suggestion for 2018 SCS


It’s worth WPPRs as it’s not technically invite only. You qualify for it through public events.




I would point out that in the simulations josh has run, reducing the number of events available for state championships has zero effect on the top 16 in Oregon. The biggest problem for Eugene is not our number of events, but the fact that on average they are much higher value. That’s what really makes it tough to catch up (and I say this with all respect and love towards the awesome Eugene pinball scene.)


While a cap doesn’t necessarily change the top 16, it does cap the number of points that can be earned and thus makes qualifying more attainable to those that didn’t play every event.


This is likely to be much less of an issue with the sharp drop of smaller/more frequent events going for WPPR following the $1 rule in 2018.


I agree that reducing the number of events considered for the SCS would have both little-to-no effect on those that qualify as well as serve as a possible deterrent for those that play in a lot of tournaments to accrue points. I feel that all tournaments and leagues played within a state for a calendar year should continue to count for state qualifying. Why should you cater a system to people who play less than others?

I am a proponent of Josh’s (and others, I’m sure) idea of expanding the field beyond 16 players in select states. To use Oregon as an example, that would make it more likely to open up a visit to the State Championship to those that live in Eugene. Let’s make this a thing sooner rather than later!


Every change the IFPA has done since year 2 has had similar comments made :smile:

Regardless, I think a cap is good


I’m confused… I thought the whole point of the SCS was that it was uncapped. To encourage people to actually play in weekly events…


Of those that play in weekly events how many actually play in the SCS and Nationals?


I think it’s time the SCS took a page from the IFPA qualifying system, where each country [for SCS, metro area or region] that has a “significant amount of player and event activity” gets 2 [for SCS, number tbd, may vary by state] guaranteed spots in the IFPA [SCS]. The remaining spots are all based on accumulated points across all areas, as is done now to fill out the field of 64 for the IFPA.

So, for instance, Portland gets their top 3, Eugene gets their top 3, remaining 10 go to overall state position. NorCal and SoCal each get, say, their top 5, with the remaining 6 going to overall points. Western NY gets 3, Hudson Valley gets 3, NYC gets 3, remaining 7 go to overall.


  1. This would deal with a large number of the issues I’ve heard here.
  2. There’s already a precedent for doing this - - IFPA.
  3. Each state can have flexibility as to defining their regions and minimums per region as above.
  4. No state has to do it. Leave it up to the players in each state. I say players rather than the state reps to avoid having an area that’s left out accuse the state rep of bias.
  5. No disincentive to play more.
  6. May increase interest in outlying areas since now there are guaranteed spots for at least a few of them in the SCS.
  7. Frankly, IMO, it’s fairer than the present system.

I’ll bet that lots of places would both see an uptick in things if they knew they now had a real shot at making the SCS.


States can already do this, as long as all the players sign up for this kind of process.

Example, Joe Smith qualifies as the top player in Eugene OR, and is 68th in the OR SCS standings. As long as everyone between #16 and #67 agree to pass on their spot for Joe Smith, he gets in as the “agreed upon” Eugene Exemption spot.

Go lobby your player base to get something like this started, and find out if herding pinball players to agree on something is easier or harder than herding cats :slight_smile:


@Shep will deserve a HUGE % pay increase for coding this in to each standings, state by state. :wink:


I didn’t go total Wisconsin, but I did make a city championship for Tucson. We use the points from events at my location(s) that IFPA awards and when the year is done there will be an event that the top 12 players will be invited to.

I don’t see city/regional standings as something IFPA needs to do. It’s really not that hard. Hasn’t done much of anything to increase the player base (#1 goal) but the banner we hang with the names of the top 4 finalists will mean something to them. If IFPA wants to send over some “#1 Guinea Pig”, “#2…” trophies I’m sure that would go over well. :stuck_out_tongue: if anyone wants to look.


So you’re saying #16 through #68 [though in reality it would be # 16 through ~#29] could collude to let the top Eugene player in? And this is fine?

But, really for Oregon I think the expanded field would take care of most of our state’s gripes. And as has been pointed out the SCS is already fantastically successful and we’re nit picking here.


This type of collusion is already happening. Right now in Michigan Aaron Grabowski has stopped playing in their local events since he’s a lock for the MI SCS. His hope is to let enough other local players win enough WPPR’s to make the MI SCS cut.

In the past I’ve also ‘not played’ in local events here to let my dad have a better chance at walking away with more WPPR’s to give himself a better chance to qualify for the IL SCS.

If those OR players want to collude to ‘let someone in’, that’s fine. A State Rep can’t FORCE any of those players to decline their invite.


Happens in many states. I have taken myself out of SCS to let others play that have the urge to participate in Nationals if won SCS. If I played and won I have no such interest in Nationals so why deny someone that chance is my reasoning.


Wisconsin. The black eye of competitive pinball. :pensive:


I say trash the SCS… honestly…

Move to regionals… take top 10 from each state… rotate where regionals are held each year.

Charge $125 yearly fee for anyone who wishes to be eligible for regionals


Have IFPA endorsed TD’s.

  • Allow only x amount of endorsed TD’s per state
  • Allow x amount of tournaments to be sanctioned events to count towards scs or regionals. Each state gets # of events that count towards regionals, split evenly among endorsed TD’s
    -Have IFPA state reps vouch for endorsed TD’s

  1. Who decides what the regions are?

  2. Does every state get 10 players, no matter how big or small they are?

  3. Is it the same SCS style qualifying process for those state standings?

  4. Who decides the “Regional Championship” rotation schedule and who hosts? (More importantly how many finalists do you need to accommodate space and game wise)

  5. Does Nationals go away entirely? Do you take the winner of each Regional to Nationals?

  1. When does a player have to decide on their eligibility for regionals and get their payment in?

  2. What happens if a state doesn’t have 10 players that want to pay the $125 fee?

  1. So the IFPA State Reps have complete control over what tournaments get pulled into being eligible? Does it matter that a majority of our state reps are also competing in this process?

  2. How do you determine what “X” is with respect to the number of events that are eligible? Does Delaware get the same number of events that count in their standings as California?

  3. What if there’s only a handful of TD’s for the entire state, and one TD runs a majority of the events in that state? How do you propose we handle your split “evenly among endorsed TD’s” rule?


This kills the major-heavy states.

With certain states like PA where you can do well in 6 events (PAPA A, PAPA Classics 1-3, Pinburgh, PPO), you can be an out-of-state, in-region player and steal away a spot for someone in-state. Right now, 3 players can qualify for PA’s “seats” (top 10) from out of state. In Georgia that number is 9!

Also a “state restriction” is not a viable fix. That punishes the Aleksanders of the world who live near the border between 2 states/have an even pinball commute between pinball hubs in 2 states. Why should he be forced to choose us over Ohio?