Besides the restricted players, there were still some players who made beyond the cut and were not A restricted. I think at the end of the day, because of their restriction I can almost say they earned it. It comes at a price since they have to dig their way out harder than ever, so it goes both ways with it being an advantage and a disadvantage.
I just request they be tweaked a tad. Have every division but E have the 200 that legit made it, plus the restricted people.
Then whatever is left is E division. Then just do top 20% make the E finals.
3 Likes
Yup.
Lyman Sheets, a previous three time PAPA World Champion was only B restricted this year and ended up in B after Day 1. Lyman chose not to play Day 2, but he could have if he wanted to, so a resounding âYupâ to your question.
You make it sound like there is this huge gap in skill between the very top echelon players and those âregular B playersâ, and that the outcome of Day 2 would all be but predetermined, which I donât believe is true at all. If Josh or Steve played poorly on Day 1, who is to say whether they would even make the Finals in B (or C or whatever) on Day 2 ? And if they did make the finals, who is to say whether they could actually win it ? (Hint: Ask the Storm how that worked out for him in B this year). Not to mention that you are depriving all of the other players in the B Division a chance to play against some of the greats. #EverybodyIsGood is not just a slogan, but itâs the actual truth at Pinburgh and it helps that the Pinburgh banks are The Great Equalizer⢠when it comes to small sampling sizes and absolutely ANYONE there can beat ANYONE else there at any given time. I donât think anyone (including the GOAT himself) would be âguaranteedâ anything in B finals. And there are most definitely more than 200 players now who have the skill and experience to win it all.
Iâve always thought the division restrictions were trying to âsolveâ a problem that doesnât exist. I suspect that most, if not all, of the âtop A playersâ who failed to make the cut on Day 1, would, like Lyman, choose not to play in B (or C or whatever) the next day, and those that did - probably felt like they would be playing in the correct division for how they are playing, and that would be good enough for me.
But the specter of those evil, malicious (and hypothetical) sand bagging assholes who will intentionally play below their skill level on Day 1 trumps all other arguments, I guess, and the restrictions will forever be in place to protect everyone else from their nefarious shenanigans⌠except for those players who fall out of the top 100 in rankings, then itâs okay, I guess.
7 Likes
Or do top 180, 185, or 190 plus restricted players, for each division, and then let E be whoever is left. The divisions would probably be pretty close to the same 200 this way I imagine.
3 Likes
I really like that.
I would also be in favor of the idea of having A, B, C, D divisions be the 200 players that earned their spot, plus any players who were ârestricted upâ. And frankly, Iâd be fine with having E division take the same number of playoff contenders regardless of its size⌠40/100 E players qualify? Sure, why not. Due to the relatively small cash and WPPRs, no one is likely to sandbag into that division, and it wouldnât be a bad thing if some of the newer / more casual players got a better shot at a playoff⌠Iâm sure that would be a very exciting achievement for them, maybe give them more incentive to compete more regularly to do it again.
But I also agree with @Adamâs comments wondering if the restrictions are really worthwhile at all. The WPPR rank boundaries for each restriction tier are just arbitrary. Players like Lyman and @Keefer were not A restricted this time, and I donât think theyâre any less great than players like @pinwizj or @FunWithBonus.
7 Likes
I think competitive pinball is a long way from being a massive global spectator sport with large sponsorship if at the largest pinball tourney in the world a long dissertation is required to explain why a player with an inferior Win-Loss record gets to play in A-division for the title, trophy cup and $15,000 just because they happen to have a higher ranking from playing in other tourneys which have absolutely no bearing on Pinburgh.
4 Likes
This might be strange, but bear with meâŚ
What if⌠you donât segregate the divisions after 5 rounds, but instead continue to use tiered swiss so that youâre still playing against people your own skill level, but you TECHNICALLY still have a chance to crawl your way back and get in to A finals no matter what your skill level or win loss record. That way, the Lyman Sheets of the world would still get to play day 2 and possibly even qualify.
So how do you do division finals? Thatâs where things get⌠interesting. You would say:
Top 40 qualify for A finals
Rank 200-240 qualify for B finals (if youâre not restricted)
Rank 400-440 qualify for C finals (if youâre not restricted)
Rank 600-640 qualify for D finals (if youâre not restricted)
Rank 800-840 qualify for E finals (if youâre not restricted).
