Sounds like we either have some outliers, changing attitudes or both. Used to be people on the cut with a choice dropped down; now we get someone b*tching about not being able to opt up. I think it’s fine the way it is; we spent a LOT of time debating this in the past several years to get to where we are. As for any proposal that says “you didn’t play up to expectations day 1, you’re eliminated from day 2” [or have to play in the sandbagger thing], that totally sucks. It’d be bad enough having a bad day 1 without adding insult to injury by being locked out or sent to some alternate event.
The math of it is that a bunch of people who qualify for “A” just had a good day but wouldn’t be there if the qualifying went longer. [Yes, 20 games is too small a sample size with random opponents on random games.] Fine, reward them, but quibbling about folks on the edge being “denied” going up is silly; if you want to be in A, do well enough that the restrictions don’t come into play.
On Lyman sitting out, I’m totally good with that, too. He didn’t come to play B.
Re having no divisions and taking #1-40 for A, 201-240 for B, etc., that’s totally hackable. If you’re an A player having a bad day 2 with no shot at the top 40, what’s to stop you from trying to drop down just enough to finish between 201 and 240? With the stats on points as visible as they are, I could see someone pulling it off.
Restrictions are becoming redundant due to the large (and still increasing) number of very skilled players out there. Why sandbag into B when you’re going to wind up facing a dozen usually-A players who didn’t make the cut, and only playing for a fraction of the money? When it gets to the point that anyone in the building could be a legitimate threat to beat you, why take a chance?
No good. If I earn my way into the top 200 group, now you want to add another 20 to that group, so I have to compete among 220 players instead of 200 for 40 playoff spots. Plus the extra 20 players you’re adding are non-A restricted that wouuld mostly rather be top seeds in B. The flip side is other players would be top seeds in B going into Friday, so they’d be happy. Then you’d have unhappy top seeded C players bumped up to B, etc.
I like the cleaner restrictions this year and an even 200 in each division. Just think of it as 55 A restricted players and 145 other spots available to non-A restricted players.
And I think this is a situation where the people calling for change are making the most noise. You’re not going to get a lot of the “keep it the same” crowd chiming in to this discussion.
Of all the players I’ve heard complain, none of them were mad they made A instead of B or B instead of C, etc. it’s was consistently, “I played good enough to be in A, but I was bumped because of a restricted player.”
For the record, I was in no way screwed by restrictions in either of the Pinburghs I’ve played in. I’ve sucked all by my lonesome without getting bumped down. I’m just not a fan.
I think the best way to do it would be to only keep restrictions on finals. For example, say a top 100 IFPA ranked player is not top 200 after day 1 of Pinburgh. This player is placed in the appropriate division (B if 201-400, C if 401-600, etc.). This player is then allowed to participate in day 2 playing against their division but not allowed to play in or at the very least win money in that division.
I’m fairly new to this competitive pinball (just my 2nd Pinburgh), but I could care less about the restrictions. I’ve played in a bunch of other sports/hobbies where most of the tournaments I attended are “open” tournaments. No restrictions, no handicapping, and I feel pinball should be the same. If the top 10 players in the world all had bad Day 1’s, I would gladly enjoy playing against them and trying to beat them in “B” division. To be the best, you gotta beat the best.
I would also be for a tiered entry fee for the divisions. For example, $400 a ticket to qualify for “A”. If you think you have the skill set, then put your money where your talents are and spend $400 for a chance to qualify for “A”. If you fail to qualify for A, then your record puts you in whatever division that may be, but at that point you are only playing for WPPR’s and not money.
I guess it depends on how you look at it. They weren’t bumped. They knew for the most part there were A restricted players going in, so there were only so many addition spots available. Although I’m not sure if it was spelled out beforehand in the rules that there would be exactly 200 players going into A. I know it was different in the past.
If I was one of those players that landed as a top seed in B going into Friday I would have accepted that. I would not have been unhappy. Being seed 147 at the start I felt if I played well and had my fair share of luck I should make A, but I know there are plenty of good players, so I could have easily dropped to B (or C) with bad luck or bad play. I finished slightly higher than my initial seed, and I attribute part of that to not having strong preset goals. I just tried to play in the moment, concentrate on each flip and each game one at a time and let the chips fall where they may. At no point was I ever trying to figure out how many points I needed to average over the next few rounds to make A or anything like that.
The point is don’t go in with preset goals and set yourself up for disappointment then complain about the structure, cut lines, etc. Like Levi said, basically everything sucks and is unfair if you don’t do well or win something.
Even if their performance isn’t intentional… they should still be limited to their division IMO.
The alternative to division restrictions is simply having people declare for a division… maybe only do it for the big money divisions. Then decide if the prize pool should reflect enrollments or not…
All the talk about restrictions… for a handful of people that are bothered they didn’t make the last spots for a division…
How about the topic that affects everyone? The fact that the B, C, and D Division spreads were only 3 points… 3.
One place in one game per round… is nearly the gap between A and C.
I’d like to see more ways to spreading the field. More points for beating the higher seeds? More points for wins in later rounds (as you’re playing tighter groups…)… Something to break it away from such a game of ‘averages’.
Actually we all assumed the restricted players were not counted as part of the 200, but added. We were wrong obviously.
But you weren’t. My good friend was top seed in B day 2 and was really disappointed. He did well, was only 3-4 points off the pace for 40th in A to start day two, but didn’t get to play because of being bumped. He was playing VERY well.
It was our fault we didn’t understand the restrictions and how many spots there actually were, but yeah. Still sucks. Our crew from NKY/Cincy always wants to be up there with the best, no matter how unlikely it is we win.
I say go from screwing the players that play well day 1 to screwing the restricted players that play bad. Haha.
But again, if the current system never changed, I’d still play every year I could.
I think the divisions and restrictions are close to perfect as they are. I would leave them be. All 3 years I’ve played I’ve been at 34 points after round 5 and missed A by 1-2 points each year and that’s on me. I simply need to play better to make the leap into the A division. If someone makes A with 29 points because they are restricted that doesn’t bother me at all. If someone is ranked in the top 100 they obviously have put in the time and effort to compete at the A level, even if they had a rough day. I’m not even ranked in the top 1500 so I don’t mind working a little bit harder the first 5 rounds to earn my spot at the table.
I’m just in awe that the overall level of competition has gotten so intense that hypothetical “one game” situations can make the difference between starting day 2 in A or C. As another experiment in hindsight, rather than use my “last” (9th, but there would have been absolutely no time to play a 10th) entry in Intergalactic on a (botched) second attempt on Jackbot - the first game I played Sunday was AC/DC in the IG qualifying bank. Would’ve been a top 3 score and likely may have gotten me into IG finals.
Is there a set date when division restrictions are finalized based on IFPA rank? @chesh posted the division restrictions on July 12, but I just noticed Tom Graf had 3 nice finishes between June 22-25, so his current rank is 90th. I’m not sure when those tournaments posted to IFPA. I’m guessing they posted after July 12. Maybe that was the cutoff date?
And Tom still needed some good rounds on Friday to even make B playoffs, so I’m not suggesting any sandbagging on his part.
Some years ago it was all tie-breakers move up. Seems easier overall. And it would also mean that the “bumped down by a restricted player” would even out somewhat.
This year for A. 19 restricted players did not have the number of wins to qualify. And 14 players lost the tie-breaker.
@PAPA_Doug was strictly evenly size divisions the sole reason for not having all move up?