Discussion on NACS format

[chuckwurt]

I think mr. @ryanwanger already has you covered. No need. But knock yourself out!

[pinwizj]

@diehardpinball

I would say depending on the state or province you need to reach out to 30 - 60 people. Yes, it is one email out, but it can be a 100 emails back and forth responses that you need to manage as a TD to finalize the 16 in some states/provinces. I am lucky it isn’t to much work in my provinces are mostly local people advance, but in a state that holds a major event and not a ton of state play I can see it being quite time consuming to manage all of those responses or non-responses to get to your final 16. Again I would rather be able to bypass the top players that I know damn well are going to play in their own state, it gives our local players more time to know they are playing instead of waiting till the 7th each year to finally finalize all of the competitors.

So this isn’t actually an issue for you. It’s a hypothetical issue for those State Reps that have a bunch of out of state people in their standings.

IF ONLY WE HAD A REAL WORLD EXAMPLE OF THIS

To avoid the riff raff, Doug Polka waits a couple of days before sending out PA invites. At that point in time a majority of his list pops up with people that are already marked “Not Attending” due to having picked another state. Doug can then rip an email out to the list, pulling out those “Not Attending” people, and voila, it’s not a huge pain point. He had all of his responses back before the deadline, without an issue.

If you are looking to get a sense of things prior to registration, you’re more than welcome to do that. I know that one year when my dad was close to making the IL SCS cut, I send out an email in early November to the top 50, as just a ‘check-in’ in their interest to play in Illinois for SCS. Most people had no problem responding back, knowing the decision they were already planning on making. I was able to give my dad a reasonable cut line with 2 months to go in qualifying.

I didn’t have to change the qualifying process to make that happen . . . I was able to accomplish this through one additional email’s worth of work.

[pinwizj]

@hisokajp

I like the idea of having a full 64 players bracket instead of a portion of hte players starting with a BYE based on their current WPPR ranking, which really isn’t part of what the NACS drive.
Seems more fair and would also potentially address opening additional spots to be distributed “fairly”

If only this didn’t blow the TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS part of the campaign

[gammagoat]

The 5 events in Colorado open looks a lot like the Make our Players count for WPPRs tournaments.

[ScoutPilgrim]

For a more recent “pre-check” example, NY does the same thing with regards to emailing the top 50 for their intentions in December to knock off some entries to the email list.

For reference to your Doug anecdote, PA needed to go to 47th to fill the Top 24 this year. If one player missed signing up, we would need to ask the 57th ranked player to fill that spot.

[diehardpinball]

It is a good point!!! I will wait till the bitter end next year for all of those top players to make their decision and then send out the email so I don’t need to contact them. The trouble is if everyone does this then??? No worries will deal with it

Either way for me regardless of your marketing ploy that gets thousands of thousands of followers and sponsors with your “tournament of champions” it would be nice to expand the current format to 64.

[jdelz]

@diehardpinball

In the “me too” movement aren’t we all champions for participating lol…

Umm, explain what you mean here?

[diehardpinball]

Comment removed, bad humour, my apologies…

[pinwizj]

@diehardpinball

it would be nice to expand the current format to 64.

10 provinces in Canada
50 States in the US
1 District of Columbia
5 Major US territories (according to my Google skills)
32 States in Mexico

Seems like at some point we’ll get to more than 64 players for the NACS Final

[metallik]

@pinwizj

The idea of awarding someone the “Metro Atlantic South Champion” title I also feel would be far less impactful compared to awarding someone the “New Jersey State Champion” title.

I agree on keeping things based on states. I’m just going to take this opportunity to restate my desire to allow TDs near state lines to host tournaments for the neighboring state. I’d be much more inclined to host a tourney for NKY SCS points as opposed to Ohio, since the Ohio scene is concentrated in the northern part of the state and I’m closer to KY metro areas than Cleveland. I have a much better chance of qualifying for KY and don’t see any reason to generate Ohio points at this time. If the definition of “near” is a problem, use the defined census metro area for any city sitting on a state line.