If you can get the restrictions tight enough to avoid deliberate sandbagging⌠mathematically and theoretically this would workâŚ
This is an interesting conversation because literally every Pinburgh prior to this one the complaint Iâve heard the most is that there was too much sandbagging and the restrictions needed to be tighter.
Nailed it? 
7 Likes
100%. Iâm ok with anyone winning the spoils of the division they earned the right to play in on day one.
But if the money is the issue, then restrict the money. In your example Josh Sharpe can win B but the first place money goes down to the next person who wasnât A restricted.
Honestly, and this is just me, I find it all to be condescending. When Elliott Kieth (A restricted Player) shows up to my monthlies, PAPA ainât there to protect me or anyone else. Same is true when Bowden or Bowen show up to a local tournament. So, I donât need protection from PAPA, the IFPA, ReplayFX, or the players themselves, that Iâm not up to snuff. If Iâm good enough for you to play on day 1, and you didnât make the cut, I think Iâm still good enough to play you on day two, and three.
We all show up with the same goal; to finish as high in the standings as possible. We measure our success in that department differently,
Now I get, Iâm in the minority here, so I accept restrictions are part of completive pinballâs culture, but seriously, I see no reason to have restrictions past A & B. I think the skill levels between C and E to be not that far apart.
1 Like
Like I mentioned earlier, this is a different debate than Iâve seen for the prior Pinburghs at the DLCC.
In 2017, after Andrew Rosa won B Division ( as one of the top 100 ranked players ) I had our survey, comment forms and personal email addresses filled with players decrying us letting him play in âBâ.
Lots of people making lots of good arguments here. Iâve taken more than a few notes!
5 Likes
Your not really comparing apples to apples here.
Some players have proven in the past to us that they are willing to sandbag for a chance at a greater payout in a lower division if they donât feel they can position themselves advantageously after a few rounds.
Perhaps this has changed and we need to reevaluate our restrictions.
I made this comment because of past feedback of some winners of lower divisions.
This is an interesting point because when players were tied on a division bubble after day one we used to let them choose to try a tiebreaker to get in -OR- just opt to move to the lower division. The vast majority chose to just enter the lower division.
Well, they arenât so hypothetical based on my real world experience. We have punished players for sandbagging behavior in past Pinburghs, so itâs real.
These rules will be discussed fully in our upcoming planning sessions for 2020.
2 Likes
Iâm not sure if thatâs true or not, but one thing is certain: With the huge numbers of people you all are supporting now and the compressedness of the scores, itâs much harder to sandbag into exactly where you want to be, I think.
Iâm not sure where the stats are offhand for the first couple of years, but I suspect it was a little easier to land where you wanted if you were trying to sandbag. Between the automatic tiebreakers and the increased number of participants, thereâs a large amount of uncertainty where youâll end up. (72 used to be in clean for A-div, this year it straddled the cut line.)
Totally agree.
5 Likes
Everybody who doesnât win something is always going to find something to get pissed off about is the moral of that story.
I had a friend bellyaching about Lyman NOT playing in B, as if it were an insult to the players there. And if Storm has won B (or Lyman for that matter), wed have to listen to bellyaching about that.
Basically everything sucks and is unfair. So just do what you guys do.
5 Likes
I also wondered about getting rid of divisions after Day 1 and letting people climb back up; however, I think your proposed finals structure could be problematic. Theoretically, player 199 could be eligible for B but would still miss finals. With no divisions, itâd be easy for players to overshoot their finals. Also, anybody eligible for B ranked around 150 after Round 9 would have a significant incentive to tank.
There might be another way to structure finals: top 40 might make A; next 40 outside the top 100 might make B, etc, but Iâm not sure how to structure that to offer the opportunities to novice players to qualify in lower divisions that the current structure does.
When you can fill 1000 spots and have 500 on a wait list in minutes I think its hard to make a case for any significant change. I do think being ranked 1001 and eligible for E can be tweaked. Iâm not sure if 1001 rank was an arbitrary number but I thought E was for noobs. Being 1001 isnât a noob.
Division E is not 100% intended for new players.
2 Likes
This is interesting, but Iâm not sure I would make such a drastic change to a very popular format.
4 Likes
I think itâs very close to perfect. Find a way to not bump down people that were in the legit 200 that they arenât restricted to, and weâre there I think.
2 Likes