2006/2007 University Paintball League

[Steve Hancock]

Well my massive post took so long that there is more to reply to.

Firstly:

Hmmm it was mentioned that Keele uni have a team?? Just to double check on this Keele the uni in north Stafford? If so would someone be able to contact me with details on them going there next year so would be good to play with/against you all ^^
FatTart o/

PM me your contact details and I'll gladly pass them on to the Keele guys and get them to contact you. Welcome to the world of Uni paintball.

Coaching
Mark, you ask me to justify coaching by saying why it would specifically benefit aberdeen. You then go on to talk about Birmingham's PA experience not being justification because it is the exception rather than the majority.

Aberdeens may have more difficulties getting people down to coach, but this is due to your travel distance which is also an exception.

Yes, coaching would mean mean that teams with more players, and who get more people involved will have an advantage. This is an example of how the league will encourage the other teams to develop and become more competitive. This applies to all the aspects that will set the newer teams at a disadvantage including the match format. It will force them to develop.

I am hoping that uni paintball will be producing good quality players, that go on to play at the PA and millenniums, even in the US. For this to be the case they need to get used to these challenges. Not avoid them. Yes we need to have an entry level, but that is what the championship is for.

Anyway I have an essay to write - for my course this time

 

[Steve Hancock]

The current issue of PBUK has the write-up of the University Paintball Championship. Well worth a look, go buy a copy.

A because someone is bound to ask - No, you can't read it online anywhere. What would be the point in producing a magazine and then letting people see it for free? Go buy a copy!

 

[pJervis]

pbuk uni

are there any photos ? where can we get the new copy from ?

 

[Steve Hancock]

Yep there are photos.
Buy it here or here.

 

[Edd Hobday]

Coaching wise i think it is needless, this is a game based on the team work and skills of the people playing not on someones ability to rely on cheating (coaching used to be cheating, for a reason because it tetracts from the skill and fun in the game.)

Now that made me laugh. It isn't cheating if its allowed in the rules.

On a note about format, Steve has mentioned this in his posts above, the league is intended to be the competative side to uni paintball. The new teams can play in the Championship and gain their experience there. The prospect of playing match format has raised interest for already existing players. Generally in the past people who play tourney ball before they get to uni have no interest in knocking around on a uni team when they already play for a team (which lets face it is almost certainly better/plays at a higher level). There are some killer players out there and the idea of match format is sparking interest and maybe what is needed to switch some of them to represent their unis, and getting good players into the league is going to be the best way to drive standards of uni ball up and get it respected. It'll increase the competition and the standard of all the players playing in it.

I know i'd have no interest of playing a standard 5 man/7 man format regularly at the level the last inter uni was at when i can go to the masters/PA and get much more out of it and i think thats going to be true for lots of the 16/17 year old killers that are soon to be coming through the uni system.

Ramping and Coaching are fine details that in the end aren't going to make or break the league (and to be honest i wouldnt have a preference either way) but i think the match format is crutial for the league to work and have a long term appeal and health future.

 

[Ginja]

coaching

i think coaching has caused the biggest issues, due to this i believe each uni should have an internal vote regarding this issue and post the result.

 

[Steve Hancock]

Democracy is a fine sentiment, but it often means that the least informed are making the decisions. Who within your club has followed the debate, truly weighed up the pros and cons, and come to an informed decision? There may be a couple other than your self, but I suspect that they would be the exception rather than the rule.

Both coaching and ramping are issues that superficially seem like a bad idea. Many people are against them due to false assumptions and misconceptions. Initially I was also against them, back when they were first proposed for the PA nearly 2 years ago. But having considered it more fully, seen them in practise and experienced them myself I soon revised my opinion.

What are the specific problems people perceive with coaching? The ones that I have heard are:
1. That it removes an element of skill from the game making it unfair.
2. That it makes players robotic and unimaginative.
3. That it gives the bigger squads an advantage

1. So does being allowed to use hoppers instead of practising quickly loading 10 ball tubes (how paintball used to be). The fact that it removes a skill, is not in its self a problem - that can improve the game. And the changes can also bring in new skills. The point is whether the skills brought in and taken out improve the game or not. There are pros and cons to bringing in coaching, I won't pretend it is clear cut. Over all on the balance i think it makes games more tactical and entertaining to watch, and I can say that having watched a lot of games both with and without coaching. This especially so with a match format.

Another major factor is that we are not just weighing the pros and cons up in the isolated context of our own league. We also have to consider what happens once players graduate. Even if we decided that not having coaching was slightly better than having it, what would be the point in enjoying this slight improvement if once we graduate are experience becomes irrelevant. The top UK and European leagues use coaching. We might decide that it is better to allow players 3 'lives' before they are eliminated. That would be fine, until they go on to play elsewhere. So not only is it better, but even if it wasn't we should adopt it.

And the argument about us not being the PA and Millenniums doesn't hold any water with me. We are not the PA or Millennium, that is true, but there is nothing stopping us developing the level of play to something comparable in the long term. This will require us to push ourselves though. And as Edd pointed out, it will attract the best student paintballers to compete for their uni, as it will give them relevant experience.

2. Some players have become robotic and unimaginative. Some players haven't adapted well, and gotten used to it yet. Eventually they will or they will be cut form the top teams. The reason being that they aren't playing so well. This is a competitive system. It will weed out any problems.

