NPPL Orange County Pro Team Roster

[Baca Loco]

I don't think so.
The rosters are locked as of the minute after the 4th event.

"After the third event each season (of five events) the Professional Teams are forced to lock in their rosters. They select up to 12 athletes who they want to use on their roster for the last two events. These rosters cannot be altered in any way - no additions, no removals. They must submit their roster prior to play of the 4th event."

Perhaps the above quote is what Boo is referring to as misleading since this apparently didn't happen?

Chuck--while there is nothing in the rules regarding locking rosters that I noticed in an admittedly quick perusal there is about players being on 2 rosters simultaneously--or for the same event. Although perhaps that one is flexible too.

 

[JtJ]

Jeff - are you sure that a player listed on a Pro roster can't go down a division and play with a different team?

I am sure.

I was there at the meeting where this rule was first presented. The exact argument was that we didn't want Dynasty to filter Alex and Ollie down to their second team (I want to say it was called Entourage at the time?? This is back before the 2005 season) to get them up to Pro. I remember people saying that if we didn't do something to stop teams from stacking their semi-pro rosters, it would be a league of 9 Dynasty teams and 9 XSV's.

In 2005, I looked at every other team's roster before I signed mine. I didn't this year. I suppose I could have if I asked, but it didn't seem imporant to me. I would assume that if a player was rostered by more than one team, the league would step in (at the fourth event) and get a straightforward answer.

 

[Chicago]

In 2005, I looked at every other team's roster before I signed mine. I didn't this year. I suppose I could have if I asked, but it didn't seem imporant to me. I would assume that if a player was rostered by more than one team, the league would step in (at the fourth event) and get a straightforward answer.

That assumes players are honest. If they're not honest, they put themselves on two rosters and then later pick the one they want.

Or, you put a player on my roster who is planning on playing semi-Pro, and since there isn't any requirement to lock semi-pro rosters, that player is just stuck since there's no evidence that's not the right listing.

 

[JtJ]

Well, I assume that the NPPL could say, "this player is on two pro rosters" go to the player while he is still in San Diego, and make him pick. Would they catch someone co-existing on a pro and a semi-pro roster....?

 

[Chicago]

Well, I assume that the NPPL could say, "this player is on two pro rosters" go to the player while he is still in San Diego, and make him pick. Would they catch someone co-existing on a pro and a semi-pro roster....?

The rosters are all hand-written on paper, right? And you're dealing with 180+ people. I don't think it's out-of-the-question that they don't notice two people on two different rosters, and certainly not unreasonable that they don't notice someone on a single Pro roster who may want to play Semi-Pro instead, unless they can read minds.

Given all the roster jumping in SD, I wouldn't be surprised if you get to LA and find that there are some players who are not listed on the rosters they think they should be on, and I'm not sure how you deal with that. Doesn't even have to be malicious, with all that roster hopping could have just been general confusion. Even if in San Diego I DID think I was going to play for, say XSV in LA, what's to stop me from getting hired by a semi-pro team trying to make the cut, getting to LA and insisting with the same veractiy I would normally tell the ref that the hit I just got is really bunker rub that I never wanted to be on that roster at all? How is the league going to tell the difference between people who really didn't want to be on rosters, and people who are scamming the system?


If the rosters people played with are not necessarily the rosters they locked, does anyone know what the locked rosters for LA actually are?

 

[JtJ]

The ones listed at the start of this thread?

 

[Chicago]

The ones listed at the start of this thread?

Are you sure? I didn't read the intro paragraph close enough to realize it was a cut and pasted release and not just someone doing their homework, but the release also says those were rosters locked after the 3rd event.

Anyway, I'm getting nit-picky. Hopefully everyone is where they're supposed to be an it's not an issue (and it'll only be an issue because paintball players are difficult.) Although I like the concept of promotion/relegation, I wonder if it's worth the hassle, and also wonder if NPPL didn't give away a chance to raise some funding by hawking franchises. With teams willing to pay each other 10's of thousands for a spot they could lose if they don't play well, NPPL could have put some money in the bank, and engendered some additional league loyalty, by getting the teams financially invested.

On the flipside, I'm not sure how many teams there are left with any money to financially invest.

 

[JtJ]

1. I don't know of many spots that have actually sold for 10's of thousands. I know of only two spots that have sold at all, one was allegedly for a certain amount of product and the other was sold for a lot of cash that has allegedly not been paid. So, I'm not sure there are teams willing & able to pay for spots.

2. I wonder how many teams play in the NPPL precisely because the spots are earned and not bought? That is why we switched from X-Ball to 7-man. If they were going to charge for spots, they'd be in direct competition with the NXL, and most of the major teams of the time were partners in the PSP. Seeing as how the Ironmen, All Americans, Trauma, NYX and Aftershock didn't even play NPPL at first, we can safely assume none of them would have bought franchises. That would have presented an ugly picture back in 2004, when the idea of relegation came about.

 

[Chicago]

You certainly can't have franchises AND relegation - it's one or the other. I suppose you could do something like "If you're in the bottom 3, any of the top 3 semi-pro teams can pay you your franchise fee and take your spot." or something.

I don't think "major teams were partners with PSP", but I do think teams on the "PSP" side of the fence (at least their owners) seem more willing to invest gobs of money in tournaments. You wouldn't see JT or Evil or Zap or Kingman put the kind of money into tournament teams that Smart Parts/DYE/National seem to be willing to. And WDP paying a franchise would just be giving their money to themselves, so that's not helpful either.


The idea that you can take a team and eventually win your way into the Pro league is a romantic concept, but I don't think it's a realistic one. It takes years to do, and paintball players move around a lot quicker than that. So you don't really end up promoting and relegating teams of players, all you're really promoting/relegating is team owners. One team owner gets relegated, his better players get picked up by other Pro teams. Another team owner gets promoted, he picks up other pro players to improve his roster (or he risks just getting relegated again).

And if all you're really doing is promoting and relegating team owners, you might as well just sell the spots to a specific set of team owners and let them do what's already happening anyway, which is moving players up and down individually based on individual skill.



Who cares if the rosters are locked for the last two events of the season to 'make sure the same team wins the spot' when the entire team could change for the following season anyway?

 

[JtJ]

I didn't mean franchise spots and relegation working hand in hand, sorry for being unclear.

I was trying to intimate that many of the teams in the NPPL now may be there because it is a system that rewards results. We left X-ball because we had hit the glass ceiling and would never be anything more than a farm team, whereas 7-man would allow us to play pro.

Then again, that all fell by the wayside in two years.

The idea that you can take a team and eventually win your way into the Pro league is a romantic concept, but I don't think it's a realistic one. It takes years to do, and paintball players move around a lot quicker than that. So you don't really end up promoting and relegating teams of players, all you're really promoting/relegating is team owners. One team owner gets relegated, his better players get picked up by other Pro teams. Another team owner gets promoted, he picks up other pro players to improve his roster (or he risks just getting relegated again).

And if all you're really doing is promoting and relegating team owners, you might as well just sell the spots to a specific set of team owners and let them do what's already happening anyway, which is moving players up and down individually based on individual skill.

I disagree.