That's two out of the (now more than) four systems I've got already laid out (in infintesimal detail). They've been sitting for years - and before you pick them apart, its NOT the issue.
The big question remains, is there enough momentum, are people sufficiently motivated to make something like this happen.
The thing the USPL format did (amongst other things) was to provide a 'ball' in moveable, passable flags. The only way to score was to get it across the goal line.
Now, other's out there have suggested that we get rid of the flag entirely. I said I would work on it and I have been, but to return to the central issue:
There is no reason why there can not be an international league that would let everyone/anyone who wants to play; it could have meaningful cross-ocean competition; here's one example:
a rotating championship - one year north america, next rear europe, repeat as needed:
each 'conference' (Euro, NA) does their own regular seeding; these events lead to a 'conference' title. Games out of conference do not count - except for that all important 'playing against future opponents' contribution.
At the championship, conference results are used to seat the teams, where all play is 'cross-conference'; that event then confers the 'world championship' title.
More detail: confer upon a national league the right to select their national championship team during regular season. Have the championship rotate amongs the member countries. Leagues that are selected provide transportation/support to their champion to the championship event.
That's two out of the (now more than) four systems I've got already laid out (in infintesimal detail). They've been sitting for years - and before you pick them apart, its NOT the issue.
The big question remains, is there enough momentum, are people sufficiently motivated to make something like this happen.
R
raehl
Guest
Well...
It's certainly possible to have a meaningful league with significant geographic separation as Steve suggests - the NCPA has been doing it for three years now. You can go play events outside your area (getting college teams to do this is on par with getting top-level European teams to play stateside) if you want, but most teams don't. Pretty much everyone makes the annual trek to Nationals though, and since Nationals counts twice as much as the other events, it "fixes" any disparity in the talent level between the regions. You can't win the season unless you did well in the regular season, but even if you're top-dog in your home area, if your home area stinks compared to other areas, their teams will dominate you at the "Final" event and you'll end up down in the rankings.
It ain't perfect, but it gets the job done.
On the ball front, I don't think Steve's flags are really much of an improvement over centerflag - you still gotta get the thing to the other side of the field, and that's always easiest to do when the other team's players are all shot out. Before having a "ball" or whatever is going to do any good, we have to make scoring WITHOUT elimintating all of the other teams players much easier.
Personally, I think it would be good all you had to do was get one of your players over the other team's back line.
- Chris
It's certainly possible to have a meaningful league with significant geographic separation as Steve suggests - the NCPA has been doing it for three years now. You can go play events outside your area (getting college teams to do this is on par with getting top-level European teams to play stateside) if you want, but most teams don't. Pretty much everyone makes the annual trek to Nationals though, and since Nationals counts twice as much as the other events, it "fixes" any disparity in the talent level between the regions. You can't win the season unless you did well in the regular season, but even if you're top-dog in your home area, if your home area stinks compared to other areas, their teams will dominate you at the "Final" event and you'll end up down in the rankings.
It ain't perfect, but it gets the job done.
On the ball front, I don't think Steve's flags are really much of an improvement over centerflag - you still gotta get the thing to the other side of the field, and that's always easiest to do when the other team's players are all shot out. Before having a "ball" or whatever is going to do any good, we have to make scoring WITHOUT elimintating all of the other teams players much easier.
Personally, I think it would be good all you had to do was get one of your players over the other team's back line.
- Chris
Its sure easy to tear down a set of rules when you can take them one at a time without consideration for how they work with other rules.
My format puts the pressure on in two ways: first - you can't advance your flag without first putting your players at risk. Second, in order to gain high scores, you must advance your flag while at the same time trying to shut down your opponent's forward movement.
Fast breaks and risky moves - all in the name of advancing the flag - is what makes the format work. In fact, its all about the flag; as long as you get it down field, it doesn't matter how many bodies you spend doing it. This promotes aggressive play.
Nick,
I believe there's enough money in most decently-sized "national" championship events to convert the 1st place prize into an 'all-expenses paid trip to the world championships'. I also think there are enough smaller companies that could be tapped for minimal cash contributions in exchange for a small sponsorship bump (sponsor recognition that they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford) to get the job done.
The World Championship event would also compensate by having little or no entry fee and cost or near cost paint. You're talking airfare, hotel, meals for, say, 14 guys. If you're flying from, say, Italy to California, its going to be pricey, but still within reach.
You can sweeten the pot by adding a 'qualifying round' of play, prior to the main event, which teams that did not win their way in could attend. A certain number of those teams would then also move on to the next round (their next round, the first round of 'championship play) and, depending on how structured, qualifying round event could be used to defray some of the main event's costs.
This is all detail. We're all still waiting to hear if anything is going to actually happen.
My format puts the pressure on in two ways: first - you can't advance your flag without first putting your players at risk. Second, in order to gain high scores, you must advance your flag while at the same time trying to shut down your opponent's forward movement.
Fast breaks and risky moves - all in the name of advancing the flag - is what makes the format work. In fact, its all about the flag; as long as you get it down field, it doesn't matter how many bodies you spend doing it. This promotes aggressive play.
Nick,
I believe there's enough money in most decently-sized "national" championship events to convert the 1st place prize into an 'all-expenses paid trip to the world championships'. I also think there are enough smaller companies that could be tapped for minimal cash contributions in exchange for a small sponsorship bump (sponsor recognition that they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford) to get the job done.
