PB Fantasy Governing Committee

[PBX Ronin 23]

I couldn't agree with you more. Paintball, historically, has consistently failed in the past in creating a similar type of organization. Partially from lack of funding and more because of our inability to create a consensus amongst all the divergent interests involved.

Please site an example if I'm wrong but we've also never had an issue strong enough to bind us all together the way the potential effect of the forthcoming lawsuits stemming from the two deaths last year can.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

...

FIFA, FINA, FIA, IOC, none run the tournaments/competitions.

...
A successful organising body uses existing local organisations and teams up with promoters and event organisers. They don't try and swing the whole thing themselves.

Doesn't FIFA run the World Cup?

Does paintball currently have any local/national organisations?

I couldn't agree with you more. Paintball, historically, has consistently failed in the past in creating a similar type of organization. Partially from lack of funding and more because of our inability to create a consensus amongst all the divergent interests involved.

Please site an example if I'm wrong but we've also never had an issue strong enough to bind us all together the way the potential effect of the forthcoming lawsuits stemming from the two deaths last year can.

Ronin, you started this thread, so I will ask you to clarify by what you think a hypothetical governing body should be doing. Are we discuissing a body to regulate the paintball industry, or a body to codify a paintball sport? To my mind, we have never really attempted the latter.

[PBX Ronin 23]

Ronin, you started this thread, so I will ask you to clarify by what you think a hypothetical governing body should be doing. Are we discuissing a body to regulate the paintball industry, or a body to codify a paintball sport? To my mind, we have never really attempted the latter.

Regulation, representation and advocacy on behalf of the entire industry. As for the codification of competitive play, let the "invisible hand" work that out. We don't even have a standardized format and what will likely determine that is who wins the television battle.

[SlartyBartFast]

Doesn't FIFA run the World Cup?
Does paintball currently have any local/national organisations?

The FIFA website isn't clear, but from what I understand it's like the olympics. While oficially the IOC "organises" the olympics, it's really the sanctioned host that does all the ground work. Even the host doesn't organise each sport in the olympics. Each is organised by the sanctioned world body for each particular sport.

Not saying it's easy, but the FIFA website certainly shows the way on how to organise internationally.

Paintball DOES have local and national organisations. CFOA (and others are local/regioal), NPPL could certainly be considered national for the US. The NXL is a "professional" format and therefor not really a consideration as they "lisence" teams.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Regulation, representation and advocacy on behalf of the entire industry. As for the codification of competitive play, let the "invisible hand" work that out. We don't even have a standardized format and what will likely determine that is who wins the television battle.

OK. I totally misunderstood your intention. If we have been talking about an industry governing group, I withdraw my comments about the appropriateness of current industry people taking part. Although I feel compelled to note that if it was left to the auto industry to govern itself, we would not have seatbelts or airbags. I fear the paintball industry will continue in the short-sighted way they have demonstrated so far.

[PBX Ronin 23]

The auto industry, by virtue of their reluctance to implement the necessary safety measure, invited outside intervention to mandate by neccesity.

Does the paintball industry want that? Does closer scrutiny from the outside help us at all?

[shartley]

The auto industry, by virtue of their reluctance to implement the necessary safety measure, invited outside intervention to mandate by neccesity.

Does the paintball industry want that? Does closer scrutiny from the outside help us at all?

[rabidchihauhau]

Another league?!?

And sorry, but the Xball format is copyrighted and protected, so you can't borrow it.

Forget another league, but if anyone wants to do an x-ball style format without having to go through NXL, I've got free licensing available for the patented 'uspl' format upon which all of the so-called televisions formats are based.

Once you're 'allowed' to use that rule set, you can modify it anyway you'd like, just don't call it by a trademarked name.

[Lurker27]

Another league?!?

And sorry, but the Xball format is copyrighted and protected, so you can't borrow it.

I think that's the problem though and your proposal is rife with it. A desire for COMPLETE control. The governing body should NOT be operating the tournaments nor getting involved in sponsorship, nor have to be national and international in scope from the beginning.

FIFA, FINA, FIA, IOC, none run the tournaments/competitions.

And REQUIRING sponsors? You've gone right into the trap paintball is currently in. Pandering to big interests.

A successful organising body uses existing local organisations and teams up with promoters and event organisers. They don't try and swing the whole thing themselves.

Yes, another league, or fix the NXL. As a sport, particularly a spectator sport, the NXL is failing. There is no doubt in my mind that you could devise a format similar to X-ball (multiple games comprising one match) without infringing on X-ball itself.

I know this is a fantasy thread, but I'm being practical. Where would the money come from? Oh, wait, big interests. The very opening of my post was that both players and industy want the expansion of paintball as a sport, I think that if this was the stated goal of such a committee, it would be embraced. It could work to improve profits of corporations, while at the same time providing a halo to players.

You can't simply enforce rules with an arbitrary committee. Why do players listen? Why would corporations. Unless its a government committee necessitated by more injuries, its not happening. Corporations want money. Players want to look "agg" (they follow examples set by the most prominent pros). I've proposed something that takes all of this into consideration, and all you've done is denounce.

also, an analogyto soccer is useless. How much mnoney does one spend yearly recreationally playing soccer? And paintball? Now, which sport is more important to the manufacturers. Players consume more money in a single round of speedball (paint, air) than a soccer player would pay for his entire career (one good ball).

[SlartyBartFast]

Now, which sport is more important to the manufacturers.

It would take a North American to ask that question. Economically paintball will ALWAYS be an insignificant gnat compared to international soccer.

Considering that FIFA has to contain/control the interests of the likes of Nike, Rebok, Addidas, and national tensions that rival the UN (and to many the soccer dramas are far more important than anything else).

I think FIFA would be a fine model.

[Lurker27]

Honestly, how dumb do you think me?

Obviously soccer is a bigger industry, just by the sheer # of participants, but it isn't nearly as equipment-based as paintball. Hockey would be a far better model, since its $500 for equipment, and $50 an hr for ice time.

[PBX Ronin 23]

There definitely is a need for a central body as well to govern the sport when it comes to competition. But as of now, two formats are going head-to-head (7-Man and X-ball) for the cat bird's seat. Rabidchihuahua will agree that one format definitely has more potential for television than the other . To top that all off, the 3-Man cage matches will also get some steam with TV as well. So the overall picture still hasn't set itself yet.

Is there a practical way to consolidate these two paradigms? One for the governance of the industry, the other for the governance of the sport.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

...
Is there a practical way to consolidate these two paradigms? One for the governance of the industry, the other for the governance of the sport.

IMO, No. What's good for paintball as a sport is equality of equipment, and more on-field movement during longer games (with predictable lengths). What's good for paintball as an industry is a wide variety of equipment, and more shooting during shorter games.

The reason it took almost 20 years for something like X-ball to develop is that it is not the most directly beneficial format for the promoters, and so every time someone suggested a similar format it was brushed aside. The NXL is a long-term and large-scale marketing scheme for a mature industry. If it is successful, the format may trickle down to regional tourneys, but the current independant nature of paintball fields works against it growing from the ground-up. I should note that the protected copyright status of the format also works against it.

[rabidchihauhau]

Jeffy,

the only thing that goes against the interest of the promoters with x-ball is game length, but that's easily covered by:

fewer refs, fewer teams, potentially higher visibility.

the compensation is the extremely higher volume of paint used. x-ball evolved from the 'uspl' format and went the way that it did because of the high volume of paint; I suspect that one reason why uspl was not used by the x-ball folks was that I showed them that the natural evolution of that format was LOWER ball consumption over time, and they didn't want to contemplate longer games, fewer teams AND less paint used.

I honestly don't think it will make it in the long run as they are still missing essential components of a spectator sport and a method for transmitting 'active' interaction between spectators and the game. One primary reason people watch a sport is to vicariously participate in it - to guess what play will come up next, to pit their savy against a coach's, etc., and, so far as I can see, the current crop of television offerings fall far short of providing that capability.

[shartley]