And so the downfall of the NXL begins....
- Thread starter BigbOYALA2
- Start date
So you're wanting me to tell you all what is going to happen? For free? If p8ntballer wants my predictions, they can pay me to fill up some space in their magazine like the rest of you. 
Baca Loco said:Actually, Pete, it is the love of money which is the root of all evil.
How 'bout moving on to another aspect of this whole business--predicting the results?
Successful show?
End of the world as we know it? What will come of all this?
If they copy the NPPL show as their working template then they have a chance, if they don't and it is left to their own imaginations and expertise then it has as much chance as an anvil floating.
If their TV venture does fail, Jerry's 'all or nothing' gamble will pretty much see him off in this, I'm afraid he just wouldn't survive and to be honest, nor would he want to.
This would bring about consummation of what everybody believes anyway and I think the actual and financial embarrassment experienced would see an almost immediate departure from the sport he loved so much.
Billy and Adam however cannot achieve such a disappearing act because of their company Smart Parts and they would have a stark choice.
They would either have to throw more money at this whole TV thing and embark on a 'go it alone' quest which I think would be at best, a questionable strategy.
The only way I could see for them to move forward in this area is to go into partnership with Sergey and be led by him.
He won't fcuk about, he will go for the TV jugular; he will hire the right people to do the right job and it WOULD be done... end of !
But if they don't have this idea and or Sergey doesn't get involved then I'm afraid going cap in hand to the NPPL would have to be a consideration.
Now this may 'sound' bad for them but if what I've heard is true, and Billy has stumped $800k of his own dosh (not Smart Parts) to back this venture then that sorta money would certainly grab Ged's attention if he sat on the other side of any negotiation table.
Ged would have to play a sensible game if that happened because tensions would be on a knife-edge and any notion of gloating or hard assery would be met with a swift and irreversible response from Billy and Adam.
In all honesty if Adam and Billy did get around the table with Ged, Ged is not the sort of man to either gloat or be an ass ..... he would do business and when it comes down to it, that's what it's all about.
A deal could be done that benefited both sides but it would be a tricky one to finalise.
Billy and Adam could of course just go about their business and ostensibly take a back seat for the time being and let's face it, they have a highly successful company with both of them proving to be highly successful businessmen.
They have never been in Paintball to make friends and yet the irony is, the two of them are extremely approachable and genuine guys but if you listen to some of the cr@p that goes around, you'd think they were the devils incarnate, they are not, nowhere near, they are just normal guys who in their eyes are trying to protect what's theirs.
I know both of these two very well, and I also know the history they have had with WDP (PP) and it will be a factor when they come to consider options if and when their own TV venture fails.
As to which way it will go if their TV venture does fail?
I couldn't call it, because on one hand we have a commercial decision and on the other there is a pride issue.
Billy and Adam are both proud men, very much so and they can afford (if they so choose) to swerve any commercial opportunities they may have with the NPPL in favour of sticking with their principles.
If I were them, I would honestly cut my ties with Jerry now, nod my head toward PP and work that angle because to fail and then go knocking on the NPPL door hands over the cards to PP and from Billy and Adam's point of view, they might not want that shift in power to take place.
Two dark horses loom in the background ... Dave Youngblood and Sergey, althouh these two aren't necessarily in the game at the moment in terms of league ownership or TV deals, if they start to flex their muscles, financial and or influential then it will have a significant effect on how it will all unfold.
I know what my guess would be but for one reason or another, I am keeping schtum on this one.
It should be fun whatever happens
I find the mix of personalities in this whole thing interesting. Paintball seems to attract the uber-competitive personality, and many (if not all) of the key players in this have that same uber-competitive streak. These are guys who hate to lose, guys who are convinced of their own 'rightness' in paintball situations. Which perhaps makes it less surprising to see something like the SP TV deal, as Billy, Adam and Jerry are (I'm sure) convinced that they can produce a show as good or better than anyone else. This is the only way I can see how Jerry or the Gardners, who are decent people to hang around with, can make such seemingly counterproductive business decisions. Or maybe they are just that greedy...
So, cow, what predictions do you want? The tournament or the TV?
It's tough to predict how the tournament will turn out. Given the teams entered, I think it will come down to XSV, Dynasty and Legion, with either AA, Docs or Dogs rounding out the top 4. Personally, I think it's refreshing to see some parity in the top levels again. Makes events more interesting when you don't know who will win before the first game starts.