The World Championship event would also compensate by having little or no entry fee and cost or near cost paint. You're talking airfare, hotel, meals for, say, 14 guys. If you're flying from, say, Italy to California, its going to be pricey, but still within reach.
You can sweeten the pot by adding a 'qualifying round' of play, prior to the main event, which teams that did not win their way in could attend. A certain number of those teams would then also move on to the next round (their next round, the first round of 'championship play) and, depending on how structured, qualifying round event could be used to defray some of the main event's costs.
This is all detail. We're all still waiting to hear if anything is going to actually happen.
R
raehl
Guest
Steve, I was not intending to diss the rule. I like the USPL format - on the field, anyway. You are still very unlikely to ge tthe flag to the other goal line without eliminating all of the other teams players, and that's how you get the 7 points. And your opponents can't even get three points until they break your third of teh territory, which they're again unlikely to do (with the flag) until they eliminate the vast majority of your players. Even in the USPL format, it's still pretty much an elimination game - and remember, I'm one of the very few people who've actually seen the format played.
Put another way, you could just as easily get rid of the flag and award points based on the farthest point a live player advanced to.
I do have to agree with Steve on the "Finals" event though. Again, it's something we've been doing in the NCPA for a while - Nationals in 2002 was FREE entry for every team and $65/case, last year it was $100/team and $35/case - for *ALL* teams.
Although I should point out that also depended on not having a promoter taking home a paycheck, but at the same time we also did it on minimal sponsorship. If you can get one or two out-of-industry companies to give you even minimal (in their terms) sponsorship, you should be in good shape.
- Chris
Put another way, you could just as easily get rid of the flag and award points based on the farthest point a live player advanced to.
I do have to agree with Steve on the "Finals" event though. Again, it's something we've been doing in the NCPA for a while - Nationals in 2002 was FREE entry for every team and $65/case, last year it was $100/team and $35/case - for *ALL* teams.
Although I should point out that also depended on not having a promoter taking home a paycheck, but at the same time we also did it on minimal sponsorship. If you can get one or two out-of-industry companies to give you even minimal (in their terms) sponsorship, you should be in good shape.
- Chris
Steve
So what it needs to do is sell itself. If a person can watch a game for 3 minutes, and get the 'idea' of what it's about in that time, you've got a winner. Let's take Australian rules football. I have no clue what it is other than a street fight with a ball involved, but I can watch it and get the concepts down. Cricket, some dude with a rowboat oar hitting a ball, and some kind of running, but I can kinda see where it's going.
Paintball has no central 'focus', it's chaos theory on grass. We all know this. We all see this. And yet, nobody has addressed this for a televised "sport" paintball game. Nobody has admitted that paintball is extremely "chaotic" to film. The one thing that makes paintball intresting from the other sports is what makes it hard to film. Anyone, at any moment, can do something spectacular and blow a game wide open. And if the camera wasn't on him, you missed it.
Back to the point, if you cna package a paintball game that an average person can look at for 3 minutes, and say "Ok, so they have to run their flag through the uprights, and stop the other guys from doing the same?", THEN you have something. Making the game easy to comprehend to the average person should be the focal point if you want paintball on TV.
You can mask the rules and let only the truly devout people learn them all. If "Joe Average" can follow the basic action, you've got a TV happy sport. The key is to reduce the "Chaos" on the field, and somehow make it understandable. The rules can be complex, the "Object of the game" should be simple.
At least that's how I see it.
-Tyger
Well, working with that as an example, US football has rules on rules (they have a rule on how high you can wear your socks!!!) But most observers don't know all the rules. And most of us don't care. We just know that the ball goes to a guy, who runs it into the end zone, and we're happy when it's the team we're cheering for.
So what it needs to do is sell itself. If a person can watch a game for 3 minutes, and get the 'idea' of what it's about in that time, you've got a winner. Let's take Australian rules football. I have no clue what it is other than a street fight with a ball involved, but I can watch it and get the concepts down. Cricket, some dude with a rowboat oar hitting a ball, and some kind of running, but I can kinda see where it's going.
Paintball has no central 'focus', it's chaos theory on grass. We all know this. We all see this. And yet, nobody has addressed this for a televised "sport" paintball game. Nobody has admitted that paintball is extremely "chaotic" to film. The one thing that makes paintball intresting from the other sports is what makes it hard to film. Anyone, at any moment, can do something spectacular and blow a game wide open. And if the camera wasn't on him, you missed it.
Back to the point, if you cna package a paintball game that an average person can look at for 3 minutes, and say "Ok, so they have to run their flag through the uprights, and stop the other guys from doing the same?", THEN you have something. Making the game easy to comprehend to the average person should be the focal point if you want paintball on TV.
You can mask the rules and let only the truly devout people learn them all. If "Joe Average" can follow the basic action, you've got a TV happy sport. The key is to reduce the "Chaos" on the field, and somehow make it understandable. The rules can be complex, the "Object of the game" should be simple.
At least that's how I see it.
-Tyger
Facking hell, the Universe is unfolding a different way this morning, I actually agree with everything Tyger just said........ .......hmmmmmm...........is armageddon upon us all ?
.......hmmmmmm...........is armageddon upon us all ?