Andy - The golden rule is that you can't double dip WPPR's for one result.

So . . . for things like the SCS, PAPA Circuit, RCP Championships etc, the fact that the individual events along the way distribute WPPR's, the 'final' of these events can't also distribute WPPR's for all players. It has to be based only on NEW data (which would be just the finalists participating).

This is why the IFPA World Championship is based on the 64 players competing, and not the 30,000 players in the database.

I'm glad I don't live in Wisconsin...

Ohio: good enough to host TWO SCS championships!

This is NOT that case.

Anyone is allowed to run a 'series' or 'circuit' of events, and many organizers do.

An event qualifies if it is open for anyone to participate. As long as anyone had the chance to make the field of these series/circuit events, then we don't have an issue with it.

This would be completely acceptable.

If your goal is to focus on those players that grind out showing up for the various monthly tournaments and leagues, I would recommend setting up something similar to the Portland guys with the Rose City Championships.

We can create a custom ranking for any subset of events, so if you wanted to include just those various monthly tournaments in the standings, we can easily track that for you.

Joe Said does this for his DMV organization:
http://www.ifpapinball.com/rankings/custom_view.php?id=138

The Portland guys do it for the RCP Championships:
http://www.ifpapinball.com/rankings/custom_view.php?id=80

There's a group in Vancouver that does it just for their weekly Wednesday tournament:
http://www.ifpapinball.com/rankings/custom_view.php?id=79

We have the ability to cater our data to EXACTLY what you're looking to get out of it, in order to promote pinball in the best way you see fit for your area.

This is exactly why we're holding off on changing anything SCS to try and cater more to the local player base that gets out and plays a ton, versus those outsiders that come in for one annual event, drop their bomb, and go home.

The WPPR v5.0 formula will definitely help in this regard. How much it will help is left to be seen, but we will find out as the 2015 season takes shape.

Well with 24 people single elimination , the top 8 would get byes and and the lower 16 would match each other in the first round to start.

You will know that answer in December. I don't follow IFPA that closely at all, but I know I rarely participate in anything that is IFPA, and I almost qualified for the WI SCS because of the drops. Granted, I usually finish the top 10-15% when I actually do an IFPA event, but based on that data, that tells me there needs to be more scoring opportunities for those guys that do well at local (in specific Wisconsin city/region) events.

The flip side is that in big events, you are going against a much larger pool of players, and that needs to be accounted for as well.

It really comes down to balancing everything out so that the "local playground legend" is given an opportunity to play against the other "local playground legends"....

Would it? If a guy does really well in bigger events and has the points to qualify as a state contender, he would then be eliminated based on the fact he didn't participate with a required amount of volume. I think that would be the opposite of what you are trying to accomplish.

In the system you are working towards, this wouldn't even be a situation, because there would need to be some volume since more points would be awarded for the smaller events.... I don't think that eliminating someone based on their lack of regular attendance is a great move though (at this point, as you don't know what you don't know with this scoring adjustment).

Some of the better players I have been around rarely participate in monthly tournaments, and essentially you would be penalizing them if they did well, but wouldn't be able to keep up with the volume.

It would absolutely be acceptable.

It wouldn't be what WE (IFPA) would run officially, but anyone is allowed to come up with criteria for a series of events.

I know many leagues that require attendance at X amount of sessions in order to be eligible for finals play. Something like this would be no different.

Trying to understand what Hilton is going after for the local player base, I would probably construct something like the "Madcity Championships", which would include all of those monthly events (Schwoeglers, Pooleys, etc), with the hope of growing additional 'monthly' events to be part of this circuit. All other events in Wisconsin wouldn't be included, especially the bigger/annual events, by design.

yeah, it is really tough to find that happy medium between promoting getting out and supporting while also not dissuading those that come drop bombs from participating at all...

I was thinking the added criterion of a small amount of monthlies as these provide a different format than the big events and also work to promote more competitiev pinball. I think there are 5 monthlies each month plus 3 leagues most months in WI so almost anyone should be able to get out to a handful of monthies. With 60ish public location monthlies in a year, a criterion to have attended a few of these may do a nice job of promoting without being completely impossible for a busy guy to get out to a local event 3 times in the year.

