Modern 2017 super league format?

There is a question - the part where if you show up and play in finals, does that only count if you show up and play in A finals, or if you qualify for a division and show up and play in that division. Obviously PPL will be requiring 100% attendance (I am assuming it is 100% of 6 since that is what is used to determine standings, even though there are 8 weeks you are allowed to play), but only 32 make A finals, so does this mean if someone plays 5 weeks and qualifies for B they don’t get submitted?

So this change heavily affects the SFPD league because we allow guests. Our membership is at 78 and guests bring us over 100. So anybody that misses one league night won’t be counted toward WPPRs (unless they make A finals)? This will probably lead to us eliminating guests which I think goes against one of the core values of the IFPA which is to allow more participation.

I know this is a response to certain leagues that call themselves “super” but maybe this change shouldn’t affect leagues that participate in head to head or group match play? As I could never see those “super” leagues ever doing match play for their qualifying. It’s too complicated for them.

We’re running into a similar issue using Never Drains software for our Selfie League in Portland. Since it hasn’t been adjusted to take into account WPPR v.5.3, the finals cut line is inaccurate (taking into account all participants rather than just those who have played 50%+ of qualifying games) and people think they’ve qualified when they haven’t. IDK if @kdeangelo has made this change and we’re just using an outdated version, if the TD needs to make the changes himself, or if this is a known issue that just takes time to rectify.

I really appreciate that all the software people (@haugstrup @iscrz @kdeangelo et al) make it easy for TDs to adhere to the WPPR rules by building them into the software directly! It makes my life so much easier. Thank you for all you do!


I met a lovely woman from New York at PPO who, thanks to Modern’s Super League, was A restricted. This was… jarring? is I think the word I wanna use here… because while she was a good player, she wasn’t an A division player, and she didn’t think she was an A division player, and this was the first or second time she had ever traveled for a tournament.

I think most TDs, especially those with pinball on-location, are usually going to try to max out the WPPR points available to the format they want to present to their players for any given league or tournament; very few run without them. But, I feel like there is really only one league that actively tries to break the ranking system by seeing how much they can exploit it. They do this and Josh gets a headache because now he and Shepherd have to come up with new rules to plug the hole the Super League punched in WPPR’s face and we all get annoyed because now we have to adjust our leagues and tournaments.

BUT what I want to point out is that I also think that what Modern is doing, specifically, is a disservice to their players. They are spreading competitive pinball, and that’s fantastic. And people are out there getting practice, and that’s great. But, some of those people are walking away with inflated rankings that leave them restricted to divisions they can’t hang in when they play in things that are not at Modern. That can leave people demoralized and upset, and ultimately, it hurts the rankings and it hurts competitive pinball.


I played Modern once last Jan. and really enjoyed it and FLR. I recall that there was a fee to join the league ($10?) so like Josh says, people elect to join vs. scores just being written down behind their back.

I heard a lot of people outside NYC concerned about Modern’s super league, but really, they followed the IFPA rules. So other than people not being fortunate to be able to play their Super League or Chicago’s, there shouldn’t be a concern. As the IFPA scoring changes & tweaks, Modern and other leagues correctly adjust. I know our small leagues do too.

Not sure there’s a perfect solution, but we all have the same parameters in the IFPA. Best 20 scores in the last 3 years.

My worry is retro-active score changing. Imagine if in NHL they decide goals are now worth 2 points. Would they change the stats of years past? When the NBA added the 3 point line in 1979, they didn’t go back and adjust the scoring of the past. Changing the history can be concerning, because people followed the rules set back at the time.


Unless a guest was participating very frequently (more than 50%), they aren’t counted as a player under prior WPPR rev, correct? So I’m guessing the new rule would put your league’s participation threshold at 78% participation in order to be counted.

I don’t think you’ll have to eliminate guests.

In the meanwhile, it is back to Excel :slight_smile:

I don’t see where anyone has suggested retroactively adjusting the values, so that seems like a bit of a straw-man.

hope so. I know it was a nightmare at the start of 2016 for IFPA. The last change wasn’t retro either. Hope those retro-changes are done.

Our retroactive changes and only related to FORMULA changes.

If we make a change to the formula to multiply everything by 100 WPPRs to get rid of decimal points, that would be a formula change that would automatically change everything in the system since the beginning of time.

All of the recent changes have to do with the reporting of results from TD’s (TGP evaluation and inclusion/exclusion of players). Those changes will never be retroactive.

1 Like

For IFPA purposes of players being “eliminated”, we only consider the highest division for those purposes.

So qualifying for those lower divisions doesn’t make them eligible for IFPA purposes if they don’t meet that participation requirement.

Depends on how many weeks get counted in your standings whether this would impact you guys or not.

How many of your players last season didn’t play in at least 50%?

I haven’t begun to add these modifications into the system yet, nor had I even thought of adding them until reading your comment for cut-lines. Results exports are on my short list however.


Starting to think this thread would be more appropriate for “Tournament Director Ethics” than the other one :wink:


It’s no trouble . . . I find these kind of headaches quite entertaining :slight_smile:

I’m already hard at work on my next hole plugging!


Thankfully Match Play doesn’t display cut lines so I don’t have to worry about that part. My philosophy is to keep IFPA submissions/rules completely separate from running the tournament.

E.g. if a player didn’t play the required amount of games to be included in the IFPA submission that doesn’t mean they didn’t play at all. So I want to display that player on the tournament standings for sure. Talk about demoralizing new players in your league. “Sorry Bob, you only showed up 7 nights and only played 35 games of pinball so you’re not reflected in the standings. You needed to play 40 games of pinball”. That’d be awful. (it’s awful anyway because playing 35 out of 40 for SFPD is not at all the same as playing 4 of 5 for Modern Super League)

So IFPA submissions completely separate. I’m deciding whether it’s worth the effort required to filter out players automatically. When tournaments are played as a series the filtering becomes significantly harder (and more error prone). I may end up in a situation where I can present data on number of games played but not automatically filter players out because I can’t commit to keeping MP up to date with the whims of IFPA rule changes :wink:


No fee to join the league. It’s free with admission. There’s another league that they used to run that isn’t super league that was head-to-head. If you played in the head to head league in 2016 your scores from those games were also your superleague results. This may be what you are thinking of. There has never been a fee to join what has been reported as SUPERLeague results.

1 Like

“Qualifying requirements” was just our formal way of saying it.

10 game Herb tournament where you take the best 6 games, there was some confusion that if a player played one game six times, that they “PLAYED 6 GAMES”. However the qualifying ‘requirements’ are based on submitting scores from 6 DIFFERENT games on your card, so in this case that player would only count as playing 1 out of 6.

This is a good point. I should have said, I really appreciate it when, say, Brackelope calculates my TGP for me. I don’t appreciate it as much when I realize later that it’s an outdated calculation and I have to go correct a bunch of already submitted results :smiley: :smiley: . I think, @haugstrup, that your idea makes a lot of sense: make as much raw data as possible available without guaranteeing that the results in their current state are in line with the current WPPR formula.

1 Like

Whaaaaaa? Double dipping of a game played?

We don’t allow for a game of pinball played to be “meaningful” for WPPR’s towards multiple events.

Tell me more about which you speak :slight_smile: