IFPA 2018 changes?

[cayle]

Anything that shows up on the IFPA calendar should be IFPA endorsed no?

[Artimage]

I’ve read and listened to a lot about this. I’m mostly going to keep my opinions to myself. But I would like to discuss the argument that there are too many tournaments and that it would be a welcome change to have less IFPA/WPPR events.

In the past @pinwizj has talked about how great the growing numbers of people and events were. This was a “good thing”. Now, if the administrative issues really have made that too burdensome I’d love to see more automation. Make an API and let the guys writing tournament software hook right into the IFPA so that you don’t have to do ANYTHING manually. Maybe @PressStart will say I’m crazy, but as a tech/software guy I know we can solve the ‘too many events’ problem.

In the end, I just don’t like this fix for that problem. I am hoping that argument was just an easy thing to say and really wasn’t the impetus behind this. If the IFPA is trying to make a real pro league, cool. I may not love all the choices, but I’d love to see us get there. I’d just hate it to be at the cost of more events.

[DDH]

I’d be curious how this would ever be able to be applied internationally, legally and logistically, in the future if there is a Pro/Amateur split or if this system expands beyond North America.

For example, in Sweden, there is no prize money in any tournament, but maybe there isn’t as much WPPR milking or tons of weekly tournaments in one location for that to be an issue in most places…

[pinwizj]

@cayle

Anything that shows up on the IFPA calendar should be IFPA endorsed no?

Knowing that there is a need for our calendar to be used for promotion, we do allow non-endorsed events to be posted there . . . as NON-POINT events (explicitly).

We’ve allowed those events to submit results for archival purposes, but they are flagged as non-point events with no value.

[philoflipper]

Aside from my general opinion of the new plan, I’m with Ryan on this point: tournaments should be “for WPPRs” or not. Either everyone buys in (or is bought in) or no one does. Having all the players represented who actually played in the tournament much better approximates what winning that tournament “means.” If it’s a WPPR tournament, the TD should either require the $1 fee from everyone or cover it some other way.

[pinwizj]

@Artimage

In the past @pinwizj has talked about how great the growing numbers of people and events were. This was a “good thing”. Now, if the administrative issues really have made that too burdensome I’d love to see more automation. Make an API and let the guys writing tournament software hook right into the IFPA so that you don’t have to do ANYTHING manually. Maybe @Vengeance will say I’m crazy, but as a tech/software guy I know we can solve the ‘too many events’ problem.

This was sarcasm . . . the administrative issues are NOT A PROBLEM.

Let me just repeat that so it’s CRYSTAL CLEAR . . .

THE ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES ARE NOT A PROBLEM.

The comment was made in jest that if we go from needing to approve 3500 events to now approving 350 events, we would simply have more time on our hands.

There’s no problem to fix because . . . say it with me!

THE ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES ARE NOT A PROBLEM.

Any questions?

(Are the administrative issues really a problem?)

[pinwizj]

@DDH

I’d be curious how this would ever be able to be applied internationally, legally and logistically, in the future if there is a Pro/Amateur split or if this system expands beyond North America.

For example, in Sweden, there is no prize money in any tournament, but maybe there isn’t as much WPPR milking or tons of weekly tournaments in one location for that to be an issue in most places…

All events outside of North America don’t have an endorsement fee.

Universal WPPRcare for all outside of the US

[unsmith]

@pinwizj

If we end up moving forward with the “PRO” and “AMATEUR” events, this opt-in/opt-out player option would go away. Events would be submitted with a “PRO” badge next to it (endorsement fee to be paid), or an “AMATEUR” badge next to it (no endorsement fee required).

I like this idea a lot better than trying to use the same physical event for two virtual events (local tournament, IFPA-endorsed tournament).

I also like the idea of commissioning a Pro tour, since let’s be honest, the top players are the ones willing or able to travel to many of the big-ticket events nationally and internationally. A locally-focused player, no matter how dedicated, has a rankings ceiling.

[pinwizj]

@unsmith

I also like the idea of commissioning a Pro tour

Stay tuned . . . we ain’t done yet!

[JimiWolf]

I am trying hard to wrap my head around why this change makes sense, and I still, after reading every post here, do not understand why this would be an improvement to competitive pinball. Is this really to make the SCS and Nationals more prestigious (by having a bigger prize pot), or is there an ulterior motive? I’m being totally sincere here, and I would appreciate a sincere answer. I know I’m not alone in trying to understand why this is happening.

