Millennium Series : Prizes for Novice teams please

[goose]

No probs Liz... you are one of the last people I would ever accuse of being out for themselves. That's why I took it back.

The reason why I use Danish basketball (sorry should have explained it before) was because unlike Premiere League football - Danish Basketball is severly screwed up. There are a handfull of paid players - the rest all pay to play. They play it seriously enough but not anywhere near the level it could be/should be. They all find it more fun to play, than practice necessary skills to get better. And it is something that is not taken seriously by the media & therefore there is no money in it.

So I think we can agree that paintball is closer to the pathetic basketball situation here than it is to the Premiere League

I can say these things because I coached for 4 years here, and had to get out of it because it drove be up the wall. Just one of the many things that led to my early insanity.

T.J. every professional sport has it's doormats - just ask the New Jersey Nets (that is until this year). The wonderful thing about true pro sports is that, as long as there is enough funding you can try to pretend and maybe even make a turnaround - again see New Jersey Nets. If this game of ours continues to grow in the manner it is now - I can eventually see it becoming such that, teams without the big bankroll can't compete, and by natural selection/survival of the fitest, will die a slow (perhaps quick) death.

I agree that - I think we want the same thing - I never said I had the best way, only one of the more fair ways. So I guess that makes me more righter (I know it's not proper english but it sounds cool)


goose

 

[Mark Toye-Nexus]

Rushers

Good to see another debate about the age old quandry of Pro or Am, Am or Novice?

I have posted about this before and dont want to go too deep but as it is the Rushers that are being picked on again (last 2 times this has arisen it is 'Rushers' who should go up - ignoring pretty much every other Am team out there!!) I will try and put in my 2 penneth.

I agree that the sandbaggers in the sport do the sport, classification system within the sport, an injustice. I agree that the teams that reach a level to be able to step up should do so - no question and no argument from me.

But when is a team ready (I think we all know sandbaggers when we see them)?

A level of consistency and a certain amount of domination has to be acheived first. The commitment of the team and their willingness should be a given then!!

NBK and Enemy have recently progressed to Pro. They are class acts and NBK got 6th and Enemy have a 9th and a 7th in their first pro outings - they are looking like they have made the step up well.

Ignition and Worms have both also stepped up to Pro. Worms are still trying to find their feet but Ignition seem to be coping - and good on them!!!

NBK won last years Am series (they won 3 events in a row, one second and a 6th), Enemy placing high up too (they made a big impact and made the finals twice along with two 5th places).

What about the Rushers though?? Well we made the semis twice last year, highest place 6th, made no finals and came joint 8th. So we are obvious candidates for the tital sandbaggers?? (we had NO prizemoney last year by the way).

So go up to Pro then?? We have lost several players and have some new ones to replace them and are finding our feet once more. We have 2 semi final placings this year (8th and 5th) and feel confident about getting some finals in. I dont see us as serious Pro contenders at the moment though?

What about other Am teams then?? Well lets take Scalp for instance. Last year they made 3 finals (3rd, 3rd, 2nd) and one semi (6th). They came second in the series. The year before they won the Amateur series title having made the finals on at least 3 or 4 occasions. I may be proved wrong here but the year before that (first series) they came 2nd or 3rd over all too.

So in that case, despite all evidence to the contrary, Rushers are the team to vilify once more??

I note that the UK has, ironically, the most number of Pro teams registered in the Millennium series (8 to date). With no offence to many of these I think that only 3 (or maybe 4) can come close to realistically holding their own at this level. So lets push Rushers up as well??? Hmmm??? Or is the UK being punch bagged here??

We are getting back to holding our own at this level - we have no old pros in our ranks, no-one that has dropped down to bolster the team. We have got where we are, domestically, and in Europe by hard work and not a little expense (for that read debt).

Push us to Pro and the team could do well - on the other hand it could go horribly Pete Tong and another name will bite the dust. Again I say, when the time is right - the team will do it. Not because someones alter ego decides for us.

Mark Toye
Captain, Rushers

 

[Baca Loco]

Look if you'd all just agree

Originally posted by goose

1--This does not help the sport - anymore then sandbagging does - I don't have the 100% foolproof answer, maybe there should be forced promotions/demotions (actually I don't see why a team should be forced to go down - if they enjoy getting their asses kicked week in and week out who are we to judge them)

1A--but the promotions should be based on what players are on the team - not by team name and past perfomance of different players.

2--Baca the problem is entry fee is not equal and sponsorship is not necessarily better at the next level. There are some amateur teams out there with a hell of a lot better sponsorship deal than some pro teams - but maybe if they where forced to move up and not be so successful then some of this "cash & product" would dissapear.

2--I think that the Millennium series and NPPL/PSP/whatever for that matter should be looking to change the way that tournaments are organized. Keep the big 5 tournaments for the top 50 teams who have shown that they cut it - day in and day out - and run smaller regional tournaments for the others, offering the same quality but at on a smaller scale. The larger tournaments would be 1 classification.

3--This is how all other sports are run - baseball, football, soccer, basketball etc. etc. - why should we be any different. You don't see the New York Yankees playing the Team from Joe's garage do you?

4--and it may sound like I am just a "dirty rotten elitist pro ... But when it all comes down to it in the average Millennium tournament 1st place novice is, what, #74 out of 100 teams. I know this sounds cruel - but thems be the facts - if you want prizes go to novice only tournaments - if you want to play against the best, by all means keep coming to the MS events - just don't complain about not getting any prizes for coming in #74. Use the event as a learning tool, a lot of novice teams don't get the chance to see so much talent in one place at one time - use it for some good.

4A--But do true novice teams actually learn anything when they get run over by an Avalanche - not really - a lot of the times things happens so quick they don't know what hit them. I personally think that Millennium series sanctioned regional tournaments would be better - especially if the entry fee where less

5--The reason why I use Danish basketball (sorry should have explained it before) was because unlike Premiere League football - Danish Basketball is severly screwed up. There are a handfull of paid players - the rest all pay to play. They play it seriously enough but not anywhere near the level it could be/should be. They all find it more fun to play, than practice necessary skills to get better. And it is something that is not taken seriously by the media & therefore there is no money in it.

So I think we can agree that paintball is closer to the pathetic basketball situation here than it is to the Premiere League


6--T.J. every professional sport has it's doormats - just ask the New Jersey Nets (that is until this year). The wonderful thing about true pro sports is that, as long as there is enough funding you can try to pretend and maybe even make a turnaround - again see New Jersey Nets.
6A--If this game of ours continues to grow in the manner it is now - I can eventually see it becoming such that, teams without the big bankroll can't compete, and by natural selection/survival of the fitest, will die a slow (perhaps quick) death.

goose

with me what a wonderful world this would be. (To paraphrase Satchmo)

1--then why doesn't the obverse pertain? If a team enjoys kicking ass week in and week out who are we to judge them? And yet you do, don't you? And for the same reason you are concerned about ranking players and placing teams in appropriate divisions but it works both ways! You can't justify a Pro level or an Am level if the majority of the teams participating clearly don't belong.
1A--we aren't gonna agree on this one so I'll let it go. BTDT

2--not a chance in hell given the current tourney format as you artificially--far as they're concerned--limit their economic opportunity.

3--quite right but this too is a fundamental of the current structure and change needs to begin somewhere and in such a manner that it proves to be a positive for as many of the participants, players, teams, organizers, industry, etc. as possible.

4--you are a dirty rotten elitist pro and you are wrong. You elevate every Am team and relegate every Nov team in your own mind on basis of classification and still claim that "sandbagging" is some sort of issue. You can't, in intellectual fairness, have it both ways. There are Nov teams that everyone knows are better than a substantial number of the Ams and vice versa. So that "argument" is a tired old chestnut.
4A--you are also still hung up on Novice as a category for beginners only which it isn't--it may be but it need not be. There is a difference.
Track the scores at Chicago this weekend and see how some of the Novs do against the Ams and Pros. If a Nov wins against an Am or a Pro are they by your definition automatically a sandbagger? I can name four Nov teams that beat Pros in Vegas and none of them have been playing NPPL Nov for even 2 years.
You, and a lot of others, need to rethink what makes a Novice team Novice particularly in context of the Mil Series or NPPL.
Nor did I say entry fees should be less--I said they should the same. As it stands now you are paying for the privilege of moving up a level but who says you earned it? If anyone who can pay Pro can play Pro what does that prove? Nada.

5--that seems to me to be a great argument for CHANGE! And while it may be closer to one now it needn't stay that way.

6--but first you have to be taken seriously--among other things--and the debate over what will ultimately (should it happen at all) make a true professional sport out of paintball is a different debate. But everyone seems to agree that the status quo won't cut it so the question is--what to do?
I am simply suggesting a good jumping off place is to cleanly and in an organized and consistent manner differentiate between the divisions and restrict the "pro" ranks sufficiently to assure level of quality of play.
6A--not unless and until it changes. For starters you won't ever see real Pro paintball until the money comes from someplace other than the players.

 

[Johan]

Spot on Mark!!!!!!

 

[Mark Toye-Nexus]

Thanks Johan

I dont know who TJ is but it would be nice to know.

Having an opinion and stating it is fine.

Doing so behind an alter ego is a little (alot) sad.

'TJ' - thanyou very little

Mark Toye - thats my name and I use it

 

[goose]

Baca...

1--then why doesn't the obverse pertain? If a team enjoys kicking ass week in and week out who are we to judge them? And yet you do, don't you? And for the same reason you are concerned about ranking players and placing teams in appropriate divisions but it works both ways! You can't justify a Pro level or an Am level if the majority of the teams participating clearly don't belong.

Don't really follow you here but I will try - I could care less if a team enjoys kicking ass each week. If they are doing it in the correct division - forget Pro/Am/Nov. - if team A is kicking other teams consistantly over the period of a year AND that team stays together then they should move up to the next level. I have more respect for a team who tries to make a proper attempt at playing up a level than for one who stays at a lesser one for the sake of glory.

Point 2 - agreed - but read what I said - I said looking to change - not change right away. I am thinking in terms of over the next 3-6 years.

3--quite right but this too is a fundamental of the current structure and change needs to begin somewhere and in such a manner that it proves to be a positive for as many of the participants, players, teams, organizers, industry, etc. as possible.

Are we trying to find ways to improve the Millennium series and/or make paintball more respectable as a recognized sport or are we trying to have a game where everyone feels good about themselves. You can't have both quality and great numbers - it dilutes the talent pool - just look at what rapid expansion has done to basketball & baseball in the U.S.

I agree that all people should be allowed to play - but all people don't play in the NBA - most play in their local playground/rec league. Leave the pro level to the pro's. Also upon further review my statment about teams getting trampled each weekend should be ammended to - "actually I don't see why a team should be forced to go down - if they enjoy getting their asses kicked week in and week out - by teams in their own division - who are we to judge them"

4--you are a dirty rotten elitist pro and you are wrong. You elevate every Am team and relegate every Nov team in your own mind on basis of classification and still claim that "sandbagging" is some sort of issue. You can't, in intellectual fairness, have it both ways. There are Nov teams that everyone knows are better than a substantial number of the Ams and vice versa. So that "argument" is a tired old chestnut.

I haven't relegated any team anywhere. I have said that there should only be forced relegation IF and ONLY IF there is not better way. Read my previous posts, I don't believe that one team that gets lucky once or twice is a "sandbagger" but I sure a hell believe that a team that places in the top 4 each tournament for years and doesn't step to the next level is.

4A--you are also still hung up on Novice as a category for beginners only which it isn't--it may be but it need not be. There is a difference.

Far from it - you could call it level Baca for all I care. I look at it as the category that is lowest on the rung of the Millennium tournament ladder.

Track the scores at Chicago this weekend and see how some of the Novs do against the Ams and Pros. If a Nov wins against an Am or a Pro are they by your definition automatically a sandbagger? I can name four Nov teams that beat Pros in Vegas and none of them have been playing NPPL Nov for even 2 years.

If a novice team beats a pro team I will be the first one to congratulate them (as long at isn't against us) if they beat them 8 times out of 10 then I think they are in the wrong division. How long a team plays in the NPPL is immaterial - if they play in the NPPL for 10 years as novice and still can't win a tournament then more power to them for continuing to come back. But if a novice teams wins 5 tournies in a row and come back the next year in the same division WITH THE SAME PLAYERS then something is wrong.

I am simply suggesting a good jumping off place is to cleanly and in an organized and consistent manner differentiate between the divisions and restrict the "pro" ranks sufficiently to assure level of quality of play.

Agreed 100% - but if that high level of quality is not being acheived because some teams do not step up and lesser ones are there instead, this kills the legitimacy argument.

6A--not unless and until it changes. For starters you won't ever see real Pro paintball until the money comes from someplace other than the players.

