This isn’t fact. The data that we show in “capped” events versus “uncapped” events shows exactly the opposite (using your ‘top 20’ resume within the state).
3 Likes
Other than the 51st player in Illinois, can you give some examples of obviously more skilled players missing out?
1 Like
So many examples above trying to explain how this is not true…
Noah Davis in Oregon is on the bubble. He’s a “Power 100” player who has a real chance of not making it in.
I feel confident in saying that if noah cared about getting in, or even having a top seed, he would have no issue doing so. Declining motivation and interest isn’t a problem the system should be designed to solve.
He would do so by going to more tournaments though. His avg points per event is way higher than almost everyone else in Oregon. I guess my point is that the system would be great if it actually got the top 16 pinball players into the championship, instead of the top 16 pinball players who want to go to x amount of tournaments.
C’mon Greg - can’t you just like give me a pass to the finals or something?
2 Likes
How do you determine the “top 16 pinball players” in the state? Is it simply the highest ranked WPPR guys included in the state rankings?
If Elwin showed up to ONE WEEKLY should he get in because he’s now one of the ‘top 16 pinball players’ that competed in the state? Or is it only for residents of OR? Or is only for players that play some minimum number of tournaments?
That would be awesome then us Southern Ohio locals would have a chance again for KY SCS!! 
Phoebe
Really though, IFPA shouldn’t try to feed my laziness. My goal is generally to put forth the least amount of effort and still make it in. So far, so good!
2 Likes
I plan to do this for Friday Saturday and Sunday for the next LAX. Gotta run it by Matt and Jeremy, but I’m on it.
1 Like
I think residency would be a great requirement. I also think an average that only averages your top tournaments would be good. So if you need to grind to bring up your average you can without feeling bad about doing bad. And it wouldn’t stop people wanting to go to tournaments to try to hold their average. And if you can get that good avg finish with only a few tournaments then you don’t have to grind. I haven’t thought this through so there could be terrible flaws.
I’ll be sending Josh a copy of my bills, pay stubs, and state tax returns for proof of residency.
What’s that? You’re volunteering to do this for all 10,000 players that participate in the SCS? Thanks Jared!! 
I feel really bad for those that live in East Saint Louis, Illinois . . . cause YOU ARE F*CKED
1 Like
Point taken.
This would fix a lot of the weird issues brought on by state boundaries… If you explored this route, I’d focus on metropolitan areas… think of how MLB/NFL/etc teams are allocated to cities or regions (based on local support and profit potential)… award championships in similar fashion, focusing mostly on local support, but also where tournaments would be prestigious.
Is it possible for you to datamine the IFPA database to find out the top 30-40 metro areas where active players live? Or some other way to identify metro areas that would be best suited to hold such championships? You could still have a fallback of state championships for places like Wyoming or Idaho that may not contain such a city…
SCS eligibility would be waaayyyy down the “ways east st. louis residents are f*cked” list 
6 Likes
I don’t know how to datamine that stuff, but maybe that kind of data is available through our API?
There’s this:
The idea of building 388 trophies per year sounds a little overwhelming, but I could probably knock it out 
It does bring a nice Baseketball style approach to pinball. I could win the:
“Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Pinball Championship”
You mention finding out where players LIVE . . . so would this also come with a residency restriction? Or you would simply base this on where events are held, and players are free to play wherever they end up playing?
Pennsylvania is now consistent of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, and Carnegie (a suburb of Pittsburgh). Better not miss any of the majors either, since they are 1/2 of your events!
I run/play a weekly tournament where if Jon, G$, Walt, and other top 100/200 players show up you get 5 maybe 6 WPPRs for winning and 3 for second. If we decide to keep the weekly format as is in the dollar era, I would have to choose between having fun and being a pure TD while others would choose between fun and SCS because my tournament would be SCS suicide.
Residency requirements can get messy, so none of that…and definitely not 388 cities … just the big ones. Just trying to get the events to the players. Splitting by states means Idaho gets the same treatment as California while CA has a ton more players. Instead, do championships for, at a minimum, LA area and Bay Area… maybe SD? Or wrap them in LA? thats where you have to gauge interest. Idaho could be wrapped into an Idaho/Montana/Wyoming group, or you could hold that each state still gets a minimum of one championship, so ID would get one and WY would get one, etc. Instead of a PA championship, you could make Philly and PGH championships… IL could have Chicago and “the rest of the state” lol really central/south IL… MI could be east/west MI… OH could be CLE and Columbus … not sure if cincy would even make the ‘interest’ cut but no biggie, COLS is close enough. Any metroplex that has a big competitive scene could be considered for a championship. See if you wind up with more or less than 50… (are there any states that still do not participate at all in SCS?)