Modern 2017 super league format?

So I’m not about to try and convince someone what competitive pinball means to them.

My assumption was that these people lower in the standings were 1-time tourists walking the streets of NYC, finding this incredible place to play pinball, having their scores written down behind their back, and leaving to never been seen again.

I will be the first to admit I WAS WRONG, which is why the “Rated players rule” didn’t have as big of an impact as I thought it would have.

There is a large group (around 100 players) that show up consistently every month to “compete” at their own level of competitive interest, which really isn’t a surprise if you consider the size of NYC versus other cities.

We see a similar level of competitive interest in our Super League here in Chicago. If I know I can’t make the finals date, I simply don’t play for the month, however, that doesn’t stop many of the lower ranked players from simply doing the best they can throughout the month, with no intention of playing in finals, taking their WPPR’s for 11th place or whatever and feeling good about that.

I’ll argue that much to my surprise, Modern has pulled in a large group of players that are now CONSISTENTLY playing competitive pinball every month. Do they have the level of competitive interest that the top 10-15 players do at that location? NOPE. Should they be penalized for that? At some point I think NOPE. Our only hope with this rule tweak is to give those players an OPTION to increase their level of competitive interest by lowering the qualifying games required to advance to finals.


Maybe a minimum requirement for inclusion like $5/player to avoid people freebasing WPPRs all the time? Have to show a modicum of interest for inclusion?

Edit: I was writing my post before I saw Josh’s.

With PAPA now taking in $5 per player per Circuit event, it’s our perfect time to strike!

We’re not pigs . . . $2.50 per player per IFPA endorsed event would work just fine. Please make your checks out to “Cash” :slight_smile:


Well, I was envisioning it as a fee to be paid back out by the league (or not). It looks like they collect SOMETHING(?) because I see $40/$25/$15 payments listed.

If they get 100 people to still pay $5/league, then I’ve got no beef.

Nah, I liked my interpretation of your comments better. I can’t imagine what college tuition prices will be like by the time I have to worry about it. Gotta start planning early! :slight_smile:

1 Like

I just want to say I think what FLR is doing is a good thing. Yeah, he is cheesing it (and he knows he is cheesing it) and some people are getting inflated in the rankings (if just playing in finals gets you a top 13 spot, you were gtd 13.5 points in January’s SuperLeague). But, look at the good he is doing - he is introducing a huge group of people to competitive pinball. Direct from the Modern SuperLeague home page:

[Modern Pinball SUPERLeague

Stop in anytime on any Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday to play in SUPERLeague — THE most exciting and fun way to earn World Pinball Player Ranking points, track progress and high scores online, and compete! Use the date selector above the check out live scores and standings.]

World Pinball Player Ranking Points is hyperlinked to the IFPA homepage. Maybe Josh could statistically analyze how many hits he gets a month from the Modern homepage? (Maybe Josh doesn’t want to do any work and doesn’t want me tasking him, I don’t know).

It all comes back to the goal of IFPA which is always some conundrum and never gets answered.


FLR basically got me into competitive pinball and superleague was that gateway drug. I’m sure there’s a couple dozen people that could say that.

I’m not going to stop doing superleague because it’s a way to play GREAT players a couple times a month and FLR’s my buddy. (oh and since it’s not a bar, I don’t end up getting totally loaded)

It’s in my personality to find this kind of gaming of the system amusing, but believe me, I’m not in it to be in the top 100(?!). I’m nuts for tracking WPPRs, but I’d be just as nuts for it if I was straining to crack the top 1000. The real downside for me is that the more serious I become at competing (gonna try to check out papa this year), the more I’d appreciate an accurate ranking.

Not gonna take it up with Francesco because it’s his prerogative and I think he understands the general sentiment, god bless him. FLR, if you’re lurkin’ this thread, I’ll see ya next week!


'#AlternativeFacts :slight_smile:


I can see this hurting some larger leagues that run a more “normal” format than Modern. Specifically match play leagues like NEPL or PPL with a 100+ player count. Say there are 8 meets with a drop week, all players who only make it to 6 or fewer meets during a season won’t be counted toward final standings, which is kind of a bummer for the players who are more casual but still interested.

Yeah… Seattle Pinball League will be severely impacted by this.

It does make sense though… what’s the point of counting people that “never had a chance” in the first place (even if someone goes to 4/7 of the events, realistically there’s no chance they can make finals). HOWEVER… we do have a special “Wild Card” rule that allows anyone who has got a top 4 in an event a chance to win a wild card playoff into the finals, regardless of their league standing. Will this mean we can continue to count players as long as they play in over half the events? :smiley:

Yep . . . it’s the price those larger leagues have to pay for having sooooo many players.

