PRO VS PRO Superleague

[gaff]

Steve & Robbo

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
Steve:


The proposed game format is more or less in place - just neads a bit of tweaking - and the league structure is also being discussed rigorously..... the MS and NPPL could get this sorted out in a week, if they wanted to !

Nick

Nick (or anyone in the know)

can you explain what this new 'playing format' is proposed to be, as i have heard numerous rumours and all contradict each other, is there any framework design ready for public release? or are we going to have to wait for that too?

 

[duffistuta]

The wait shouldn't be that much longer, but the format is still not finalised - or at least it wasn't on Friday.

I would have thought it'd be ready for public release pretty soon but, as has been said earlier in this thread, there are some key meetings going on this week, so don't hold your breath.

 

[Tom Tom]

Ok I read to about page 6 and started to Skim read so If I sound like an Idiot (Its probably because I am)

From what I am reading from what seems to be both sides of the fence, Some teams are worried about exclusion others are worried too many teams could dilute the Super league into any other league.

First the idea behind this is great. And for me it seems to stop here because of the way as a sport it is structured.

Looking at Soccer as an example of what people a refering back to.
The premier league for each country is based only in that country and while having interantional stars they are still UK/French/German based.
Man Utd
Paris ST. G
Ajax
Real Madrid.

When do these guys meet? in European Cup style comps that are decided on the results of a season or internal cup.

Now there is no internal League in Paintball that would be recognised as a founding basis for this football following comparison so it falls to the MS which is already a European Comp which only a few teams seem to play every leg.

For the Super League to work it does need a cut off of X number of teams.

However people are worried who is chosen.

Well decide on the stucture and put it into place with a set number of teams chosen by organisors as is kinda suggested.

HOWEVER these teams continue to play in the normal Pro league against people like Storm (no connection, dont know anyone not a bias opinion (i hope))
and the Super league is then officially set-up in 2005 with teams whose results are reflected from this seasons placings.

With Nicks ideas of must play 3 here and stateside a criteria for 2005. Make the Super league for 2004 a taster for the media to pull them in to watch the games that they want to see, So these are played one after the other on one field at each event at either the start or end of the official tourney.

In my mind starting it so close to a new season does affect people who had prepared for what they thought, so dont stop them playing in pro this year but for 2005 Super Pro will be a true representation giving everyone a real incentive to play hard for 2004.

Ready for the flames

 

[Wadidiz]

Steve

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
I honestly don't understand your preoccupation with the double elimination scheme?

Do you not recognise, that for that scheme to work, either 8 or 16 (no other number) teams have to be in attendance at everyone one of the 11 events ?

Can you not see how close to impossible that will be to achieve ?

Further - if we are aiming for television (which we are), the double elimination scheme may be elegant for insiders, but way too complex for the casual viewer to understand.

My "preoccupation" with a double-elimination, bracketed scheme has to do with what is exciting and what works.

I was just at the World Cup and all it took was a glance to see how the tournament was progressing. It simply was exciting to track.

All but idiots can look at the results diagram and see what's happeining. At least as easy as looking at the same and trying to calculate which teams have enough points to move on, rather than seeing "Wow! If Dynasty doesn't win their next game against the Dogs, they are out!"

I haven't looked, but was their a single tournament that had less than 8 pro teams in attendance? I know that Joy only had 8, but that was just right for a smaller round.

So I don't think it is impossible; I think it is totally realistic, more exciting and suitable.

Steve

 

[Robbo]

Ya know, the more that democratic principles are allowed to hold sway over this change for next year, the greater the distance we put between what really needs to be done and what is talked about being done.
If it were down to me, I would just let Sergei, Laurent and Ged have free reign to come up with the answers and fack everybody else otherwise we are gonna get bogged down in a mire of multiple opinions, ideas and politics.
We need clarity and direction now not confusion !
Time is not on our side here !!!!!

 

[gaff]

Steve

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff


Gaff:

I am not at liberty to disclose too much.

BUT - I will say this much:

The proposed format is 7 man
The proposed format means playing 4 x 7 minute head to head games in maximum 43 minutes
There is an element of getting more points for quick hangs

ick

thanks Nick.

anymore info that can be furnished, like centre flags? field design parameters?

we need to get this sorted as you say within a matter of days or max 2 weeks or the entire paintball fraternity will be stopping training and preparing for next season so as not to waste time and money on something that could change overnight.

i also endorse your point about letting all teams that are prepared to commit having the opportunity to do so, this i feel will assist the guys and gals that are organising this series with even more objective feedback, and also a more concentrated 'kick up the ass' for teams that need to catch up (us being one) it will effectively be geton the bus or get left behind, but at least all will be given that opportunity form the beginning.

i would assist at any level if required for the good of our sport and also the good of our tournament scene, and i think all teams should put a representative forward for such a role, this way the voice of all is heard not just a select few.

 

[Robbo]

Re: Steve

Originally posted by gaff

i would assist at any level if required for the good of our sport and also the good of our tournament scene, and i think all teams should put a representative forward for such a role, this way the voice of all is heard not just a select few.

Give me the three people I just mentioned to decide the future of paintball over everybody having a say any day of the week !!!!

 

[Robbo]

No, no, no

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
Let ME decide the future of paintball - and have those three pay for it !

Hmmm, I'll get back to you on that one mate.......

 

[Robbo]

But Pete

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
There aren't any democratic principles at work here !

None of us discussing in this thread have any real influence on the final descisions, apart from Magued.

- a wise ruler surrounds himself with advisers that are brighter than himself

The whole purpose of this thread (I HOPE) - is to give the descision makers ample input and ideas, to formulate the format and requirements of the league - and do so quickly !

I hope and trust that the descision makers (other than Magued) are aware of this thread and read its content..... if not this is all just a waste of my time - because we are then just a bunch of insignificant little people discussing for the sake of the discussion !

Nick

Nick, the pinnacle of this call for change is Sergei as you know, his proposal was heard by Ged and Laurent.
I am more than willing to allow those guys decide our future as their combined expertise and experience far outweighs any democratic input that some idealists might think is needed.
It's time to get professional Nick, not accommodating.
We did the 'accommodating' thing last year and look where that got us !

 

[gaff]

Re: But Pete

Originally posted by Robbo

I am more than willing to allow those guys decide our future as their combined expertise and experience far outweighs any democratic input that some idealists might think is needed.

i think they should be allowed to sort it out, but being democratic is a must, because the democratic audience are the ones choosing whether to pay thier money surely! and idealists?? in an ideal world the powers that be should have been expectied to have predicted the course of action required to stay in the lead, not catch up with an ever decreasing timescale! i am not flaming anyone for not foreseeing this catalogue of events, but what happens when next year we find ourselves in the same situation? being proactive in this situation requires the support of many not the preconseived beliefs of the few!