Welcome To P8ntballer.com
The Home Of European Paintball
Sign Up & Join In

And so the downfall of the NXL begins....

Baca Loco

Ex-Fun Police
MissyQ said:
You are off base on this Loco.
1--I am merely stating that having Paintballers mouth off about how Paintball should be presented as a Television Sport is redundant. As redundant as having TV execs dictate where your team should break to on the Spyder field. People like the ESPN show, don't they? Notice anyone wearing clown suits? Notice any corporate agenda in those shows? No huh? Notice any ridiculous changes in the format to facilitate ratings? No again? By looking for some kind of hidden agenda perhaps you have missed the simple irrefutable logic of my actual point.

2--Oh, and liken me to Jerry one more time and you'll wish you hadn't. You owe me an apology for that. It is not OK to throw insults of that magnitude around and claim they are 'throwaways'. Out of common decency I will not counter your vile comparison with one of my own, but I am holding myself back, I promise you....


3--Fact - ESPN were offered both formats and chose 7 man.
Fact - ESPN claim the optimum game time for TV is 4 minutes.
Fact - 7-man can be edited down to a good 4 minute game

4--Fact - The Miami games were terribly boring. They were not a true representation of the usual Super 7 finals. Given better materiel to work and lessons learned from the first filming/editing the next shows can only be an improvement.
1--no hidden agendas and no clown suits, Missy, but my original point stands I think and it was this: You framed the format debate and the general utility of Paintball on what TV wants or thinks will work--which I'm not arguing with, simply pointing out. I also simply pointed out that the TV biz is a crapshoot and most of what airs doesn't survive and much of what's produced never airs. Nothing more and nothing less. Plainly in some respects PP/IMG is ahead of the game already.
And, uh, yes, [see Bold] changes were made at TV's request and contributed to the generally dull play (which, granted, editing has helped "fix".)

2--I did no such thing. I said it appeared you shared a like opinion. Not even close to the same thing. And if you're done hyperventilating I'll be happy to leave Jerry well enough alone.

3--so in order to be on TV we all get to pretend the games are 4 minutes long? Or is this some clever plan to further reduce actual game time as it wasn't so long ago they were ten minutes long. :) Again, all I'm saying is at some point in trying to accomodate TV TV takes over and Paintball becomes form fit to TV's requirements. You say it's not an issue, I say it's a slippery slope particularly when the peeps making the decisions desperately want Paintball to be on TV. And, no, it's not a condemnation as I understand the impulse completely but wanted or not there is some responsiblity in all this for what becomes of top level tourney paintball with those driving the push to TV. (And I'm certainly not leaving the 'other guys' out of the equation.)

4--Yes, but some of the blame for that outcome falls on the changes requested by TV and I'm wondering if sport doesn't gain acceptance and popularity on the basis of things other than what TV executives think fit into their box.
 

MissyQ

New Member
Jan 9, 2006
663
0
0
Harlem, NY
Visit site
1. Yes. I suppose you are right on that score. I think the one thing they wanted changed about the NPPL format was the reason for games that we found sub-par for the Super 7. I know that will be fixed for the next one. It should not have been changed and I think a lesson has been learnt on both sides.

2. Done

3. I'm still saying it's not an issue. The people involved would not allow it. But I understand your reservations.

4. See '1'
 

Chicago

New Member
Jan 31, 2005
1,380
0
0
Visit site
I'm not only suspicious that the ESPN people are wrong, I'm CONVINCED they are wrong. They filmed the first NXL show and did it wrong. They filmed the NPPL show and did it wrong.

The NPPL show has a great graphics package. This graphics package goes a long way to making the show look good. People see the slick production and think "Wow, this is the best paintball ever on TV!" without realizing that the underlying game that they're actually watching is poor. It's the "WOW" factor - it's the first time paintball has superficially looked the same as football. The graphics will work once or twice, but will wear off, especially when someone else films it right AND has good graphics.

If UAPL had a similar level of graphics package, I think the UAPL would be better than the NPPL show. Same with XBall.

And if anybody actually puts cameras in the right spot, it will be better.

And I'm not saying that 7-man is a poor TV format because it's slow. I'm saying it's a poor TV format because you can't break it up into digestable units.

The problem with TV people, Missy, is they don't know anything about the game. The don't know where the action is going to be, they don't know the best places to see the action from. I'm sure they'll figure it out given enough attempts, but to suggest that they know how to film paintball just because they are TV people is assanine. The only reason they know how to film football and basketball and NASCAR is not because they happen to be TV people, but because they've had DECADES to figure it out. And even now, they keep changing the way they do it, especially as more technology becomes available.

Now, maybe you're content to just assume that other people are smarter than you are, but I am not. For example, you mention that they are taking the X out of the field to make it more TV friendly, and imply that this is because the TV people said so.

NO ****! I've been saying the X is the dumbest thing for television for THREE YEARS. How it took the TV people three years to figure out what was obvious to me and quite a few others three years ago is beyond me. 16' obstacle in the middle field? Yeah, that's great for seeing what is going on.


You also bring up IMG, but again, I think you totally miss the situation. If I were IMG, and I were picking what to televise, I would pick NPPL too, DESPITE the format being worse, because:

- NPPL wasn't tied up in a Dick Clark contract
- I don't have to deal with 7 owners who have a history of screwing things up.

IMG can change the format a lot easier than it can get rid of existing contracts and dubious partners.

FACT: ESPN/IMG chose a vehicle for producing paintball on television. If you think that decision was primarily based on which format they liked better you've got something odd in your Kool-Aid.

Once again, I find myself looking at an argument you're making (7-man is better than XBall because a marketing firm chose a league that has 7-man over a league that has XBall) and find myself wondering if you really are too dense to understand that one does not prove the other, or you do understand it but are making an incorrect argument anyway because it might confuse people into agreeing with you.
 

MissyQ

New Member
Jan 9, 2006
663
0
0
Harlem, NY
Visit site
Chicago, I probably disagree with you less than you think, I just have confidence that many, if not all, of the things you are concerned about are being addressed. I don't expect you to share the same confidence, i just challenge your basic opinion that X-ball is the format that should be televised.

There are many reasons that ESPN went with the NPPL format. Jerry, Dick Clark and PP are all contributing fators in that decision, in one way or another, plus the other reasons you mention. I have no argument on that.

ESPN's knowledge is not in paintball, of course it isn't. Thats where the NPPL come in. Clear distinctions and areas of responsibility already exist and have been solidified after the Miami event. Their area of undoubted expertise is how the Sport, in whatever format, should be presented to the veiwing public in order to get ratings. That said, in conversations with them on that topic they have expressed a preference for the 7 man format. Perhaps they are dense too?
Where to place the cameras's, color of turf/bunkers, and many other idea's expressed here, are all valid points, and I agree with them entirely. I think all of those area's are not only relevant, but fairly obvious, both to PP and ESPN, as they are to the posters here.

Hence I believe that a better option for all involved would be to get behind the ESPN showings, offer suggestions for improvement, and take advantage of the fact that Paintball has a non-time-buy option that can benefit the industry as a whole, instead of knocking it, spending huge dollars trying to compete with it on a corporate level, and actively looking to get it taken off the air, all things that are happening now.
One event has been filmed. The crew that filmed had no real experience in this sport whatsoever, and they STILL put out the best show so far, by some distance. Do you think it's going to stay the same, get worse, or improve? In this respect I do believe you have to give them the cedit for being able to do their jobs well, and continue to work out better ways of capturing the game. Why does that mean I am relying on them being smarter than me?

You argument is so small, so opinionated, and so pessimistic, that its difficult to know what your alternative proposal would be.
Start again with someone else?
Go through the learning curve again?
Put paintball people in charge of the filming?
I think all of those idea's are dense. They need paintball advisers. Thats all. They have those already.
 

Chicago

New Member
Jan 31, 2005
1,380
0
0
Visit site
Ok, I think I agree with most of that, except I still think 7-man is a lousy format all-around.

In an ideal world, NPPL would coopt something closer to XBall than to 7-man. If the TV people prefer 7-man, they're wrong, and being TV people doesn't make them any less wrong.

Well, in a TRUELY ideal world, paintball industry people wouldn't have anything to do with promoting paintball tournaments.
 

Nick Brockdorff

New Member
Jul 9, 2001
588
0
0
www.uglyducklings.dk
I think both you guys are too hung up on the political side of "X-Ball" vs "NPPL 7-Man"

Basic question should be whether you think 5 players per team is better or worse for tv than 7 players per team.... and then WHY.

Once that is sorted out, you can start worrying about what game they are going to play :)

Personally I think X-Ball sucks for tv, because you see the same game played over and over again.... and I think 7-man sucks for tv because it is too confusing, on too big a field, with too many players to keep track of.... both formats make for lousy tv, for different reasons.

- That you can then solve a lot of the inhering problems in the editing room, does not change the fact that the problems are there to begin with.

Nick
 

shamu

Tonight we dine in hell
Apr 17, 2002
835
0
0
Now-Cal
Chicago said:
And if anybody actually puts cameras in the right spot, it will be better.
I'm just curious about where you think "the right spot" is to capture the action.
 

Chicago

New Member
Jan 31, 2005
1,380
0
0
Visit site
Nick, I think XBall is better because you have natural breaks in the action every 30-90 seconds instead of every 240. It makes the match more digestable. I also disagree that every point is the same; the beauty of XBall is teams need to respond to the way each other are playing and that happens over the course of a match. 7-man doesn't give a chance for adjustment, and thus also doesn't give a chance to comment about any adjustments. Case in point with the NPPL show, breakouts are generally distilled down to "good" or "bad". Would be nice if they talked about - and showed - how teams broke out and what players got shot going through what lanes, and more importantly, how the team changes it the next point?

