Is This Right And Proper??

[Markie C]

not by sticking pro's and ex pro's in div 3 that's why it's called novice to play people at the same level to get better then move on


it dosnt bother me because we beat the team with pro player's in

 

[ali t]

^^^ word!



muchos thankos to the boys at The Firm for stickin me in the mix........mark, frag, matt, bean, peal and stu....check your bad self chamone.....piece

 

[Dougal]

Whether I played or not is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the point I'm making, Robtatoo.

I think it makes a mockery of the grading system for DIv 3 teams to have people with significant pro experience playing for them.
That's my opinion.

Div 3 is largely for teams who are starting out or trying to find their feet as a team. It should consist of players with very limited experience of tournaments.

Your earlier point about Ollie Lang mystifies me. Do you not think that he and Pete U, and Brian Ravanell (3 pro players I believe) made a material difference to the performance of Bullets??

If it's not going to make a difference, then why use them??

Dougal

 

[Ben Frain]

I agree with Dougal - it's a ****ing farce. Should not be allowed or to rectify the problem just make the entire event an 'open' style one.

Proper 'transfer' style procedures which have proved to work so well against this sort of thing in other leagues should be applied. The only reason they have perhaps not been implemented is that the organisers are worried about stopping the potential amount of players/teams attending, which obviously effects the bottom line.

On a related note, with it being my first millennium I found it mystifying that we played teams from all divisions - I didn't really see the point of the divisions???

 

[Rosie]

hey i do agree with Ben Frain and them lot

last year in Div 3 i know we werent very good, but we got our arses handed to us in a big big way

won one out of ten games

there were sandbaggers in Div 3 last year, glad to see that this year some have voluntarily moved themselves up a division (but yet more have taken their places )

^^^ this is one small reason why we're playing the Welsh Open, not Campaign, because the WO uses seeding, not voluntary divisions! (although i have heard it said it is easy to cheat your way into a lower div...just have a **** first day then play really well the next day). No system is perfect although if the scoreboard is not played, we think this is better.

Originally posted by robtattoo
How the hell do you think teams get better??? Largely by recruiting better players!!!

no teams like the Kellys just train their arses off and do not take the easy way out. taking on pros is only a short term solution.


i think that alls well and good if you can step up a division if you take 2 pro players with you, but to play in div 3 with pro players is wrong

div 3 is meant to be the div for teams who havent played a mil before/ have little mil experience, as what is the point of a new team going and getting the **** blasted out of them 'just for the experience' like we did last year. a lot of newer/up and coming teams dont have that kind of money to blow on a weekend where they dont win a single game, shoot **** loads of paint, and are shot to **** by ramping markers.

I think pros should be allowed to guest in div 1 certainly, maybe div 2. what the hell are pros doing in div 3???

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

I completely agree this is an issue that needs to be adressed better in the MS rules.

First of all, I don't think a Pro player who is still active on his own team, even if it is not playing the event, has ANY business guesting in a lower division. - It upsets the balance of such a division, and makes a mockery of all the hard working teams out there that train hard to rise in the standings of their division.

Secondly, I don't think MS teams - irrespective of division - should be able to recruit players from stateside teams for singular events - even if the player is from a team in the same division.

None of this is done in other sports - where if you move teams, you do so permanently (at least for a significant period of time).

The rules SHOULD leave room for players having been cut from their teams, moving to another team - otherwise we will be unfairly punishing players that have de facto moved teams permanetly, which they should be allowed to do.

I suggest:

- A team is not allowed to have players on their roster, that appear on another and the same team roster, both prior and after the event in question, be that in Millennium Series, NPPL, PSP or NXL.

- If such double rostering occurs, the team forfits all Series points from the event in question.

Nick

 

[Gyroscope]

People respond to incentives.

Negative incentives would include rules that make it unattractive to play down, if they are enforced.

Positive incentives would be significant prizes in upper divisions with much reduced prizes in lower divisions.

It seems to me that in tournament paintball, there is greater incentive to do what it takes to claw your way into a higher placing, while the incentive to play in a higher division is generally weak. The rules enforcement in the US major leagues (with respect to division placement) is getting better. I wonder if it is more cost effective to enforce more stringent rules or if it is more affordable to simply rethink the prize structure to attract people to higher divisions. With sponsorship value so much greater than prize value, it seems like pro teams only have positive incentive to play pro when they have a good chance of taking first or if they are enough of a marquee team that they have brand value added for being a pro team. The latter is what spurred so many teams to struggle to make the NPPL pro cut last year. From some of Robbo's comments, I am wondering if that incentive has not fallen far short for most of the pros.

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Gyro:

I completely agree.

But, those "positive incentives" do not change the problem most are reffering to here, which is Pros getting a free ride to guest with lower ranked teams.

As such, "negative incentives" are needed to some extent.

For instance - nothing in the current rules is stopping a Division 1 team from fielding 2-3 (or more) top US Pro players at an MS event.... which is in fact happening this season..... Heck... nothing is stopping any Yahoo with money enough, from importing an entire Pro team to play Division 3 with him at an event.

I think it is ridiculously unfair to the "serious" teams that work hard at getting better - and better placements - with their own "real" rosters.

Nick

 

[Gyroscope]

How about locking the divisions, then, instead of locking team rosters? Or perhaps for pro division, have a limited number of roster changes available. This would require tracking of players, but that seems to be working in both PSP and the NPPL, so it isn't like there isn't a system to crib from.

 

[Red Ring Inflictor]

If all the major leagues, and maybe the minor leagues, used the APPL system (like PSP) then the problems talked about here would mostly be solved. Then the APPL database would become more complete and there would be more consistency regarding the question of which level each player is.

Then it we would only need to modify the rules to include whatever number of higher division players we want to allow in lower divisions, if any.