Production-wise, I predict the final product will look more like the UAPL than the NPPL product. While $800K sounds like a lot of money, it goes pretty quickly between event setup, film crews, equipment and post-production editing. If SP isn't partnering with an experienced sports production company, they're going to have a steep learning curve.
Drop the ball in any of those areas and you'll end up with an unattractive product. The UAPL shows are a perfect example of this. The initial shows were interesting but definitely lacking a few things - game coverage, editing, hosting (Matty is MUCH better on the NPPL show than the UAPL show), graphics - whether it was the filming or post-production the shows looked cheap and lacked coherence. Poor production quality, unclear game presentation and cheap looking graphics are not the key to creating a sucessfull product. Hopefully SP learned something from the NPPL shows.
So, cow, what predictions do you want? The tournament or the TV?
It's tough to predict how the tournament will turn out. Given the teams entered, I think it will come down to XSV, Dynasty and Legion, with either AA, Docs or Dogs rounding out the top 4. Personally, I think it's refreshing to see some parity in the top levels again. Makes events more interesting when you don't know who will win before the first game starts.
Production-wise, I predict the final product will look more like the UAPL than the NPPL product. While $800K sounds like a lot of money, it goes pretty quickly between event setup, film crews, equipment and post-production editing. If SP isn't partnering with an experienced sports production company, they're going to have a steep learning curve.
Drop the ball in any of those areas and you'll end up with an unattractive product. The UAPL shows are a perfect example of this. The initial shows were interesting but definitely lacking a few things - game coverage, editing, hosting (Matty is MUCH better on the NPPL show than the UAPL show), graphics - whether it was the filming or post-production the shows looked cheap and lacked coherence. Poor production quality, unclear game presentation and cheap looking graphics are not the key to creating a sucessfull product. Hopefully SP learned something from the NPPL shows.
It depends what that $800k is being spent on. If it's just television production, it's plenty of money.
If it's also field setup, refs, paint, team travel, then it's not much.
The NPPL show is the best looking paintball show, but it still mediocre at best. It's only appears good because it's better looking than everything else - it's still missing LOTS of things that need to be done to present paintball correctly.
It needs a better format. Even the best 4 minutes of 10 minutes of 7-man yields too little action. The fact of the matter is 7-man is a format that engenders a lot of being behind bunkers and 'losing gunfights' as Matty puts it, while XBall is a format that engenders more running and shooting. The latter looks a lot better on camera.
The NPPL show still has all the cameras in the wrong places. UAPL may have ****ty graphics, but at least the cameras are in there, and in the later shows you can see them doing a better job of the overhead context shot along with getting more angles from in front of and behind players. And on a 3-man field, when you do the overhead context shot, you see everyone. Part of the reason the NPPL show uses them crosshair graphics thingies is when they do an overhead shot, the players are so small relative to the field and the screen resolution that you can't see them.
Regardless, if SP shoots this show "ESPN style" (NXL show was shot the same way) with cameras on stands on the back lines and boom cams in the corners and on the 50, they are once again going to have ****ty shots. Watch the NPPL show and wait for a bunker move. Then take note of where your perspective is - it's usually 45 degrees up in the air about 50 yards away. That's one thing the college show got right - you get a lot of the player moving and getting shot from an angle that's over their shoulder or right in front of them. You're not goingn to get that with 80%+ of your cameras in fixed positions.
The NPPL show has spent a lot of money on flashy graphics, and that's covering up a lot of shortcomings. They're not the RIGHT graphics, and it's not the RIGHT format. Putting up 14 crosshairs on a birds-eye view of the field is not informative (although it looks like they've wised up to that in later shows and are now actually highlighting key players).
The right use of graphics is BEFORE a move starts, highlight the player who is going to MAKE the move, highlilght the player that is going to get mugged, then let the footage run. Or if you're worried about killing the suspense do it on a replay.
That brings me to the biggest failing of the NPPL show - the points are 4 minutes long. Even soccer gets broken up when the ball goes out of bounds or there's a foul. 7-man doesn't let that happen - somebody gets eliminated, and the viewer doesn't get any time to absorb that information, because the game just keeps on going.
Football, basketball, baseball, everything is broken up into small units of time. Somebody gets tackled? Stop, do a replay of the play, update the yardage, explain the situation the teams are now in, do the next point. Somebody gets fouled? Same thing. Take a swing? Hit the ball? Go over what just happened.
