Best 20 results within a State/Province/District will count for each player

I’m interested to know what your feedback is on this rules change for the 2018-19 NACS season?

Just a couple days ago, I asked Josh to run the numbers for what would change in Oregon if we had all events instead of top 20, and while there was some shuffling of positions, there was only one real difference … and that was that with all events I would be eliminated from the top 24, whereas with top 20 I am qualified on the bubble.

Therefore the experiment is obviously a great success.


I’ve created a what-if chart of how players in Michigan (20 Event Cap) would rank according to a best 3 & 5 event per location restriction used for state ranking only. Pretty interesting results just using the top 24 current qualifiers and those that are just outside the Top 24.


It is SO nice from a heavy play area’s standpoint that I don’t feel the need to spam constant weeklies for SCS WPPRs of any sort. I can go occasionally/when I’m not busy with life and feel less of an obligation to be there while I’m there.

There have been days where I’m tired or work gets to me and I would go anyways or rush in from something else, and those days weren’t fun or productive. It’s nice to call shots on my own terms. :grin:


Pennsylvania would have the same 24 qualifiers for SCS either way . . . you would be the 4th seed in either a capped or uncapped system.

#perceptionisreality :slight_smile:


I am being completely sincere when I say that the 20 event cap is the reason I continued to play competitive pinball this year. I could seriously go on for hours about how the decision to include it as a rule will probably be the biggest turning point for the growth of competitive pinball.


I am being completely sincere in this analysis of the TX SCS for this year :slight_smile:

Your seed with the 20 event cap . . . 20th seed
Your seed with an uncapped system . . . 21st seed

23 out of the 24 qualifiers would be the same. In an uncapped system Michael Cook would make the cut over Preston Moncla.


You’re darn right it is! I’m still going to enjoy my time off before PPO though. :slight_smile:

How about mine?

I don’t see any drop in growth of play but if nothing else I don’t feel as though I’m being put behind the eightball because I can’t play in 3-4 events a week.

In Texas this is a BIG concern for a lot of us. I’m with Gorgarsupperlip. If the rule were to go away, I’d probably just suppress myself.

Adding an edit. Take away my lucky finish at TPF as those points really skew my current rankings this year :wink:

I knew this point was going to be made.

I don’t understand why you don’t see that as massive. to the players that represents their performance. Their performance at something they care deeply about. So the assessment that ‘it’s only a place up or down here or there’ falls a little short.

Every position change mentioned in this thread will to me, be an example of a correction that was made to the old flawed metric. You may look at these changes and believe they were not worth the fuss or effort to correct and that’s OK because it’s a win win for us both. For me, there is a better metric for determining who belongs in the SCS, and for you there has been no decrease in the growth of the sport!! :slight_smile:

Edit: no decrease where I am

1 Like

In the capped system you’re 9th
In the uncapped system you’re 10th

I guess in the uncapped system you’d be suppressed so you wouldn’t be anywhere :slight_smile:


I’m all for the “good vibes” that players take with this change. I’m actually not joking with my “perception is reality” comments. There seems to be a genuine appreciation from players (including yourself) that this is a HUGE CHANGE.

I’m a pretty hard data guy, so forgive me for not seeing those changes actually translate to material differences in the actual standings.


That’s the thing. Material is much more than data. It’s peoples feelings and joy of the sport they chose to participate in.

This is not a dig at you in anyway, but I wouldn’t expect you to fully understand how people like gorgarsupperlip and I feel. We are both very much what I will call bubble boys. In SCS and tournaments we sometimes have a killer event and are good to go while when we play our normal levels we generally fall right on the bubble.

FOr example - Last year I ONLY made SCS because 3 people couldn’t come (I was 18). If you drop everyone down to only 20 events last year I would have made it on my own merit. To me that is substantial and why I feel the way I do and made the suppression comment. Another example, TPF 2 years ago I only made it into finals due to a tie breaker. I lost making finals this year in the Bat City Open by taking a last in the very last round. If I took 3rd or higher I would have qualified. Just some data points to show what I mean by being a bubble boy.

For someone like me I have to chose between tournament finals opportunity and SCS. If I feel disadvantaged in SCS I will go the finals route.

