If your SCS is dominated by out of staters who qualified I think another easy way to fix this is to gather up all your local players and tell them to start winning

Seriously that's all it takes (see Wisconsin example).

The answer to local player bases wanting to keep out of staters out isn't to find ways to someone restrict those out of state players from competing... It's to organize a shit ton of events that the out of stater would stand no chance to qualify anyway (making all this address verification, registration, declaration all moot).

With that being one of our main goals out of the SCS (to increase local competition), I think it's a good plan, and honestly one that's already been working just fine.

I attempted to do that this past year and unfortunately the main people of question for WI refused to give any sort of answer until the Jan deadline officially imposed by the IFPA. While some were more then happy to make it clear they woudl be playing in MN and not WI, others like to play games and wanted to hold onto their 'advantage' of not declaring until the last moment. Silly IMO and shitty for all the other players whom are held hostage with their ability to make accurate competitive decisions.

I can tell you that it really would not be a big adjustment it you required people to declare a state before the season is over/ Oct 31st.

Even if people are allowed to change this state ellection, the player base will police if people are playing games and monkeying around. Right now it is not done in the open and publically when people are playing stupid games or refusing to make an election of state to game the system for their best advantage. Make it public and it will greatly decrease.

I can tell you I had 20 people asking me as the state rep if I knew whom was playing in the state come mid Oct. Unfortunately very FEW select individuals refused to give an answer till the last moment possible (mid Jan). This was good evidence of the minority having a negative impact on the majority. Also just so happens that that minority has the finacial and time abilities to play in multiple events in multiple states every year.

I dont care where people play, but I can definately say the SCS would be better for the majority of people were forced to declare earlier in the year.

I would like some real life examples showing that the majority woudl not benefit from this change. As of right now I see a few of the 40? states where shit hit the fan and things would get messed up last minute (changing host location > but honestly I dont even think that is a reasonable excuse; these are people that travel huge distances to play all over... heck they qualified in multiple states). I also see a few individuals that take full advantage of the currnet rules for state election at the dismay and to the negative on the majority. You are big on looking at the data. By and large the data says that a change woudl be good.

Heck, use WI as a test bed for 2016. Then we can see how the beta goes. Give me the official capacity to require WI SCS election to be made my Oct 31st. I will email all players in the top 100 on Oct 1st and let them know they have to update/ email back by Oct 31st if they plan to play in WI SCS. We will have a location locked down by Oct 1st and there should be no reason they cant make the election.

Why October? Why not November or even December? Why pick when you don't know what the final point totals for the year would be?

because they don't change dramatically for the majority during the last 2 months and it is still ample time for players on the bubble or those looking for a specific first round match up to have an accurate view of the standings and make better choiceson where to dedicate their time if they are chasing points.

Especially important if we are trying to level the finacial playing field for those that are not able to travel to other states and have limited cash and time budgets.

I think this way is more fun. The selection process gives some excitement about the SCS.
Who is coming? Are they going to pick their state or not?
If the IFPA makes the change to October to declare, it's not going to change the fact that people from a state won't pick another state.

I could see they change to October bringing more Last Chance tournaments which would have out of state players paying more money to travel to these tournaments to keep their spot in the state they declared in.

way more fun for you since you are always in the top 16. Not as much frun for those on the bubble...
not as much fun for those with limited finacial resources or time off from work when they are trying to fit in their love for competitive pinball but not sure if it matters that they blow the money and work to travel to a competition in Nov since they have no accurate idea if they are alreayd mathematically eliminated or have a shot...

I dont care where people declare. I would be happy if Art, Ben, Chris, and Jason (he did not make the cut anyway) came to WI, I just want them to declare by Oct so we have an accurate picture while the seaosn is still in play.

I would say you will get even MORE excitement with the proposed change. First in Oct you still get the fun of seeing whom plays where. Then for all of Nov and Dec you get the excitement of a very accurate picture for where you stand and how you are going to try and chase down points to make top 16, or make it so you move up a position to not have to face Tom G in round 1, or move up a slot so you can play your buddy in Round 1. That si WAY more exciting to me, but more importantly is is more FAIR to the majority and provides a more accurate understanding of position in the state while the seaosn is still going on.

and that is even more excitment if that is what you are looking for.

I woudl propose that people elect an order of states and not a single state. For example, you select WI>IL>MN.
-Qualify for WI and you play WI.
-If you end up not making WI, but qualify for IL then play IL.
-Miss out on both WI and IL but make MN, then you play MN.

Okay that sounds better. So if you declare a state and don't make the 16 cut then you can still play in another state.

yes, but you must declare order of state preference on Oct 31st.

You select up to 5 states?

The first one you qualify for as of end of season if the one you are playing for.

To satisfy the few very rare chances where someone plays their first IFPA event in the calander year after Oct 31 and hence have not made any declarations, but end up qualifying for a state, then they are allowed to declare within 7 days of the results for that event being posted.

In other words a tournament director shoudl be reaching out to this individual in the rare case it happens.

To satisfy the concerns of those that are qualified for multiple states, what is the real life reason they can't declare order of state preference by Oct 31st? I can't come up with any real reason of concern that ever outwieghs the greater benefir to the vast majority of other players.

I can think of about 3000 reasons. Sending out the 3000 emails.

I think it would be a lot more time consuming to track. IMHO.

Would there be some sort of spreadsheet that everyone could see who is declaring which states they are playing for?

I guess in a sense it could make things easier Jan 1st.

Well if the change were made now then I think the easiest way to track this would be to just add the dropdowns on the IFPA player profile page.

http://www.ifpapinball.com/player.php?t=p&p=9741

Under location would be a box for SCS declared states (in order from 1st to 5th).

By oct 31st this woudl get locked down.

So now we're having people declare multiple choices with preferences, and I'm storing this information where? lol
Logistically this just isn't something I want to manage for the ~600 finalists and ~9000 players that competed in the SCS. Dealing with everyone ONE TIME within a one week time period during the registration process is far easier for us to manage with our limited staff and resources.

I also think Tom has a great point on why people would be declaring based off of information that isn't finalized. You can argue that 'much doesn't happen the last 2 months', and I'll agree to disagree.

Real World Example #1

My dad in Illinois after Expo was still on the outside looking in (right up against the end of August). By the time November 1st hits, people are still organizing new events in attempts at SCS point grabbing. I know . . . because it's what I did!

I had told my wife as a birthday present I wanted to run a tournament at my house if I felt like my dad wasn't in a good place qualifying wise for the IL SCS. When it turned out he wasn't, I decided on November 4th to set up an event on December 5th.

http://www.ifpapinball.com/view_tournament.php?t=11612#results

My dad finished 4th, and earned enough points to jump him into a solid IL SCS position.

I would expect that the last 2 months of activity is as valuable as any other 2 month period on the calendar (so roughly 16.67% of tournaments played?). Let's take a look!

18 of the 112 Wisconsin events were held in November/December (16%).
10 of the 54 Illinois events (god you guys killed us in event totals) were held in November/December (19%)
10 of the 33 Indiana events were held in Nov/Dec (30%)
14 of the 61 Minnesota events were held in Nov/Dec (23%)

There's meaningful play in these last two months, and I don't want a pre-season-end "declaration" to dictate what a player ends up doing.

If my dad declares Illinois, does crappy at my last December tournament, is it fair that because he "declared" Illinois, it's now worthless for him to drive out to Indiana for the Main Street Amusements Pin-Golf Open as a last chance qualification for that state?

Let's say he plays average at my house and decides to go to MSA's tournament in Indiana and KILLS IT. Ultimately he ends up as the 16th seed (slated to face Zach in round 1 in Illinois), and ends up as the 3 seed in Indiana. Because he "declared Illinois" on October 31st is that fair to him that he's now 'stuck' in Illinois. He would have been better off finishing 17th in Illinois, so giving him some sort of advantage for doing worse in Illinois by giving him an 'out clause' on his declaration makes no sense.

Let's take it a step further . . .

My dad ends up as the 7 seed for Illinois and Indiana. He finds out that Stern is hosting the IL SCS, but it's a Sternament on all of their new games. He finds out that Indiana is being hosted at MSA, and there's a nice mix of machines including 50% EM's (his preferential choice of equipment to play on). Somehow him not being allowed to play in Indiana because he 'pre-season-end declared' Illinois makes no sense to me. He hasn't had the chance to take in all the variables in making a decision that I personally feel he's earned the right to make.

When we created the SCS, the idea was that those players that played more/qualified in more states earned an advantage over everyone else, because it was based solely on their play and not any other external factors and/or restrictions.

The variables I see in deciding what state to play in:

- Distance from your house to the State Championship
- Game mix of the collection for the State Championship
- Strength of field (for those looking for an easier path for Nationals)
- Strength of your own seeding position
- Personal preference of simply wanting to visit another state as part of this process
- The opportunity to travel with a loved one (last year Lyman Sheats did this - he went to the Kentucky SCS because his girlfriend Penni ended up qualifying and he wanted to support her. There is no way Lyman would have declared Kentucky on 10/31, and would have stayed closer to home had Penni not made the cut)

These are advantages for people that actually have the choice of multiple options, and it's that way BY DESIGN. I want my dad motivated to show up to my house, and then to absolutely drive out to Indiana the next day, to give himself the best options on January 1st. Any locked in pre-declaration ultimately leads him to not being as motivated to play and I don't like not motivating people to play EVERYWHERE as often as they can. If he's locked into Illinois there's no reason for him to go to Indiana. If he's locked into Indiana because he 'guesses' that will be a better fit for him 2 months later, then he has no motivation to show up to my tournament.

