Question about US vs Europe

[raehl]

Right...

Finding the right price point is EXACTLY what NPPL/PSP should do. What I'm arguing (in addition to needing to find the right price point, which I think is higher) is that NPPL/PSP already has too many teams playing for the facilities they can acquire with the money and time they have.

This is fine if you don't mind playing on rock-strewn fields ala Vegas. If you want a facility that can accomodate the teams in a manner they like *AND* that allows the sport to be appropriately represented to the spectator or on TV, then you're going to have to change something - either lower the number of teams and get a cheaper/smaller venue or raise the prices to get a larger venue. If you just want to get all the teams you can done in 3 days on the cheapest field you can find, then the current pricing is probably adequate.

I agree that vendors pay more for access to more teams. This still comes with the caveat of providing a quality event for those teams, AND the caveat that eventually the whole vendor thing is going to have to go. You're exactly right - top sponsorred players don't need to buy equipment at events, so if you want a league with the top teams (for TV, for example), you're going to have to figure out how to run it without having to pay for it by selling athletic equipment on location.

A common problem with the paintball industry is too many people look at it from the context of - well, the paintball industry. If we want growth, we have to stop doing things because "That's the way paintball is done" and start doing things because "That's the way sports are done." We're never going to get treated like a sport if we continue to do the things the way we do them now because we're not acting like a sport.


- Chris

 

[Buddha 3]

Okay, back again, and less steamed.... Good to see that some courtesy has returned to this thread.

One thing you must not forget is that paintball at this moment does not have the same exposure as, for instance, football, soccer, formula 1, whatever.
If you were to run an event as you suggest with only the top teams attending, particularly the ones with the big sponsorship, then it's safe to assume that there will be a whole lot less audience. Why? Because most spectators at a tourney are players that are not playing at the moment. Also, because paintball hardly gets televised, the main place sponors want to see there stuff in action, is at a well attended tourney, because that's where it has the biggest impact. what happens is when you have an event that only gets visited by (for argument's sake) the top pro teams, somebody will step up to fill the gap that's been left behind. Most likely this guy will also have a pro division in his event. And guess where the sponsors will tell their teams to go? Not difficult to answer...
I agree that your vision will work with a number of other sports, but not with paintball as it is now. Perhaps one day we will have invitationals, but not for a while... What you say about 'that's the way paintball is done' I agree with that. I've said it on a number of occasions that we need to look at other sports, and learn from the way they are doing things. But we can't change the world overnight. For all of the reasons mentioned in this thread, things will probably remain as they are for a while. The sport needs some major exposure, and subsequent growth before we can have any of your visions realised.

 

[Urban]

I'm curious.....

....you talk about rising the entrance price to restrict the number of entrants by virtue of economic elimination. Fair enough, I can't be bothered to sit around watching someone else play paintball all day so I, and I'll bet massive proportion of other 'ballers, won't bother attending. Basically the Pro's will end up playing their own events, with family and friends watching.

That will remove the need for Trade Stands. No point having the latest thing on display when the only people around probably all ready have it or can't buy it due to sponsorship agreements.

You're also going to split the sport along economic lines, not something I'm entirely convinced is a good idea though I can't quite put my finger on why... possibly because it smacks of creating a 'class' structure based on cash.

Also, because I don't know, what happens to the money made at these events? I only ask because as far as I can tell, raising the entrance fee is only going to line someone's pocket, not help the sport in anyway?

Urban

 

[Buddha 3]

Hey Urban,

In raehl's defense, I can see what he's trying to say.
A split along economic lines is not a bad thing per se. After all, the same thing happens in most other sports. Manchester United is able to afford better players than for instance Twatville United. That's why they play in the bigleague, and Twatville doesn't (the fact they don't exist has nothing to do with it ). The problem is, like you said, that the only people that will turn up are the extra players, and possibly the family of the players, and one or two drunks who have nothing better to do, because paintball is not a high profile sport at the moment. This would probably force the organisers to raise the entree fees to such levels that the sponsors will say 'To hell with this! I'll send my boys elsewhere!' Because there is to little to be gained from the event to justify the costs, since the gear that their team uses will hardly be profiled.
See my previous post for further explanation.

 

[Urban]

Originally posted by Buddha 3
Hey Urban,

In raehl's defense, I can see what he's trying to say.
A split along economic lines is not a bad thing per se. After all, the same thing happens in most other sports. Manchester United is able to afford better players than for instance Twatville United. That's why they play in the bigleague, and Twatville doesn't (the fact they don't exist has nothing to do with it ). The problem is, like you said, that the only people that will turn up are the extra players, and possibly the family of the players, and one or two drunks who have nothing better to do, because paintball is not a high profile sport at the moment. This would probably force the organisers to raise the entree fees to such levels that the sponsors will say 'To hell with this! I'll send my boys elsewhere!' Because there is to little to be gained from the event to justify the costs, since the gear that their team uses will hardly be profiled.
See my previous post for further explanation.

I can also see what he's getting at (still no mention of who's pocket the cash is going in tho )...

But I would hope the 'sport' would be split along 'ability' lines, not cash.

If I were to win the lottery, for example, I could fully sponsor the team I play for without even denting the earned interest (no complaints from the missus that way ). This means we'd be able to play all the big tourneys that the other teams, maybe even better teams, couldn't afford too. We could say "Ooo.. let's call ourselves Pro", purely because almost everyone else we'd be playing against would be and because we can afford too, win or lose.

In all honesty that would make a mockery of the whole sport but that is the kind of risk you take when you push the split along economic lines... and one day a simple 'player' may well have the cash to do exactly what I've described (me hopefully ).

This sport is bad enough the way as it is without pushing it any further.....

Urban

 

[Buddha 3]

Well, IF paintball develops enough to be divided along such lines, hopefully there'll be some sort of governing body that'll regulate what team is classed as pro, and what team isn't. As it is now the whole thing is a joke when you think about it. If all the guys in a team fork out a few more tenners, you could easily register as pro, even it were the first time you played a tourney, or played at all for that matter.
Also, when there is a split along economical lines, but no organistation regulating things as mentioned above, then I think that in the end the 'proper' pro players (the ones with the skills) will end up in the right league. Simply because team 'Made-o-money' would hold big fat contracts in there faces, as would team 'Stacks-o-cash'. Teams like 'Broke-as-a-joke' would quickly be devoid of quality players and would end up in another league.

It's sort of happening already. For instance, the Lundqvist brothers play for Ground Zero, but were already playing for a pro team back home. So what would be the incentive to meve to GZ? probably better deals on sponsorship. Things like flighs paid for and whatnot.

 

[Urban]

Maybe that organisation will come at the same time as Professional Marhsalls....?

As a slight aside...

Originally posted by Buddha 3
Teams like 'Broke-as-a-joke' would quickly be devoid of quality players and would end up in another league.

Not just this sport, but almost all team sports, seem to have a very strange idea of teamwork and team spirit. Paintball seems very similar to football in as much as any decent players seem to auto gravitate, through poaching or deliberate effort in their part, up towards the Pro ranks. We play as a team but many seem to have pure self interest at heart when it comes to Lob Bong or whoever saying "oo, your quite good, fancy playing with us?".

Personally I think Paintball would be a damn sight more competetive if the players that get snapped up by the higher teams decided to show some loyalty, stay put, and pull their current team up with them rather than just take the easy option and bail upwards coz they can.

"Self first, team second" seem to be the order of the day in most 'team' sports.

Urban

 

[raehl]

No...

I'm not saying raise prices so that only the pros are willing to pay them. If you do that, you've screwed up. I'm saying that the events are about as big as they can get to have decent facilities at these prices and still get all the teams through in 3 days - so raise your prices to keep attendenc from getting so large that your event is crap quality for everyone. Actually, I question the wisdom of a three day tournament - yet another obstacle to spectator attendence. Even NASCAR manages to get their stuff done in a day. If people are coming to see the pros, why force them to wade through 2 days of watching the pros play games just to see who makes finals?

- Chris

 

[Urban]

No...

Originally posted by raehl
I'm not saying raise prices so that only the pros are willing to pay them. If you do that, you've screwed up. I'm saying that the events are about as big as they can get to have decent facilities at these prices and still get all the teams through in 3 days - so raise your prices to keep attendenc from getting so large that your event is crap quality for everyone. Actually, I question the wisdom of a three day tournament - yet another obstacle to spectator attendence. Even NASCAR manages to get their stuff done in a day. If people are coming to see the pros, why force them to wade through 2 days of watching the pros play games just to see who makes finals?

- Chris

I don't think it's so much a question of 'willing' to pay as 'able' to pay.

You say these events are about as big as they can get to have decent facilities and yet at the same time you want to turn 3 day events into 1 day events, which must involve adding more fields, and more marshalls, which would push the cost up again.

Maybe there's your answer... 1 day events, same number of teams, more fields and marshalls required therefore higher price to pay. The extra cost is used up providing the extra facilities required so net gain is paintball zero, individuals 1.

Now... find me that many marshalls in one place at one time

Aside from all of this is the simple fact paintball is not viable as a spectator sport in it's current form; no single point of attention; half the players hidden at any one time; paint streams invisible through netting over distance; and for me, and many others, like most spectator sports, damn boring to watch!

Urban

 

[raehl]

Well..

"Willing" to pay is MUCH more important than ABLE to pay. Anyone who isn't able also is not willing. There are plenty of people able to pay who will not. (Bill Gates, in the extreme case.) I'm ABLE to pay the $5k a year to play all the NPPL/PSP events, but I'm not WILLING to do so because I, personally, would rather spend my vacation and time doing other things.

When I say one day event, in that case, I mean just play pros. Rookie->Amateur Fri->Sat (or maybe still friday to sunday) and Pros on Sunday only. I really think the NPPL/PSP way of having people play across divisions to see who makes semis is silly.

I agree on format. Centerflag isn't going to work. XBall is an improvement, although I think the USPL format was better than that. (Too bad the USPL plan to deliver that format stunk.) You need to put the game in the 2->3 hours of attendence range (so games like baseball, basketball and football, with lots of idle time, get to be 3-4 hours, while soccer is about 2 at 90 minutes of actual play time.) And you need to make it consistently exciting - ixnay the actionless middle of the game.


Unfortunately, most of us arn't in a position to push a new format, as you apparently need to own a paintball company to get anyone to take you seriously (ala XBall). Maybe after another year or so college paintball will have enough umph that I can get a few teams together to try something new. I know we'd really like to change to something that would allow schools to move from competing one conference championships with every team there to head-to-head events or perhaps 4 or 8 team tournaments over the course of a weekend like other college sports ala basketball or hockey. We'd probably have each school have one squad playing that format and keep all the new players on 5-man centerflag in a JV/club league - although if we can push down into high school that may not be as necessary.

- Chris