I’m concerned that our local tournament TD’s (for example, Echa & Gene) who organize selfie leagues with no entry fee, will not bother with that anymore, alternatively will just shrug and give up the wpprs voluntarily. It would be a substantial loss to the pinball scene, and one that could have been avoided by just keeping the system that worked in place.

In short, can you tell me why this is such a great idea, and if it is just one phase of a bigger overhaul?

Thank you for your time.

[pinwizj]

@JimiWolf

Is this really to make the SCS and Nationals more prestigious (by having a bigger prize pot)

YES . . . with the potential to lead to even BIGGER prize pools sponsored by outside corporate sponsorship.

See my post above detailing the luck we’ve had with our Big Buck Hunter brand here at Raw Thrills. Many of things I’ve implemented at IFPA has been seeing what works for BBH and if I see some crossover into something that would work for pinball, I jump on it.

[jrb]

This is kind of where I stand. I really dig the idea of upping the prestige factor, but not at the expense of grassroots expansion.

Fortunately if the IFPA does decide to pursue only ranking events willing to pay tribute, I’m sure an alternative (and perhaps more open) ranking / results recording platform will pop up.

[Artimage]

Sorry, I heard that repeated on a podcast today, so you know it has to be true. Also, I didn’t really have time to read Pinside… cause … you know… Tire fire.

@pinwizj

THE ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES ARE NOT A PROBLEM.

Any questions?

(Are the administrative issues really a problem?)

• Me. Me. Me! Oh ME! Please call on ME!

Yes, Lucas.

• No! They aren’t a problem! Did I get it right?!?

[bkerins]

@pinwizj

This was sarcasm . . . the administrative issues are NOT A PROBLEM. […] The comment was made in jest that if we go from needing to approve 3500 events to now approving 350 events, we would simply have more time on our hands.

It’s hard to square what you are saying here with what you’ve said elsewhere. I get that the things you’ve said about family time were jokes, but you also said these two things that are clearly not jokes.

[JimiWolf]

@pinwizj

YES . . . with the potential to lead to even BIGGER prize pools sponsored by outside corporate sponsorship.

Are you giving this “experiment” parameters (open to the public) for how to measure its success? (Time allotted, how big the prize pool should be, etc)

Also, say that Pinburgh chooses to opt-out from this. Would that sway your mind when determining the success of this fee? *Edit, I have no idea if Pinburgh wants to opt-in or out.

[pinwizj]

@jrb

Fortunately if the IFPA does decide to pursue only ranking events willing to pay tribute, I’m sure an alternative (and perhaps more open) ranking / results recording platform will pop up.

See “Professional” and “Amateur” ranking solution . . . circa 2019

[jrb]

Oh, cool. I guess I should find another hobby for 2018 then.

[pinwizj]

@JimiWolf

Are you giving this “experiment” parameters (open to the public) for how to measure its success? (Time allotted, how big the prize pool should be, etc)

Also, say that Pinburgh chooses to opt-out from this. Would that sway your mind when determining the success of this fee? *Edit, I have no idea if Pinburgh wants to opt-in or out.

With most things it’s a gut feeling. For me to come out and say, “If we have less than X number of players, tournaments, money we will drop this program” is just not worth getting into.

I’m sure we will have a good idea in 1Q18 how it’s going (like every other change we’ve ever made).

The PAPA guys have known about this for a LONG TIME . . . they aren’t opting out and their buy-in to doing this certainly helped us avoid the “Majors get an exemption” rule

[h_flex]

@pinwizj

circa 2019

But why stop with the Amateur rankings, only to start up again? Surely, with SCS being tracked on a yearly basis, it would make more sense to just add a “Pro” category and continue with business as usual along with using the fee to get PROPOINTS.

[pinwizj]

@bkerins

It’s hard to square what you are saying here with what you’ve said elsewhere. I get that the things you’ve said about family time were jokes, but you also said these two things that are clearly not jokes.

“I’m being serious”:

I can clarify that statement with:

I meant the number of players that play competitively ‘that we rank’.

I know I had some example where if the weekly in Seattle plays 52 times a year, and doesn’t report any results into the IFPA for endorsement, that event still “exists” and those players are still “playing competitive pinball”. It’s a WIN for us if that continues.

The only true loss are events that totally drop from even existing because of this rule change, because I guess playing for fun wasn’t cool enough?

If there’s anything else hard to square with what I’m saying . . . just ask me

I can make sure to include an “I’m being serious” clarification at the start of my post.