suggestion for 2018 SCS


I’m totally with you here that there is value exploring a “Statewide Circuit”, but not as the replacement to the SCS. I think it’s something that could serve as an additional perk the IFPA can help facilitate.

I’m all for Amanda exploring this for Michigan as a case study for how it can be executed across other States.


That’s really only a problem in a system that is lacking a sufficent quantity of results. If you only have a handful of players/events… then just showing up frequently works. The more players you have… the less this happens.

So the solution to both problems is easy… everyone play more and the quality of the results will improve.


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…


Do what makes sense to you, not what people are complaining about today.

For me, what makes sense is to be consistent. That’s just my opinion though.


That’s an interesting idea … similar to the two at-large spots for IFPA. Take the top 14 [or 15] and have a spot or two open for the winner(s) of a play-in event in early January. That way even those who aren’t in the top 16, or even near it, have some hope of getting into the state championship event. But it would probably be good to limit the play-in event to home-state players, perhaps those who have at least participated in some minimum number of state events.


Robert is at 21 States and provinces. Can anyone top that for road warrior?


I believe that Trent was at Pinburgh while Trent3 competed at Cal Extreme. Tragically, Trent2 was lost while trying to attend both events using an ill advised homemade time machine.

RIP Trent2, you will be missed.


Hate to dig this thread up from the dead… being in New England we have the weird league situation (which is being phased out) so we’ve seen some carpet bagging two years ago in states. Otherwise the SCS has been fun and fair. I think some of these larger states could benefit from more qualifiers to finals depending on total players. So Pennsylvania and Cali and Illinois could do 24 player finals, while my humble state of Rhode Island could only do 16. I think a lot of the griping here is well-intentioned; people who want to qualify but it feels so out of reach due to heavy events in their states or living in a part of the state where they can’t reasonably play weekly / often.

I often question my own ranking; I’m third in RI right now, but have played 18 events with an avg per event if 5. The top qualifier (who is not from RI ) Earned 18 points per event on avg.

It’s going to be even weirder without the NEPL league counting to all New England states next year. Most of the top 50 players earned their points through NEPL; when that’s gone there’s only going to be maybe 20-25 or so total Rhode Island events and most will be worth 10 pts or less. There’s probably not going to be a “big” event so you are almost required to play most events to have a good shot at finals. So in effect our state requires grinding. Which of course I’m all for :sunglasses:


i think the smaller the player base the more ok id be with grinders (after all if everyones roughly the same skill level it makes sense that who plays more qualifies) the issue is when you have players with 70-80 events and an average of less than 2 points per event, nudging out players with double that average and far fewer events. i can agree that there is some point in which grinding is the acceptable way for a small state to play, but here in Texas we are waaaaay beyond that point. looking at our SCS standings as of today its almost half what i would call grinders.


BMU was also unable to cover all the schedule-clashed events this year. For instance, BMU1 was in Atlanta; meanwhile, BMU2, the duplicate matter stream [see STTNG episode with two Rikers], failed to materialize at the Northwest Show in Tacoma; BMU3, the clone, experienced extreme cellular disruption [choice of several SF episodes here] and was unable to reassemble in time for the Rocky Mountain show.

If any of you are currently experiencing such difficulties, I would attribute it to your having a split (-flipper) personality.

As for Trent, his time machine problem was due to getting stuck in a perpetual “Million” loop on Dr. Who.


If only the data supported that.



Explain to me how it doesnt…


I don’t understand how you can look at our state and still defend your “grinders don’t matter” position. Is it personal at this point?


right now in our state the 17th place seed is ranked 491 with an average of 4.85 points per event over the course of 20 events. the player ranked above him is ranked 1083 with an average of 1.23 points per event over the course of 79 events. literally 4 times lower of an average with four times as many events. Do you really not see that as one player grinding to get get a spot in the scs over a clearly superior player??



Not sure where he posted it but I think josh has already posted how TX would change when the new best 20 events within your state rule comes into play. I think one person changes in the top 16 if I remember right.


There’s absolutely nothing personal about this. This is pure FACT based on DATA, full stop.

The difference between a Capped system and Uncapped system for Texas is literally TWO PLAYERS (which I will admit is DOUBLE what we usually see, but it’s still a T-W-O player difference).

David Pollock and Matt Quantz brute forced their way in, at the expense of Brad Holliday (who is currently 17th) and Josh Tidmore (or is currently 19th). Those are the only differences.

If I wanted to make it personal, here’s what I would say:

You wouldn’t have qualified in either scenario. Under the uncapped system you were 18th place at 1.35 WPPR’s below the cut line. Under the capped system you were in 17th place at 1.42 WPPR’s below the cutline.


Here’s the problem. You’re selectively choosing who to restrict and focusing on just that ONE PLAYER.

You can’t just restrict Matt Quantz, you have to restrict EVERYONE (yourself included). This change causes Tidmore to hop over you because he only played in 26 events to your 31. So yes you get credit for being “better than Matt”, but you can’t run this model without also giving credit to Tidmore that he’s “better than you” . . . so you’re still left being on the outside looking in.



were not talking about the proposed results from the cap were talking about right now. How can you honestly say that grinders havent shaped our state rankings? i understand the cap will help this issue in the future thats why i brought it up in the first place. youve sat there and said it doesnt matter enough to change the rule, then changed the rule, then claim the new rule will have no effect. so ill ask again: whoever got you to agree to this rule change what were the magic words they used? how did they convince you? are they a friend of yours? if my points are so irrelevant, what points did they make that got you to change your mind? who is this magician?


i would genuinely prefer to be on the outside looking in if i felt the metric used to determine rankings was more accurate. thats my whole issue and i think what separates me from others. i want a good system, not one that caters to me. i know josh is better than me therefore i know the system is flawed.


Ray - I’m not sure what else to say about this. You can’t talk about right now without talking about what the “alternative right now” WOULD BE. That’s the only thing to compare here.

Clearly #persepctiveisreality for many of these SCS arguments, so that was the determining factor in the choice we made about the capped system going forward.

Players that hate the perception of grinders brute forcing their way into the finals is far more intense than the argument from the grinders that they deserve to make the cut because of their dedication to participation.

So I’ll say the magic words that caused us to change were people like yourself. We listened to the very intense frustration of people like you, sharing over and over again how much these grinders don’t belong, that we’re making this change . . . regardless of the actual material impact of that change . . . so your voice has been heard.