I just did a big update to the Oregon pinball Facebook groups about the current status of state championships, and I picked up on an interesting side effect of the change to top 20 events as it relates to the last month of play.
We have about a dozen events left in the year. Of those I’d say 2-3 are probably worth significant points (10+) with the rest at varying levels under that. Down at the bottom of the rankings we have about 6-7 bunched up very close at the bubble. HOWEVER of those bunched up people, three have not hit their 20 event threshold yet, and of those who have, their range to net more points is pretty wide. One person only needs .2 to add to his standings, whereas one person needs 1.5 to add to hers. This really changes the end-of-year calculus. Before you would gain at least some ground by just showing up. That is still true for some people, but for others they actually have to do OK, and in one case actually pretty decently. Getting top 8 at one of our weeklies will barely get you 1.5, and even if you get top four you might only net one point depending on turnout. In the meantime the people who haven’t had 20 events yet can just show up and gain ground no matter what.
Those who are on the bubble with a few events did very well at them, and now they are reaping the rewards. I did extremely well in two large events, mediocrely at a few small ones, and garbage at the rest. I have 20 events but my threshold to gain is way lower because of my inconsistency. The person at 1.5 has been doing decently at a large number of events, but hasn’t really crushed.
None of this is good or bad, it is mostly as it should be as the system is designed. It is just interesting to watch this all play out now, which is much different than past years.
Love it!!! Gives everyone all year to make state, with the right amount of points at their own pace. Everyone still has every opportunity to make it, with no one to blame but themselves if they dont.
20 events but didn’t make it? Play better.
Under 20 events but didn’t make it? Play more.
Simple as that.
If you’re heating up some SCS soup, mind if I spice it up a bit with some homemade “how about a minimum cap”?
Haha I’m just salting the soda. I don’t advocate for a minimum cap. Maybe it would be cool If the cap was 2 or 3 events so that rankings aren’t as shook up when big events come to smaller states, but even that is circumvented by the fact that most big tourneys have a main and a side.
I honestly think it’s kinda fun that in late March the Texas SCS standings are essentially the same as the TPF final standings, and you get to watch those players drop off.
If someone is doing well enough with very few events to make a state finals then they earned the right to be there. More often than not those players are choosing their home state though.
Kentucky is a great example of place where you used to be able to qualify if you had any mid-level success at LAX and didn’t return all year. Now they’re almost a Super State and that’s much less of an issue. I bet next year it won’t be a factor at all.
Like stated before a big event in a smaller state can really turn the tables on scs . Having a minimum of 5 would help out the participants who are playing all year not just one big weekend . But also having a big weekend can help with state scs becoming a super state, which is a good . I can see both sides of issue but in my opinion a minimum of 5 I think is good for scs .
I see where you’re coming from. Might sound kinda dismissive but I think states with that problem should handle it themselves by way of growing their scene outside of these big events, rather than a change to the whole format.
Besides, if the vast majority of a states points come from one event, shouldn’t the results of that event weigh just as heavily when it comes to states final standings?
Same can be said about the max. Why penalize someone for playing a lot? If You don’t want to play a lot, imo you shouldn’t make states. Instead, we’ve changed the whole format.
If we have a max, there should also be a min. Imo. It will never get done, but it should. Haha
That and doing the SCS as a grudge instead of straight seeded bracket. Haha
Believe me we have grown the scene but it is very very hard to grow to make the points of a big event irrelevant to the rest of the year. Just this year the big event with both a main and classic made 6 spots in top 24 go to those competing only in 2 events . If there is a state that wants to have 5 events in one day and have everyone be qualified then go for it but there are plenty of directors that would take the other stand and embrace a minimum and not do five events during one weekend .
You can’t force TD’s to take any stand on not holding events. If I had genuine interest in qualifying for NC SCS next year and we put the minimum in place, I would simply register my own events the same weekend as OBX.
Pick 5 games, qualifying open during the OBX event, selfie submissions. Top 4 scores on each of the 5 games have a 1-ball final to crown the winner. Anyone that needs to hit their 5 event minimum that’s traveling in can submit 5 pictures to me and they’re good to go.
I can do all of that while waiting in line to play my OBX qualifying game.
I don’t think your problem is generating enough points. Your problem is that 3 locals win every tournament taking all the points. Ovid’s 23 wins are were your points go.
