(Topic ID: 185444)

IFPA Charging Fees for Tournaments in 2018

By Eric_S

6 years ago


Topic Heartbeat

Topic Stats

  • 1,610 posts
  • 166 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 3 years ago by Joe_Blasi
  • Topic is favorited by 20 Pinsiders

You

Linked Games

Topic Gallery

View topic image gallery

f5f.gif
homer simpson brain xray (resized).png
taytay.gif
pasted_image (resized).png
20171223_203010 (resized).jpg
IFPA (resized).png
ifpa (resized).jpg
wpprizer_build (resized).PNG
IMG_2821 (resized).JPG
IMG_2805 (resized).JPG
DonationJar (resized).png
IMG_2797 (resized).PNG
IMG_4030 (resized).JPG
towelie_tough_guy (resized).jpg
towelie-no_you_are (resized).png
IMG_5752 (resized).PNG

There are 1,610 posts in this topic. You are on page 11 of 33.
#501 6 years ago
Quoted from Slim64:

Did I miss where this suddenly became legal in WI?

Take the 75% check from IFPA and have the 16 players agree to donate that to charity. I doubt anyone would see serious jail time.

#502 6 years ago
Quoted from epthegeek:

Would be a lot less effort, hassle, cost, etc to just pay the damn dollar.

Fighting for an ideal isn't always the easiest path. People need to make their own decisions if they'd rather have what they actually WANT or if they want to bail out and just take a compromise position. I don't really see how you can fault anyone for making either choice.

#503 6 years ago
Quoted from ifpapinball:

I'm more than willing to get started on the feedback for the 2019 plan.
Would you be interested in being ranked on our "Amateur" rankings for the events that don't pay the endorsement fee to count towards the "Professional" rankings?
Where do you see this heading for Wisconsin? There were 39 'unique' events held in the state in 2016. Do all 39 apply to be part of the "Amateur" rankings? Do some percentage apply to the "Professional" rankings?

To be honest, I really don't have a good idea on where to take the new approach from here, which is why I liked the old/current system. I know my skill level will never approach the top tier and I have zero interest in playing at the national level (with the exception of Pinburgh, which is a good excuse for a road trip with my buddies). I have a better chance of becoming a professional gigolo than a professional pinball player.

Personally, I like to play in local Wisconsin events and ultimately have a place in the SCS for Wisconsin. If doing "professional" tournaments with a fee is the only way to gain WPPR points to qualify for the SCS, then I suspect I'll just stick to my local league and competitive pinball for me will die on the vine.

I'm not really keen on keeping competing rankings, state-wide or otherwise, as it just waters down everything. Soon, everyone will have their own ranking system that is somehow better, fairer, cheaper, etc. and it ends up like professional boxing.

#504 6 years ago
Quoted from ZenTron:

Take the 75% check from IFPA and have the 16 players agree to donate that to charity. I doubt anyone would see serious jail time.

I'm not willing to test that theory.

#505 6 years ago
Quoted from Eric_S:

If doing "professional" tournaments with a fee is the only way to gain WPPR points to qualify for the SCS, then I suspect I'll just stick to my local league and competitive pinball for me will die on the vine.

You could just pay the buck (gasp) and continue to enjoy competitive pinball.

#506 6 years ago

I am happy to support my local league and that in turn helps support pinball. What does the $1 exactly go to? Not sure I really understand. If it's to increase the prize pool for State/National events then not no....but HELL NO. Go get corporate sponsorship for prizes if that's the end game and goal. I enjoy our local league for fun. I don't travel for other tourneys nor do I plan to.

If IFPA wants to take money from state events to increase the prize pool for National events that is fine. Local events do not benefit from this so no money should be taken from local league play events.

And in the other thread IFPA basically tells how to get around and only pay a dollar a year. The catch to that is you only report your scores once a year. That's not fun if people want to watch theirs or others rankings. And doesn't that defeat the purpose of adding the fee?

I did quick math and our local league does three seasons of about 8 weeks and a finals. We have about 40-50 players weekly so for 3 8 week periods that's about $960 if everyone paid a dollar a week over one year. How many other leagues are there.....ALOT if you start asking around. I suspect easy enough well over $500K to $1mil could be raised. I smell something very afoul the second fees come into play and then IFPA doesn't want to collect it...that's a red flag right there.

Would it make sense for IFPA to track everyone's scores from results submitted per event and sends THAT player/person a bill to pay at one dollar per event and that person pays IFPA. It can all be done automatically. If the person does not pay the ranking is not official. Those that plan/choose to enter state/national tourneys can pay the fee for their rank to be "current/valid/verified" or whatever you would like to call it. That is fair to everyone. Those that want verified ranked scores have that option and those that just want to play for fun in their local league don't pay for something they don't want/need. Everyone's happy.

Bottom line is unless the IFPA is gonna evenly distribute "Collections/Fees" back to the local league/tourneys and increase those prize pools it will only detract from local leagues. If local leagues benefitted from it in some way they would embrace a small fee with little to no issue.

May be starting my own underground league........

#507 6 years ago
Quoted from Russell:

You could just pay the buck (gasp) and continue to enjoy competitive pinball.

Not really. If a tournament director decides not to pay the fee, then no WPPR points, regardless if I want to or not.

Many of us would be stuck between a rock and a hard place. Most tournaments have no fees and no payouts currently, as we do this for fun. I would say about half of regular tournament players care about WPPR points. So, as a TD, do you charge a fee and piss off those that don't care about WPPR points or not charge a fee, not have WPPR points, and probably have a significant number of players not play in your tournament?

#508 6 years ago
Quoted from Pickle:

What does the $1 exactly go to? Not sure I really understand. If it's to increase the prize pool for State/National events then not no....but HELL NO.

Pretty sure that's exactly where it's going. 75% to state pot, 25% to Nationals pot, yeah?

#509 6 years ago

It seems like any Wisconsin players who like the WPPR system are not going to enjoy 2018. That's a shame.

I think playing with a little $ on the line enhances the fun of competition. I hardly ever win anything, but it's fun to try.

Personally, I'm looking forward to SCS getting a boost in attention and competitiveness (though already pretty tough in CO).

Also, I'll enjoy the inevitable stories about the big money national tournament. Highly unlikely I'll ever make it, but I can cheer on the CO winner.

#510 6 years ago
Quoted from Frax:

Pretty sure that's exactly where it's going. 75% to state pot, 25% to Nationals pot, yeah?

Yes. All of it goes to those two events.

I would like the requirements for playing in a SCS to increase to 5 events instead of 2 so that it will consist of more local players that play regularly in that state. Sure some of the less active states won't have an allstar making it to nationals, but at least it will make more sense to call them state championships and the people winning them will have some local pride and represent a region they actually care about and are local to.

#511 6 years ago
Quoted from chuckwurt:

I would like the requirements for playing in a SCS to increase to 5 events instead of 2 so that it will consist of more local players that play regularly in that state.

Very good suggestion. What good is a SCS when it contains out of state competitors?

#512 6 years ago
Quoted from GravitaR:

Very good suggestion. What good is a SCS when it contains out of state competitors?

I mean I'm okay with out of state, just be close. I'm sure the KY SCS under this new rule would be half KY and half Cincy to be honest. But there are some world class players in cincy that don't even bother in OH because it's not possible to compete with the Columbus crew, let alone the Akron/Cleveland crew. They are closer to the KY SCS than the OH SCS too. hell with all the out of state people that back out anyway, it ends up being these guys, so why not make a rule to ensure the local players make up the top 16?

Even better, if someone lives in CA, but wants to take the time to travel to KY to play in at least 5 events and makes it in the top 16, I say they've earned the right to and will represent the state well in Nationals should they make it. Just attending LAX shouldn't be enough imo.

-1
#513 6 years ago
Quoted from Russell:

That's a shame.

Some of us dont like playing for money, period.
Others dont mind paying for money, but sure as hell are not going to donate .25 every time we play just so an elite player can make 10k each year at nationals. or donate .75 each time we play so a top WI player can walk away with 2700 at the end of the year.
Others have no problem with that but just dont want to break local laws on behalf of the IFPA.
Others have no problem with any of it but find it a real PITA to have to deal with cash since 90% of WI based events are no entry fee.

For me it is a little bit of all of this, plus the fact that this feels like the frog in the beaker situation and I would rather stop investing in something that changes without input and an obvious bias for elite players over new comers to the sport.

The only shame I see is that WI players and TDs have been very active in building the sport (to the benefit of the IFPA and their eventual reality TV deals and the associated payout) and were not even talked to in advance about the topic, let alone the trolling of this all coming down on April fools. It shows very clearly how the IFPA thinks of its player base and TDs. I hope it is the impetus for a few others to get motivated to figure out something better that does not money grab for the elite. As Eric noted, i dont want things to get diluted like boxing, but I am optimistic that something better can come of all this.

Shame that the easy thing would be for IFPA to stop experimenting (is is not a scientific exp by the way Josh, merely a social exp; a soft science at best) and just provide the option for people to get ranked as it has always been and opt out if they are cool without being eligible for nationals. If you really want to have the winners pay for an event, then simply have them pay up front.

Seems rather clear that the majority of the player based would be more than happy to pay a $5 fee for profile access on an annual basis. With over 50k ranked people if even 20% paid up, that is a gaurenteed 50k right now. If you need help setting up a trust to shelter the funds then LMK. Pretty easy to be able to legally do this money grab and do it in a way that feels better for the whole player base.

#514 6 years ago

This thread is generating a lot of reports. Lots of broken record and be nice reports.

Please try to stay polite, even if you disagree with someone. If you've made a point multiple times in the thread already, view your point as being heard (not saying stop posting, just make sure your new posts raise some new ideas or comments other than what you may have already said).

Thanks.

#515 6 years ago

IFPA doesn't have 500 pins like PAPA and even if they could get a large sponsor, what happens if they bail. For sunstainability it makes sense to be self funded and not be dependent upon other less stable means of funds. If this flaps in 2018 it has already been mentioned changes would occur in 2019 etc.

Who knows, maybe this might just work..

#516 6 years ago
Quoted from Frax:

Well, thanks, I guess, but I don't really need anyone else's validation as far as that goes.

I'll agree to disagree, though? I think if you feel like you have the skills, at THIS point AFTER the rules changes, you DO have to have the money and time to travel or you will not break the top 100 most likely. I'm operating under the assumption that anyone shooting for the top 100 probably feels like they are at least somewhat competitive. It took me 3 years to get there, and I still needed things like TPF to boot.

I wasn't trying to validate or not validate. I've never played against you, to my knowledge.

It's OK. We can disagree and I will be cool with that. It's just that times have changed, and the system has changed, because getting 25 points for a 5-12 person tournament shouldn't have been the same as a 35 person tournament with a much more grueling format. That's the way it was in 2014. The changes they made, in my mind, were genius in that it opened up venues to have full points tournaments any day of the week, as many times a year as they wanted. It's the *quality* of event that matters. That's the way it should be, no? Every event based on it's own merits, and no more divide by twelve stuff for monthlies, combining them into one event, or all that complicated stuff.

You mention not caring about rankings. That fine if you really don't care. I care, but to a point. It's funny when I see another TD claiming he doesn't care one bit, but ran some 'best of 17' finals to max out point value.

17
#517 6 years ago

johnny come lately: hey! ive been playing pinball for a month or so and im really enjoying it is it cool if i play in your league!
TD: of course! the more the merrier! were always looking for fresh faces to share our hobby with!
JCL: awesome! tell me what i need to know to participate!
TD: well we have a five dollar entry fee that goes to the prize pool and a one dollar entry fee that the ifpa requires us to pay to them so they can give it back at the end of the year for state championships/nationals
JCL: oh cool, im down with that, whats the story with state championships? when are they/ where can i sign up?
TD: well, even though youll be paying the extra dollar to join our league, you most likely wont be competing in state. to compete in state you need to be in the top 16 of players based on your performance at events in the state, events are valued by the number of games played and the number of players participating and what their rank is. rank is determined by a point system that changes every year, and your points lose value based on how old the event was. most of the players in state have been competing for years.
JCL: whoa! years huh, good thing im getting started now!
TD: you arent. you must play in at least five ifpa sanctioned events to be considered ranked and therefore wont have a ranking or contribute anything to the tournament besides cash to our prize pool for about half a year. cash is distrIbuted to A,B, and C divisions, and at the end of the year will help the winners pay for a trip to wherever their state championships are held.
JCL: eh, ill just stick to paying for what i wanna play when i wanna play it, thanks though!!

#518 6 years ago

<blockquote cite="#3691942"
I'm not really keen on keeping competing rankings, state-wide or otherwise, as it just waters down everything. Soon, everyone will have their own ranking system that is somehow better, fairer, cheaper, etc. and it ends up like professional boxing.</quote>

I have a feeling that Wisconsin, if it did go full Wexit, would be on their own in that respect. There will be *tournaments* and leagues that drop out of the system, but entire states aren't going to revolt, besides this country's Queen of awesome cheese making.

#519 6 years ago
Quoted from chuckwurt:

Yes. All of it goes to those two events.
I would like the requirements for playing in a SCS to increase to 5 events instead of 2 so that it will consist of more local players that play regularly in that state. Sure some of the less active states won't have an allstar making it to nationals, but at least it will make more sense to call them state championships and the people winning them will have some local pride and represent a region they actually care about and are local to.

There is merit in that idea. Might be tough on the states that don't even do that many events though.

#520 6 years ago
Quoted from SHOOTTHEPYRAMID:

you must play in at least five ifpa sanctioned events to be considered ranked and therefore wont have a ranking or contribute anything to the tournament besides cash to our prize pool for about half a year

I hope no TDs are actually that shitty to new players. Most of this statement is false.

True, you don't contribute 0.5 points to the value of the event until you get to five, but you are absolutely ranked, have a ranking (and other statistics, just like every other player), are able to win money, and the points you earn count towards qualifying in SCS (and towards your international ranking).

If you're in an active area, you can play enough that you start contributing sooner than "about a half a year".

Again, the only thing they aren't doing is adding 0.5 points to the event...and I don't understand why that element would override all of the other things listed and keep someone away from competitive pinball. You're aware why that rule is in place right? Because TDs were gaming the system in a way that made it unfair to newer players.

#521 6 years ago
Quoted from ryanwanger:

Again, the only thing they aren't doing is adding 0.5 points to the event...and I don't understand why that element would override all of the other things listed and keep someone away from competitive pinball

because most people like to be included in and contribute to things they pay money for.

#522 6 years ago

I never realized the national competitive pinball scene relied so much on the way the winds were blowing in Wisconsin.

Truly the cheesehead state is the straw that stirs the drink!

#523 6 years ago
Quoted from SHOOTTHEPYRAMID:

because most people like to be included in and contribute to things they pay money for

...almost as much the top players enjoyed all the free points from beating dozens of people who have never played competitive pinball before.

#524 6 years ago
Quoted from ryanwanger:

...almost as much the top players enjoyed all the free points from beating dozens of people who have never played competitive pinball before.

probably!! you should travel back in time to when that was relevant so i can feel the zing!!! when was that rule changed... for the 2015 season??? good one!!

#525 6 years ago
Quoted from Richthofen:

. Whenever someone new shows up to our pinball league or a tournament and they learn they will be internationally ranked their eyes light up.

being ranked doesn't really mean that much.

#526 6 years ago
Quoted from shacklersrevenge:

being ranked doesn't really mean that much.

from what ive seen, being ranked means absolutely everything to new players looking to show off their skills. Ranking only doesnt mean much when you look into the rules. which a good portion of "competitive" players will never do.

#527 6 years ago
Quoted from bangerjay:

It's a fucking dollar!

a fucking dollar? what is this Thailand? I thought it was $5 for a full night with breakfest?

#528 6 years ago

I don't get the whole self defeating, ohh the poor locals will never get to SCS thing going on here. The SCS are well within a person's reach if they put in the effort. You're contributing to something you have wide open ability to be involved with at whatever capacity you choose. You could qualify in a lot of states with 1 bigger event win, put in the work.

If the TD's don't want the hassle, switch to non-wppr, or do bi-monthly, quarterly, etc submissions instead, lots of options. These are probably the same people complaining that locals don't have a chance anyway, so why care. Don't want to explain to newbies about SCS, ifpa, etc etc., then don't. "Part of the $x entry is for admin costs", I've heard that before & no one has questioned it or cared. I mean seriously, so many people are clunking down (x)thousands of dollars on pinball every year, even playing on location shit I'll spend ridiculous money, another $1 is not going to matter. At least if there's a "cash grab" involved, I'd prefer that $1 is going to help put money into the pockets of pinball people that have put in far more effort than I do, rather than the bar that is selling me leftover crappy beer at full price, or operators who don't take care of their machines.

Instead of bitching maybe people should consider Josh has done so much to help pinball and give him some trust. I can't believe they don't already charge for the ridiculous amount of work they put in.

#529 6 years ago
Quoted from EmLover1970:

There is merit in that idea. Might be tough on the states that don't even do that many events though.

Easy fix. If your state has less than five then the rule doesn't apply. More than five, you must attend at least five to be counted in the standings.

If I can run at least 5 events a year I think any state can do it if they really wanted to. Just as easy as accounting for this extra one dollar at each event.

#530 6 years ago
Quoted from Philk:

You could qualify in a lot of states with 1 bigger event win, put in the work.

This is not a good thing imo. Doing well in one event doesn't feel like putting in work to me. Seems like letting it all ride on one event that is attended by the best in the world, not the state.

#531 6 years ago
Quoted from ryanwanger:

...almost as much the top players enjoyed all the free points from beating dozens of people who have never played competitive pinball before.

oddly I find that quite often non-rated players are placing in the top 50% and even top 4 in their first or second event.

It seems to have been put in place to defeat super league stuff, and ends up hurting other events.

#532 6 years ago
Quoted from chuckwurt:

Easy fix. If your state has less than five then the rule doesn't apply. More than five, you must attend at least five to be counted in the standings.
If I can run at least 5 events a year I think any state can do it if they really wanted to. Just as easy as accounting for this extra one dollar at each event.

Like I said, I like your idea to up the minimum number of events to qualify, but if a state runs 6 and you need to be at 5, that might not work.

-1
#533 6 years ago
Quoted from EmLover1970:

Like I said, I like your idea to up the minimum number of events to qualify, but if a state runs 6 and you need to be at 5, that might not work.

Yeah that's a limitation of any number you pick. Right now it's 2 I think. If you're state only has two and you can't make them, same issue.

Similar to a league. If you have 6 meets, you usually have to make 5 to still qualify for finals.

If your league has 30 meets and you only need to go to 2 to qualify, I'm not for that.

#534 6 years ago
Quoted from chuckwurt:

If your league has 30 meets and you only need to go to 2 to qualify, I'm not for that.

I thought current rules for any combined event was that a person has to attend 50% or play 50% of the games to count?

#535 6 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

I thought current rules for any combined event was that a person has to attend 50% or play 50% of the games to count?

I was making that up. Right now to qualify for SCS I think you need to play in two events in that state. If those two events count for 95% of the wpprs awarded for the year, it doesn't matter if you win the other 30 or so tournaments held in that state, it only matters how well you did in those two big events.

#536 6 years ago

I'd be in favor of Wexit too...

Practically speaking you'll end up with a lot of casual leagues splitting up, where the serious guys would go to one league where they care enough to pay extra to earn points, and the not-so-serious guys would go to another league where points aren't tracked. Or two "sections" within the same league. To me, this change seems like a big kick in the nuts for local, social pinball. I think it'd be much better to charge an IFPA membership fee for those who care or raise the fees at the more serious tournaments.

#537 6 years ago
Quoted from chuckwurt:

I was making that up. Right now to qualify for SCS I think you need to play in two events in that state. If those two events count for 95% of the wpprs awarded for the year, it doesn't matter if you win the other 30 or so tournaments held in that state, it only matters how well you did in those two big events.

You only have to participate in one event for SCS unless that has changed. In GA, our biggest event, Pinvasion, draws well over a hundred players and lots of highly ranked players. The number of points distributed there, between two tourneys: classics and main, mean even with a 2 tourney minimum anyone that plays both would qualify. What was said to us in a thread about SCS a couple years ago was basically run more tourneys. However, with one tourney the size of Pinvasion, someone that only comes to Pinvasion and finishes even in the top 10 would usually get enough points to qualify for here, even if we run a dozen other tourneys and leagues throughout the year. This is because the points for Pinvasion are huge and even a good number of tourneys won't overcome that. I have thought it would be better to require SCS participants to attend different tourneys at different times but it is what it is right now.

On another note, calling this a science experiment is for some reason (science) bothering me. And saying this is social science (then calling it soft science as a putdown also isn't germane to how real social science is conducted). But that's just the literalist in me

#538 6 years ago
Quoted from shimoda:

You only have to participate in one event for SCS unless that has changed. In GA, our biggest event, Pinvasion, draws well over a hundred players and lots of highly ranked players. The number of points distributed there, between two tourneys: classics and main, mean even with a 2 tourney minimum anyone that plays both would qualify. What was said to us in a thread about SCS a couple years ago was basically run more tourneys. However, with one tourney the size of Pinvasion, someone that only comes to Pinvasion and finishes even in the top 10 would usually get enough points to qualify for here, even if we run a dozen other tourneys and leagues throughout the year. This is because the points for Pinvasion are huge and even a good number of tourneys won't overcome that. I have thought it would be better to require SCS participants to attend different tourneys at different times but it is what it is right now.

This is exactly how KY is with LAX. Seems like a pretty easy thing to circumvent. Just bump up the requirement to five. In 2018, I could see at least 30-40 tournaments being run outside of LAX. That still might not be enough to overcome it. That stinks. Haha

#539 6 years ago

Discussion of this change in the Kansas City community has ranged from ambivalent to positive thus far. Bear in mind almost all our events already have entry costs, so we do not face the scenario of free events no longer being free. Since this thread is having concerns listed, there are two I have (and both have been expressed in some form already). Well, one concern and one question that might end up being a concern to others.

As for the concern, it is the charity events. My personal opinion is the optics are bad (for the event) if it must move away from being able to claim that 100% of the entry fees go to the charity. Be it out of the pot as-is or as a separate fee, either case removes the ability to advertise the event as 100% for charity. One solution under the current proposal is to just drop such events from awarding WPPRs, but the WPPRs give these events leverage (they attract hardcore players who might not otherwise be particularly interested in the mission of the specific charity), and could hurt attendance. Another option that is being suggested in K.C. is seeking a sponsor for the IFPA fee, and keeping the entries 100% free. I imagine this is the route we'll try to go, though we already are relying on sponsors for trophies and door prizes, so it does add a level of inconvenience.

As such, I would like to request the IFPA to consider modifying their proposal for an exception for charity events. Something along the lines of any tournament that donates 100% of its entry fees to a 501(c)3 or other registered nonprofit (at the national level for Canada or USA) and/or governmental entity is exempt from the IFPA tournament fee and still eligible as an official, sanctioned tournament. My hope is by requiring the entity to be registered as a nonprofit it would avoid loophole situations, but as added insurance I wouldn't mind seeing a cap on events per state that can do this (for example, each state is allowed four such charity tournaments per year, first-come first-serve on the IFPA calendar).

My question/concern is regarding the impact/feelings states may have now that the contributions to the National pot are not equal. One of our area players has estimated Kansas would probably send about $400 for Nationals if our tournament count and player count holds at current levels. I want to think someone earlier estimated their West Coast state would send about $2000. Now that it isn't going to be the same amount per state, will there not be increased pressure from areas that fund a higher share of the prize pool to get more participants at Nationals? They'd have a good argument, given the financing has moved from total parity to a proportional aspect. Obviously the 75% going back to the State is moot to this (since that stays "in house"), but I think it does raise interesting questions for the National competition.

Anyway, just a couple thoughts. Thanks!

#540 6 years ago

Perhaps, if a states ifpa fund goes over X amount, more players are entered (and paid) to play at the state tourney finals?
Only problem then becomes time and format.
I still like only 1 player per state for nationals.
I also think raising the # of events needed to attend to qualify for state is a good idea, 5 seems like a good number, if a state has at least x tourneys held.
Charity events should be held for charity, not wpprs.
I think this will help clean up all the abuse of the system, milking of points that are not really earned.
I think this is the result of people abusing a free system.
I think Wiexit is a great idea, bye!

#541 6 years ago

The motivation for some people to participate in charity events is WPPRs.

#542 6 years ago

Maybe cap the $$ sent to Nationals, and the rest stays in state. So the $400 goes, as does the $400 from the west coast state.

Just spit ballin' here.

As a location owner, I will cover the $1 per player, as they drink way more than that. I'm glad to host!

#543 6 years ago
Quoted from CrazyLevi:

I never realized the national competitive pinball scene relied so much on the way the winds were blowing in Wisconsin.
Truly the cheesehead state is the straw that stirs the drink!

Yeah I'm not so sure why anyone is worried about WI. We have no curcuit events.
We are small potatoes.

#544 6 years ago
Quoted from DennisK:

As such, I would like to request the IFPA to consider modifying their proposal for an exception for charity events. Something along the lines of any tournament that donates 100% of its entry fees to a 501(c)3 or other registered nonprofit (at the national level for Canada or USA) and/or governmental entity is exempt from the IFPA tournament fee and still eligible as an official, sanctioned tournament. My hope is by requiring the entity to be registered as a nonprofit it would avoid loophole situations, but as added insurance I wouldn't mind seeing a cap on events per state that can do this (for example, each state is allowed four such charity tournaments per year, first-come first-serve on the IFPA calendar).

When we limited locations to one event per year, and come out with the "Charity Exemption", there were huge exploits on people leveraging this loophole to get an additional 25 WPPR points for their location while being able to donate to charity. It was a good thing (hell, we raised $70,000 during the year), however it was clear the following year when we removed the exemption that organizers were mostly doing this for the WPPR's and using the donation to charity as their path to more WPPR success.

In 2018 it will be up to the TD's to decide if the WPPR points are a valuable tool for their charity events. If they can draw 30 players without charging the endorsement fee at $30 per player, that's $900 raised. If they can draw 40 players at $29 per player with the $1 fee, that's $1160 raised.

There will be situations where it won't be worth that event leveraging WPPR's to ultimately net more proceeds for the charity, but we will leave that decision up to the TD and charity involved.

Quoted from DennisK:

Now that it isn't going to be the same amount per state, will there not be increased pressure from areas that fund a higher share of the prize pool to get more participants at Nationals?

Allowing 1 rep per State is an integral part of how we build Nationals. It removes a bunch of elite players that end up beating eachother up at State, making for Cinderella stories at Nationals. We don't want Nationals to be the same 'top 30 players in the world' playing.

The leverage that these states have is that those 16 players are playing for far greater cash prizes at the State level compared to other states. It creates a push-pull system. I've heard people say, "Oh my god, everyone is going to go to PA!" . . . but why would they do that for one 1 Nationals spot? The opposite then rings true. Why would anyone go to North Dakota to win $106? Well . . . you probably have an easier path to Nationals. We like those forces pounding against eachother to motivate players to make whatever choice they see fit.

11
#545 6 years ago

This thread validates why I don't play in any tournaments. Too fucking confusing.

#546 6 years ago
Quoted from DNO:

Perhaps, if a states ifpa fund goes over X amount, more players are entered (and paid) to play at the state tourney finals?
Only problem then becomes time and format.
I still like only 1 player per state for nationals.
I also think raising the # of events needed to attend to qualify for state is a good idea, 5 seems like a good number, if a state has at least x tourneys held.
Charity events should be held for charity, not wpprs.
I think this will help clean up all the abuse of the system, milking of points that are not really earned.
I think this is the result of people abusing a free system.
I think Wiexit is a great idea, bye!

# of events needed to attend to qualify for state is good it makes less likely for someone to get it my just doing 1 big show.

2 is to low as some big shows have may have 2-3 events tied to it. And it makes more event so that people who only pay in $2 at events with big points are on more even ground then some do does 12 months putting in $12 that give out way less points.

Now maybe leagues should give out less points?

#547 6 years ago
Quoted from Joe_Blasi:

Now maybe leagues should give out less points?

What's the difference between a "league" and a "tournament" Joe?

Can someone just decide to run their league as a tournament to be worth more points?

How many fewer points should a "league" count for?

Why should a league count for less? Is it less of a true test of competition?

#548 6 years ago
Quoted from ifpapinball:

What's the difference between a "league" and a "tournament" Joe?
Can someone just decide to run their league as a tournament to be worth more points?
How many fewer points should a "league" count for?
Why should a league count for less? Is it less of a true test of competition?

Just saying with $ in more balance is needed from a league that reports 1-2 times a year vs an monthly that reports 12 times a year.

I think that this $ in hurts the monthly more pay in more and you get less per event in points. Now maybe this will move monthly to be more league likely and report less.

But then points wise people who can only make 1-2 events get less points may not even want to play if there score does not really add up to much.

When I did events it was all fun no cost other then coin drop with people who really did play in any other event.

It's about the cash and $1 is a lot for an $5 a person event. 20% cut per person vs 0.05% of an $20 person event. pool in $1 per player X 12.

League at $5X12 = $60 reports one time is about 0.015% cut per person and pool in $1 per player but you get more points.

#549 6 years ago
Quoted from Joe_Blasi:

Just saying with $ in more balance is needed from a league that reports 1-2 times a year vs an monthly that reports 12 times a year.

I think that this $ in hurts the monthly more pay in more and you get less per event in points. Now maybe this will move monthly to be more league likely and report less.

But then points wise people who can only make 1-2 events get less points may not even want to play if there score does not really add up to much.

When I did events it was all fun no cost other then coin drop with people who really did play in any other event.

It's about the cash and $1 is a lot for an $5 a person event. 20% cut per person vs 0.05% of an $20 person event. pool in $1 per player X 12.

League at $5X12 = $60 reports one time is about 0.015% cut per person and pool in $1 per player but you get more points.

So if all leagues decide to report annually we're good?

Those that don't mind paying the extra funds are free to report more often . . . but why not leave that choice up to the individual league to decide?

#550 6 years ago

I like the idea of a capped value going to nationals and anything over that amount gets back to the states SCS. If a state didn't make that threshold that's fine, but for states that run a ton of events and then are paying even more $ for a chance that their 1 potential representative has a chance to win that money is kind of lame if they've put substantially more into the pool.

How many events did California or Washington run last year?

Josh, can you give us a break down of what every states tournament numbers for last year were? Or better, how much each state would have put towards nationals with last years numbers.

I don't think this will hurt our areas scene at all but I feel for the TD's that have to put in the extra work to make it happen for us when they already are going above and beyond to make our scene awesome.

Is their an alternative money transferring system to paypal that won't rip everyone off with fees associated with this?

I think for tournaments that already have a buy in its a no-brainer for the TD not to even worry about talking about the $1 to everyone, just take it outta the pot so a $5 event still costs $5 but the winners just take less home. Don't get into how convoluted the system is with them ha.

Promoted items from the Pinside Marketplace
From: $ 9.99
$ 179.00
Cabinet - Other
Pinball Pimp
Other
Wanted
Machine - Wanted
Norwood, MA
There are 1,610 posts in this topic. You are on page 11 of 33.

Reply

Wanna join the discussion? Please sign in to reply to this topic.

Hey there! Welcome to Pinside!

Donate to Pinside

Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run without any 3rd-party banners or ads, thanks to the support from our visitors? Please consider a donation to Pinside and get anext to your username to show for it! Or better yet, subscribe to Pinside+!


This page was printed from https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/ifpa-charging-fees-for-tournaments-in-2018/page/11?hl=xdetroit and we tried optimising it for printing. Some page elements may have been deliberately hidden.

Scan the QR code on the left to jump to the URL this document was printed from.