The only people that gain by any early declaration are the people that don't really have options of multiple state choices anyway, so it's my opinion that we let the players that earned these advantages to make an educated decision based on all the data for whatever works best for their situation.

In AZ there have been a huge amount of points available in December. In 2014, there were close to 100 points, which was a good chunk of the annual amount. This last year there were a decent amount of events in DEC as well. I think that if states with smaller participant pools want to up the total points available in their state, they should be asking for the private event player count to be reduced, not trying to lock out players who like to travel to events.

on this page http://www.ifpapinball.com/rankings/custom_view.php?id=108
there would be a column for Delcared state added.

I am guessing this would logisitcally not be too tough to do.

Plus side is it would eliminate teh 100 emails each state rep has to send out at the end of the year. May be a little leg work around early oct to remind people to declare, but come Jan it would all be done.

LOL . . . and who is the person that has to approve these player selections on the back end?

(Yeah it's me . . . no thanks. I have a hard enough time keeping up to date with calendar submissions and tournament result submissions)

From a logistical standpoint, it's far easier for me to deal with the SCS Registration process happening at ONE TIME. It's a killer inefficient work week for me managing all of it, sending out email lists to state reps, following up on responses to our back end registration page, etc, but I only have to deal with everybody for ONE WEEK. It's a crazy week, but it's so easy for me to be in 'that mode' for that week to get this all done.

It's always up for discussion, I'm just not liking the fact that people seem to be 'fine' with forcing players to give up the advantages that they've earned through their play.

Is it bad form for someone like Lyman to choose Kentucky because his girlfriend ended up qualifying for it?

Is it bad form for my dad to want to play on an older set of games for a State Championship if he had the choice between two different states?

Is it bad form for my dad to want to play in Indiana as a 5 seed, versus playing in Illinois as a 16 seed against Zach?

I'm seeing and hearing the arguments, I just don't like the fact that people like Lyman and my dad get totally boned in these situations above.

Josh, you are providing a very small example window. The vast majority are in fact not in the same situation as your father.

I will say that if competitive pinball is intended to favor those that are affluent like the examples you provide then you are right on track with the current paradigm. If you want the IFPA to level the playing field for those without the same finacial and life opprotuntities then there are ways to improve.

-Distance >> non-issue and deal with it. If you are qualified in multiple states then traveling is obviosuly not a barrier to entry
-Game mix >> plan ahead, influence your state rep to select games earlier, PLAY BETTER. Reality is that game list is currently not published till post delcaration now so this again is a moot point
-Strength of field >> again a weak point since so few are even impacted with this decision. Remember we are talking about the greater good of the sport and not how the sysytem can be rigged so your pops can avoid play Zach in round 1... also PLAY BETTER. There is an eduacated choice come Oct 31st for the field and if anything there would be greater accuracy in your choice using the new proposed method. Right now you have no idea where anyone plays if everyone waits till the last day to declare. Sorry but this is a another moot point
-Strength of seed position >> again play BETTER. Would be more fun to adjust your seed on your own merits and effort while you can still impact it rather than the select few gaming the system to work in their favor. Again >> working for the majority here and not the few affluent players given better opportuntites and abilities.
-Personal preference to visit a state >>> Really? You obviously already have been to that state multiple times if you qualified... LOL If you need this as an option you are digging deep. make the decision on Oct 31st if that si the case. You will save on travel expenses if you book earlier.
-Travel with a loved one. OK godo for the VERY few this applies to. Make your decision earlier on where you are playing...

just put it in the player profiles... no management at all. People have to update their player profiles already with accurate email addresses. If anything, what I am proposing is LESS management and farms out teh personal responsibility on individuals to have their page updated.

I dont like the fact that you are so biased based on your personal ties to Lyman and your father. These are VERY limited examples. I thought this whole thing was about expanding competitive play and making things better for the majority rather than catering to the few. If you want to talk about 'getting boned' how about looking around at teh majority where people that have limited opportuntites to play competitively have to make decisions based on inaccurate informantion. ANY state where the cut line is lower than 16 shows you people that had NO accurate way of knowing where they stood the last few months. I can tell you without a doubt that nobody thought WI would go 22 deep and there are at least 8 people I know that would have changed their play in the last few months if they had more accurate data to use. The current paradigm is a large disservice to competitive play and the majority of competitive players all for the benefit of option for a few of the privilaged and talented. Pretty sad that it is even thought of as your dad and Lyman getting boned.

I really think you shoudl take this topic up for open discussion with the board as you obviously have some very large personal baises. Aside from that, it may be time to get some dissenting opinions on the board if nobody sees the likely positives of what is being proposed.