[BMU]

This could actually deal with the Chuck Sanderson situation, too. Allow TDs to pre-declare an event for the other state, especially if the other state’s SCS is/was closer to the event venue than the SCS of the state it’s geographically in. Chuck and others in his area could then try to qualify for MO and save themselves a long drive.

[ScoutPilgrim]

@BMU

Allow TDs to pre-declare an event for the other state, especially if the other state’s SCS is/was closer to the event venue than the SCS of the state it’s geographically in.

I feel like this would need limitations in scope. For example, if Superelectric (Cleveland) hosts Ohio and Pinball Gallery (Malvern, suburb of Philly) hosts PA, all Pittsburgh tournaments are eligible for Ohio SCS status per this rule.

[BMU]

Agreed, there would need to be some rules around it, but I see obvious benefits without the need to go to “metro areas” instead of states as the qualifying entities.

[ScoutPilgrim]

Definitely agree with you there. Some consideration would need to be made to states with large geographical pinball distributions to prevent edge cases like the Ohio Super Super State.

[BMU]

It would also be Really Useful to know where an SCS was going to be at least a couple months in advance. For people who could try to get over the hump in a state but might not want to spend the time and money if the SCS will be far away from them, or for people with more than one option, it would be a public service. States like CA, TX, PA, FL, OH come to mind. Quite a few SCS weren’t posted on the calendar until late November or early December.

[metallik]

@ScoutPilgrim

For example, if Superelectric (Cleveland) hosts Ohio and Pinball Gallery (Malvern, suburb of Philly) hosts PA, all Pittsburgh tournaments are eligible for Ohio SCS status per this rule.

I don’t think he’s suggesting a rule, just saying that’s a reason someone would want to host for the neighboring state. This is exactly my reason - Ohio SCS is always in Cleveland and our scene here in Cincinnati is much more aligned with NKY, which I believe is the 2nd largest KY competitive scene behind Louisville. I will say that whatever rule would have to limit how far into the neighboring state you’d allow a tournament, hence the suggestion of metro boundaries. Holding a KY tournament in Columbus wouldn’t make much sense, but holding it in Cincinnati as opposed to Covington isn’t much different for anyone coming from KY.

[BonusLord]

FWIW, the Columbus scene has grown a ton and Ohio SCS is being held in Columbus this year (and was last year as well)

[ryanwanger]

For the folks who believe there need to be big changes in the SCS, can you give some concrete examples where the current system is failing to increase events and participation within a state (which is the stated goal of the SCS)?

(The goal is not to host the best 50 US players…if you want that, the Power 100 already exists, and is pretty close).

I understand, and agree with, the premise that there are theoretical perception issues…but if those aren’t translating to an actual reduction in events and participation, then by definition, the perception isn’t hurting the stated goals enough to necessitate a change (in my opinion).

[ScoutPilgrim]

@ryanwanger

The goal is not to host the best 50 US players…if you want that, the Power 100 already exists, and is pretty close

I don’t know if there is a true “who is best” tournament other than getting everyone in the IFPA together and having them all play, which exists in a vacuum.

The SCS promotes the “Tournament of Champions” concept where each state is represented by a champion. Some players may be passed over because they had a harder state than others.

The SPC promotes good play in a subset of tournaments and can be gated by the means and ability to travel around the country/world.

The Power 100 is a great indicator of the “who’s who” of pinball, but ignores or downplays up and comers from regions with a high density of top 250 players that they had to compete against while growing.

And honestly, not having an “ultimate” or “pure” best of the best tournament is fine by me. Each format highlights different groups of people and I don’t think one should be celebrated over all of the others.

[pinwizj]

@BonusLord

FWIW, the Columbus scene has grown a ton and Ohio SCS is being held in Columbus this year (and was last year as well)

Distance between Cincinnati and Columbus is 106 miles.

Distance between Cincinnati and Louisville (where KY SCS is) is 100 miles.

Seems like this opens up exploits for TD’s to want events to count for the ‘easier state to qualify for’, because in reality the distance to compete at the actual State Championship is roughly the same for this year.