3. So it will encourage the teams to recruit more - introducing more people to competitive paintball. That is one of the strengths of both the match format and the coaching, it allows us to develop our squads. It is flexible. You could play it with 5 bodies, so it allows newer teams to play. And equally if you bring a dozen there will be ways for them to get involved, meaning it also caters for the bigger clubs. And the advantages to the bigger clubs just encourage growth.

---

In addition to the countering these perceived disadvantages there are the advantages to coaching. It allows the crowds to get involved, making it enjoyable to spectate. And it is not possible to limit what crowds are allowed to shout, it just isn't practical to enforce or judge. Yes we can limit coaching to from behind the netting, which is what i was suggesting.

It makes for more varied plays and interesting moves, and gets rid of the dull pauses whilst people aren't sure that the game is over.

If anyone has any other issues with coaching I'd be happy to discuss them. Equally if anyone wants to discuss issues with having a match format, or ramping (again) feel free. Ultimately if people don't accept these things they won't happen. I just feel if you considered them fully and took into account peoples experience of how they have worked in practise, then you would lose some of your apprehensions about these opportunities to develop ourselves.

You really won't struggle with them. Yes, they might challege you intitially, but nothing more than you are capable to rising to - and that is how we will progess. Trust me on this.

 

[Bob]

Now that made me laugh. It isn't cheating if its allowed in the rules.QUOTE]

Made you laugh? What i said was:

"(coaching used to be cheating, for a reason because it tetracts from the skill and fun in the game.)"

It used to be considered cheating just because it has been legalised i don't feel that makes it okay. As with ramping i feel if its not equal (i.e. everyone can do it) then it should not be used. As Steve said this has already been discused but it never came to a satisfactory conclusion.

I've got other stuff to do ATM so im not going to write (another) essay in reply.

Ramping i don't mine happy either way as long as everyone can ramp, i'm happy playing semi versus ramping but it will be the less experienced teams that will suffer.

Coaching i think there is no need. Would you like in rec ball if someone (who was not playing) was giving away your teams locations? So why is it okay for it to be done in tourney.

There are other things i am not sure off but i have already voiced them and so am not convinced. It may be due to a lack of experience but not convinced the majority of Uni players are not very experienced at tourney ball (i count my self amount them). Is this current format M-7 benfitial to the more or less experienced players, you mentioned how it looks to spectators but it is mainly down to who is playing, crickets quite boring to watch but even i enjoyed the ashes, so why is tourney ball viewed to be so boring & will coaching solve this?

 

[Steve Hancock]

coaching used to be cheating, for a reason because it detracts from the skill and fun in the game.

Nope, it used to be cheating because it was against the rules.

But, semi auto used to be cheating because it was against the rules.

Hoppers used to be cheating because they were against the rules.

Using anything other than a 12gram CO2 canister used to be against the rules.

And using these also removed an element of skill from the game - it introduced different skills and styles, which ultimatley i believe were benefitial. So just because something used to be against the rules doesn't mean it is wrong. You aren't allowed to throw the ball forward in rugby, that doesn't mean american football is wrong.

Of course doing it when it is against the rules is cheating. But its because its against the rules, not down to some fundamental wrongness. So once its not against the rules it is a little silly to still label it cheating.

Coaching i think there is no need.

There are a number of reasons why it is needed. Admittedly we need to weigh these against the potential disadvantages of coaching. But to suggest there are no benefits to it at all it short sighted. The first 2 that spring to mind are:
1. Because otherwise spectators have no way of feeling involved. Some of the clubs are planning to bring spectators to some of the event, can you imagine explaining to them that they have to watch in silence? That won't be fun.
2. Because it is used at both the top national and european leagues. This means we will gain experience of a higher level of play.

Would you like in rec ball if someone (who was not playing) was giving away your teams locations? So why is it okay for it to be done in tourney.

They are two different games. Its like comparing a kick around in the park, with premiership football.

There are other things i am not sure off but i have already voiced them and so am not convinced. It may be due to a lack of experience but not convinced the majority of Uni players are not very experienced at tourney ball (i count my self amount them).

Ummm... what? The second sentence confused me.

Is this current format M-7 benfitial to the more or less experienced players,

Both.

...you mentioned how it looks to spectators but it is mainly down to who is playing,

It does depend on who is playing as well, but a match format allows spectators to get to know the players, their styles and the significance of the moves they make. A 2 minute game is over too quick for the crowd to get any insight into the teams.

crickets quite boring to watch but even i enjoyed the ashes, so why is tourney ball viewed to be so boring & will coaching solve this?

Coaching, or more specifically allowing spectators to shout stuff and cheer, goes a long way to making tourney ball more interesting to spectate. This has been seen at the Millenniums, PSP/NXL and PA. Leting them feel involved goes a long way to making it more enjoyable. The match format also helps, as it gives them more time to figure out what the teams are doing, has more of a sense of on-going drama, and has a simpler scoring system.

 

[Bob]

Both.

How?

Coaching, or more specifically allowing spectators to shout stuff and cheer, goes a long way to making tourney ball more interesting to spectate.

Have i grasped the wrong end of the stick? Isn't coaching having a player/s shoulding positions & movements from the sidline? Would Cheering etc be a part of spectating the game rather then a tennis atmosphere.

They are two different games. Its like comparing a kick around in the park, with premiership football.

That wasn't my point. In rec ball you would npt be happy with a non player coaching, in tourney i don't feel it is any different having a spotter doing the back mans job for them. I have not experience playing a coaching game & i don't think the majority of people playing the tourney will. Saying that it is used in established more proleagues is not a reason to do it.