suggestion for 2018 SCS


If this was true we would do it! Anytime I can please “everyone” I’m in! (It doesn’t happen often if ever)


you are doing it…


Lol doesn’t seem “everyone” is happy about it :wink:

I’m actually on the fence with it. I like the super states expansion rule. I would probably like the capped rule too if we didn’t have the dollar change also happening.

You keep arguing both sides that we will have problems with these grinders taking spots because all the money they stand to win, but then also believing that the dollar fee isn’t going to work to build those pots in the first place.

As someone sitting in 15th right on the cut line for Texas I can certainly appreciate your opinions and see how this has a bigger impact on someone like yourself than others on this thread.


What are some examples of people doing poorly in lots of events and still making the top 16?


There are a few in the following states. Looked at event count vs average.
Arizona, Iowa, Kentucky(Top player), Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin


As someone who is on the bubble in my state because I’ve played in far fewer events than most, I like the way the SCS works and think people who earn their spot through grinding totally deserve to play in the SCS finals.


Have to thank the grinders in 2018 as they will supply the SCS and National Pots.


Not sure my question was clear. Drew (top dog in KY) wins almost every time he plays at Zbar.

What I should’ve said was, who is only playing poorly and getting into the finals of SCS?

My point is, you have to play well to get into the top 16, whether you play in 5 events or 50. I just don’t see why people that compete a lot and do well should be punished. If you’re grinding out top finishes every week/month, you’re the people that I think deserve the 16 spots the most.


this is simply not true. you’ve been given examples of states where this is happening, but once again come with the “its not happening in KY so its not an issue” type of response.


Good point, looked at the events and top value is around his average, Kentucky excused for now.


Who specifically in these states is getting in that you feel is solely from just playing a lot?

I don’t see how’s it’s possible for someone to get a top 16 ranking in a state and do crappy consistently.

I only responsed to the KY one because a player was named specifically and I was able to check on it. I breiefly looked at AZ and I don’t see anything weird. Looks like the top 16 players are all people that played a ton in AZ and consistently finished in the top 16.


You definitely don’t have to consistently play well. I’m on the bubble in WA from a couple OK weeklies/monthlies, and large number of really crappy outings. There are an absurd number of points up for grabs if you’re into hanging out in bars late on week nights.

That said, I think the community that’s formed around pinball here (both because of, and contributing to the huge number of events) is something pretty amazing, and something to be encouraged.

…now I think I’ll head to Edmonds and try to grind out those 3 points I need to get past Gagno. :wink:


While I support a capped system on principle, I agree with Josh that the data just don’t support the notion that “grinding” has much of an impact. Moreover, the forthcoming dollar fee will probably impose a limit on the viability of this strategy. Seems pointless to argue about the current rule set until after we see what happens with the dollar fee.


Looks like you had at least a handful of good finishes in 2017.

I guess my question is, is your reason for being on the bubble because of those good finishes or all the bad ones? I think you’d drop way down the list if you took away all the good ones. Take away all the bad ones and you wouldn’t drop that much imo. Seems like almost all of them are in the 1/2 point range.


Looking at Ohio’s 16 I also see no discrepancies. Each person has played at least 17 events, and the range of points is 120-500! I know most of these folks, and they play a lot of pinball, and win events (Or finish where there’s significant points to be gained) as much as possible.

I’m sitting at 72 currently, and it’s an accurate reflection of my dedication. I go to weeklies occasionally, participate in 1 or 2 leagues, and run a monthly. That’s the extent of my game, and if I want to improve I’ve gotta play more often, and better! Simple as that.

I still maintain that a cap on SCS while having zero impact on actual results, just like the top 20 card, will motivate the mid and lower ranked folks to improve. Personally I feel like I could improve my card more than my ability to gain at least 150 points total in the state before January.


A person that gets it, awesome. +1


Indeed, those “grinders” are frequently among the most enthusiastic and visible people in their local pinball community and if the chance of competing (as a low seed) in the SCS tournament encourages them in that direction I am having a hard time seeing it as a problem. And by “them” I mean “us” since I can’t pretend not to be in that group; I’m certain to be one of the people that people have in mind here.

The proposed circuit idea seems like something that, sooner or later, comes to every community: an attempt to keep the riffraff out.


This is pretty much what I was trying to get Ray to understand. 70% of the survey responses through 20 votes agree with keeping things uncapped.

Still doesn’t mean we’re going to keep things uncapped for next year, but it is a data point.


Pinburg is easy to justify because of the ‘guaranteed play’ format… and the venue(collection)… and the unique playerbase. Pinburg is a format that guarantees two full days of play, a 3rd if you qualify, and DEEP payouts in each division (200+ people this year).

SCS will offer big payouts, but not deep… and not in a convenient single trip.

I don’t find the comparison similar at all.


Maybe some of the perception is about not really tied to volume of events… but that the lack of uniformity in events (or call it distribution…) is perceived as skewing things. Hence the idea of a suggestion of a circuit of events, etc.

Maybe the problem is not # of events, but a perception of diversity/entropy. So what if there was a limit on how many events a single person/site could contribute to the SCS events? That might quell that perception…

But personally… the entire thing is about promoting MORE events… so I think the whole thing is a non-issue. Want a better SCS rank? Participate more… that’s kind of the point :slight_smile: