Lane,
I believe that 5 (player representation) is a reasonable and accomplishable goal. The mechanism is up for grabs, but it would certainly include at least some of the following:
1. ENCOURAGE players and teams to participate. you do this by giving them 'ownership'. Let them participate first on matters that do not directly affect revenue streams. Conduct polls (it hardly matters how many legit responses you get back, anything is input).
This can include things such as 'do we need a captains meeting'? would you prefer to play all games on 1, 2, 3, 4 different fields? Is 5 minutes a long enough game time? blah, blah. The subject of the questions is not important - the opportunity to participate is.
2. Proxy representation MUST be allowed for any kind of legitimacy to be conferred on the participation. Again, we're not talking issues like - how much profit should a promoter make - we're talking about establishing a mechanism, that the teams will come to utilize, and learn to rely on as a safety valve for any grievances. If the pig screams when stuck, you know you hit a nerve. Participant representation serves as a check and balance on insuring that you are in fact providing decent customer service, and helps identify problems before they get too big.
Teams and players have learned over the years that it is POINTLESS to participate, so the first stage is in rebuilding the concept. There are plenty of things that the teams see, do and want that, if they were able to express themselves, would give them warm and fuzzy feelings. Things that are not necessarily of a financial nature that any league could easily accomodate without affecting its internal operations.
#6. I ask you, just for a moment, to forget the individuals involved and your own close involvement with a sport, and layer the current state of affairs from competition onto any other professional sport you are familiar with, and then ask yourself if you would consider it to be legit: by way of example:
The NFL no longer consists of a League Body, headed by an appointed commissioner with open-ended tenure and major safeguards against removal, balanced against 30 some odd independant team owners, an independant officiating organization and an independant players union.
Instead, the head office is run by a committee of 5 team owners, with no representation for the other team owners as well. Additionally, the officials are people selected and appointed by those same 5 team owners. The players have no representation and play strictly at the whim of their various owners. Isn't it amusing that the super-bowl is always held in one of 5 particular cities? Isn't it stange that the 5 teams owned by the 5 league owners are always the top teams in their divisions? Isn't it weird that controversial field calls always 'seem' to go the direction of those 5 teams.
Suppose those five league owners could willy-nilly remove a franchise from one owner and sell it to some new 'friend'. How many people would be interested in owning a franchise when they would always be second-class citizens?
That's what #6 refers to.
If I were an outside concern that showed some passing interest in owning a team in such a league, I would at least initially be attracted by the demographics and the exposure - until I found out that there was a potential ceiling on what I and my organization could accomplish and that there would always be competitors that were one up on me, no matter what I did or how much money I spent, simply because they were the ones that controlled my ability to get my message out.
I agree that not all of the above is based on fact - a good percentage of it is perceptual - but lets remember Ron Simeo's perception of paintball as published a few years back in the ESPN magazine: 'silly, ridiculous, a non-starter, never going to get anywhere'. Perception counts and, so far as tournament paintball and leagues are concerned, perhaps the single biggest issue.
If you want things to be taken seriously, the league MUST be formed along a-political lines that prevent the perception of power-mongering from entering the picture. Maybe that means that certain individuals must hide their influence more effectively, or maybe it means that the structure must change (such as the team owners electing a commissioner who can only be removed by unanimous vote).
But one thing is clear; people who own teams who also own the league will forever have a cloud of suspicion hanging over them and their actions.
)-- it seems the one item you didn't address was the accuracy of the quote cause it appears to be pretty inclusive. No doubt is was an oversight as you did such a thorough job on the rest.