If that league is seeing a large group of players not meeting the 7 event requirement, perhaps it’s worth changing the standings to be your best 6. That would certainly give a fighting chance to those people that don’t make 7 meets to still qualify on a level playing field with the other players that played in 7 or 8 meets.

There are options here for organizers to work within those boundaries, based on the interest level of the players in the league. It’s up to them to adjust things if they want to include as many players as possible.

It certainly impacts the TGP calculation :slight_smile:

If I can qualify for SPL finals by playing in ONE EVENT, it means that the TGP shouldn’t be based on a full season of play like it probably is now.

“Players that advance to the final round despite not meeting this percentage may also be included in the final standings submitted to the IFPA.”

All that would happen is that “Wild Card” player would be eligible to be included in the final results by qualifying for the final round, but anyone else that doesn’t play in 7 out of 7 events would be removed from the standings before submitting those results to the IFPA (assuming you have over 100 players in the league).

This slides, right? If 56 people participate, everyone that participated in 56% of the q. requirements counts?

I worry that there might be weirdness with ‘if one more guy plays one game, then actually ten people haven’t played’ type stuff…


I would be extremely careful when assigning motivations to another person. For instance, at POP, we run a SuperLeague and monthly tournament and I 100% designed them to maximize the WPPR points that can be earned. However my motivation is in no way related to exploit the system, maximize points for Portland players, or break the system for my own gain. My only motivation is to bring as many people as possible in the door, because I think we have a really special place and I’d like to stay open and financially viable. Serious players like to earn points, so the way to get them in the door and play (especially at a place with no alcohol) is to design events that maximize what they care about. Additionally, for our monthly events, I designed them as match play not only for WPPR purposes but because it is way more appealing to our growing casual player base.

If I was to hazard a guess, I would say that FLR’s motivations are similar, and the only reason the effect is so much higher is because his city is so much larger. That doesn’t mean he is intentionally attempting to make NYC players more “important” or higher ranking or any of these things. He is just taking advantage of the place he finds himself in order to bring customers in the door. You can find this frustrating and annoying and wish it was different, but we all have our own problems to solve.


Correct. It is possible of course for last minute casual people to cause a group of players to not be counted.

The example Becker and I were going through was a tournament like INDISC:

If you have your best 6 games counting, you’re fine to include anyone that plays in 5 out of 6 games until the 84th player signs up and plays even 1 game.

Once that 84th player participates, playing 5 out of 6 games would only hit 83.3% participation, so anyone that played 5 out of 6 would now NOT be counted.

Good point. But please note my use of the word “seemingly.” It was used for a reason. I stand by what I wrote: it seems this way to me, and is my perception of the situation.

This is based on what he’s told me (and told others) how happy he is with how high and inflated the points are for Super League. To his credit, he is consistent and encouraged me to do the same in my city.

My perception is also based on what I already wrote: the practice of adjusting each event to take the fewest # of players to the finals as possible.

1 Like

Hmm… when will all endorsed events require the TD or an IFPA certified enforcer to make sure results are notarized as true and complete upon submission? :dizzy_face:

Sure, there are some of us who stay on top of this stuff, but I’d imagine it must be a nightmare for you guys on the back end with TDs who either aren’t aware or are just too lazy to check all the boxes when new changes come out.

I know you use the word “guess” but I would say that your guess and Colin’s guess are just as valid. Nobody really knows but assigning good intentions may be just as foolish as assigning bad ones.

The motivations for the SuperLeague are bizarre and I don’t quite understand them at all. I know that I and my friends have been called “upstate f***ers” and that the number of Superleauges bizarrely increases the closer I, Bruce, or Levi get to the top 16 in the NYC finals rankings. I also know that FLR will support other locations around NYC and go and promote non-modern tournaments and formats. He also chooses not to run up against the NYC bar league. He’s gone to various locations in NYC to scout them out for the location for the finals and has only run NY© state finals at Modern once in 2016. 2017 will be at Steve Marsh’s place in Manhattan a private location. Sunshine has hosted the NY finals as well. I also know that for the crime of registering an IFPA tournament in Middletown, NY 100 miles away from a tournament he planned on running I was blocked on fb for several months.

The great thing about this is that there will always be someone (somehow it is always someone who isn’t winning) who cares enough to act as the enforcer for their region and turn in events that aren’t keeping in line with the rules.

1 Like

The NEPL already accounts for this in its rules. Currently 6 of the 8 weeks are counted towards standings. Players who attend 5 weeks or fewer (perhaps 4 or fewer) are placed into Z division. They are uneligible to compete in finals but can still attend and hang out with the league members and eat the food they paid for with their league dues. Z division players were not submitted to finals standings in the league.