Let me explain, I’m A restricted due to my SCS rank but as you can see I normally barely just squeeze in if I actually do. For me, if I’m going to be put behind what I feel is an eight ball with SCS chances I’d rather suppress myself and be able to play in a B finals at a tournament. Shoot for TPF that’s significant as the winner of B is forecasted to pocket more than $700!

Also, seeing for SCS really matters. For instance, my first round was against Colin McAlpine for round 1. With the cap in place Fred R would have been seed 2. Nothing against Fred as he’s also a great player but I’d much prefer my chances against him than Colin :wink:

I hope this helps elaborate without coming across as whiny…

I’d be careful about this depending on the TD. Just because you’re suppressed doesn’t mean you don’t have an IFPA rank. TD’s are welcome to ping me for a player’s actual rank to help them with restricting certain players.

Other TD’s will simply not allow any suppressed players to participate in any skill restricted division at their event.

YMMV :slight_smile:


I think the “good vibes” that come from this change are that the few people who are getting knocked out or down significantly are those who are perceived to have “bought their way in” by competing in a hugely disproportionate number of events.

For example, last year there was someone in the Ontario PCS who was counting more than an event a week on average whereas most others were averaging more like an event every two or three weeks.

Because this rubbed me the wrong way, I crunched the numbers using only the top 20 events for each player near the top and discovered exactly what has already been shared: not much would have changed. This player would have been knocked down to 20th, but no one else moved more than a spot, not even the ones with 30+ events. And I think the invitation to play in the PCS ending up being extended further down than 20th anyway.

But I’m still glad for this rule change because humans are often irrational creatures and this feels more fair. :wink:


Josh - Is their somewhere with a raw data dump? I’d like to review it as it may help me better understand. My mind just can’t comprehend how their would only be 1 person impacted by the 20 event max. Looking at last years data for TX the point spread is so close that dropping:

  • 1st place - 49 events wouldn’t put 2nd in top seed
  • 4th place - dropping 49 events from them and 6 from 5th that those spots wouldn’t shift.
  • 6th place - with the dropping of 4th 49 events that 6th place wouldn’t easily move to 4th or higher.
  • ect…

I think a lot of people are just focusing on whom in and whoms out. Seeding matters with SCS as well. In another thread it was talked about how import it was to seed for these longer qualifying tournaments. SCS is the longest qualifying tournament their is so seeding should be part of that consideration. This not only impacts who’s in but also where people place, is my point.


I quickly put together the uncapped standings the ‘old way’ here:

(Ignore the heading as that’s no longer correct)

You can compare those numbers with the current capped standings here:

Looks like there’s 5 players in the top 24 that have played in >50 events. Just pulling those players out here’s their change:

Fred Revnew drops from 1st to 4th (290.64 WPPR’s to 203.07 WPPR’s)
Craig Squires drops from 2nd to 6th (241.63 WPPR’s to 179.13 WPPR’s)
David Pollock drops from 3rd to 8th (230.53 WPPR’s to 160.93 WPPR’s)
Cory Westfahl drops from 9th to 11th (173.69 WPPR’s to 124.25 WPPR’s)
Ben Whittington stays at 15th (99.75 WPPR’s to 74.75 WPPR’s)

While seeding matters, it’s such a crap shoot when it comes to match ups. Having a higher seed doesn’t guarantee an easier path.

For example someone like David Pollock who’s in the top 8 both ways would get Robert Byers in the current capped system, but draws the feared Colin Macalpine in the uncapped system :slight_smile:


This is why the SCS needs to be grudge rules!! Do it josh! You know you want to.

1 Like

We have this already . . . it’s called the Illinois SCS :wink:


Either those links are bad or the data is wrong. No way, in the uncapped version, for last year Colin was not #1 seed. That first link shows him as number 6 seed. It almost looks like it’s this years standings without a cap. If so, I think this proves the problem even more drastically as now Robert, Phil and Colin have dropped to 4th, 5th and 6th. All 3 of them have 1/3 the events than the 1st through 3rd place seeds have.

How would that really represent whom the best players are in the state?

I just can’t understand how some of the same people that argue that Pump and Dump tournaments don’t extract the truly best skilled players (people can buy their way in argument) but can sit here and argue that not having a cap on SCS events that count towards ranking isn’t the exact same thing.

P.S. - As someone whom got seeded against Josh Henderson first 2 years ago in the first round and then Colin the second round. And then Colin in the first round last year… Seeding really matters to me :wink: