War is Good? PSP vs. NPPL

[Chicago]

Originally posted by Uncle Fester
Money ??

The millennium have been getting away with charging ridiculous fees,its all down to pure greed.

What's your definition of ridiculous? National-level paintball tournaments are expensive. Promoters are going to charge what it costs them to cover their expenses and make it worth their time.

I never understood why people think it's someone else's responsibility to charge less because they don't like paying the current price. If oyu don't like what it costs, don't buy it. If you think the current producers are making a killing on what they're selling, that's probably a business you might want to get involved in.

If you can't get involved in the business and make any money, then the price is probably fair.

 

[Tonymicjoe]

Chicago

I think thats the most well reasoned post I have ever read.

 

[Intheno]

if its greedy to work your bxxxxxcks off for people who don't appreciate it, then sure, those greedy bastxrds at the Millennium have got it coming, and roll on the Uncle Fester Paintball League, I look forward to being there to bitch non stop at all the money you're making out of me...

Chicago is making plenty of sense. He must be tired or something...

 

[Red_Merkin]

GG Fester, you're clueless...

If NPPL comes to Europe, (EPPL?) then what makes you think you're going to pay less?

People moan about the cost of running interational events, without actually knowing what kind of costs, time and effort going into the events.

Yes i believe the promoters can still offer more to the players, but i think they're offering a fair product for the price they chanrge at the moment.

But then, i'd have to assume that you play probably one event a year, (campaign cup?) and you try to compare that to your local event, because one paintball tournament is the same as all the others?

NPPL in Europe will probably be a good thing. In most other industries you see two main cometitors, and the consumers benifit from the competition.


As for the comment earlier about money,
from what i understand the NPPL couldn't make a bid that made it more worthwhile for the promoters to be on board than for them to stick it out on thier own. If you'e going to allow someone to take control and profits from your tournament, the deal better be sweet, and from what i heard it wasn't

That's based on second hand knowledge, so if anyone knows differently please so so.

I get kind of upset when i hear people complain about the events, because i know first hand how much fu c k ing effort goes into it.

Roll on NPPL Europe, Both series will benifit from it in the long run... and the players, well they'll never have had it so good!

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Chicago
1--I think you're making a bad assumption about Euro-Disney. It doesn't really have anything to d with Disney, it has to do with Laurent trying to get Euro Disney as a location and Bart trying to outbid him for it. Hard for leagues to be friendly when one is trying to not only set up their own events on the other's turf, but also trying to push them out of the same locations.

2--There are more than twice as many frequent paintball participants now than there were 5 years ago, so yes, numbers accounts for the present situation. IF we didn't have the increase in numbers, two leagues wouldn't be sustainable.

3--Because their customers have come to expect it. If PSP or NPPL stop spending the money, somebody else will spend the money and take their business.

4--And because PSP and NPPL want to market themselves outside the industry, and people outside the industry expect it as well.

1--I didn't assume anything. You didn't explain anything in your initial comments. I was simply elicited an explanation.
2--so you're saying all the other stuff was unnecessary? If so, I'll ask again, why aren't we still playing 10-man?
3--I see, so they didn't need to do it but since they have they can't stop now.
4--why? If they don't know anything about paintball just what sort of expectations do they approach it with?

 

[Chicago]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
2--so you're saying all the other stuff was unnecessary? If so, I'll ask again, why aren't we still playing 10-man?

To see the number of peope playing national tournaments that we do now, the other changes were not necessary. That doesn't mean they wern't good changes, it just means that change or no change, we'd have just as many people playing.

3--I see, so they didn't need to do it but since they have they can't stop now.

There is a difference between whether they needed to make the changes to get the increase in players, and whether they needed to make the changes to get those players to continue to play in their league.

There are now enough players to support two leagues. If one league makes changes and the other doesn't, the people in the league that doesn't will start looking for someplace else to play. Since the other league is already full, someone else who is willing to make those changes will step in with another league.