7-man doesn't let that happen - you get 240 seconds at a time, and then you talk about what happened over the past 240 seconds. The viewer can't keep track of that much information.
XBall tends to break things down to 30-90 second intervals. That's still comparatively long, but it's a lot better. "The team is now up 6-5, that last breakout worked really well for them because (blah blah), let's see if they repeat that on this next play..." is worlds better than "A guy on this side got shot, a guy on that side got shot, ooo, this guy moved here, that's going to really help them wi.... oh! another guy over there got shot..." and then 4 minutes later "Well, they lost that game because...." At that point, so much has happened that you have to gloss over everything to explain it and then move onto the one point - and that usually only happens ONCE per matchup.
Basketball, football, baseball, soccer, etc, they have LOTS of little "possessions". 50 snaps, 100 baskets, 100 swings, 100 passes/steals/attemtps on goal. XBall has 15-25 breakouts. 7-man as 2 or 3. XBall has 80-120 eliminations. 7-man has 12 on a tight match.
So yeah, maybe SP won't be able to spend as much on a graphics package, but then again, maybe they won't need to rely on flashy graphics to make up for shortcomings everywhere else either.
If it's also field setup, refs, paint, team travel, then it's not much.
The NPPL show is the best looking paintball show, but it still mediocre at best. It's only appears good because it's better looking than everything else - it's still missing LOTS of things that need to be done to present paintball correctly.
It needs a better format. Even the best 4 minutes of 10 minutes of 7-man yields too little action. The fact of the matter is 7-man is a format that engenders a lot of being behind bunkers and 'losing gunfights' as Matty puts it, while XBall is a format that engenders more running and shooting. The latter looks a lot better on camera.
The NPPL show still has all the cameras in the wrong places. UAPL may have ****ty graphics, but at least the cameras are in there, and in the later shows you can see them doing a better job of the overhead context shot along with getting more angles from in front of and behind players. And on a 3-man field, when you do the overhead context shot, you see everyone. Part of the reason the NPPL show uses them crosshair graphics thingies is when they do an overhead shot, the players are so small relative to the field and the screen resolution that you can't see them.
Regardless, if SP shoots this show "ESPN style" (NXL show was shot the same way) with cameras on stands on the back lines and boom cams in the corners and on the 50, they are once again going to have ****ty shots. Watch the NPPL show and wait for a bunker move. Then take note of where your perspective is - it's usually 45 degrees up in the air about 50 yards away. That's one thing the college show got right - you get a lot of the player moving and getting shot from an angle that's over their shoulder or right in front of them. You're not goingn to get that with 80%+ of your cameras in fixed positions.
The NPPL show has spent a lot of money on flashy graphics, and that's covering up a lot of shortcomings. They're not the RIGHT graphics, and it's not the RIGHT format. Putting up 14 crosshairs on a birds-eye view of the field is not informative (although it looks like they've wised up to that in later shows and are now actually highlighting key players).
The right use of graphics is BEFORE a move starts, highlight the player who is going to MAKE the move, highlilght the player that is going to get mugged, then let the footage run. Or if you're worried about killing the suspense do it on a replay.
That brings me to the biggest failing of the NPPL show - the points are 4 minutes long. Even soccer gets broken up when the ball goes out of bounds or there's a foul. 7-man doesn't let that happen - somebody gets eliminated, and the viewer doesn't get any time to absorb that information, because the game just keeps on going.
Football, basketball, baseball, everything is broken up into small units of time. Somebody gets tackled? Stop, do a replay of the play, update the yardage, explain the situation the teams are now in, do the next point. Somebody gets fouled? Same thing. Take a swing? Hit the ball? Go over what just happened.
7-man doesn't let that happen - you get 240 seconds at a time, and then you talk about what happened over the past 240 seconds. The viewer can't keep track of that much information.
XBall tends to break things down to 30-90 second intervals. That's still comparatively long, but it's a lot better. "The team is now up 6-5, that last breakout worked really well for them because (blah blah), let's see if they repeat that on this next play..." is worlds better than "A guy on this side got shot, a guy on that side got shot, ooo, this guy moved here, that's going to really help them wi.... oh! another guy over there got shot..." and then 4 minutes later "Well, they lost that game because...." At that point, so much has happened that you have to gloss over everything to explain it and then move onto the one point - and that usually only happens ONCE per matchup.
