Posted this on one of the hundred Facebook world is ending threads I’ve jumped in and figured it was worth a repost here.
I’m often wondered … there were 3500 events last year. If IFPA disappeared I would HOPE that there would still be 3500 events the following year.
This is a program that kind of puts that to the test. If we move to a world where 3500 events exist but only 500 are endorsed, we’re able to continue promoting pinball at a different level while knowing the level of interest in competition has been maintained (outside of IFPA endorsement).
Unfortunately the coverage driven by SCS is on par with “Starbucks customer gives $50 and apology note to barista” and “Rescued puppy with no feet gets prosthetic paws”. The pieces tend to be little more than “Pinball… Apparently people compete at this?”.
I largely agree with the notion of events needing to pony up a fraction of the entry fees (or a location agreeing to pay) to support the governing body of competitive pinball. However, many of the arguments against this take on shades of the American Revolution or “State’s Rights”. Any time you introduce money into an equation, this is bound to happen, and bureaucracy is born; here we are.
I want to reiterate the problem of smaller cities that are geographically removed from their state’s pinball “capitol” – for example, we are just beginning to create a sustained, competitive pinball scene in Eugene, Oregon. @pinwizj and the IFPA want to increase the prestige of the SCS and National Championship, which is a great goal, and one players in Eugene would love to assist with in the state of Oregon – if we get a seat at the proverbial table. What’s one way to do that? Give an automatic qualifier for the top in-state player outside of PDX. I’m sure other states could come up with creative solutions to ensure compliance (and excitement!) with the new SCS requirements.
I feel this should be “opt-in” at the event level for those events that do not wish to be part of the SCS.
To say it is opt-in at the player level is not accurate, because players in their first tournament aren’t asked to join WPPR. Players in their first 2018 tournament are unlikely to be asked if they want to continue and pay the fee.
As @haugstrup stated, I don’t see how this fits with IFPA’s goals. The state and national events already have prestige and publicity, and players who do not have a chance to reach the SCS are going to be actively hurt by this.
Locations running 20-player weekly events will be asked to pay $1000 to support tournaments they don’t run where only elite players are welcome, or else leave the WPPR system altogether.
Agreed, and thanks to all who have done legwork at IFPA. This is their call to make, and thanks to them for the system they’ve built and organized.
I have to say, if this were to roll out as currently planned, I would have a problem with the nationals working the way it does: i.e. every state sends 1 regardless of number of players / events in that state. Given each state is feeding the prize pool, it seems out of fairness it would be necessary to have a floor number of $ fed into the pool in order to qualify for nationals, and then on top of that, states get to send top N players based on the ratio of money that state fed to the pool relative to the floor number to qualify. Anything other than a structure like this just seems unfair.
Now, before nationals became about the $$$ the way it currently works is great and I had no problem with it. But now that IFPA is making it about the $$$, people can/should (rightfully) get critical of the way it is structured.
A cap at the minimum amount would work just as well, and then any funds over that amount could go towards making the trophies more spectacular/helping the state champs travel to the venue for the face-off. I don’t really agree that the heavier states should have multiple representitives- the whole point of the SCS is to create a national body to compete.
I like this, but would want WPPR separated from SCS. All 2018 tournaments would continue to award WPPR points as they did in 2017. If a tournaments wants to be SCS eligible, it will declare itself so, and collect the fee from ALL players (maybe more than a dollar if necessary). Only points earned at SCS tournaments will count towards SCS eligibility at the end of the year.
People aren’t forced to participate in a system they don’t want to
Rankings are more accurate, since there’s little reason for anyone to abstain
TDs can choose to deal with the payments/legality issues, or not; without sacrificing WPPRs for their players
I think most (at least the larger) tournaments will continue to support SCS (barring legal issue like MGC)
Those who can’t participate in SCS aren’t excommunicated from IFPA/WPPR completely.
Josh (or Shepherd?) would have to create another column in the tourney database … boolean value, IS_SCS_ELIGIBLE (1 or 0) and write code to calculate people’s SCS rankings (using just SCS tourneys) alongside normal ranking (using all tourneys). Doesn’t seem TOO difficult
@pinwizj related to SCS but unrelated to these fees, have you guys thought about a minimum number of state tournaments that need to be played in to be included in the SCS standings? Say 5? I think that could do well for prestige and help grow local pinball.