If I look at 2014 rankings for WI, I think the top 40 WI players living in WI all met this criterion and at the same time not a single person that only travels to WI for the few big events would fit the criterion. Granted, life changes and changes in league play would likely impact a few that may need to put in a little effort to get out to a couple monthlies?

It is a tough balance to find what will work to serve the main motives of the WI player base.

I may have read it differently.... I thought Hilton was inferring that you couldn't make the SCS without an attendance record, not a scoring event towards the SCS with attendance.... If it is the first one, then that was what I was talking about, if it was the second one, then that is normal and makes sense....

Hey, my (out of) State championships is in a laundromat and i don't want to change a thing.

long live Sunshine

MM,AFM,CV,BBB,TAF,MB,Cactus Canyon,STTNG,Funhouse, TOM, SM,T2,IJ

Love that lineup.

This is very cool to know. I have no idea how I would use it, since I already run the Tucson league and the bi-weekly events so things are already pretty busy.

This is no normal laundromat. Sweet lineup. Make sure they know that you guys appreciate access to those machines. I'd love to be able to get to that place.

Can't beat that. You can do your laundry while you play!

Hey Tom, Can I bring a load of whites to do at your house next month? That way after I get beat in the first round I still feel like it was a productive day

Nan, I'll just have you do the cooking for everyone.

I'd get rid of my washer and dryer if my local laundromat had that collection of games Sure honey, I can take care of doing the laundry!

If growing pinball is priority #1, then we should focus our time and energy on pinball players who have played in 0 or 1 competitive events. Adding tiny clauses and complications to the existing IFPA/SCS structure will have pretty close to zero impact on any of them.

I just started a league, and 12 of the 17 players have never been in a league before. A few of them primarily play on their iPads. None of them has any idea about WPPR points, the IFPA, or even that by playing in the league - they're going to show up on the website, with a score and a ranking.

For months I had been posting flyers, spreading the word through social media and other channels, contacting friends (whose own interested in pinball was started/cultivated by me at some point in the last year and a half). I've been a very visible presence at the local barcade where I operate the machines - talking to players, showing them tricks, showing them how machines work, running tournaments, and starting a league. I've talked regulars into joining - people who had seen the flyers and ignored them.

I totally understand your point whysnow, I really do. And I appreciate that you're trying to improve the system (if not rallying against it). If the current structure is so offensive that you're inclined to start a new series/system - which players is that going to affect? Certainly not the ones I've mentioned above, who I'd argue are more important to the growth of pinball.

Because of the SCS, overall I played in many more events this last year than I otherwise might have. Once I got closer to making the cut however, I actually *stopped* going to the tiny local monthlies...and made sure I had enough time to go to the bigger events. And after dozens of events, ultimately 28% of my WPPR points came from one single game of South Park in a side tournament. This new WPPR system is going to make a big difference. This is starting to feel like beating a dead horse, since there is a new system in place designed specifically to re-align incentives in a way that promotes more, and more local tournaments.

That isn't to say that just because there are other more important fish to fry, that we shouldn't also look at other things to improve. But it's pretty clear that in this thread there is an overwhelming majority that support the current system.

Anyone can do whatever they want if they don't like the system, but the growth will come from the players who aren't even aware there is a system. That's who I'm going to put my energies towards.

To Ryan's point, we (and by we, I mean my brother Zach) spends just as much time pushing PR on the SCS as I do trying to organize everything.

The media impressions generated are hitting all of these people that weren't aware pinball even existed (including most of the time the newscasters talking about it).

We're able to generate a huge impact because these media outlets read something about their city hosting the 'official' State Championship, where the winner can advance to LAS VEGAS for the National Championship . . . and in the end, it's a great story that gets them talking about pinball.

