I move up so I’m in favor.
Does anyone currently combine events into a single IFPA submission? How is that handled as far as the tournament submission and the dates? List the final date as the calendar entry and say what the other dates are in the text?
IIRC: Just enter your event as a league with a schedule of meetups in the description and hold a finals event on the last date. Just be sure you follow guidelines on holding finals depending on your format or you will take a WPPR hit.
That’s what I was guessing, just wanted to confirm.
Todd has it spot on. Take your individual events and have your own internal points system to track standings for the year. Your submission would be a league that goes from ‘start date’ through ‘end date’ (one registration on our site).
List out all the details in your submission regarding the individual sessions, the meeting dates, all that good stuff that potential players would want to see.
PS. If you use Match Play Events you can string your tournaments together as a “tournament series” and MP will keep track of the points for you and even generate the data you need to submit the final standings to IFPA.
It’s difficult or impossible to account for players that miss a week in matchplay right now, though - wink wink
I was excited when I counted and realized AZ had over 100 events this year so there could be a chance of expanded state championships in 2019 but then I saw we haven’t even hit 300 players yet this year. Sigh. Not much hope to bump up our player base by over 100 next year but maybe someday!
What do you mean exactly? We use matchplay for our league and players miss weeks regularly. You just need to tell matchplay that you are using the best x of y tournaments in the series.
It depends on what format you’re using. If you’re running a format where full events can be dropped and the number of participants per week doesn’t impact the points awarded per event too much it probably works. If you’re choosing a format based on what matchplay already has in place I’m sure you’re fine as well.
Our league treats absences as a game score of zero in a single-entry best game format during qualifying weeks. This should result in a few people tied for last place but matchplay doesn’t handle ties well. We also drop worst games across all weeks and not individual weeks, which isn’t possible. We could correct for these issues manually but there’s no way to manually adjust points for either single player formats or series.
I know … the old “stop doing that like that”, right? Thanks to @haugstrup for all the support as always.
Ditto the FSPA/PAPA League Manager. (Which does not require you to play FSPA rules; we just created the software.)
Can you post Ohio?
Ohio is not immune to the ONE PLAYER DIFFERENCE virus.
1 John Delzoppo 614.06
2 Tommy Bizzi 529.8
3 Don Johnson 345.75
4 Andrew Lee 303.33
5 Rod Lawrence 299.89
6 Trent Augenstein 284.63
7 Carlos Delaserda 283.55
8 Aaron Burke 256.8
9 Mark Brown OH 235.07
10 Stephen Prusa 210.45
11 Darren Kamnitzer 201.32
12 Zak Bowers 199.57
13 James Scott OH 187.09
14 Aleksander Kaczmarczyk 183.31
15 Will Heaney 174.3
16 Ryan Case 169.75
Top 20 capped:
1 John Delzoppo 499.19
2 Don Johnson 288.54
3 Andrew Lee 287.21
4 Rod Lawrence 286.3
5 Trent Augenstein 266.06
6 Tommy Bizzi 265.53
7 Carlos Delaserda 242.97
8 Aaron Burke 224.3
9 Darren Kamnitzer 195.56
10 Stephen Prusa 191.58
11 Aleksander Kaczmarczyk 183.31
12 James Scott OH 172.84
13 Mark Brown OH 165.47
14 Ryan Case 164.77
15 John Tomsich 157.75
16 Will Heaney 146.95
Zak Bowers is the casualty here. He goes from in as the 12th seed to out in 17th by 2.5 WPPR’s.
Jon Tomsich moves into the qualifying field as the 15th seed under the capped system. Right now he’s the 17th seed missing the cutline by 1.4 WPPR’s.
To speak of something else.
Are there good reasons for still having a 30 days in advance requirement on submissions? How about three weeks.
If it doesn’t take too long and isn’t super annoying yet, how about Michigan?
I have a feeling we’re going to see a one player difference
I think the ability for players to be made aware of an event and have the opportunity to plan on attending is a good reason. The closer you move that requirement the less likely you are giving someone a chance to plan.
I made a thread with this suggestion months ago and the general response was: it doesn’t matter/it would have a negative impact on players who focus on playing more rather than better (everyone). The thread went Into radio silence about a month ago and it seemed as if nothing had changed and most were for the current system. So I have to ask: why the sudden change of heart? What was said outside of that thread that made you change your mind? I’m obviously for the changes, and am genuinely curious about what inspired the change.
There was nothing sudden about it. Plenty of offline conversations are happening every day, and were happening every day as we mulled over which proposals to implement.
There is definitely something to this “perception” of it having an impact. I’ve received a bunch of GREAT CHANGE! emails, with people genuinely feeling like they now have a chance to qualify when they previously didn’t think they did.
I mentioned this back in September in your other thread:
“If we can suck people in because of the illusion they now have a better chance, even if “we” all know it doesn’t…It could be a positive move.”
Ultimately I’m picking the group of players that I piss off, and it’s far easier for me to tell the Grinders that this cap doesn’t really matter, and if they continue to grind and have made the cut in the past, they will most likely continue making the cut based on their best events.
That argument seems to be easier compared to trying to convince someone that doesn’t currently play to now start playing because the cap doesn’t matter
You’re openly admitting that the reasons for the change are the same ones that you labeled irrelevant originally. The only difference now is that you’ve decided to please the people you piss off?
So let me rephrase my question: what in these offline conversations everyday made all these same points go from being irrelevant to being enough to change the system?
A whole thread of solid points wasn’t enough to convince you, but someone complaining enough was?