suggestion for 2018 SCS


Only count the top 20 events that year in that players state ranking.

Or, rank the top 16 based on their average points per event.



Hate the first one. Tells us to not run more events. Current rules make me want to run more events in my state. This rule would make me not want to run them or care a lot less about running them in my state. So this new rule would mean less money in the purses of the SCS


I don’t care for either.

Idea #1 would make people do less events. I currently do almost weekly tournaments. We have anywhere from 10-24 people show up, it’s a great time. Sometimes the points are good and other times not so much.

Idea #2 would do the same thing. It would encourage people to only go to big point events and skip small ones.


Something definitely needs to change since the current system is being exploited by some event organizers to get them and thier players SCS qualified without having to travel to other in-state events at all. Travel to many different events should be encouraged versus just camping at one location for qualifying points.

I thought the purpose of the SCS was to find the best players in a state from competing with each other, not just local players playing each other many times a month. The current system puts people into the SCS that attend the most events regardless of performance. Thus some states get quantity versus quality.

Of the two choices above Id favor a TOP 20 events count just like they do for IFPA World rankings. Could add in only 2-5 events per a location can be included to encourage travelling within a state more. Players would still attend a locations events past the 2-5 to raise the point values earned and support the location.


Problem in KY is there’s only one location in the state with events. Haha. We’re working on it though. This is a good idea.


I like the two different ways that co-exist currently. Your international ranking is based on Top 20. Your state ranking is total points.

Total points encourages as much participation as possible, and as many events as possible. The people hurt by that system are those who are really great players, but don’t come to many events. Do people with limited participation actually deserve to be in the state championship?

On the other hand, most of the reasons this is brought up don’t apply to Colorado, since all of our events (and most of the population) live within an hour drive of each other.

In states where this is an issue (like California), why not just hold an unofficial Southern California championship that’s invite only? Have IFPA create a custom ranking for events within a certain area, and have a sweet trophy that comes with lots of bragging rights? Sure the winner won’t go to nationals, but so what?


Absolutely not IMO.


Re: chuckwart

For states like Kentucky with limited event locations just use the top 20 events total until more locations are utilized.


The concept of using the average is not good, because it is not possible to account for weighting- in other words, all tourneys are NOT equal.

It is easy to look at statistics in each state and see where a player who performs decently in just one multi-day event all year with many players can have a better “average” than someone who plays well in numerous local one-day events but cannot attend the big event.

If someone doesn’t like that people are earning their way in playing in the same local events, the IFPA makes it easy to be procactive and organize your own tourneys. In fact the SCS system has certainly gotten more people to play and run all sorts of local one day events simply because everything in the state counts. Anything that discourages people to play is not good.

On another note, is earning a spot in the SCS by sheer volume of events in one city fair? It is just as fair as being in the “world ranking” with your best 20 events and never leaving your state or country. Should the IFPA count only say 10 of those events in a country to encourage (read-force) people to travel and earn points? No.

Lastly, the ranking system is not perfect; we know it, Josh knows it. But more and more people are partcipating in competitive pinball and getting excited about WPPR points, which is good in the long term for everyone.


Okay who’s leaking proposals from the State Reps discussion board!?!? :wink:


I’m more or less fine with the current SCS selection process, but if it seems like too many people outside the major population centers have no way to be competitive I like the idea of taking the top 50 events for SCS points. Almost an event a week still encourages participation but still allows people to compete against other people who are able to do 100+ events due to geography.


There’s one other proposal that is currently being debated between the State Reps. (And yes having SCS be capped at your best 20 instead of pure accumulation is the other proposal that has been discussed - as shepherd now has the functionality available)

The interesting tidbit through the debates is the PERCEPTION that this would shake things up. Throughout the discussion I’ve compared standings both ways (capped and uncapped) for both current season qualifying and last season qualifying … to my surprise and everyone else’s, I couldn’t find a state where the top 30 names changed. Some seeding changed but the difference was extremely minimal.

I’ll bring the discussion to TF once we’ve exhausted the State Rep talk about it.


I disagree. If you are playing in an unlimited HERB style tournament that only takes your 10 best scores, do you stop playing after 10 games? Probably not. The same principle would apply to an SCS system that only took the top X events.

The current system allows players to grind their way to the top of the leader board by playing in tons of small, low attendance tournaments. And this is happening. The IFPAs original goal was to increase participation, and in this regard, the SCS was a wild success. But they now have a new competing goal of raising the prestige of the SCS. Frankly, a state championship series where a group of players can grind their way into the finals doesn’t feel very prestigious. There needs to be a change.


20 seems like a pretty high cap. 20 events per year is going to be well beyond what the majority of players are attending. In 2016, fewer than 5% of the player base attended more than 25 tournaments, so the fact that you aren’t seeing shakeups in the standings isn’t all that surprising.

The world rankings use the top 20 events over a three year period, so it would seem that for a ranking based on a one year period, the cap should be much lower. 10 sounds like a nice reasonable number.


Edit. Actually TO THE IFPA, more money = prestige. Hence the $1 rule.


This should be minimum number of events you have to play within the state to be even included in the rankings imo. 5-10.


Prestige is a perceptual phenomena, and while money is part of the equation, it is certainly not all of it. By removing the skill and challenge all you have left is a lottery.


I agree, but to the ifpa more money to the SCS and NCS = more prestige.

I would like to see more money go to them and also promote and encourage local players to put the work in and be the ones earning those 16 spots each year.

That will help with prestige as well I think.


Disagree; I hate that myth. There is some correlation between “money” and “prestige” in a tournament, but it’s hardly 1:1. If I hosted a pinball tournament with a $250,000 purse, it’d be by far the richest tournament… but if my tournament had a crappy format, crappy officiating, crappy machines, it probably wouldn’t be very prestigious, compared to well-run events. It’d just be a statement that I had more money than sense.

Same is true in other disciplines. Wimbledon is usually considered the most prestigious tennis tournament, but it doesn’t have the largest purse. The office of the President of the United States is considered extraordinarily prestigious, but it pays poorly compared to most other executive roles. etc…

Money might be a factor in increasing prestige, but it’s far from the final word.

(sorry for the crosspost with @spraynard)


thanks for the input so far yall! lotta great ideas!

I think that its not fair to have the elite who perform well at big tourneys be guaranteed SCS spots, but i also think its unfair for people to make their way in through “bulk play”. tough call.

maybe a minimum and a maximum number of events?