Basketball, football, baseball, soccer, etc, they have LOTS of little "possessions". 50 snaps, 100 baskets, 100 swings, 100 passes/steals/attemtps on goal. XBall has 15-25 breakouts. 7-man as 2 or 3. XBall has 80-120 eliminations. 7-man has 12 on a tight match.
So yeah, maybe SP won't be able to spend as much on a graphics package, but then again, maybe they won't need to rely on flashy graphics to make up for shortcomings everywhere else either.
Chicago:
While I agree with your rationale... it's not like paintball is going to be broadcast live - except maybe on some Internet station for the benefit of paintballers, who like to watch all the boring stuff anyway.... so, no matter what the format is, it can be made exiting, if the camera positions are right, the camera men are good, and the editor knows what he is doing.
Editing is where most paintball broadcasts have failed so far.
BTW:
Why are people operating under the assumption their venture will fail ?
Nick
While I agree with your rationale... it's not like paintball is going to be broadcast live - except maybe on some Internet station for the benefit of paintballers, who like to watch all the boring stuff anyway.... so, no matter what the format is, it can be made exiting, if the camera positions are right, the camera men are good, and the editor knows what he is doing.
Editing is where most paintball broadcasts have failed so far.
BTW:
Why are people operating under the assumption their venture will fail ?
Nick
You seem to mention a whole bunch of shortcomings of 7man, but leave quite a few of XBall's shortcomings out of the picture.
I've made quite a bit of effort in trying to make my non-playing friends understand why I spend so much time and money on this damn game. They've watched the original NXL show on ESPN, the College Xball on CSTV, full length Xball matches on dvds, and the NPPL 7man show on ESPN.
So far, the overwhelming consensus from everyone I know who's never played before is that the NPPL is the most exciting to watch. Here's a breakdown of what people have told me.
1. Xball is too repetitive, people weren't sure if they were watching live footage or replays, and when they did know, they asked just why the hell they do the same thing over and over again.
2. 7man is slower and easier to follow. Yeah I know all these ramping kids want to see nothing but bunkering and run throughs, but show it to someone who doesn't play and they just see complete chaos. Before you reply to this one, keep in mind I'm 21, in excellent shape, and I've played many xball matches myself, so don't tell me I'm a fat old dude who hates xball because he can't run.
3. One of my best friends made the point that it doesn't seem to be a big deal to get shot in Xball, whereas a single elimination in 7man is a huge deal, like a touchdown in football almost, making it more interesting.
One last thing, does anyone know if the NPPL is paying for this footage like the NXL did, or is it being externally funded? From everything I've read, it was clear that the NXL on ESPN was just an expensive infomercial with airtime bought by the league, but the 7man show was not funded by the NPPL. I think that makes a huge difference right there.
As for the Gardners, if paying for TV coverage failed so horribly the first time, what makes them think a fancy infomercial will do any better this time?
AngryJim
I've made quite a bit of effort in trying to make my non-playing friends understand why I spend so much time and money on this damn game. They've watched the original NXL show on ESPN, the College Xball on CSTV, full length Xball matches on dvds, and the NPPL 7man show on ESPN.
So far, the overwhelming consensus from everyone I know who's never played before is that the NPPL is the most exciting to watch. Here's a breakdown of what people have told me.
1. Xball is too repetitive, people weren't sure if they were watching live footage or replays, and when they did know, they asked just why the hell they do the same thing over and over again.
2. 7man is slower and easier to follow. Yeah I know all these ramping kids want to see nothing but bunkering and run throughs, but show it to someone who doesn't play and they just see complete chaos. Before you reply to this one, keep in mind I'm 21, in excellent shape, and I've played many xball matches myself, so don't tell me I'm a fat old dude who hates xball because he can't run.
3. One of my best friends made the point that it doesn't seem to be a big deal to get shot in Xball, whereas a single elimination in 7man is a huge deal, like a touchdown in football almost, making it more interesting.
One last thing, does anyone know if the NPPL is paying for this footage like the NXL did, or is it being externally funded? From everything I've read, it was clear that the NXL on ESPN was just an expensive infomercial with airtime bought by the league, but the 7man show was not funded by the NPPL. I think that makes a huge difference right there.
As for the Gardners, if paying for TV coverage failed so horribly the first time, what makes them think a fancy infomercial will do any better this time?
AngryJim
Jim:
If you were to show the finals of a 7-man event, you would see that same thing - repetition.
As soon as you limit the competition to one field and the same 2 teams - that will happen.
