Checking the North Carolina SCS from 2016, and including the State Championship results not only had zero impact on who the top 16 players that made the cut . . . every player had the exact same SEEDING in both models.
I’m going to consider the inclusion/exclusion of these results insignificant, and continue to leverage on the ease for us to filter these results by going:
“State = NC”, “Year = 2017” and being done with the work on our end.
Individually removing events from the filter is not possible. We would have to load tournaments into each filter individually, and that’s not something I’m willing to do for a situation that has no material impact on qualifying.
you can add whatever results you want to but it should be going to last years results not this years results. The SCS Championship is a culmination of last years results not a tournament counting towards this years results.
as I have said where do you see a end of the year culmination tournament count towards next years results. It doesn’t make much sense to do this at all and I will leave at that . Probably not gonna win this argument but I tried.
It can’t go to last year’s results if the year of the event is “2017”.
Last year’s SCS standings are based on using the year filter of “2016”.
I’m not trying to argue anything being better/worse because it’s THE SAME either way, for North Carolina specifically. I love hypothetical arguments and “but it’s the principle” arguments as much as anyone else . . . but for the logistics of how easy we can cover 42 states worth of SCS qualifying by just me creating these filters, it’s not worth my time changing things that don’t matter.
From the WPPR rules: “Only open tournaments are included in the WPPR system. However, depending on circumstances, exceptions can be made.”
Forget “which year should the points count towards”, the real issue, IMO, is that points should not be awarded at all for SCS finals tournaments. It’s not an “open tournament”.
It would be much easier, and more fair, and more consistent with the existing rules, for the SCS finals tournaments (and nationals, for that matter), to award zero points.
Our definition of an “Open Tournament” is whether every player that wants to participate has an equal opportunity to do just that.
Many tournaments on our calendar have limited spots. Whether that’s 16 players at the local bar event, or 800 players for Pinburgh, neither of these tournaments are truly open to “ANYONE THAT WANTS TO PLAY”. The important part is that there is a process for registration that makes those spots AVAILABLE to anyone that wants to play. Typically this is done on a first-come, first-served basis.
For events like the PAPA Circuit Final, RCP Championships, IFPA WC, SCS, these are classified as a “Circuit/Series”. For these events the number of players competing is already known and is limited, but ANYONE can fill up those spots based on their play via an open qualifying process.
All joking aside, there does appear to be a conflict here. If I’m under 21 and want to play in a local tournament that happens to be held at a local bar and I’m denied entry, have I truly been given an equal opportunity?
I’m not suggesting that bar tournaments be excluded, but I do wonder about this sometimes.
Intra-state rivalry is fun, but I hate seeing it turn into actual bad feelings, and I think accusing people of cheating is a good way to cause bad feelings! Is the concern that there is actual “cheating” (breaking IFPA rules or falsifying results) going on, or is it more about “exploiting” (TDs do whatever they can within the letter of the rules to maximize tournament value)? The latter is the mole that the IFPA is constantly whacking, and it’s a problem (sometimes), but it falls short of cheating, in my view. The former is really serious and I would hate to see people publicly accused of it (or implicated in it) without solid evidence.
I don’t really care that much about this issue (although I do think it’s a strange exception…why give the best players, who already earned points along the way to reaching the circuit/series finals, the opportunity to earn even more points not available to the rest?), but for the sake of argument…
I’ll run a 128 player tournament in January and award points for it.
Top 64 qualify to play in the February tournament, which awards points.
Top 32 qualify to play in March, which awards points. Etc, etc.
The players still left in July got to play in six tournaments that had a pre-determined restricted field of players.
(A less ridiculous example would be; 128 person tourney that awards points and top 64 qualify for the Winners Tournament the following month. Both tourneys would be max value (since base value caps at 64), but most people can’t play in the second one because they didn’t do well enough the previous month. A state that did this every month could essentially offer double points to the best 64 players…points not available to everyone else). (Also ignore the fact that few states could get 128 people to show up each month).
I think this is a useful/logical exception, because without it there are hundreds, if not thousands(?) of events that would no longer be allowed to award WPPRs.
You will get sanction for the 128 person tournament and none of the subsequent tournaments after it. Your single tournament wouldn’t meet the requirements for a “series” of events that would warrant the 64 person tournament afterward.
In fencing, the US national championship for one year is the first event that counts towards qualification to the next year’s championship. The 2015 world championships (limited to 4 entries/country) was the first event counting towards qualification for the 2016 Olympics. It’s not that unusual for individual sports.
I’d never seen that series/circuit definition before. Thanks!
So, I could run a Boulder Championship (top X number of players based on points earned in Boulder County events during the 2018 calendar year) that would be for WPPRs…as long as no more than 50% of the events included in the circuit were held at a particular venue?
