The points were never irrelevant. It really came down to perception being more important than maybe I thought it was through these offline conversations.
Reading back through your other thread, I didn’t see whole ton of solid points that seemed to come across as unanimously accepted and approved. I read a ton of people agreeing with some of the points, and a ton of people disagreeing with some of the points.
Your post in the other thread pretty much summed up exactly where we stand:
“I think that its not fair to have the elite who perform well at big tourneys be guaranteed SCS spots, but i also think its unfair for people to make their way in through “bulk play”. tough call.”
The reality is that the “bulk players” are making the cut anyway (whether they count all 60 events they played in, or only their best 20). The reality is that the elite players who perform well at big tourneys who are making the cut, are making the cut either way. That’s just the facts in every model I’ve run ad nauseum.
The decision came down to giving those people that FEEL they don’t have a chance to make the cut under the uncapped system, a chance to FEEL like they now have a better chance not having to chase down the players that get to count all 60+ of their events played.
I think you fail to realize that I deal with IFPA complaining pretty much 24/7 . . . so it’s mostly white noise at this point. My comment about making a decision as to which group I want to piss off was said in jest.