The X-Ball format was invented for live broadcast - and that is exactly where it is wrong... because the very thing that enables it to be broadcast live (the longevity), is what makes it boring to watch.
- it is more exiting to play and to spectate.... but in terms of this debate, that is not relevant.
That having been said, I think 5-man is a better format for TV than 7-man, because it is much easier for viewers to follow the action (smaller field, fewer bunkers, fewer players).
We are getting ahead of ourselves in paintball, by focussing our energy on a format that can be broadcast live.... if ever we reach a stage where a major network is interested in broadcasting live, we can change the format easily... because on that day most of the viewing public will be "paintball educated" and not be bored by X-Ball (or a similar format)...... otherwise there would be no purpose of a live broadcast.
What we SHOULD be focussing on, is the one MAJOR problem paintball has in terms of broadcast: That viewers can't see the paint in flight.
If that ONE problem was at the forefront of peoples minds, I'll bet you that ANY broadcast could be made exiting, no matter what the format.
It baffles me that promoters do not think about these issues, while apparently spending loads of time and money trying to get on tv - like for instance:
- Why is our artificial turf green - or why do we play on grass?
- Why are bunkers in colours that make paint hard to see in flight?
- Why is the colour of paint shells in colours that are hard to see on tv?
- Why is the background on most footage making paint hard to see in flight?
- What type of camera will best be able to show paint in flight?
Fix all those points - and you will suddenly find yourself much more entertained when watching paintball on tv.... in the meantime, the uneducated (in terms of paintball) viewer will just be watching some people playing hide and seek and occasionally changing position, while apparently hiding from shots that can't be seen or firing shots that can't be seen.
Any talk about format is irrelevant to me, as long as this major issue is not addressed.
Picture this scenario (which will never happen, because it has problems in terms of spectators, sponsors, clean-up between games, etc.... but just to make a point):
Black flooring, black bunkers, roofed arena completely encased in black tarpaulin (instead of netting), players in all black.... white shelled paint..... now shoot the whole thing with high speed cameras.
Another possibility would be to use blue/green screen technology to show the paint in flight, although I wonder if paint on the floor would screw that idea up?
Anyway - I trust you see what I am driving at here?
Nick
If you were to show the finals of a 7-man event, you would see that same thing - repetition.
As soon as you limit the competition to one field and the same 2 teams - that will happen.
The X-Ball format was invented for live broadcast - and that is exactly where it is wrong... because the very thing that enables it to be broadcast live (the longevity), is what makes it boring to watch.
- it is more exiting to play and to spectate.... but in terms of this debate, that is not relevant.
That having been said, I think 5-man is a better format for TV than 7-man, because it is much easier for viewers to follow the action (smaller field, fewer bunkers, fewer players).
We are getting ahead of ourselves in paintball, by focussing our energy on a format that can be broadcast live.... if ever we reach a stage where a major network is interested in broadcasting live, we can change the format easily... because on that day most of the viewing public will be "paintball educated" and not be bored by X-Ball (or a similar format)...... otherwise there would be no purpose of a live broadcast.
What we SHOULD be focussing on, is the one MAJOR problem paintball has in terms of broadcast: That viewers can't see the paint in flight.
If that ONE problem was at the forefront of peoples minds, I'll bet you that ANY broadcast could be made exiting, no matter what the format.
It baffles me that promoters do not think about these issues, while apparently spending loads of time and money trying to get on tv - like for instance:
- Why is our artificial turf green - or why do we play on grass?
- Why are bunkers in colours that make paint hard to see in flight?
- Why is the colour of paint shells in colours that are hard to see on tv?
- Why is the background on most footage making paint hard to see in flight?
- What type of camera will best be able to show paint in flight?
Fix all those points - and you will suddenly find yourself much more entertained when watching paintball on tv.... in the meantime, the uneducated (in terms of paintball) viewer will just be watching some people playing hide and seek and occasionally changing position, while apparently hiding from shots that can't be seen or firing shots that can't be seen.
Any talk about format is irrelevant to me, as long as this major issue is not addressed.
Picture this scenario (which will never happen, because it has problems in terms of spectators, sponsors, clean-up between games, etc.... but just to make a point):
Black flooring, black bunkers, roofed arena completely encased in black tarpaulin (instead of netting), players in all black.... white shelled paint..... now shoot the whole thing with high speed cameras.
Another possibility would be to use blue/green screen technology to show the paint in flight, although I wonder if paint on the floor would screw that idea up?
