Millennium/NPPL clash

[sjt19]

Magued,

Woul it be right to say that you value the NPPL over the Millennium? I am only asking as you could ask the NPPL if they will give you an average score if you get nowhere with the MS Board. Seeing as it is their fault that this situation has arisen in the first place.

 

[Robbo]

We were not allowed to vote on the priciple of teams being excluded if they missed the first event. This was mandated by the board prior to the meeting,

 

[Robbo]

This was never a question of valuing one league over another, it was all about bad timing in terms of dates coming out and tickets having to be purchased and assurances having to be made.

 

[Magued]

Originally posted by sjt19
Magued,

Woul it be right to say that you value the NPPL over the Millennium? I am only asking as you could ask the NPPL if they will give you an average score if you get nowhere with the MS Board. Seeing as it is their fault that this situation has arisen in the first place.

Yes.

The reason is the competition. Looking at the CL team and the NPPL teams I value a good result in the NPPL much higher than a Millennium result. Its all about the teams we play not whos in charge or the politics.

Saying that we still want to support our home legue the MS as we have a long history together and have been a part of its succes. Both thru the Joy Masters and the fact that we have played the MS since the start.

Magued

 

[Christian-Malera]

Originally posted by Magued
Frank.

Sorry I wrote Christian! I never said Menace tried to squeeze us out, I really didnt know witch teams voted what.

On the other hand now when I read Christians reply I guess Menace did try to squeeze us out....

And why should Menace try that? Why should Menace try to make the Millennium lock the rooster from the first event? Beacuse other sports do that?

What other sports? And why did you guys come up with this now? When have any paintball legue locked the rooster from the first event?
Let me guess, its time to get very seriuos as a sport and lock the roster. If it means that 3 of your hardest opponent will suffer then its something that you guys have to live with huh?

Frank - Regarding us picking up the trophy as soon as our first team is on the field. I dont know about that. The only thing I can go by is history. Us placing first and second on the Nordic series 2005 with this format and the EXL results for 2004.

Magued

The reason behind a rooster lock is so that you can't "buy" a team during the season, in my mind that is a positiv thing, ranking, transfers etc.
All team sports has some kind of rooster lock or transfer period....?
"What other paintball league locked the rooster from the first event?" None I guess, and neither is Millenium it is after the first event.

You are entitled to believe what you like, but my opinion would be the same no matter what team it would affect, believe it or not.

 

[Chicago]

Originally posted by sjt19
That was my initial suggestion at the meeting, but now I have changed my mind. Each position in the league at the end of the season is representative of how consistent or inconsistent a team has been during the year. No league in teh world runs a best of 3 out of 40 results etc....

Are you kidding? Almost NO leagues award consistently performing well. They may not count the "best of" scores, but:

- Most sports dn't have a series of tournaments, they have a series of matches, and
- They do something that accomplishes the same thing that counting best-of does for a tournament series: They let anyone who wins 30-60% or so of their regular season games into the playoffs.

It doesn't matter if a eam just barely makes the cutoff after losing 40% of their games, they can still be the league champion if they win all their games after that.

See: Superbowl. The teams in it had consistently mediocre regulr-season performance, but did well in the playoffs.

 

[Fat-Frank]

Originally posted by Magued
Frank.

Sorry I wrote Christian! I never said Menace tried to squeeze us out, I really didnt know witch teams voted what.

On the other hand now when I read Christians reply I guess Menace did try to squeeze us out....

And why should Menace try that? Why should Menace try to make the Millennium lock the rooster from the first event? Beacuse other sports do that?

1. What other sports? And why did you guys come up with this now? When have any paintball legue locked the rooster from the first event?
Let me guess, its time to get very seriuos as a sport and lock the roster. If it means that 3 of your hardest opponent will suffer then its something that you guys have to live with huh?

2. Frank - Regarding us picking up the trophy as soon as our first team is on the field. I dont know about that. The only thing I can go by is history. Us placing first and second on the Nordic series 2005 with this format and the EXL results for 2004.

Magued

First off all i dont have any rules in front of me, and i dont know what exactly the decision is on: when, where or if it will be any locked roster.

1. Maybe familiar sports too you as a swede: Soccer, hockey, handboll for instance.
And it`s not like we call the Millenium Board and says: Hi, its Menace, could you please lock the roster now!
I beleive there where talked about locking the roster to 18 persons or something, and they did not all have to attend first event.
I think the suggestion was was to keep teams from not bringing "ringers" in the end.

(Christian answered this while i was writing & working beetween )

2. Is there a decission on how to count the points in the end? If there should be just the best 4, then that should`t be a problem for you then!

If you think there is some kind of hidden agenda with Menace included to keep you out of the league, then you`re totally wrong.

Some of the best and most fun matches we had last year was against XSV, and i beleive they are of your standard.
I think its more fun to play against the best, so because of that i would rather see all 3 of you in the Champions League.

I have not implied anywhere that you should not bee able to compete in the CL. If you read my posting further up, you would see that my suggestion was that you should be able to play just 4, and still be in the league.

And i think its the MS that says you have to attend every event now.

All this is a result of NPPL & MS not cooperating. Not any teams.

For me this is definitley not a personal thing, just my opinion on how i see things.
As said before english is not my first language, so maybe things can be understood differently than i mean it to be?

Feel free to send me a PM with your phone nr. if you beleive there is misunderstandings that need to be sorted out.
Swedish is easier.

 

[Chicago]

Originally posted by Magued
Yes.

The reason is the competition. Looking at the CL team and the NPPL teams I value a good result in the NPPL much higher than a Millennium result.

How about a good result in Millenium vs. an average result in NPPL?

 

[Chicago]

Originally posted by Christian-Malera
The reason behind a rooster lock is so that you can't "buy" a team during the season, in my mind that is a positiv thing, ranking, transfers etc.
All team sports has some kind of rooster lock or transfer period....?
"What other paintball league locked the rooster from the first event?" None I guess, and neither is Millenium it is after the first event.

Now you're ust being silly. If your motivation is truly to have paintball be like other professional sports, trying to restict buying rosters is exactly what you DON'T want to do. If you want paintball to be like other BAR LEAGUE sports, then you might have a point.

Buying players is exactly what Pro sports do. You try to have the best team so you can make the most money to buy the best players to have the best team to make the most money. I can't think of ANY Pro sport that locks rosters for the first event, most of them it's about mid-season (as it is destructive to playoffs to having players hopping all over the place at that point).

The WHOLE POINT of professional sports is that you can *BUY* talent. If you couldn't there wouldn't be any pro athletes.

Your timing is suspect, and your claimed reason for wanting the change doesn't hold up.

 

[sjt19]

Originally posted by Chicago
Are you kidding? Almost NO leagues award consistently performing well. They may not count the "best of" scores, but:

- Most sports dn't have a series of tournaments, they have a series of matches, and
- They do something that accomplishes the same thing that counting best-of does for a tournament series: They let anyone who wins 30-60% or so of their regular season games into the playoffs.

It doesn't matter if a team just barely makes the cutoff after losing 40% of their games, they can still be the league champion if they win all their games after that.

See: Superbowl. The teams in it had consistently mediocre regulr-season performance, but did well in the playoffs.

Thank you for being so condescending, but are you kidding?? Seriously?

What League do you watch???

In the Uk and Europe, EVERY sport that runs a league counts every result. Football, Rugby, Cricket EVERY SPORT.

The very nature of a league meas that every team result means something.

American sports are ludicrous in that respect then Chi. How can a team that loses 40% of their games become champion at the end of the series? It beggars belief. They are clearly not the best over a long period of time, merely the best on the day.

The winning of a league in the USA cant mean much then, as consistency is not rewarded.

Look at Chelsea, won the Premiership last season by being the most consistent and best team in England. The team that came 7 in the league was not crowned champion after a series of playoffs.

I do agree with what you wrote in the post above this though, in response to Christian