Didn't take me long to find out which state. Maybe take the World rankings out of the picture.

They did the work, they deserve a chance.

There has been some talk about a number cap on events for scs but in every scenario it seems the top 16 are the same

This is not an exploit. This is how the system was designed.

Ask location owners whether they'd rather have a system that welcomes people who play in 50+ events, or if they'd rather have the players who (you claim) are dropping out but who only play in a handful.

If some one is willing to take the time and money to play in all those events more power to them. To those that can't, your argument is that they have more important things going on, then it shouldn't bother them that they didn't make it. (because they have more important things going on)

I see the point you are trying to make and respect it, it is just that I don't have a problem with people playing a ton and grinding it out. They are dropping quarters in machines, buying beers and putting money in the pot that the "better players" can win; all of which is a good thing for pinball

Sounds like the "everyone should get a trophy" mentality of the world these days.

I'm of the opinion that only those that prove their skill is one of the top 16 in a state should get to play.

what is your suggestion on how to determine the "true" top 16?

if it is a true average of all events that is going to kill smaller events. I go to a monthly in fort collins that is worthless even if you win it compared to the denver events but I am trying to support the local scene. If I win and get like a point it will kill an average where the monthly at 1up colfax winner gets 20+ points. I go cause its fun and supports the business and the pinball community. If it had an impact on me being able to qualify for state (even winning a tourny worth peanuts) then i wouldnt go.

Got it ya'll are OK with lesser players pumping in more events to build points so they can play in a championship series to claim a state champion vs having a system that drives to put the top skilled players at the top.

Probably should stop calling it a championship then as it's not driving for the best and most consistent players. Just those whom have the luxury of playing in 60 plus events a year. Just saying.

Simple, you max it at something more reasonable. Shoot, you can max it at 30 events for all I care. That's still nearly 3 events a month and limits the "pump and dump" mentality of a SCS drastically. It drives competitive play and sit poses some sort of limit. You may say 30 still limits the smaller events but I doubt someone is going to win all 30 of those so it still encourages more play.

I'm not arguing that you go off an average. I'm just saying things should be maxed out to maintain integrity in the goal of the SCS.

Lastly, are we saying that people wont play unless points are available? If so, that it sad for multiple reasons.

I'm just surprised their is this much resentment for something as meaningless as $1 per event being charged when their are much bigger challenges with the validity of the meaning of the SCS, which is to find and reward the best players.

The current system is that the top 16 players with the MOST points are the ones that qualify, so YES I think the people with the most points at the end of the year should be in the SCS and are in fact the best qualified to do so.

I proposed to the SCS email chain that each state use a % (maybe 20-40%)of events. This would still encourage people to both host and play in events but also work to encourage a compromise of not being able to play your way into the SCS by sheer attendance (granted you still have to do well in events and just playing in them is not enough; heck in your example I can go find people outside of the top 50 with more than 50 events already this year...)

If they are so bad of players then you should have no trouble beating them at state and you should not be concerned .

If you are sitting at 16-20 then get out and play.

that is a good point. If people are so good that they only need to play in a fraciton of the events to qualify, then they should welcome the schlubs that suck but have earned the spot via sheer amount of play. Easy pickings in SCS...

If you think they can win then they probably deserve to be in the top 16

That is a good suggestion about the % and yes their are players with 50+ events that are not in top 16. The same 2-3 people when the same events over the same 10-15 people each week. I guess I could create an event for my neighborhood and beat my neighbors every Friday night to pump my numbers but that seems in contrast of what we should be doing.

I'm past that point and do play in monthly league and try to hit as many events as possible. I'm not argue this in sour grapes because I don't feel I could get in, I'm arguing this as it's in contrast to what is trying to be accomplished based off the 29 pages of post. That being to find the best player in the state and nation. And yes, with these pump and dump points it will drive for an easier path for the top players but it also prevents people from playing that could be very competitive in the tournament.

The biggest complaint we get about SCS:

"It isn't fair that people can just drop in for the one large tournament the state has, and earn enough points to qualify from just that weekend of events."

The second biggest complaint we get about SCS:

"It isn't fair that players can point-death their way up the standings, passing players that only choose to compete in the 'big' state events. These 'big' event players have proven their skill level is better than any of these grinders."

Here's the reality . . . and I know I shared the 2017 standings with you capped versus uncapped, and yes there are 4 months to go.

Here are the 2016 standings both capped and uncapped. That's a full season of play to evaluate.

Let's use your suggestion and cap it at 30 events. Screw all those guys that play more than that!

Ready . . .set . . . GO!

Here's the 2016 TX SCS 'uncapped':

1 Colin MacAlpine 222.79
2 Mark Meserve 204.39
3 Phil Grimaldi 187.96
4 Robert Byers 149.5
5 Sven Johnson 88.64
6 Jon Drew 87.73
7 Thomas Law 83.42
8 Mitchell Wahl 79.95
9 Brad Holliday 73.61
10 Nikolas Poklitar 72.69
11 Joshua Henderson 72.33
12 Ray Ford 64.66
13 Ken Kemp 63.6
14 Kevin Rodriguez 62.41
15 Preston Moncla 62.26
16 Fred Revnew 60.2

Here's the 2016 TX SCS 'capped at 30 events':

1 Colin MacAlpine 222.79
2 Mark Meserve 203.95
3 Phil Grimaldi 187.96
4 Robert Byers 149.5
5 Sven Johnson 87.88
6 Jon Drew 87.73
7 Thomas Law 83.42
8 Mitchell Wahl 79.95
9 Brad Holliday 73.61
10 Nikolas Poklitar 72.69
11 Joshua Henderson 72.33
12 Ray Ford 64.66
13 Ken Kemp 63.6
14 Kevin Rodriguez 62.41
15 Preston Moncla 62.26
16 Fred Revnew 60.2

In both models you get the exact same 16 players . . . all with the exact same 16 seed numbers.

If the '30 event cap' makes you feel better emotionally, then I guess that's a "benefit" here, but other than that I see absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in the numbers.

How many players had 70-80 events in the top 50 form 2016? As far as I'm aware Texas didn't have a pump and dump mentality in 2016 like we do this year. People complained about monthly leagues so their way of combating that was these weekly/daily tournaments.

Saying that the SCS system sucks because it doesn't try to put the 16 best players in each state championship is like saying that People magazine's Most Beautiful Women In the World list sucks because it only includes celebrities. Technically true, but whining about it just shows you don't really understand the purpose of it.

Interestingly, I think we both sort of want the same thing. I want lots of people to get really good at pinball, and to be able to be recognized for it. I also happen to think that playing a ton is a really good way to become really good, and I like the fact that the current system encourages exactly that.

Sincerely,
#1 in Massachusetts but not playing there because I don't live there and need to run my own state's tournament so there will be one

We also have no idea how many events are going to not take place next year because of the fee. They may not be able to play in 60 events if half those die

Looks like Texas had 98 events for all of 2016 across the entire State last year.

Nobody in the entire state played in 70 out of 98.

I'm not gonna pretend to know how 2017 will play out, and perhaps you're right, uncapped maybe you see 50% player differences between that and a capped system. Can we at least wait and see before we just deem this a MATERIAL PROBLEM?

Currently through 9 months the top 16 in Texas for 2017 are THE SAME (uncapped versus 'top 20 cap').

Assuming the cut line for 16th doesn't change, you're looking at 70 points needed to make the cut.

Here are the players on the outside looking in, that seem to be going the "brute force" method to make the cut:

(listed by current position, name, total points, total events, avg per event)

20  David Pollock 59.54 47 1.26
23  Matt Quantz 57.04 54 1.05
29  Richard Carson 46.09 35 1.31
36  Kevin Tooley 36.23 45 0.8
37  Tim Tennison 35.76 35 1.02
39  Andrew Pruitt 35.35 37 0.95
46  Lora Tennison 31.04 39 0.79
47  Louis Marx 28.64 35 0.81

Now, let's assume these players play at the same rate and same quality the rest of the year. Here's where their total points for the year will be:

 David Pollock 74.35
 Matt Quantz 71.22
 Richard Carson 57.55
 Kevin Tooley 45.23
 Tim Tennison 44.69
 Andrew Pruitt 44.14
 Lora Tennison 38.74
 Louis Marx 35.73

So right away, unless things drastically change, 6 out of these 8 players won't catch that magic 70 point level.

David and Matt would break through and move into the top 16 should none of the "good" players play any more.

The players on the bubble who would be on the outside looking in are Mitchell Wahl and Josh Tidmore. If those guys can find 5 points more each in the next 4 months, they're in and nothing in the top 16 changes.

So 'expected' WORST CASE is that 2 out of the 16 spots are taken by "undeserving" players.

Still doesn't seem that material to me?

Sorry, not even a remotely good analogy as it's prejudice towards celebrities

If you are going to allow pump and dump then maybe the invite should extend past 16 players then or incorporate regional qualifiers for the bigger states.

At the end of the day, my goal is to just find a way to truly identify the top skilled and consistent pinball players. I don't think by winning 1 tournament a player should get in but I also don't feel we should swing that pendulum 180 degrees past that an all people to just pump points.

If this is the case then points for monthly events should be more valuable than these weekly ones.
For example: Winning one weekly event with just 14 players (one player even in the top 1000 IFPA rankings) should not net 7 points when a monthly (3 weeks of qualifying and 1 week for bracket finals) event with 28 players (7 are top 1000 players) only nets 12 points.

What you are saying is 2 weekly events with far less players is more valuable than 4 events for the month with more than double the players.

In this example the weekly event pays out 28 points (more than double) for 1st vs the monthly event.

Fair enough but I still feel like it's going to be closer to 3-4 players which, to me, is a material difference.

All - I'm done muching up the thread and thanks for letting me speak my points without attack. I just feel their are bigger challenges than a $1 pay per event charge.

I think it's great you "feel like" it's going to be 3-4 people. Am I supposed to act on just your feeling here?

I'm a huge data mining person, so I would much prefer to collect all the data, and let's actually see how this plays out.

I totally agree if 4 players (25%) of the field is impacted, that's a material number.

If it actually ends up being 0-2, hopefully you can see how I wouldn't feel that was material?

I think these are healthy conversations and if they lead to a better system that is awesome. if you have anymore thoughts or ideas that can help definitely add them to the thread!

kind of off topic, but what happened to the pin-golf world league thing for this year?

I thought I remembered some sort of thing where there was supposed to be a conglomerate ranking for all pin-golf related events for the year?

https://www.ifpapinball.com/pingolf/

There's wasn't a separate ranking. We just implemented a far more complex list of requirements for the IFPA to endorse your Pin-Golf event, so we put up a dedicated page on our site related to strictly Pin-Golf style events.

If you're willing to jump through all of our hoops, then your event is "on the tour".

Where are the current "tour" standings?

That's what Josh was saying......There is no tour.

i think on the tour means its ifpa compliant for wpprs

Ok, well that is a bummer. I thought this whole time it meant there was going to be a custom ranking for only golf events.

That's exactly right.

I thought we had made the process complicated enough that we would destroy the Pin-Golf format for good (j/k).

We obviously have a ton on our plate right now, but seeing how the Pin-Golf formats definitely survived the "Tour requirements" this year, I do have an item on the agenda to make something of this at some point.

It might end up being something as simple as having your event on the "Tour" gets the winner of your event free entry into the IFPA Pin-Masters each year ($100 value).

That would be awesome to have a free entry to Pin Masters as a prize if that was implemented.

85vett...I can assure you that I am one of the few that you are referring to in Texas. We have a really good thing going on in Houston right now where there was nothing before. I am at 58 events played right now and if there were another 100 this year, I would play in those too.

Or perhaps an offer of "half price entry fee to Pin-Masters" if it is felt that a free entry is a bit over the top or unfair to others.

Agreed.

I can dig that.

I'll have to dive into some additional thresholds that a tournament has to meet to get "tour status". I don't want every random Pin-Golf tournament to be eligible for this, but there's definitely a good idea here worth pursuing ...

Earlier this year I did feel that the new more complicated process related to determining tgp value for Pin-Golf format tournaments was sort of a "let's not go there" barrier, but since I really like fun aspects of Pin-Golf for side tournaments I still went ahead with it twice this year thus far. It doesn't seem like such a big barrier to me now.

I think it's 100% fine. The guy has competed in 49 freaking events. He deserves to have a spot in yalls top 16. Doesnt mean he will win your state championships, I'm guessing you feel he has no realistic shot anyway so I'm not sure why you care where he is ranked throughout the year.

You want to encourage people to play in events. If you penalize people from playing in small events with fewer points up for grabs you just stop people from hosting events because no one will come play in them.

Let the most prolific tourney goers be in the top 16, they are the ones most committed to competitive pinball. Doesn't matter who the best player is if he can't be bothered to go to a tourney.

So far in the history of the SCS this argument of "best players" versus "most prolific tourney goers" is a complete fallacy.

So far the top 16 standings have captured BOTH the best players AND the most prolific tourney goers.

The question for us to answer is to how to handle the PERCEPTION of an issue that isn't really an issue.

If we put in a cap for the state --> the people that play 80 times a year might become discouraged and play less often, however there could be players that feel motivated that they could now compete in a capped system

If we leave it uncapped --> we will continue to have players that believe they have no chance and continue to not compete, however the grinders will continue to grind thinking they have that chance to brute force their way in

Ultimately it's a meaningless decision when it comes to the facts and data, but a pretty meaningful one when it comes to perception and politics.

I would say if tie goes to the runner here, the capped system does squeeze everyone closer together points wise, so being 12 points down instead of 18 away from the cutline could make an emotional difference (even if you're still 50 players out).

We still have some time figure out what we're gonna do ...

It's not a tie though. Never feel that a vocal minority is half your audience.

Pole your tourney directors by email for feedback, have them all on a BCC so you don't start a group chat (that gets dominated by one or two loud mouths), give each of them a private discussion line back to you. Get their feedback. See how many of them agree that you should make it less desirable for them to host events and encourage people not to come to the events they are hosting because you've put a cap on event entries...it's hard enough getting people to come to small events without putting a cap on entries.

You'll never fix "perception issues" on the internet...ignore them if they aren't real issues and keep your focus on growing competitive pinball through more events and more entrants in those events.

It's been privately discussed for years, it's only now that we have the functionality in our system to implement the cap. Prior to this year it was impossible.

You mention making it less desirable to host and attend events, which would hurt those currently organizing.

The other responses we've heard are from communities that would hold more events if there was a cap. Some communities get overwhelmed by other areas in the state with respect to the access that they have to machines that they never get things started.

Our best real world example is Ohio which is dominated by Cleveland. The rate at which they host events and dominate the SCS standings has led to the cities of Columbus and Cincinnati being less motivated to get anything started.

Is an event count of 100/10/10 between those three cities with an uncapped system better or worse than a 70/30/30 potential event count in a capped system?

It's a micro-pinballnomic versus micro-pinballnomic discussion. While capped isn't better for Cleveland, is it better for Ohio?
(This is with full knowledge that the hard data still supports Cleveland players filling the same amount of SCS slots either way)

Well, use Ohio as a laboratory in 2018 then. Put a cap on entrants in that state only and see if Columbus and Cincinnati actually do grow their number of events to match the inevitable decrease from Cleveland.

Don't implement the test country wide...roll it out in a single state where you believe it would be best received and see if it grows or hinders events in that single state. Based on the test results there you can consider the 2019 nationwide plan with some hard date and comparables.

I don't particularly like the idea of having a process that isn't consistent, but the way our build script works with the database we don't have the pick and choose functionality anyway.

The $1 fee is also the other moving part here and it's likely Clevleland shrinks anyway by being more efficient with their submissions.

This is why they pay me the big bucks ... We'll figure it out like we always have

Thumbs up. You guys have done a good job. I think the vast majority of us trust you to make the right decisions for us and even if we disagree with those decisions (whatever they may be) we are going to give them a shot.

We all want the IFPA to be a big success and continue growing.

The FSPA rule set handles this with playoffs, a 10 week season, and handicapping via grouping of the players.

Even after the full season... most players are still within one week's points of making the playoffs... and even one point is relevant after 10 weeks of play.

Sometimes people think they are a lost cause, but I can't remember anyone dropping out due to that. The handicapping keeps competition tight... and breaks down only when the player skill gap is too huge.

For the people who were interested I've created the Public WPPRizer.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Kkg4JqNWl2Eo1m8vFd1XW-V9zrCZpWvY1MYayrkCtYM/edit?usp=sharing

The documentation is through comments in the examples. Please comment on this version if you have any questions. It is not editable.

Tagging people who were interested Xerico Whysnow

How does handicapping work? What determines who receives the handicap?

Has anyone noticed that Bowen is now a suppressed player?

I was just thinking the same thing!

Also, my first post in this thread didn't age well.

Yes.

Oh you better watch out.

In other news.... Super States in 2018. Top 20 results per state.