First piece just hit for 2014-15. Kudos to the Vermont players that actually woke up at 4am to be there for the live segment:

http://www.mychamplainvalley.com/story/d/story/vermonters-pursue-pinball-championship/30860/Hr95-x209U2U1F1djdrVeA

Here's a list of the media pieces from last year's inaugural SCS:

http://www.ifpapinball.com/scs/2013-14media

Hopefully we'll see many more pieces hit for this season.

Hey Josh,

On that note, do you guys have a press release or template we could use to send to local news? I'm sure if there was an easy mailer to send to the press we could get a lot of local interest and more media attention countrywide.

Just so happens my dad did finish writing one up for us.

Available here:

http://www.ifpapinball.com/scs/2015release

Use at your leisure . . .

Josh

Typo alert (3rd paragraph): "The resurgence in pinball has captured the fascination and attention of both the young and young AS heart"

Fixed! thx

Should it say ifpa country directors or ifpa state directors?

It is meant to say Country Directors with respect to how we're able to 'cover the globe' of competitive pinball.

Okey dokey, thanks

Kentucky State Trophy arrived safely today...Since it is the Kentucky State Championships I added it to some of our favorite Kentucky (staples) "trophies" I had already picked up for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd place winners...

Gonna be a fun time! Looking forward to it!

Phoebe
P1010015.JPGP1010002.JPG

Good to know our new packaging held up!

The Illinois one is also safe . . . so that's 2 for 37 (counting the Canadian Provinces).

Just so we're clear, you're saying the following are all fine because you didn't name a specific person, so they don't qualify as "personal attacks", just "attacks". (You edited out the phrase "self-important donkeys", so we don't have your direct quote on that one anymore.)

But: it's out of bounds and a personal attack for someone to tell you that your decision to post something you marked as NSFW, seven other people objected to, and 12 people voted down, was "idiotic". The image has been removed from Pinside, and that says a lot! Calling a thing or a decision idiotic is not the same as calling someone an idiot.

Anyway, I guess name calling or saying something is idiotic isn't your thing.

I didn't take offense. Read what I said: it's difficult or impossible to listen to any of the legitimate things you have to say when it is buried among this garbage.

I've read every post in this thread and responded when I felt I had something to contribute. The fact that you considered calling your event "the real WI state championship" shows precisely what you are interested in doing. It suggests you believe the IFPA event isn't "real" or legitimate. What makes you say that?

For a little more context, here's what you had to say to an IFPA staff member a year ago.

Good luck with the real WI state championship!

Your post does not even deem a response but I wanted to note that I removed the image I posted earlier as the OP of this thread nicely contacted me and requested it. For those that are paying attention it was well within the TOS of the site and showed clothed woman. I tilted it because that is what you are supposed to do when you post something that is adult content.

I do like that you decided to grab a history of posts from past threads and take them completely out of context to try and prove a point. I like that about you. You have a real creepy side that makes you special. You are the only one that has violated TOS and called me an idiot and a direct personal attack. You know have also quoted out of context and modified my posts which is also against pinside TOS. If you want to go internet hero again and protect pinside then you should probably spend your effort reporting yourself to the moderation team rather than stalking my internet history (some of those posts are more that 2 years old; you really went full stalker on this one).

you may also want to work on your reading. If you read every post in the thread, you must have missed this one...

Wisconsin Trophy arrived safe. Thanks Josh.

image.jpg

Hilton, you can keep doing your own thing without trying to change what the Ifpa does, why can't you just leave it at that. And stop being a dick to Bowen. I care enough to post when this is my view...

image-600.jpg

"Pinside legend"

Agreed. I will leave good enough alone and no longer try to change the ifpa scs.

As for bowen, he is the one that seems to be getting his rocks off by attacking me.

I'm really glad that Josh responded to this, since I've debated the topic with a couple people. Nobody is excluded from the SCS because its limited to 16 qualifiers. Everyone had the same opportunity to play in all of the open events throughout the year in order to qualify. Therefore the SCS is equally as open to anyone getting in.

Wow, nice collection ! Now you just need Pokerino and Warlock to top things off

JOSH-
as always, I and my fam support anything you, your dad or bro do
we have your back..........
who knows where pinball would be if you 3 were never "involved".

All it takes is 1 volunteer to host the SCS in Feb 2016. Somebody call a friend!

Agreed. What I meant to say was "if I run a tournament at the bar next week and only people ranked in the top 16 in our state are invited", that becomes a private event. And anyway, that wouldnt be any fun!
Thats why guys like you and I (ranked 3000 or better) are paying entry fees plus coin drop at my monthly, and everyone else is only paying coin drop

I think New Mexico and Utah are pretty close to getting their scene off the ground.
Maybe WY

It will be interesting to see if and where the growth pattern continues.

2013-14 season we had 28 states, 3 Canadian Provinces.

2014-15 season we had 33 states, 4 Canadian Provinces, added the European Championship Series, along with Championship Series in Australia, Austria, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

I'll be curious to see if any other countries step up to run a Championship Series within their borders.

Perhaps this isn't the appropriate venue, but is there an ETA for 2015 events to go live for rankings?

I know there is a lot of work that needs to go into it. So, I'm just wondering if there is a timetable at this point.

ETA is ASAP

We're working on it, but definitely need to make sure everything works properly on our test site before going live with all of it.

The good news is we've been verifying tournament results as they come in, so we have a massive list ready to upload really quickly once we're clear to go.

Bowen was just pointing out the truth.

Just do the first 2 in AZ and then have a day or two pause before entering the 2 since then. That way I can screen shot me being #1 for the brief moment it will last.

Correct me if I'm wrong Josh, but the explanation from last year was that the new year rankings (although fully tracked) are not posted until after the SCS (CP, ECS, etc...) so as to avoid confusion for those newer to the championship series (as we ALL were last year). It worked perfect last year.

Although it would be nice, you know you are #1! For now

Ken - That hiatus of uploading new results normally only lasts about a week into the new year.

We typically pick a date that we "close" the previous year rankings, and then use that information for SCS qualifiers and IFPA WC qualifiers.

You'll see an announcement on our site asking for all corrections, player profile combining, and all other 'random issues' that we correct on a daily basis, where the cut off was January 4th.

We have made corrections after January 4th that have changed the rankings, but did NOT change the SCS and IFPA WC qualifying standings. Normally this would also allow us to start uploading current year data . . . just not this year because of the new system still being tested.

An example would be, you realize that you're listed as Ken Kulig AND Kenneth Kulig, and you're only qualified in 24th in the WI SCS because of the Kenneth result not being included.

Either you:

a) Find that prior to January 4th, and we can go in and combine those accounts so you can be properly ranked for the WI SCS

b) Find that after January 4th, and you're stuck missing the cut because you weren't able to get those "Kenneth" points in time before the cutoff. However we would still fix it for the ongoing rankings into the current year and beyond

Hope that makes sense

Damnit Hilton cut that shit out!!

Thanks for correcting me. I must have remembered incorrectly.

The one thing I would like to see changed is let the top 4 qualify for national champion so if #1 or #2 in scs could not make national offer it to 3 or 4 in succession. In nc last year 1and 2 did not go but 3 stated he would have gone if they had let him but they only allowed for 1 or 2 to go.

On one hand, I commend IFPA for even allowing the runner up to represent the state.

However, while this adjusts for situations where the State Champion is unable or unwilling to attend, and gives the next most qualified person of the State tourney a shot, the simple fact is that allowing anyone other than the State Champion to compete at the Nationals is just begging for an asterisk or explanation when listing the State Champions who are competing and their results.

The more one moves down the list, the more awkward it is to explain, and would seemingly invite the potential for some conspiring. Not saying anyone would, but imagine how it might look if a top seeded person is upset by several lower seeded players and the lower players all somehow "could not attend" or conversely if several top seeded players "could not attend" to allow for a Cinderella story to unfold. Those are just a couple of very hypothetical examples that could occur in a bizarre parallel universe.

In short, I agree only one of top 2 placers should be allowed as a representative as already stated in the IFPA rules.