Good Xball coaches will have a set of plays and change them based on what the opposing team is doing. That's definitely not "the same every point".

I'm not going to say 5 is the right number of players though. It might be 6 or 7. Or it might be 5 now and 7 later after the sport is more established.

Shamu:

80% of the cameras need to NOT be on booms/platforms. You do want a camera up high over the 50 and over each end of the field, but you also need at least as many, if not more, cameras on the ground in the hands of cameramen. These cameras they stick 15 feet off the ground on the endlines arn't high enough to let you see player position and arn't low enough to let you see any action - same with that boom cam they like to put in the corners or over the snake. These guys think paintball is like other sports, where they can be lateral to the direction of motion and catch opponents in the same frame, and it's not. Opponents are often 50+ feet away from each other, you have to be behind players to put both advesaries in the same frame, and even on close bunker moves you really want to be seeing the player coming (or going), not just see the run-by.

The setup they had in Miami, which was close to the setup they had for filming the NXL, was one camera WAAAAAAY up off the back right corner of the field (that's the angle where they do all the displays with the crosshairs on all the players, the 'blimp shot' basically), one behind and offset each of the starting stations, boom cameras in two corners, and a boom camera on the 50 above the snake.

The only camera there that is mildly useful is the boom camera. In other sports, the 'blimp shot' camera is used to show how a play develops - this works in football because the camera can zoom in to the line of scrimmage or for soccer or basketball the immediate area of the ball, but is useless for paintball because the action is EVERYWHERE, so you can't zoom in really, you ahve to show the whole field. But when you do that on standard definition television, the players are so small that you can't see them (which was covered up with those crosshair graphics).

The fixed endline cams are great for filming shots on goal, basket attempts, or fieldgoal attempts, but again, useless for paintball, as none of those happen. Same deal with the corner cams - you get most of your hot action in basketball, soccer and football close to the endline. Paintball is the exact opposite - most of your hot action happens at the middle of the field.

What you CAN film from the endline is where the players are shooting (or who is shooting at them), both because you're using the same perspective as the player, and because when you're close to the direction of paintball flight, it's a lot easier for the cameras to pick up the paintballs.

But in order to make that work, you ahve to actually be behind the player and at the player's level. When you put your cameras on fixed platforms 15 feet in the air in one spot behind the endline or stuck in the corners, they can't get where they need to be, behind the players.

Another problem with 7-man (as it's currently played) is the field is shaped wrong. 150x125 is better than 180x100, too hard to get a left-to-right view of the whole field when it's nearly twice as long as it is wide. (Yes, I realize every other sport has fields in those dimensions but every other sport confines most of the CURRENT action to only a small portion of the length, which is not true for paintball.)


Anyway, Missy's "extremely wise" TV executives havn't figured out yet that it's a mistake to set up your film crew for a paintball match like you would for football/basketball/soccer.
 

Nick Brockdorff

New Member
Jul 9, 2001
588
0
0
www.uglyducklings.dk
Nick, I think XBall is better because you have natural breaks in the action every 30-90 seconds instead of every 240. It makes the match more digestable.
Sounds like you are still viewing the issue like paintball should be televised live?

I may be wrong, but I think it is a pipedream for years to come that paintball will be broadcast live.

As such, the length of time each "point" takes is irrelevant.... what IS relevant, is how visually exiting the point is, and how easy to understand it is for the casual viewer.

I do agree that a "match" needs to be more than one win for a team... especially if the goal is to build a fan base and a loyalty towards teams, and not just show a circus where the teams and players that participate are irrelevant to the viewer, and keeps on being irrelevant.

But, X-ball is not necessarily the answer to that, you can come up with much more viewer friendly scenarios I think, where for instance a change of field will be a welcome think for the viewers, just to see different tactics unfold.... what may be a 45 minute break real time, can be made into a 30 second break in the editing room!

You and I do not think every X-Ball game is the same... and you should know better than thinking I believe so... my point was that to the casual tv viewer, each X-ball match is "the same"... same guy goes into the same snake and does the same thing, time and time again.

As long as we agree that we are not aiming at live tv coverage of paintball events, then I would have hoped you could look past your personal affinity for X-Ball :)

Nick
 

Chicago

New Member
Jan 31, 2005
1,380
0
0
Visit site
Nick Brockdorff said:
Sounds like you are still viewing the issue like paintball should be televised live?
Not at all. If I was talking about televising it live, I'd be talking about how stupid it would be to have a format that was SIX HUNDRED seconds per point with 2-point games.

As for XBall, I don't think XBall is the RIGHT format. But I definitely think it's a better format than 7-man.