4--why? If they don't know anything about paintball just what sort of expectations do they approach it with?

They approach it with the expectations they have for sporting events. If you want people who are not involved in paintball to be interested in paintball as a sport, going to a paintball event should be an experience similar to going to a baseball or basketball or football event - or at least a BMX or skateboarding event.

People outside paintball don't go to a paintball event and say "Wow, this is the best paintball event I've ever been to." They say "That paintball event was a clusterscrew compared to the BMX event we went to." People expect programs, stands, schedules, bathrooms, food, etc.

It's the difference between a sporting event and a bunch of trailers parked in a cow pasture.

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Chicago
1--To see the number of peope playing national tournaments that we do now, the other changes were not necessary. That doesn't mean they wern't good changes, it just means that change or no change, we'd have just as many people playing.

2--There is a difference between whether they needed to make the changes to get the increase in players, and whether they needed to make the changes to get those players to continue to play in their league.

1--if you are correct, then in effect we don't really know what the result of the changes has really been, do we?
Nor have you ever answered my query about how many teams would be playing if we were still running 10-man events. Is that because, given your present position, you'd have to say 10-man wouldn't make any difference to the numbers of competing teams and you don't believe that any more than I do?

2--but your original point was it was purely a numbers game so the rationale for making the original changes must have been predicated on false assumptions by the promoters. It then follows we can't really know how effective or necessary those changes were regardless of what you think they mean now.

 

[Chicago]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
1--if you are correct, then in effect we don't really know what the result of the changes has really been, do we?
Nor have you ever answered my query about how many teams would be playing if we were still running 10-man events. Is that because, given your present position, you'd have to say 10-man wouldn't make any difference to the numbers of competing teams and you don't believe that any more than I do?

Sorry, missed that one - yeah, thee would be just as many people playing if we were still doing 10-man. Nobody would know there was an alternative.

The result of the changes is that the events are better. But we don't have more players because the events are better, we have more players because there are now 10 million people who play paintball every year instead of 5 million. I'm just saying that if the number of total participants in the sport doubles, and you make some changes, and the number of participants at national tournaments doubles, just maybe it's because there are twice as many people playing paintball and it has nothing to do with whether there are bleachers or not?

2--but your original point was it was purely a numbers game so the rationale for making the original changes must have been predicated on false assumptions by the promoters. It then follows we can't really know how effective or necessary those changes were regardless of what you think they mean now.

My original point was that there are twice as many people playing national tournament paintball because there are twice as many people playing paintball.

You're confusing quality and quantity. There is a number, X, of people who will play national level tournaments. The quality of the tournaments doesn't have much bearing on what X is, only where those X people play.

NPPL split from PSP, and they made some changes to be "better" than PSP so that players would play NPPL instead of PSP. PSP made some changes so that more players would stay with PSP.

As it ended up two years later, there are enough players that both leagues are selling out their events. But not because of the changes, just because the sport is bigger.


Look at it this way: There are at least twice as many people playing tournaments at the local level as there were a few years back. Have any changes been made in local-level tournaments? Not really - people still play at the local level the same way they did 5 years ago. If the local level didn't make any significant changes but had a huge growth in the number of participants, why would you think a similar increase in the number of participants at the national level was caused by changes there?

 

[ChuckC]

More players playing the sport = more money made at all levels of the paintball industry = more sponsorship dollars available = more opportunity for teams to get the necessary help to attend national tournaments

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Chicago
My original point was that there are twice as many people playing national tournament paintball because there are twice as many people playing paintball.

While I readily accept the basic notion that having greater basic numbers to draw from cannot help but be a factor I still don't think you can make such all-inclusive sweeping generalizations.
For example, you are plainly claiming some ratio of All Paintball Players to Tourney Players and presuming a static equivalence over time but in order to do that with any validity you have to demonstrate something akin to the same ratio existed in the past--not just assume it. And if such data were available wouldn't it be interesting to look for spikes both up and down in relation to things like the introduction of electro markers and air ball or the price of paint at local fields?