Anyway - I trust you see what I am driving at here?
Nick
Nick your ideas about the paint, field, bunkers, etc. is interesting and as the photo guy for Pbstar.com I have always agreed that promoters need to take into account bunker colors, not for paint visibility, but for aesthetic reasons. Grey/Black, yellow/black or gasp orange/black that the PSP once used, make for terrible photos in my opinion. Red and blue is perfect if you ask me. It also kills me the way the NPPL sets their fields up with that terrible carpet, which puts a HUGE glare around mid afternoon, which is when the finals are usually going around. Course, maybe I just suck at photography, which is always a possibility...
Anyway, back to your concerns, you've probably noticed this as a player. You can see paint coming out of your gun when you're shooting it. You can see paint coming out of guns that is being shot at you. You can't really see the paint coming out of a gun from the sidelines. It's all line of site. Changing the paint/fill/bunker/grass color won't help this. You're eyes or the camera can't track that ball if it's travelling perpindicular to the camera. You need to be behind or infront of it to really see streams of paint. I guess this might have something to do with the fact that your 30 frames per second camera has the whole flight path of the ball to track it when you're behind, and only a brief instance to see it from the side, which dramatically decreases the likely hood of seeing the ball was it whizzes by you on the sidelines.
Like Chicago (mmm, Italian Beefs...) said, you have to have mobile cameras that you rely on for your action, and then maybe use the corner/sky cams for filling in. Course that's WAY harder than just planting a few cameras down and filling in the rest with 1 mobile guy. Really they need to put a cable camera strung across the center of the court they can move back and forth above the field like the nfl/nba has. See, looks it's all so easy...any joe can make a good production...ya...umm sure.
If you want to get the paint streams, just go watch a few pro games and see where Pat Sphrorer(sp?) is standing. Most of the time it's in the back, mid way between the starting station and the sidelines. This is to get the paint that's being shot across field at from the opposing teams and also the paint being shot out of the players guns nearest him. I've figured this much out just doing the quick and easy, wham-bam-thank-you-mam videos we put up on pbstar. Sure they suck (I'm my worst critic), but it's online super fast.
Back on subject RE smart parts/nxl. I worry about the potential ramifications for the PSP. If Smart Parts does get a multi show/event deal out of this one show, could we see them pulling out of the PSP and NXL altogether and pull a WDP a la Pure Promotions and start their own league? Three leagues is too many. That's my fear at least. It's great that paintballs is on TV and all, but it's a shame it could tear the industry apart (even more).
Chris
Anyway, back to your concerns, you've probably noticed this as a player. You can see paint coming out of your gun when you're shooting it. You can see paint coming out of guns that is being shot at you. You can't really see the paint coming out of a gun from the sidelines. It's all line of site. Changing the paint/fill/bunker/grass color won't help this. You're eyes or the camera can't track that ball if it's travelling perpindicular to the camera. You need to be behind or infront of it to really see streams of paint. I guess this might have something to do with the fact that your 30 frames per second camera has the whole flight path of the ball to track it when you're behind, and only a brief instance to see it from the side, which dramatically decreases the likely hood of seeing the ball was it whizzes by you on the sidelines.
Like Chicago (mmm, Italian Beefs...) said, you have to have mobile cameras that you rely on for your action, and then maybe use the corner/sky cams for filling in. Course that's WAY harder than just planting a few cameras down and filling in the rest with 1 mobile guy. Really they need to put a cable camera strung across the center of the court they can move back and forth above the field like the nfl/nba has. See, looks it's all so easy...any joe can make a good production...ya...umm sure.
If you want to get the paint streams, just go watch a few pro games and see where Pat Sphrorer(sp?) is standing. Most of the time it's in the back, mid way between the starting station and the sidelines. This is to get the paint that's being shot across field at from the opposing teams and also the paint being shot out of the players guns nearest him. I've figured this much out just doing the quick and easy, wham-bam-thank-you-mam videos we put up on pbstar. Sure they suck (I'm my worst critic), but it's online super fast.
Back on subject RE smart parts/nxl. I worry about the potential ramifications for the PSP. If Smart Parts does get a multi show/event deal out of this one show, could we see them pulling out of the PSP and NXL altogether and pull a WDP a la Pure Promotions and start their own league? Three leagues is too many. That's my fear at least. It's great that paintballs is on TV and all, but it's a shame it could tear the industry apart (even more).
Chris