IFPA 2018 changes?


Greg doesn’t have to imagine! That’s exactly what’s happening for Oregonians outside of the Portland metro area, as described by @Waltino. As I’ve had a chance to talk through this change with other people, I’ve come to accept the argument that the people getting “screwed” (i.e. if the IFPA fee is taken directly from the pot, people who placed in the money would win less money) are also the people most likely to benefit, as people who do well in tournaments tend to qualify for States, where 75% of the IFPA fee will go. However, that only works in states with a pretty constrained scene. It negatively impacts Seattle, which has so many tournaments that many tourney winners don’t qualify for States, and on the opposite end it negatively impacts Eugene, which doesn’t have enough tournaments or people to compete with the Portland area so is paying into a pot they won’t compete for.

(None of this is PNW specific, I just used these as examples I’m most familiar with.)


Involving more money starts to bring the border thing back into focus. Here in Cincinnati, most of the local group basically doesn’t care about the Ohio SCS. We have no desire to match the number of events held in the NE part of the state, and thus rarely get enough Ohio points to qualify. If I were running an event here, I’d simply drop IFPA endorsement rather than donate to the Ohio prize pool. I’d also be less inclined to participate in an IFPA endorsed tournament here for the same reasons. Tournaments can still be fun without WPPR points.

If this is a thing, I’ll probably skip the pay for points and play for fun. I care about my IFPA ranking not so much :smiley:


This isn’t about that . . . just a ‘positive consequence’ :slight_smile:

If this tanks, we’ll repeal and go back to the way things were. If it works, then that means it would have worked and we will move forward.


What is the criteria for “works”?


I’ll know it when I see it!


It’s based on the players that are included in the standings submitted into us. We have a table in our database tied to the number of players and that will be tied to the payment requested.

If you have 100 players enter and only 20 players want to opt-in, then you would submit those 20 players only in your results to us, and we’ll request $20 as the endorsement fee.


Everything was considered, and we’re going with the NOTHING IS EXEMPTED approach.

Casual players only fund this is the TD requests an additional $1. They then have the option to pay in and be counted, or just play for fun and not (if the TD is willing to deal with those logistics).

My mom for example has never won a single dollar at our monthly event. Even if we did this as an additional $1 paid (which we’re not), she said she would gladly pay the $12 per year as a “I enjoy being ranked and watching myself move up” charge.


Now that we’re down to JUST NEPL we’ll deal with this with you guys. Easiest would be to split the 75% evenly, but I’m not opposed to talking with NEPL leadership about a ‘better way’. As long as every participant is accounted for on the endorsement fee, we’ll figure out the rest.


I must admit I’m having trouble understanding the rationale behind this change. As far as I understand the goals of IFPA is two-fold:

  1. Provide accurate rankings of pinball players
  2. Grow the pinball hobby

If the endorsement fee went towards covering IFPA’s operating expenses I could understand the choice, but it would make more sense to have a different structure than per player per event costs.

The way I see it this endorsement fee is detrimental to both goals. Everything else equal you’ll see fewer events in the system because a rather complicated bureaucratic layer is being added on top of an already pretty bureaucratic process. Fewer events == less accurate rankings.

If IFPA can’t handle the amount of events maybe change the submission/approval process to be easier rather than harder? Will IFPA be accepting cash payments through the mail or will TDs be forced to intermingle personal finances and pinball monies?

(Be ready for complaints when TDs collect “IFPA fees” but end up not submitting to IFPA or the tournament is rejected for other reasons)

I can only speak for the SF Bay area, but around here SCS does 0% to spread the reach of the hobby. SCS is for a small group (compared to the player base) who are all very well established. There’s no excitement among new players for SCS. The stuff that’s growing pinball around here are free events, especially selfie leagues.

Forcing endorsement fees adds a ton of work for TDs and makes it harder to attract new players. “Finding a sponsor to cover the fees” is not something that just happens. That kind of stuff takes time and energy that could be spent making more and better events.

I think Bowen made a lot of sense above when he suggested that this should be an opt-in process. If a TD wants their tournament to count towards SCS rankings, they can pay. It would effectively create e.g. a California Circuit and that I can see being a thing that can help grow pinball.

I have to make a states’ right argument here: Why not leave this up to each state?


“The IFPA has set a goal to increase the prestige of the State and National level Championships.”

How do you define prestige? More tournaments being run, more media attention for tournaments, or tournaments with bigger prize pools?


We’ll accept it any way the TD wants to send it. Some TD’s plan on prepaying me and then working off their balance as they run events during the year. I’m flexible and will be handling all the accounting on my end.


It’s an opt-in process at the player level. If none of your players are interested in SCS/WPPR’s, then endorsement doesn’t particularly mean anything. If 20 players out the 100 at your event do, then run this endorsement fee as a ‘sidepot’ for those interested.

If players don’t care about SCS, but do care about their World Ranking, then they are welcome to rationalize this as a “IFPA player fee” for their enjoyment of the WPPR system. For most people that play 6 events or fewer per year, that’s a $6 annual charge to enjoy the IFPA site. For those that play more, you can pick and choose which events you want to earn WPPR’s at, and which events you don’t (if a TD is willing to handle those logistics).


This will probably discourage TDs from submitting players who didn’t fulfill the participation requirements (or that don’t exist)


All of the above. There is no evidence this will lead to less tournaments being run. Let’s have that talk AFTER there are less tournaments being run, and take a State of the Union at that time.


It’s the poor TD who has to bear the entire logistical burden. I think it’s better to work towards a world where it’s easier rather than harder to organize events.

I’ll happily pay an “IFPA player fee” to promote pinball or maintain the rankings system. I’ve said that before. I see no point in paying an SCS player fee because the SCS has zero impact on growing pinball in my community.


Particularly in our situation here in Oklahoma where we struggle to convince new players to overcome the intimidation factor and try competitive pinball and run almost all our tournaments with no entry fee.

Unfortunately, Josh doesn’t seem interested in a solution that is TD-friendly, even if it might ultimately generate more money for the SCS.


You don’t need WPPR’s to convince new players to play competitive pinball . . . you just need a game and a TD.


True, but “become a world ranked pinball player” is a fantastic way to encourage new people to compete. It’s sad to have to choose :slight_smile:


I get your point, but I saw more press in traditional media over SCS than i have over the rest of the year. It may not directly impact your community, but I think it did more than zero.


My general concern is about the inconsistency of players opting to pay Vs venue or TD paying for them. This has a very SLesque feel to it. Why are we counting players that did not choose to compete (pay the fee). Can I pay for them at any event I attend to pad my points without consent?