The league I’m currently running uses different, self-contained formats each week (pingolf, group knockout, round robin, flip frenzy, & herb), with each awarding points (100/80/60/50/45/40, etc) that go towards an overall standing. The finals was promoted as using those standings for Ladder format seeding.
I had planned for 16 players, and then top 8 would play the ladder, and bottom 8 would do something else. But, the numbers were lower than expected, and I will probably only have 9 or 10 players total for the finals (with two or three people having dropped out partway through the league).
Can I do a finals ladder with all 9/10 players attending the finals, and still have all the TGP from all five previous weeks count? Or would I have to take between 10-50% to the finals?
(I’d love to be able to do the ladder, but with six total weeks of play, I think it’s important to have max TGP…which would easily happen as long as I’m following the rules correctly).
Because an element of your qualifying is Indirect, I’m assuming that your # of finalists needs to be between 10-50% of total players (who played at least half the qualifying weeks) in order to count all the qualifying TGP.
from the WPPR Guide “Those tournaments that use an INDIRECT qualifying system must now run a Finals round that consists of DIRECT play between the finalists to crown the winner. A tournament using an INDIRECT qualifying system must advance a minimum of 10% of all players to the Final.”
My reading would be that because Direct play is used in qualifying, this multi-format league is not “an INDIRECT qualifying system”, so the finals can take as many or as few players as @ryanwanger would like.
Good point that the paragraph is inconsistent. But The later sentences explain the detail of the first: if your qualifying includes Indirect style, then the 10% minimum applies.
If we ignored that additional explanation, and only had the first sentence, then every Herb tourney could have 4 players play one 4-player game for 3,2,1,0 bonus points, and add that to the Herb results of the 250 other Super players that played half+1 of the Herb portion, and then hold a 4-player finals.
Here’s the full paragraph: * The IFPA will no longer endorse tournaments that don’t have a DIRECT play component as part of the format. DIRECT play represents multiple players (up to a max of 4) playing against one another on a given game (head-to-head or in a group). Many tournaments use an INDIRECT qualifying system where everyone plays the same game (PAPA style qualifying, Best Game qualifying, Pin-Golf). Those tournaments that use an INDIRECT qualifying system must now run a Finals round that consists of DIRECT play between the finalists to crown the winner. A tournament using an INDIRECT qualifying system must advance a minimum of 10% of all players to the Final. Examples of tournaments no longer eligible for WPPR points would be simple high score tournaments without finals, or Pin-Golf tournaments where you simply play your round/rounds.
It doesn’t say “include” anywhere in there. Direct play has already been part of the format. I’m not sure your second paragraph isn’t allowed, but if herb format was played like that I don’t think players would be very happy.
I think we’re talking about 2 different things here. One is whether the tournament is eligible for IFPA points at all. The other is whether all the qualifying rounds will count towards TGP, as well as the finals. For your qualifying rounds to count, you must take 10-50% into the finals.
With indirect qualifying play, in your case the pingolf and herb portions, the finals must have some direct play for the Finals to have any value at all. So I’m uncertain how your first five weeks pertain to TGP, since 3 weeks are direct play and 2 weeks are indirect play.
My assumption is that as long as you have direct play in the finals and take 10-50% of your players into those finals, then all those games played in the first five weeks would add to TGP.
Pingolf: 36%, but indirect
Group Knockout: 44% direct
Flip Frenzy: 44% direct
Round Robin: 28% direct
Herb: hasn’t happened yet, but indirect
The only thing I was worried about was “screwing up” the finals by taking too many people and invalidating the whole thing. Aside from that, I don’t see why any TGP from qualifying would be at risk. (And even if it was, there is plenty to go around…the indirect part could be ignored completely).
A league can have a finals tournament that includes all players.
Thanks for bringing in that perspective. The WPPR rules say they won’t endorse tournaments that don’t have a direct play component as part of the format. First, this format does have direct play. Second, this is a league, so I don’t think that rule is applicable.
I have been running a league for 10 years. Trust me, it counts. That question has been asked of me specifically by mister Becker more than once. Even in a league, if you take all players into the finals, then then finals portion will be your only TGP component.
Not true in all cases. We have run league formats where participants compete indirectly-ish during the season, then play a ladder format on the finals night and the qualifying still counts towards TGP.
Example: International Flipper Pinball Association
What we do is an 8 weeks season of group matchplay. We do have A, B, C divisions, which all have finals. But ONLY the A division finals affect the results reported to the IFPA. B and C division results are locked in after week 8 and their finals are only for prize money.
I’ll defer to @PressStart on this, but if you didn’t eliminate at 50% of the participants from being able to “WIN” the league in the ladder portion, then the TGP from the regular season should not be included in the TGP calculation.
If you’re splitting things out into divisions and “everyone” is playing in the ladder finals, but it’s split into A-B-C divisions, then that’s “fine” as long as the A-division consists of less than 50% of the field.
So what is it exactly that triggers the 50%? And do I have to do it?
Ladder feels different to me. If I took everyone to a single elim finals, then all those qualifying weeks could mean nothing to the top seed, but a 10 person ladder means the bottom seed has 6 chances to be eliminated before the top seed even needs to flip. That’s a high cost to qualifying poorly IMO.
We always look at the path of least resistance when evaluating events.
For example . . . HERB style with best 5 out 9 games counting . . . BUT the 1st place person on each game advances to the final. TGP results = 1 meaningful game played.
For your format, because you have the ability to qualify for finals through Indirect Play, you have to advance at least 10% of the participants to a Direct Play final.
As for the 50% rule, advancing everyone to finals means that you leave it open for the potential of that whole season to be completely meaningless. Can Keith Elwin NOT PLAY in any of those league sessions, jump in as the lowest seed, and then play the whole ladder to win the league? (Because he did just that at Pinball Expo a few years back)
There’s a difference between there being a “high cost to qualifying poorly” . . .and the “It’s IMPOSSIBLE for you to win the event because you qualified poorly”. The fact that a player is still eligible renders the qualifying as non-meaningful, and simply as “seeding” from the IFPA perspective.
Weeks 1-3 maximum group size 20. Everyone on the group plays the same five games. Ranked 100-99-98, etc. The best ten games count towards seeding for finals. 8 player divisions for finals. Ladder matches. Seed 8 could win it all in A division.
Google sheet: Tuesday Jam August 2018 season 40 - Google Sheets
