XFactor to the NXL?

[Chicago]

Sorry Chicago, are you saying that X-factor are a top16 team?
presumably you are saying that about Legacy too?

Where did I say the NXL had the best 16 teams on the planet? I did not. I said they have the best teams - Russian Legion, XSV, Dynasty (that includes the best 2 teams in NPPL btw) are in the NXL. There are other teams in the NXL that are ranked better than XSV and Dynasty, so I can only assume they are some of the best teams on the planet as well. There are certainly top-16-teams-on-the-planet that dont play NXL, but I'd say the top-8 all do.

Legacy is probably a top-16 team. They were not at the start of the season, but the rosters changed and now they are.

I am not saying that they are, and that is why I am saying they are diluting what was an elite league by packing it with lower division teams. There is no relegation in this league to my knowledge, so teams that are accepted in stay there, no matter how they perform. Is that correct? If that is correct then this is not a short term dilution, but a permanent one.

Your logic does not work. It assumes that the only way for talent to move in and out of the league is an entire team at a time. NXL has promotion and relegation - of PLAYERS. The dilution is no more permanent than the roster. Players will get better or players will be replaced.

NXL has the best teams on the planet? 3 of the 4 finalists in Boston are not in the NXL.

While I'm sure it is very convenient to you to substitue 'place at one NPPL event' with 'who is the best team on the planet', especially when 2 of those three teams happen to be teams you sponsor, I could just as easily substitue 'place at NXL events' for 'who is the best team on the planet'. You can't sit there and say placing at NXL isn't a valid measure and then substitue placing at NPPL.

Many of the top 8 NXL teams did not even play on Sunday in Boston, and don't give me that xball-style-clash crap, all those teams have plenty of 7man experience and 2 of them have won pretty much every NPPL event so far.
How well to you think X-factor would have done?
What about Rage and Joy? They don't play NXL, but I consider them to be amongst the best reams on the planet, and they have proven as much.

Rage would get annihilated in NXL, if only because 3 of their players would be in the penalty box all the time.

Why do you keep using the teams you sponsor as an example? How about the Chicago Evil? Are they one of the best 16 teams on the planet?

How about the Naughty Dogs? 9th in the NXL, but 2nd in Boston and 5th in NPPL.

Pointing out that there are teams who play the NXL and do poorly in NPPL is obvious and no more informative than pointing out that there are teams that play NPPL that do poorly in NXL. Hell, there are Pro NPPL teams that get annihilated in D1 in PSP. Bushwackers couldn't even place in the top half of PSP D1. The #2 NPPL team, Dynasty, is currently ranked 7th in the NXL.


It's also pretty easy for you to bag on NXL teams that play NPPL when there are so few NPPL teams that play XBall. Why don't you send Rage and Joy over to play PSP D1 and see how well they fare there?

 

[Magued]

Hehe

Why don't you send Rage and Joy over to play PSP D1 and see how well they fare there?

We would destroy any of your D1 teams in Xball, belive that.

Magued

 

[Chicago]

We would destroy any of your D1 teams in Xball, belive that.

Prove it!

(I believe you, I'd just like to see it.)

 

[Baca Loco]

1--We should consider the original reason it was separated though - investment and television reasons. NXL was set up as a franchise system, where the money that was to be spent to get the league to the point where it was self-sustainable (through TV revenues or other means) were provided by the franchise owners.

2--Obviously, this plan did not pan out, and already this season 5 non-franchise teams have been allowed to compete with the franchise NXL teams. At no point that I'm aware of was it advertised that non-franchise teams would be limited to 5. I don't see where you can argue 'dilution' when that ship sailed with the addition of the first 5 non-franchise teams. In 2005, there was the NXL and an Open PSP division. In 2006 those two divisions were combined so that the franchise NXL teams play against non-franchise Open PSP teams. I just don't see why it's surprising that the number of teams would change when that's been the case in the PSP Open division since 2004.

3--Define 'succeed'? If you were in the bottom half before, you'll just have one more team down there with you. Pro sports is about who is THE BEST, not who was there first. Whether the team can succeed or not depends on whether they are any good or not, 15 or 16 teams, doesn't matter.

4--Speaking of relevance - this isn't relevant. The NFL is a franchise-only league with a set season schedule. NXL is not. Comparing one to the other is not valid.
It's also worth pointing out that NFL has been around for a couple decades and has had a chance to figure itself out. NXL is still trying to figure itself out - changes are a necessary part of that process.

5--Any sport consisting of a season of tournaments - golf, bicycling, BMX, skateboarding... I'm sure you'll object that these are not team sports, but the comparison is more valid than trying to compare paintball to a regular-season franchise sport.

6--There are 25% fewer games?

7--It is not a postulation. 50% of the teams advance out of the prelims. By any standard, that is MORE than sufficient to insure that teams that deserve to advance have an adequate opportunity to do so. I understand that Strange, being 8th in the rankings, may be particularly sensitive to the cutoff point, but the problem there is simply that you're not consistently winning your matches. If you're not consistently winning matches, you're not going to consistently advance.

8--Adding a 16th team is going to have no effect on whether the top 4 teams are able to make the cut.

1--Yes, "we" should. Nor has that fundamentally changed as the non-franchise teams have no claim to any future TV league and given the prize structure the non-franchise teams have no claim to contributing to the league either as all entry monies are returned in prizes.
2--The Open Division was an anachronism so arguing it's operation might as well carry over to the NXL is your right but a non-starter. They are now competing in the NXL. (SEE Missy's prior posts.) A closed league isn't the same thing as an open division.
3--Now you're just try to make me laugh, right?
4--a couple of decades? Where have you been. Of course it's valid because the issue isn't the logistics of operation, it's the perception and the purpose and goal(s) of the league at issue. And in the case of the NXL it's intended future. The point is the NXL and the NPPL Pro Division for that matter both aspire to that level of professionalism and stature and to operate in a haphazard manner does nothing to set the plate, as it were.
Changes? Sure, but not in mid-season.
5--'Kay. Keep insisting the tree you're hugging is what matters while the forest burns ...
6--yes.
7--What has Strange got to do with anything?
8--you've said that before. Repeat as often as you like. You're still missing the principle point.

 

[Chicago]

A closed league isn't the same thing as an open division.

Are you implying that the NXL is a closed league? If so, what is your basis for this assertion? Wishful thinking?

you've said that before. Repeat as often as you like. You're still missing the principle point.

I'm not sure it's possible to miss something that doesn't exist.

You already have non-franchise teams, so that can't be the problem. The only difference appears to be that there are now 6 non-franchise teams instead of 5.

How does that matter with regards to the NXL's goals?

The only thing I can see that you've offered so far is 'change when I don't like it is bad'.

 

[jim]

X Factor

I thought this thread had something to do with Simon Cowell

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

I'm not sure it's possible to miss something that doesn't exist.

Ehmmmm - am I the only one this strikes as highly illogical ?

Nick

 

[Robbo]

Ehmmmm - am I the only one this strikes as highly illogical ?

Nick

The only problem with any logic in that statement that I can see is, he has doubt ('I'm not sure it's possible'...) other than that, it is not possible to miss something that doesn't exist ...but that is if you read Chicago's statement literally... and in the English language Nick, we can actually say something and mean something different as Chicago does in this instance.

By stating ' I'm not sure it's possible to miss something that doesn't exist' he is actually highlighting the paradox and in so doing, refuting it.

Ya see Nick, English can actually be quite a subtle language but when you try to tie in logic as a means to unlocking meaning then any language will fall foul, except of course mathematics

But then again Nick, you know English better than most people who post on English forums

Is Chicago, paintball's Wittgenstein?
Nick, are you Paintball's Søren Kierkegaard?
I quite fancy Russell's position.

And I'm afraid for the heady position of Aristotle, it has to go to Baca with Duffster taking on Plato's role as our pre-eminent idealist.

I have often wondered why there are no great female philosophers, hmmmmm.....am thinking about that one......any ideas Ms Rosie - Ms Freddie?
I think it has something to do with reduced intellects, what do you two think

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Actually, missing something, by default requires its absence.

If it was not absent, how would you be missing it ?

The mere fact that it does not exist, does not preclude missing it in any way

Nick Kierkegaard

 

[Robbo]

Actually, missing something, by default requires its absence.

If it was not absent, how would you be missing it ?

The mere fact that it does not exist, does not preclude missing it in any way

Nick Kierkegaard

I might be msitaken here Mr K but I think you may be getting cofused here a little, when he says it does not exist, it also implies it has never existed in which case you cannot miss something that did not exist because you would never have been aware of it to miss.

You are confusing non-existence with absence aren't you?

Pete Russell