I don’t believe that using the term “accurate” is . . . accurate
Not every campaign is about the highest ranked players advancing just because “they are the best”.
The Stern Pro Circuit is specifically designed to award the players that play best at a specific set of events. There are plenty of higher ranked/“better” players that won’t be allowed to participate in the final.
Nationals is specifically about being a Tournament of Champions. That criteria involves actually becoming a State Champion to punch that ticket. Yes, there are plenty of higher ranked/“better” players that won’t be allowed to participate in the final because they didn’t become a State Champion.
(*allowing the 2nd place finisher to serve as an alternate is the only concession I’ve made to this Tournament of Champions campaign).
Not only am I proud of the NACS . . . I actually think it’s the greatest campaign IFPA has ever done.
It’s a hell of a lot harder for me to qualify in and run through the gauntlet of top players in Texas or Pennsylvania than to play 3 events an entire year, automatically qualify for scs and win it against a single rated player but the reward is the same which makes no sense
At least this is a solid proposal! I’m not a huge fan of the “You should just make metro areas instead of states” blank statement.
If you’re going to propose changes to the NACS system, at least propose those changes in detail, the problem they are trying to solve, and I can evaluate it seriously.
Under this proposal, 35 State/Provinces lose their representation at Nationals:
Alabama
Arkansas
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois <----- WHAT???
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Manitoba
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Brunswick
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Dakota
Nova Scotia
Oklahoma
Quebec
Rhode Island
Saskatchewan
South Carolina
Utah
Vermont
West Virginia
Wyoming
Instead the field would be made up of 2 participants from these States:
Pennsylvania
California
Ohio
Washington
Texas
Michigan
Indiana
And then 1 participant from these States:
British Columbia
Colorado
Florida
Maryland
New York
North Carolina
Ontario
Oregon
Tennessee
Virginia
Wisconsin
That’s 25 finalists so far . . . and then the additional 19 finalists will be based on?
How would people going into the year even know if the State they want to focus on qualifying in would even be eligible for Nationals? That would be a kick in the teeth if the State they happened to compete in finished in 45th place using your metrics.
I still think there is something to be said about having a floor of 5 events in the NACS, I have brought this up in the past. The one reason is purely administrative as States/Provinces that hold major shows there are a number of people that will only play 1-3 events a year in that state and will never bother to play there for NACS, yet the TD still has to contact these guys every year and get a confirmation of them playing or not. Secondly, these players are not contributing to the overall pool in that state/province for why should they get the benefit not contributing to that pool, lastly it will lessen the issue of the perceived notion of a player trying to go to lesser state/province just to qualify for Nationals. I also think for a State/Province there should be at least 16 players that play in at least 5 events during the year, if they don’t then they should not be be able to send a person to Nationals. The prize pool is contributed by all states/province and if your state cannot make the effort to do at least 5 events and have 16 people qualified then tough on you. Lastly, the NACS should be a full 64 player field, the highest prizes pools get the first priority to those spots. Which means probably two reps from Super States and two reps for the next highest prize pools until the full 64 field is set. Yes this lessen the $$$ but it creates a full field with no byes and advantages to higher ranked IFPA players, everyone now grinds through 6 rounds to have to win the championship.
BTW: This is not a slight on the current format as it is awesome and job well done!!! Just a few tweaks to make it even better!!!
So the answer is that “easy State” shouldn’t send a player?
Does sending TWO players from Texas/Pennsylvania suddenly balance this out?
Is the problem about the CASH being awarded at Nationals? Is the problem about these easy States not deserving of the PRESTIGE of participating at Nationals?
I need a better idea of what we’re trying to solve here. Just qualifying in Texas and finishing in 24th place earns $50 on the cash side. That’s more money than the CHAMPION of the following states:
Years of complaining that YEGPIN deserves to be a Circuit Event finally paid off
Keep expressing those opinions . . . when that comment gets a bunch of support, 31 ‘likes’, etc, then maybe I’ll begin to consider that those opinions are worth re-evaluating on my end.
There are definitely ways to game the system for making Nationals, but seeing the case of Fred and looking at the numbers in general gives some argument towards the IFPA Dollar as a way to create a secondary incentive via money for playing in “contested” states.
I can play PA without a major travel expense - either nothing for Western PA or gas and a family visit for Eastern PA. I wrestle a stacked pool and go for $1,500. If I lose, there’s still money to save towards an investment/use for pinball travel.
Alternatively I can try to take a path of less resistance (locals who are secretly fantastic players, plus Bowen) and throw my hat into the Massachusetts fight. I book a flight, hotel, contemplate taking time off, and won’t cover the cost of travel to do so even if I win - which in pinball is never a guarantee.
My views aren’t indicative of other players; some people want to get to Nationals every year. Nonetheless, there are a group of players who can be persuaded by a lucrative pot that the IFPA Dollar provides.
The DMV pinball scene all overlaps. A lot of folks qualify for at least two of DC, MD, & VA. People make decisions for where the play for all different reasons. Some folks don’t like the location in DC even if they live there, some are motivated by the money, some just want to rep their state. I encouraged everyone that qualified for DC & another state to do what makes the most sense to them. Only they can balance all the things they factor.
Also, any idea about people needing to play the NACS in their home state sounds like a total nightmare to police. I don’t get paid enough to try and figure out if someone is really playing in their state.
That’s 25 finalists so far . . . and then the additional 19 finalists will be based on?
Winners of the next largest states. Those that contribute the most to the prize pool send the reps.
pinwizj:
How would people going into the year even know if the State they want to focus on qualifying in would even be eligible for Nationals? That would be a kick in the teeth if the State they happened to compete in finished in 45th place using your metrics.
thats pinball. play better.
I agree with keeping it at the state level. And not city/metro.
The natural end result of this would be that states with major tournaments would just start to schedule more events at / around the major, so that people coming from out of state can have more incentive to travel. We’re actually already seeing this start to happen naturally just with the WPPR incentive, a rule like this would just amp it up.
As, I said, I get it. I totally understand the bigger picture strategy and all of the potential reasons people play elsewhere.
For me it’s an academic discussion, I don’t travel out of state. But if I did, I personally would want another Florida trophy in the cabinet, not a trophy from some other state, unless that’s where I live/spend most of my time.
And if I don’t win, I want the winner to be one of my Florida friends/family.
By the same token, I find it odd when people I expect to play against play elsewhere.
Last example: Hypothetically, if Atticus and I qualified in multiple states, one strategy could be to play in different locations to gives us more chances and potentially face off at nationals. However, that would just look weird to a lot of people, especially in Florida if we did that, but to the strategic planners, they might get it.
To us, if the goal were to face off, we feel it should be done at home state.
(Still trying to catch up to Atticus-Maybe this year! Him being committed to a double major is giving the old man a chance!)
Personally I think that is a good thing, my yearly event has five already, adds more money to the pool, promote competitive pinball more. For example, in my show the more competitive players only play in three of them as they want to concentrate on those but if it creates more incentive for them to play more in my province then I would be all for it. I guess the rationale is if a player plays 25% of events in your state/province then there should not be anymore whining about someone who lives out of state/province playing. They have contributed enough to the pot and have every right to now play in it. Is 25%, 33%, 50% the right number I dunno but there should be a case made if you are limiting events to the best 20 a year, maybe there should be some kind of floor as well.
What if you spend most of your time in a State you don’t live in?
Our Sales Manager at Raw Thrills is definitely a member of that club. He’s making the rounds to our distributors and spending far more time out of state compared to being at home.
pinwizj: