I’ll keep up with the comments/likes on your post. Similar to Derek, if there’s a strong level of support from the community on your opinions I will certainly give the proposal a deeper look.
I’ll always look to examples like Chuck Sanderson as a reason to never force a player to play their ‘home state’.
He’s just east of St. Louis across the river, so he’s technically in Illinois.
To add insult to injury he operators CP Pinball on the Illinois side, so ultimately earns most of his WPPR’s in Illinois (he qualified in 14th).
He hasn’t qualified for Missouri SCS, but if he did end up qualifying in both, forcing him to drive north 5+ hours for the IL SCS, versus allowing him to drive 15 minutes to the MO SCS makes absolutely no sense to me. Especially as Lewis mentioned that the travel costs associated with participating often trumps the prize pool that you’re able to win.
4 Likes
Yeah where someone lives shouldn’t matter. Where they play on a consistent basis (say at least 5 events in the year? 
) should matter.
2 Likes
This seems to be an argument for using metro areas (if feasible) as opposed to state lines
1 Like
3-5 events state wide (7 day min gap at the same location to count for more then 1) (or league min sessions 4)
2-3 per player events (5 day min gap) or (or league min sessions 2-3)
What happens with buys if say an sate only has 3-5 players at finals.
Now maybe have an bar if over X events / XX players then cut down the mins by an bit.
1 Like
It’s an argument for that, or an argument for allowing the player to choose.
I haven’t bothered drawing whatever boundaries represent those metro areas, but I imagine I can find the next “Chuck Sanderson” that falls just on the wrong side of whatever that imaginary line happens to be.
The idea of awarding someone the “Metro Atlantic South Champion” title I also feel would be far less impactful compared to awarding someone the “New Jersey State Champion” title.
5 Likes
$5 added to pot… It is greasy but IMO I don’t think the IFPA can police every situation. This is an exception more than a rule, in many instances I feel this would not be an issue and would resolve the pain point of contacting or getting contacted by multiple state reps for inclusion into their event. If someone has accumulated the point to get into the top 16 and need to run 1-4 one ball events to get them qualified, then so be it they have just contributed another $1-$4 to your state/provincial prize money.
Is the lunch included?
1 Like
How much of a pain point is this really? Nobody has to contact more than one group of players. For Illinois I pulled ‘one list’ and sent ‘one email’.
I’ll defer to any players that received multiple State Championship invite emails as to how much of a pain it was to respond “Not coming” to that email.
So how about that player just donates $1-$4 to the prize pool, and we can avoid the greasy but legal exploit to ‘checking this box’. If I wanted to play in Pennsylvania SCS because of the giant prize pool, knowing that I only had Intergalactic and Pinburgh under my belt, I would ABSOLUTELY run however many greasy tournaments the IFPA told me I needed to, in order to make myself eligible to cash-in on that sweet PA SCS prize pool. I would also be fine sending the IFPA $3 to make myself eligible as well.
I figured that would help motivate attendance. All about WPPR MAXIMIZATION! 
2 Likes
Maybe just limited flex of you are just over the line but the city metro area you are in is based in the other state
Not bad. The reps had their emails out early (except for Doug, lol) and it’s not hard to say “thank you for the offer” and “I hope to see you soon at [event]”. It’s cool to look back and see who’s inviting you as well!
There my limited flex idea at the TD choice they can opt into the metro area (state) that is just over the line
Josh, here’s my annual “the NACS system is great, keep up the good work!” post.
As long as you made it down the alphabet to cut the Ohio check, I don’t have any complaints 
11 Likes
Totally didn’t get checks done last night 
I’ll have to finish prepping them on the plane to INDISC and then remember to print them as soon as I get back into town on Monday.
This check writing pain is REAL!
The TD chooses? The player chooses? What’s “just over the line” mean?
1 Like
I would say depending on the state or province you need to reach out to 30 - 60 people. Yes, it is one email out, but it can be a 100 emails back and forth responses that you need to manage as a TD to finalize the 16 in some states/provinces. I am lucky it isn’t to much work in my provinces are mostly local people advance, but in a state that holds a major event and not a ton of state play I can see it being quite time consuming to manage all of those responses or non-responses to get to your final 16. Again I would rather be able to bypass the top players that I know damn well are going to play in their own state, it gives our local players more time to know they are playing instead of waiting till the 7th each year to finally finalize all of the competitors.
At least you are forcing the issue, making an individual do the work and paying some sort of price as low as it is to qualify. My hope is that instead of looking for a greasy solution it would create an incentive for that person to go back and play again in the state/province and contribute to the competitive scene. But you are probably right that there would be a few exploits by certain individuals that have accumulated the points and will try to get into the floor by any means.
I wasn’t clear. The / meant ‘or’, not ‘and’.
I realize that where one lives might not be where one spends the most time.
For most competitive players, there exists a location, maybe 2 for the “snowbird” effect, where the player is considered a “local” to that region.
People who come in for one multi-day tourney out of the year are not going to be considered locals when there are hosts of people in that state with 20+ events.
They might know the person, but there are probably other places where they have played more.
I like the idea of having a full 64 players bracket instead of a portion of hte players starting with a BYE based on their current WPPR ranking, which really isn’t part of what the NACS drive.
Seems more fair and would also potentially address opening additional spots to be distributed “fairly”
2 Likes