It is already starting to happen - Dynasty, Russian Legion etc. All of their money may not come from outside the game, however they have it within their means to travel/play/practice more than many teams. The kind of set-up is the future and it is starting. Also the Ton-Tons get a fair amount of support from outside the industry.

Baca - what I maybe failed to state directly - and I hope people get my point now - is that when I talk about a team failing to move to the next level, it is not about a team that wins 1 or even 2 tournaments, it is about a team that has shown consistancy in their play - and an obvious quality better than those team around them. A perfect example of this is the Wikings from Denmark. They played Novice last year, with a whole lot of talent, and they kicked - they also stepped up. If they had continued to play Novice then something would have been tremendously wrong.


goose

P.S. Mark T. - I didn't mean to lump you guys i with the "sandbaggers", you have had some very up & down tournaments over the years and I think your consistancy is almost there. When it comes time, I think you will be a kick ass pro team, but we do not need another Berserks.

 

[Solonor]

Good ideas!

I think the best idea for the future is TJ's ,but at the moment ,it's not possible ,cause Goose's right: we don't wanna lose players.
Just wait a little bit (maybe 2 years?) and all these could be reality ,when the pros'll be pros for real ,and the Am's havin'the pro's condition.

Oh! and I'd like to see prizes in the Novice category ,but I guess that this'll be done in the future soon...
Respect.

 

[Baca Loco]

Baca...

Originally posted by goose

1--Don't really follow you here but I will try - I could care less if a team enjoys kicking ass each week. If they are doing it in the correct division - forget Pro/Am/Nov. - if team A is kicking other teams consistantly over the period of a year AND that team stays together then they should move up to the next level. I have more respect for a team who tries to make a proper attempt at playing up a level than for one who stays at a lesser one for the sake of glory.

2--Point 2 - agreed - but read what I said - I said looking to change - not change right away. I am thinking in terms of over the next 3-6 years.

3--Are we trying to find ways to improve the Millennium series and/or make paintball more respectable as a recognized sport or are we trying to have a game where everyone feels good about themselves. You can't have both quality and great numbers - it dilutes the talent pool - just look at what rapid expansion has done to basketball & baseball in the U.S.

4--I agree that all people should be allowed to play - but all people don't play in the NBA - most play in their local playground/rec league. Leave the pro level to the pro's.
4A-- Also upon further review my statment about teams getting trampled each weekend should be ammended to - "actually I don't see why a team should be forced to go down - if they enjoy getting their asses kicked week in and week out - by teams in their own division - who are we to judge them"

5--I haven't relegated any team anywhere. I have said that there should only be forced relegation IF and ONLY IF there is not better way. Read my previous posts, I don't believe that one team that gets lucky once or twice is a "sandbagger" but I sure a hell believe that a team that places in the top 4 each tournament for years and doesn't step to the next level is.

6--If a novice team beats a pro team I will be the first one to congratulate them (as long at isn't against us) if they beat them 8 times out of 10 then I think they are in the wrong division. How long a team plays in the NPPL is immaterial - if they play in the NPPL for 10 years as novice and still can't win a tournament then more power to them for continuing to come back. But if a novice teams wins 5 tournies in a row and come back the next year in the same division WITH THE SAME PLAYERS then something is wrong.

7--Agreed 100% - but if that high level of quality is not being acheived because some teams do not step up and lesser ones are there instead, this kills the legitimacy argument.

8--It is already starting to happen - Dynasty, Russian Legion etc. All of their money may not come from outside the game, however they have it within their means to travel/play/practice more than many teams. The kind of set-up is the future and it is starting. Also the Ton-Tons get a fair amount of support from outside the industry.

9--Baca - what I maybe failed to state directly - and I hope people get my point now - is that when I talk about a team failing to move to the next level, it is not about a team that wins 1 or even 2 tournaments, it is about a team that has shown consistancy in their play - and an obvious quality better than those team around them. A perfect example of this is the Wikings from Denmark. They played Novice last year, with a whole lot of talent, and they kicked - they also stepped up. If they had continued to play Novice then something would have been tremendously wrong.

1--what I'm trying to say is that if it's appropriate and desireable for teams of demonstrated ability and consistency to move up to assure the quality and competition of the next level then it's an equally valid point to say the plainly worst teams should be moved down so they don't continue to dilute the level of competition where they are obviously unsuited to play.

2--perhaps we just don't foresee the same degree of change necessary to accomplish a similar goal. Time frame I don't disagree with you I just think the stuff we're talking about is only a first and relatively small step.

3--I think you can, at this stage, accomodate both as long as the structure dividing the levels of play is suitably rigorous. And I think it's particularly important because it's ultimately easier for the game to grow and mature from something, ie: the Mil Series and/or NPPL than any attempts to offer something different and expect it to be embraced.

4--I agree but it isn't what happens now. As long as anybody can buy their way into Pro level competition the premise remains unrealized.

4A--the amendment is irrelevant. The fact that they get their asses kicked week in and week out simply proves they don't belong.

5--what I meant was the way you, Goose, regard teams is a factor of their level of play (1st Nov is 74h overall-- is an easy and elitist judgement but unsubstantiated unless everyone plays in the same division) and what I'm trying to say is that given the current system you can't really judge a team by it's level necessarily because NOBODY plays where they belong, EVERYBODY plays where they choose.

6--the whole point of playing "where you belong" is a matter of competitive parity, right? That's all anybody wants, isn't it? Teams that are a fair match competing at an appropriate level against one another. What I'm saying is you don't have that now, you only have the appearance of it now and the only way to get there, or at least closer, is by restricting the topmost level and imposing a system that places teams in an appropriate level. (Not unlike your suggestion about rating players but much less intrusive or compelling as your system would account for every player and team whereas my suggestion only moves the upper and lower teams by rule.)

7--agreed, but only because the present system isn't based on merit. Which is why there has to be some restriction on entry to that level and some way to remove the chaff. Now there are no restrictions and disincentives to moving up.

8--all well and good for them but I just don't see it as anything beyond a transitional model. All it's serving to do now is create a larger gap between the haves and the have nots.

9--I get it, Goose. My point is, and a distinction you made earlier, is that complete freedom of choice for the teams means there are no enforced standards and no standards means the quality of competition suffers. There's just no way around it.

PS--this has been fun. Yeah, I know, I'm weird.

 

[goose]

Baca my man...

... I think we are both try to beat the same dead horse - just from different ends of the animal.

I will try to paraphase the "books" we have written - please correct me if I am wrong.

1) We both want the best competition at the highest level - eventually.
2) We both think that true & proper divisions are necessary for the game to move further. As you said no more playing in the division you choose - but playing in the division you belong.
3) We seem to disagree in regards to what qualities should be looked at when judging whether or not a team should stay in a division or move up & down. For moving up I feel it should be based on consistancy when compared to the other teams in the same division, for moving down - well I guess you could say that if a team is trounced week in and week out by the others in their division they should move down - I will give you that one, especially if you argue "for the good of the game" - but what about if they are good enough to beat the teams moving up from the division below?? I guess you can compare it to any doormat in most professional sports, they may suck in the NBA/Major League/NHL but put them in the CBA/the MLB Farm system/Minor Hockey, and then they are league leaders. Where do they belong? In the relegation system the New Jersey Nets - this years NBA finalists may have been forced to move down last year?
4) We both love the game and only want what is best/fairest.
5) We are both weird

I only have one question for you - you stated that a team should be forced to moved down if they get their asses handed to them regularily. If a team is forced to move up, and they lose players to stronger/richer teams, thus causing them to be beaten regularily and then move down after a year in Division 1, would it not have been a better idea to let the weaker team stay in Division 2, get some more experience (other than that of walking to the dead zone) and possibly move up the next season if they can cut it?

goose

P.S. You going to Toulouse?? It would be great to do this face2face

 

[Baca Loco]

Baca my man...

Originally posted by goose

I only have one question for you - you stated that a team should be forced to moved down if they get their asses handed to them regularily. If a team is forced to move up, and they lose players to stronger/richer teams, thus causing them to be beaten regularily and then move down after a year in Division 1, would it not have been a better idea to let the weaker team stay in Division 2, get some more experience (other than that of walking to the dead zone) and possibly move up the next season if they can cut it?

goose

P.S. You going to Toulouse?? It would be great to do this face2face

All the points made--Agreed!
And yes, I can see my way around some sort of review process should a team believe it isn't in their best interest or consistent with the purpose of promotion.
Unfortunately I won't be going to Toulouse (one of these days tho) as there is a substantial ocean between us. I do think however that the same basic ideas apply equally to Mil Series or NPPL.