IFPA 2018 changes?


#21

for several reasons (financial, legal) only in the US/Canada


#22

This is causing much anger and fighting within my league and there is a good chance it will splinter the league. I am hoping it doesn’t come to that, but several people seem so against the idea that they are unwilling to even allow someone else to pay the fee. One guy even blew up and claimed he is going to sell off his collection over this.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out around the continent.


#23

We anticipate anger, hostility, death threats :slight_smile:

Number of events in 2016 --> 3563

Number of events in 2018 --> ???

Finding out that answer is something I’m insanely curious about. If it drops to 2000+ maybe we choose to ‘regrow’ from there. If it drops to 150 then we can easily toss this idea in the garbage.


#24

I’m sad to see IFPA jumping on the bandwagon of having California cover the debauchery of other states.


#25

I am really surprised at anyone making a huge deal over $1 per tournament. I mean the value the WPPR system adds to pinball is awesome. Also bowling leagues charge WAY more than $1 for WBC or USBC participation.

Honestly the players should bear the cost per event as a $1 reduction in prize pool. I am never playing tournaments for prize pools anyways. To me it’s about improving my skill and ranking, and qualifying for other events.

In between league seasons we have been running a weekly knockout tournament with a $1 entry fee, winner take all. No one really cares about the gas money we take home. It’s about getting more competitive pinball in. We have definitely attracted new faces who can’t commit to an entire 8 week season but want to play in a competitive manner. I’m sure if we just shipped the $1 per player to IFPA no one would care.


#26

Can you explain why this idea is not an “opt-in” concept? The plan is to charge players in the US and Canada for a service that is free everywhere else?

As “opt-in”, the events that want to can pay, could be marked in some clear way on the IFPA site, and only results from “opt-in” tournaments are counted toward state champs.

Changing to “opt-in” would drive your event’s prize pool from those who want to be part of it. The players who care about this will perceive “opt-in” events as more valuable. Players in areas who know they cannot qualify or attend state champs (@Waltino) won’t pay a fee that only goes to those who can.

Changing to “opt-in” won’t create a hardship for large events or for those who want to just play casually or run an event for charity. Charging charitable events for something that is free for any European event seems particularly odd.

Based on what you’ve said, these payments don’t help IFPA run its services or website, and you’re allowing events outside North America to continue using services like the rankings and event calendar for free.


#27

Is this new tax more about cutting down the number of tournaments than bolstering the prize pool?

Also, if you think that the prestige of the Scs will be bolstered by a larger prize pool, why not charge $10/person? Imagine the prestige.

How about the 16 players in the State championships sponsor the pool instead? Otherwise you’re just charging a lot of ppl with no real chance of winning any money back.

Thank you for listening.


#28

There are plenty of examples given of how to fund this that wouldn’t cost new or beginning players a dime. if you take it out of the prize pool in fact, you’re explicitly charging the people who have the most chance to win it back. I understand people have issues with the system but let’s at least be honest and accurate about them.


#29

I don’t agree with this as it applies to locations and player bases who are just entering pinball, or locations dominated by others. Imagine that discussion about upstate NY being dominated by NYC players, except with the upstate players paying hundreds of dollars into a prize pool they can’t qualify for.


#30

Which is exactly the problem some people in our league have with this change. They want to continue to be an IFPA league but don’t want to have to pay money that only a select few will be playing for.


#31

NY was only dominated by NYC players when the free entry league with a questionable signup policy was submitting 100+ players a month to the ifpa. NYC only has IFPA events at Modern, Sunshine, And a few weekend events at Sunshine and other bars. The Buffalo Pinball Summer Open had the largest impact on the NY states race last year when the nerf was applied to the Super league (moving me personally from 20th to 7th)


#32

This will be opt-in. TD’s that choose to charge the players explicitly can give players the choice to pay or not.

Those that pay get listed in the standings and earn WPPRs. Those that don’t want to are welcome to play for the real reason why anyone plays in tournaments … for fun :slight_smile:


#33

That could play havoc with events’ TVAs. Hmmm.


#34

Washington and Pennsylvania might have something to say about that :wink:


#35

Have you considered charging annual IFPA membership fees and using the fund for the same purposes. Takes the burden off of TD’s and probably avoids the splintering of existing leagues and events. Might not generate the same $ , but it’s easier to defend and hopefully easier to implement.


#36

Considered and there’s tax issues and logistical issues that make it a nightmare.

We have an interface in place with TD’s through the results submission process. This becomes an extension of that process.


#37

IMO this is the wrong solution to the problem of too much work approving tournament results. Why not farm out the problem more and have Representatives from each state/country do it. And maybe require Central sign off for any result over 30 pts or something.

I personally am not motivated by prize pools for attending any tournament, and the pros of building the state and national pools are lost on me (even if I gain from it on average).


#38

Is the fee paid for each player that enters an event, or each player that qualifies for WPPR points?


#39

Of the 50 players who played in the league I’m in this season, only two went for state. And this was a year where the finals were in norcal, where the league is located. I heard that only one player from socal made the trip up to compete (for state finals). Most everyone else in league was playing for fun. I’m guessing most leagues are this way. The large majority are playing for fun and have no desire to compete at the state level.

Was exempting leagues (real, not selfie) considered? Seems like a lot of casual players will be funding a few folks playing for big money.


#40

For multi-state leagues like NEPL, would the 75% be split among all the states involved?

I assume the answer is yes, and that it would be split evenly. In a perfect world, though, it would probably be split in proportion to the number of players from each state. In terms of NEPL, imagine that 5 states each had ~40 regular players. Then state 6 (like Vermont!) wants to come along and join, but will only have 15 players – at least at the start. The split of this $484 (if my math is right) might end up being an actual consideration in allowing new states with smaller player bases to participate.