Here in VA - we have a pretty healthy community… so there should be a reasonable # of events going into the SCS ranking each year and have probably 50+ “regular” players that compete frequently. The SCS page shows 200+ players listed in the ranking.
Even in this healthy community with diverse locations and player interests (from natural skilled, to frequent competitors, to casual, to ‘diamond in the rough’ skills)… it seems each year they have to dig deep to fill the SCS tournament. That’s because of availability, location, eliminating out of state people, cross-state players, etc. So really, the “precision” of the rankings isn’t all that meaningful (except for seeding). Just be in the upper 75% of active players, and you’re probably at least on the fringe.
I’m not really understanding what people are trying to fix… except for the perenial complaint about the IFPA rankings being “not a true measure of skill” or something – which it’s not trying to be.
Seems like a lot of energy spent on over-engineering something. I think what we’ve learned after 20+ years doing this is… Making a great event is far more of a draw of player quantity and quality… than elaborate theories on who can play or not.
SCS is a pump and dump format for qualifying… who cares! At the end of the day, the best player that day of the finals will advance.
Maybe playcate the “system” concerns with 1-2 play in spots. Don’t think the rankings suited you?? Single elimination format play-in for walk-ups. They pay more into the pot to try to buy-in, and fill in the bottom of the bracket. Then, if you think you should be there… prove it. All parties happy…