Okay, on this whole reunification thing...
- Thread starter Furby
- Start date
So that's the sort of thing you imagine in your spare time is it, Pete?
Surely the NPPL will resist any significant format change because it will play merry hell will event presentation. The move from 5 fields to 6 created some probably unexpected changes. How does any sort of Xball Lite fit in with 200 teams playing 7 minute games on a 9 minute turnaround? And if you only play the Lite as an elite Pro type format given promo and relegation how do you bump up teams who aren't even playing the game? Etc. Etc.
Gyro--I'm with you. Maybe somebody will cut the brake lines on his damn bus. With any luck Marv Albert will be in the back sucking on some toes and we'll get a twofer.
It all boils down to rationalisation (MaDonaldization)
Ritcher, expert in social marketing "the unique is replaced by the generic", on the grounds that it is easier to sell the generic to the largest number of people.
People like calculated predictable elements, so to appeal to the mass market then we need to standardise the whole process. As said before we need to turn paintball into american football rugby etc.
Its difficult to explain 7 man paintball to people, its over too damn quick
However x ball or X ball lite gives the spectator the chance to "learn" what is happening.
I believe 7 man is a done format and it is only the powers that be who struggle to grasp the fundemental problems due to inflated egos etc.
Basically break a concept down to its most basic levels and you will have a product that appeals to the mass market. PEOPLE LIKE PREDICTIVENESS!!
Ritcher, expert in social marketing "the unique is replaced by the generic", on the grounds that it is easier to sell the generic to the largest number of people.
People like calculated predictable elements, so to appeal to the mass market then we need to standardise the whole process. As said before we need to turn paintball into american football rugby etc.
Its difficult to explain 7 man paintball to people, its over too damn quick
However x ball or X ball lite gives the spectator the chance to "learn" what is happening.
I believe 7 man is a done format and it is only the powers that be who struggle to grasp the fundemental problems due to inflated egos etc.
Basically break a concept down to its most basic levels and you will have a product that appeals to the mass market. PEOPLE LIKE PREDICTIVENESS!!
add a Jackson Breast Cam and...
Here's one of the things I looked at for the Genesis format:
(remember, this thing went together between 92 and 2000)
games times were 20-25 minutes with a contemplated drop to 15 minutes.
6 game prelims. Players therefore received a guaranteed maximum playing time of 2 hours and 30 minutes. Average that out (based on the fact that most games lasted 15 miunutes or less and assume that 50% of the players only lasted 50% of that time) and you're looking at maybe 30 to 50 minutes of actual playing time per event. Double that if you were in the final 4.
Teams were paying 1800 bucks for 10 hours worth of play (1 hour per player), maximum; most were paying 18k for 5 hours.
What that meant was that two games of a Genesis style format gave the teams about the same playing time.
Now, with 5 minute games times (assume everyone lasts the entire game and everyone is in the finals) we're back to ten hours of player game time. MAX or - most teams see maybe 140 minutes of player game time.
The genesis format was three periods of 7 minutes each. Why? An edited presentation could fit into a 30 minute time slot - with more than industry accepted standards for commercials. At the time (and I presume still) broadcasters were hunting for shorter programming to fill in - making it an easier sell. You could always schedule 2 or 4 matches back-to-back to fill up a two hour time slot and
a LIVE presentation of the game fits into a two hour time slot. Again with above industry standards for commercial breaks and etc.
So, here you have a format that is VERY flexible in regards to television requirements, meets canned or live requirements and is potentially a perfect 'filler' program.
Plus, one game gives a team 147 minutes of player game time - 1 minute more per player than the average with current 7 player games.
Play two or more, and your players are getting much more field time with little or no increase in cost.
I also labored over a league schedule system for 16 teams that kept travel to an absolute minimum - as little as 3 trips away per team for a full season.
jeez, another novel...
Here's one of the things I looked at for the Genesis format:
(remember, this thing went together between 92 and 2000)
games times were 20-25 minutes with a contemplated drop to 15 minutes.
6 game prelims. Players therefore received a guaranteed maximum playing time of 2 hours and 30 minutes. Average that out (based on the fact that most games lasted 15 miunutes or less and assume that 50% of the players only lasted 50% of that time) and you're looking at maybe 30 to 50 minutes of actual playing time per event. Double that if you were in the final 4.
Teams were paying 1800 bucks for 10 hours worth of play (1 hour per player), maximum; most were paying 18k for 5 hours.
What that meant was that two games of a Genesis style format gave the teams about the same playing time.
Now, with 5 minute games times (assume everyone lasts the entire game and everyone is in the finals) we're back to ten hours of player game time. MAX or - most teams see maybe 140 minutes of player game time.
The genesis format was three periods of 7 minutes each. Why? An edited presentation could fit into a 30 minute time slot - with more than industry accepted standards for commercials. At the time (and I presume still) broadcasters were hunting for shorter programming to fill in - making it an easier sell. You could always schedule 2 or 4 matches back-to-back to fill up a two hour time slot and
a LIVE presentation of the game fits into a two hour time slot. Again with above industry standards for commercial breaks and etc.
