Not SCS, but I thought this happened in Quebec PCS.
North Dakota is certainly on track for SCS tournament to matter.
1 Like
bumping this idea that seems to have been lost in the chaos⌠implement this!
2 Likes
News to me on Quebec. Who made it that wouldnât have made the cut otherwise?
North Daokta is certainly on track for ANYONE to hold a tournament ANYWHERE worth any FRACTION of a WPPR point to make a difference 
1 Like
Again, I might be completely mis-remembering. I thought Philâs win in 2015 championships got him into 2016 championships. Maybe it was just that it was sufficient to qualify, but he has a few more events anyway. Now that Adam has build up the the scene around North Star, Quebec is a health competition.
I am a former womenâs world champion who represented my state at the first national championship. I am also young, lower income, and living in a city with a skyrocketing cost of living. I qualify for the SCS every year by playing in tournaments that cost between $0 and $10, with few exceptions. My mission as someone who runs weekly $5 tournaments is to make competitive pinball motivating, exciting, and accessible to as many people as possible, and we see an average of 32 people each week. These are good, talented players, most of whom do not own their own pinball machines or travel to compete. The top 16 for my state includes a social services worker, a high school math teacher, multiple bartenders, two non-profit workers, and a literal child. I do not have the resources to pay a $125 lump sum at the beginning of the year, nor would I feel comfortable asking that of my player base. And Iâm someone who only plays in the state I live in, so Iâm not even part of the problem youâre trying to solve!
I think many of the ideas proposed in this thread are meant to solve the very state-specific problems each poster experiences. Some states have one very powerful geographic area that shuts everyone else out. Some states host a major event that has outsized impact on the qualifying standings. Some states have people who compete in as many tournaments as humanly possible in order to qualify, rather than doing well in a few. In many cases, these suggestions are trying to solve problems that a) do not universally exist and b) may not actually have a statistically significant impact on the standings.
I hope that getting all these suggestions helps @pinwizj and the IFPA tweak things every year to get closer to an ideal system. I also hope that as these tweaks are made, the financial impact on individual players is considered. (And other things. This comment just happens to be focused on the monetary aspect.)
16 Likes
Since this is a suggestion thread and lots of people are offering things up I do wanna say the way it is now is pretty cool for folks here in CA who wanna try and do the âgrind it outâ option to earn WPPRs from lots of tournies to make their way in. I know this can be encouraging to the players who donât feel like they are good enough to make it straight up and is similar to what @CFFLegs has mentioned above. I feel like the $1 thing may slightly change things this coming year but am also glad thereâs a discussion going on. Maybe those are things more for 2019 though than for next year? Feels like changing too many things at once makes it harder to what is impacting things and howâŚ
6 Likes
Zoe hits the nail on the head. Just look at how restrictive a very vocal minority views the $1 / person / tournament! To suggest a restrictive annual entry fee ($125?) would in any way have a positive effect on competitive pinball at the local level is hard for me to fathom. Exactly who is this seeking to benefit?
Many of these suggestions are just splitting hairs. As @pinwizj has shown with data, large-scale changes have little to no effect on those that qualify for their respective state championships. Except expanding the field in some states, of course â thatâs a brilliant idea that should be implemented ASAP.
2 Likes
For the record, I would not pay the $125 and I can actually afford it. It would drive out at least half the current top 16, and if Iâm not playing the actual best players in the state then why bother?
4 Likes
Iâm in the same boat. Regardless if itâs at the beginning of the year, or the morning of the final 16, even as the current #2 seed, I wouldnât put down $125 to have to go through DNO and both Lefkoffs. Most states are similar, with one or more world class players.
Sure, all three could be knocked out, but few of the next 30 best players in the state would put up that kind of money on the off chance of surviving.
2 Likes
I agree with this 100 percent. I have never thought that last years scs championship points should count for next years scs championship. This tourney gives a hand up to those who qualified and are ahead of the ball game where not all are invited to be a part of this tournament. As a state director and also TD for the SCS championship in NC for 3 years it does not make any sense for the 2016 State Championship tourney count towards 2017 totals. Each and every one can get their wopper points but just do not count this tourney for next years total. As a past director and player in SCS I never thought this was fair to count this tourney towards next years totals
4 Likes
i think they should count. in Texas, being in the top 16 is no walk in the park. for most, it takes all year of top level play at the local level to have a chance. If someone wants to prove they deserve to be in the top 16, they can do so by playing well enough to make the points gained in the SCS by other players not matter. SCS is practically meaningless in terms of wpprs, so much so that our SCS has an annual side tournament that runs concurrently with the SCS and has a much higher wppr value.
2 Likes
The point is you donât count a end of the year playoff competition tournament for next years totals. Do you see a team win the NBA playoffs and have a upper hand next year ? Do you win the Super Bowl and have a extra win or point total for the next year? You donât and giving out points for the SCS makes no sense counting toward next yearâs totals.
4 Likes
I really donât buy this line of argument. I am open to arguments of the for, state championships should not count because X. But not of the form, they should not count to year Y. It is a tournament that takes place in year Y, therefore it counts to Y.
If the argument is that it is not fair, then run an open tournament on the same day. None of the top players will be available. If you can find 30 players who think SCS is unfair, you all will scoop the advantage right out from them.
3 Likes
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.
Iâm 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:
âState = NCâ, âYear = 2017â 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 thatâs not something Iâm willing to do for a situation that has no material impact on qualifying.
1 Like
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 doesnât make much sense to do this at all and I will leave at that . Probably not gonna win this argument but I tried.
1 Like
It canât go to last yearâs results if the year of the event is â2017â.
Last yearâs SCS standings are based on using the year filter of â2016â.
Iâm not trying to argue anything being better/worse because itâs THE SAME either way, for North Carolina specifically. I love hypothetical arguments and âbut itâs the principleâ 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, itâs not worth my time changing things that donât matter.
2 Likes
From the WPPR rules: âOnly open tournaments are included in the WPPR system. However, depending on circumstances, exceptions can be made.â
Forget âwhich year should the points count towardsâ, the real issue, IMO, is that points should not be awarded at all for SCS finals tournaments. Itâs not an âopen tournamentâ.
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.
4 Likes
Itâs an open tournament because everyone is eligible to qualify.
Do you think IFPA WC shouldnât be worth points either?
3 Likes
We shouldnât allow tournaments in bars either since they are 21+. Oh wait sorry the entire ranking system just collapsed.
5 Likes
Our definition of an âOpen Tournamentâ 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 thatâs 16 players at the local bar event, or 800 players for Pinburgh, neither of these tournaments are truly open to âANYONE THAT WANTS TO PLAYâ. 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 âCircuit/Seriesâ. 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.