Let's do 8 games instead of 10!
- Thread starter Baca Loco
- Start date
Steve
Steve
From another thread on same subject today:Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
Let's go to 1.000 games per event.
- Alternatively, we can keep the debate at a level where we are talking about realistic possibilities....
Nick
Practice what you preach, dude.
Steve
D
duffistuta
Guest
D
duffistuta
Guest
I compete in two other sports, both of which are organised in a similar manner - i.e. event promoters run their events as businesses just like the Millennium - and any notion of equipment legislation or protectionism would not be given the briefest thought by those promoters, despite many of their events having title sponsors, or cartels of sponsors, because the promoters realise it's stupid and the participants wouldn't stand for it.
But you're right, until the players stand up for themselves then they get what they deserve. Goose, Piper, what's the plan?
But you're right, until the players stand up for themselves then they get what they deserve. Goose, Piper, what's the plan?
What irony?
Anyway 20 games is just as valid a suggestion as 1.
Of course I realize that arguing for a lesser number of games is going to be unpopular to say the least. And actually I don't think 10 or 8 games should be high on the list of priorities compared to the other issue about organizing, training and paying for judges.
If resources are limited, which they are, then I am all in favor of directing the resources to better judging. The Cow of Controversy, you yourself and many others have expressed that quality judging is priority number one (after safety).
I think that I'm in a position to see things from a player's, organizer's and judge's perspective because of very recent experiences I've had. No promoter is going to come on here and say things would run smoother and better with 8 games. They would be lambasted as greedy.
But I would rather have 8 well-officiated games than 10 not-so-well officiated.
Steve
Anyway 20 games is just as valid a suggestion as 1.
Of course I realize that arguing for a lesser number of games is going to be unpopular to say the least. And actually I don't think 10 or 8 games should be high on the list of priorities compared to the other issue about organizing, training and paying for judges.
If resources are limited, which they are, then I am all in favor of directing the resources to better judging. The Cow of Controversy, you yourself and many others have expressed that quality judging is priority number one (after safety).
I think that I'm in a position to see things from a player's, organizer's and judge's perspective because of very recent experiences I've had. No promoter is going to come on here and say things would run smoother and better with 8 games. They would be lambasted as greedy.
But I would rather have 8 well-officiated games than 10 not-so-well officiated.
Steve
Nick,
Limited resources should be put towards slightly fewer games with better officiating compared to slightly more games and poorer officiating.
Also, I personally would rather have more teams and two less games, because the limitations imposed by the venues will dictate that a choice must be made between the two.
But this whole discussion is moot because Millennium teams are spoiled and aren't going to settle for less than what they are used to.
And a "premier" format might change that whole traditional way of looking at play-time anyway.
Steve
Limited resources should be put towards slightly fewer games with better officiating compared to slightly more games and poorer officiating.
Also, I personally would rather have more teams and two less games, because the limitations imposed by the venues will dictate that a choice must be made between the two.
But this whole discussion is moot because Millennium teams are spoiled and aren't going to settle for less than what they are used to.
And a "premier" format might change that whole traditional way of looking at play-time anyway.
Steve
I dont knoe if you want a novice players view in this. But here goes.
Personally i think decreasing games will make it easier and also harder for teams. If you was to go from 10 to 8 games you lose those 2 extra games to increase your points and stand a chance in the finals. But it could work the other way as to not playing 2 games you could have potentially lost, if they were still there. In turn meaning no advancing, which sends you walking.
Decreasing the amount of games will see teams really struggling and pushing to advance in the event. Which would make the games more appealing and VERY interesting to watch.
But what IF you was to decrease the time allowed for each game also
Not only would the games be interesting, but damn how far would they be pushing to their limits to run an extremely fast paced game.
Other than that decreasing the games would result in very good games, but may cause some fuss to the guys who come down to pay for 10 games and play 10 games. As oppose to pay for 10 games play 8
But go for it, you can only experiment. I' say get it right now, rather than later.
Darren
Personally i think decreasing games will make it easier and also harder for teams. If you was to go from 10 to 8 games you lose those 2 extra games to increase your points and stand a chance in the finals. But it could work the other way as to not playing 2 games you could have potentially lost, if they were still there. In turn meaning no advancing, which sends you walking.
Decreasing the amount of games will see teams really struggling and pushing to advance in the event. Which would make the games more appealing and VERY interesting to watch.
But what IF you was to decrease the time allowed for each game also
Not only would the games be interesting, but damn how far would they be pushing to their limits to run an extremely fast paced game.
Other than that decreasing the games would result in very good games, but may cause some fuss to the guys who come down to pay for 10 games and play 10 games. As oppose to pay for 10 games play 8
But go for it, you can only experiment. I' say get it right now, rather than later.
Darren
If you decrease the number of games and the time each is played then I'll be less inclined to travel and spend money to just play a maximum of 56 minutes of paintball (8 games at 7 mins) !
I go to tournie to enjoy paintball hence I want to play lots of it.
The other thing on a non paintball but slightly related subject ... I have been fighting judo since a child (20 odd years) and have watched the powers that be who claim to running the sport in it's best interest ruin it with rule changes to make the sport "more appealing to outsiders" (10 years on and still no real high profile coverage! ... just some really sh1te rules and formats) ... got to be careful you don't ruin it for those who are playing it now.
also short games are biased towards fast teams, so what about the 'boring' teams who like to work the field at a much slower pace. soon the only people playing will be young fit people with no place for the slow oldies who still want to play (guess what I am!!)
I go to tournie to enjoy paintball hence I want to play lots of it.
The other thing on a non paintball but slightly related subject ... I have been fighting judo since a child (20 odd years) and have watched the powers that be who claim to running the sport in it's best interest ruin it with rule changes to make the sport "more appealing to outsiders" (10 years on and still no real high profile coverage! ... just some really sh1te rules and formats) ... got to be careful you don't ruin it for those who are playing it now.
also short games are biased towards fast teams, so what about the 'boring' teams who like to work the field at a much slower pace. soon the only people playing will be young fit people with no place for the slow oldies who still want to play (guess what I am!!)