So, here you have a format that is VERY flexible in regards to television requirements, meets canned or live requirements and is potentially a perfect 'filler' program.
Plus, one game gives a team 147 minutes of player game time - 1 minute more per player than the average with current 7 player games.
Play two or more, and your players are getting much more field time with little or no increase in cost.
I also labored over a league schedule system for 16 teams that kept travel to an absolute minimum - as little as 3 trips away per team for a full season.
jeez, another novel...
Kris,
x-ball is also impossibl;e to explain to the uneducated - it happens too fast.
(and I think that the same thing will be said about UAPL - but we'll see and for Milt's sake, I hope not)
two evenly matched teams will deadlock in a shoot fest - that's the bane of center flag because all the benefits are to be had on the defensive side of play.
there's too little movement and, when it does occur, its too fast and too short.
too much paint flying for no apparent reason.
x-ball is also impossibl;e to explain to the uneducated - it happens too fast.
(and I think that the same thing will be said about UAPL - but we'll see and for Milt's sake, I hope not)
two evenly matched teams will deadlock in a shoot fest - that's the bane of center flag because all the benefits are to be had on the defensive side of play.
there's too little movement and, when it does occur, its too fast and too short.
too much paint flying for no apparent reason.
I have to say, Genesis is a fitting name given the prevalence of the number 7 in the format. So you still have not fully explained the format, but what I gather is :
-Three 7 minute periods
-7 players on the field
-Scoring system just like XBall
You mentioned the clock stopping for penalties, how does that work? And what about the time in between points? 2 minutes like XBall; does the clock run?
Steve
Well - let me put it another way, by way of examples that are both far fetched:
If paintball was a 1 vs 1 sport, it would be very easily televised.
If paintball was 30 vs 30 sport it would be impossible to televise in a coherent manner.
The point of the matter is, that because paintball lack a ball (or something similar) that not only spectators, but also the teams playing, focus on.... it is imperative that we cut team size down to a manageble size, that allows spectators (especially watching via TV) to get a general feel of the game easily.
3-man would be even better, but would never fly in the paintball community, which afterall IS important also - we do not want to destroy the sport to get on TV.
So - with that principle in mind, I think 5-man is the better format for TV.
Add to that, that when everyone accepts a format needs a certain longevity to be suited for TV, and that 7 minute games are too short to fill that requirement, we invariably end up with some kind of "X-ball Lite" format...... in terms of economics for anyone below Pro level, it will be a very significant cost increase, if they suddenly have to bring 9-10 players to an event instead of 7, simply because the format calls for fast turnovers to keep the spectators entertained.
You MIGHT come up with a format where the turnover was long enough for another game to be played inbetween - but that would put you right back where you are with regular 7-man today - and would not really be all that exiting.
Nick
Well - let me put it another way, by way of examples that are both far fetched:
If paintball was a 1 vs 1 sport, it would be very easily televised.
If paintball was 30 vs 30 sport it would be impossible to televise in a coherent manner.
The point of the matter is, that because paintball lack a ball (or something similar) that not only spectators, but also the teams playing, focus on.... it is imperative that we cut team size down to a manageble size, that allows spectators (especially watching via TV) to get a general feel of the game easily.
3-man would be even better, but would never fly in the paintball community, which afterall IS important also - we do not want to destroy the sport to get on TV.
So - with that principle in mind, I think 5-man is the better format for TV.
Add to that, that when everyone accepts a format needs a certain longevity to be suited for TV, and that 7 minute games are too short to fill that requirement, we invariably end up with some kind of "X-ball Lite" format...... in terms of economics for anyone below Pro level, it will be a very significant cost increase, if they suddenly have to bring 9-10 players to an event instead of 7, simply because the format calls for fast turnovers to keep the spectators entertained.
You MIGHT come up with a format where the turnover was long enough for another game to be played inbetween - but that would put you right back where you are with regular 7-man today - and would not really be all that exiting.
Nick
1-on-1 is just as bad as 30-on-30. Your measure can't simply be "easy to understand". That's not sufficient - it has to be easy ENOUGH to not turn off the initial viewer, but it also has to have enough depth to keep them involved after the initial period.
You might be able to do a season of one-on-one, but then it would be boring for everyone and die. 3-on-3 is the same problem - the field is too small and it's just shooting over and over again. I like everything Milt has done organizationally for WPL/UAPL, but the format, and the show, suck.
5-7 people is about right. I don't think the ball is important in paintball anymore than it is important in NASCAR - it just makes life on the cameramen and the editors easier, because the point of interest is generally easy to find (next to the ball). NASCAR and paintball still have a point of interest, it just moves around - NASCAR doesn't broadcast the whole track, they just broadcast where the passing or the crashes or the pits are. Similarly, paintball wants to broadcast an overview of the field some of the time, then switch to shots of the points of interest when they happen - the shot over the shoulder of a player who shoots someone out, or the shot from behind a player about to be bunekred, or the overhead shot of the snake when there are two players in it dueling it out. You need 5-7 players on the field to get this kind of action and put it in context of a strategy and have something for your commentators (and press etc) to talk about and make the sport interesting.
XBall is good. 7-man xball (or some other 7man format like Steve is suggesting) may be better.
Regardless, less is not better than more - there's a middleground with the right number, probably between 5 and 7. How about 6-man?
As for unification, unification is bad. Having two leagues is the only thing that's kept these people honest.
You might be able to do a season of one-on-one, but then it would be boring for everyone and die. 3-on-3 is the same problem - the field is too small and it's just shooting over and over again. I like everything Milt has done organizationally for WPL/UAPL, but the format, and the show, suck.
5-7 people is about right. I don't think the ball is important in paintball anymore than it is important in NASCAR - it just makes life on the cameramen and the editors easier, because the point of interest is generally easy to find (next to the ball). NASCAR and paintball still have a point of interest, it just moves around - NASCAR doesn't broadcast the whole track, they just broadcast where the passing or the crashes or the pits are. Similarly, paintball wants to broadcast an overview of the field some of the time, then switch to shots of the points of interest when they happen - the shot over the shoulder of a player who shoots someone out, or the shot from behind a player about to be bunekred, or the overhead shot of the snake when there are two players in it dueling it out. You need 5-7 players on the field to get this kind of action and put it in context of a strategy and have something for your commentators (and press etc) to talk about and make the sport interesting.
XBall is good. 7-man xball (or some other 7man format like Steve is suggesting) may be better.
Regardless, less is not better than more - there's a middleground with the right number, probably between 5 and 7. How about 6-man?
As for unification, unification is bad. Having two leagues is the only thing that's kept these people honest.
Chicago
I never sais that 1on1 was good - I said it was easily televised..... which is an altogether different issue.... At any rate, I was just trying to make a point clear.
The point being, that paintball is such a complicated sport for TV, because players tend to hide (wisely) behind bunkers.
The more people you pile onto a field, the more bunkers you need (obscuring the view) - and the more difficult it becomes to televise in a coherent manner for the "paintball-uninformed public".... because of the extra individuals you need covered, because of the extra obstacles and because of the larger field size.
The number of players on a team is obviously only ONE out of many considerations when selecting a format... but now that we are (hopefully) trying to find a universal format for the future, I believe it is fairly important we try and take all issues into consideration, rather than having to make a significant change again in a couple of years.
So no - "less is not better" - but less IS "easier".... and from there you move up until you find the number that satisfies the most issues.
I see no real reason why 7 is such an important number - and I am yet to hear anyone make a case for it, except saying "I like 7-man".
On the other hand - by far the most paintball teams in the world are based around the 5-man format already (except the few that play NPPL and Millennium Series) - and as such - if the object is to create a format that works at all levels - 5-man would be the natural way to go.
I'd be interested in hearing why 6-man is such a good idea - and why it is "better" than 5-man?
Nick
I never sais that 1on1 was good - I said it was easily televised..... which is an altogether different issue.... At any rate, I was just trying to make a point clear.
The point being, that paintball is such a complicated sport for TV, because players tend to hide (wisely) behind bunkers.
The more people you pile onto a field, the more bunkers you need (obscuring the view) - and the more difficult it becomes to televise in a coherent manner for the "paintball-uninformed public".... because of the extra individuals you need covered, because of the extra obstacles and because of the larger field size.
The number of players on a team is obviously only ONE out of many considerations when selecting a format... but now that we are (hopefully) trying to find a universal format for the future, I believe it is fairly important we try and take all issues into consideration, rather than having to make a significant change again in a couple of years.
So no - "less is not better" - but less IS "easier".... and from there you move up until you find the number that satisfies the most issues.
I see no real reason why 7 is such an important number - and I am yet to hear anyone make a case for it, except saying "I like 7-man".
On the other hand - by far the most paintball teams in the world are based around the 5-man format already (except the few that play NPPL and Millennium Series) - and as such - if the object is to create a format that works at all levels - 5-man would be the natural way to go.
I'd be interested in hearing why 6-man is such a good idea - and why it is "better" than 5-man?
Nick
The reason is this, there is a new initiative by Dave YB who has had had extensive talks with Ged Green, on the back of those talks an email went out to all the people directly concerned (and a couple of people indirectly concerned) with any such unification, calling for a meeting in Orlando at World Cup.
In parallel to Dave's initiative, Richmond was endeavouring to put together an industry incentive package whereby a unified sponsor program would put pressure on both leagues to unite.
The backdrop to both these initiatives comes in the form of that age old incentive, money, or in this case, lack of it.
There's nothing quite like money to focus one's mind on what should and should not be done. Last year's turnover figures for the majority of the big hitters was down with the short term forecast similarly gloomy.
In the light of so many pressures being bought to bear Gyro, in my opinion, and after talking to a fair few of the people involved (from both sides) I think unification will happen.
I am supposed to be going to that meeting in Orlando and much as my vanity would love to think I could influence (probably more like effluence) anything that goes on, it will be Ged and the PSP guys who will do any deal and since this money issue affects them all, I think next year we will have a unified Yank circuit, with the NXL running alongside if it survives.
The Millennium will then HAVE TO jump on board the unified bandwagon and all the piddly little details that so many people seem to get so strung out on can get sorted out afterwards.