Not sure who among "the Cleveland crowd" complained about this. I was personally excited to have an opportunity to play Phoebe's collection and I know some of the others were as well. As part of the NE Ohio group of players, I definitely wouldn't throw a fit about an SCS in Southern Ohio if that's what made the most sense for a given year.

Curious to know more about why you think the players in Cleveland are so stubborn, but I don't want to clutter this headache of a thread with another tangent. Send me a PM if you feel like discussing.

from what I see, you dad is the 5 seed in IL??? From what I see he did not even come sclose to the cut line in any other state???

With a cut line of 56 in IL, if declarations had been made in Oct then you would have had a more accurate estimate of where he stood at that time.

I wasn't in the pinball scene whenever this happened, so I wasn't going to comment, however in my head it certainly didn't make sense to hear that the Cleveland players would be so against that. I can think of maybe a couple who would be annoyed, but most of us wouldn't mind at all.

If you don't know where you stand and what might have to happen for you to get into the state finals, you aren't paying close enough attention and probably don't care. Everyone I know well has been in discussion for months on how things might shake out and they planned their schedules accordingly. I was pretty much locked into a 2-3 position range and so it didn't matter too much when family stuff came up and I had to miss 2 massive year end events. Other players who were on the wrong side of the bubble were going to attend anyway because they knew what they needed to do to get in. Those who were also on the wrong side of the bubble, but didn't care as much didn't attend everything and now are still on the wrong side of the bubble. Make your schedule and play your best.

I don't want people to be forced to do things. SCS events aren't until Feb., so why the heck should people be locked in 5 months before that. Those states that are easy to invade (NV, KY, SC, AL,...) need to step up and put on 100 single point events in a year. Nobody is going to travel for more than a day trip for those, and those who do would have done so anyway. AZ has done this, it's really not that hard. I submitted 38+ events last year, and more than 50% were from a location with 3 working machines. Make it happen.

IFPA is basically trying to regulate the NFL and Pop Warner under the same system. Will it be perfect, no, is it doing a pretty good job at handling the workload, I think so.

It's always going to favor people that play more. That's how the world rankings work, it's how the accumulate of SCS points work.

Leveling the playing field for those that have less opportunities at the expense of people simply changes the group that gets boned (it's NOT a net positive). Organizers and players with some limited financial and life opportunities are welcome to organize dozens of events with no entry fee at their convenience to level out the playing field. That IS a net positive IMO.

You wanted examples, and my quickest examples happened to be based on a family member, and a close friend of the family. This isn't about helping "My dad and Lyman". It's about allowing anyone that would be in those situations the option they feel is best for them.

"Deal with it" . . . I can tell you that personally with my family obligations, I'm always going to choose the SCS closest to my house. If there's a year that southern Illinois is going to host IL, you better believe you'll see me in Indiana or Wisconsin during November/December to scoop up enough points to make that cut.

Lobbying state reps . . .I like where this is heading. Reality is as those locations get decided, those game lists are usually 'fixed'. For example everyone knew the game list at host A for Illinois for most of the year. When we had our "drama" and we made the switch in November for me to be the host, my game list has been mostly the same for the last 10 years.

I'd go on hitting your other points, but it's clear we're just agreeing to disagree on this one.

Telling someone that has to declare with 65-85% of the data in house for the year that they should have PLAYED BETTER just doesn't sit well with me.

You're dealing with people that are choosing not to play based on the lack of accurate standings, and proposing rules that would lead to other people choosing not to play based on their own variables (Player A for example declaring Illinois, but realizing he actually wants Indiana in November and intentionally skipping all remaining Illinois events as to not accidentally qualify).

I'm not worried at the growth and interest in the SCS, even with this enormous clusterfuck of a registration process

Last year 6600 players competed in the SCS . . . this year it was 9900
Last year there were 994 events in the SCS in various states . . . this year was 1835

People should play competitive pinball because it's FUN. Anyone taking the SCS too seriously that it's dictating their play isn't someone that I want to cater the rules to (this goes for the people in your example and the people in my example).

He's 5th because of my 'unofficial' communication with the players on the IL SCS list (sounds like the group I contacted was a lot more forthcoming with their SCS intentions then you were . . . maybe next time you should ask nicer?)

After my 'unofficial' follow up (in November mind you), I didn't feel comfortable with where my dad was looking at that time. From my recollection he was in ~20th position after filtering out all the players that weren't playing in IL.

That led to me creating a December event that wouldn't have existed otherwise. It just so happened to be my dad's best result of the year as well, so it made him a lock for IL after that point.

Ultimately he ended up moving up a couple of 'free spots' based on people that avoided IL that were originally planning on staying in state (Werdrick, Twichell, Jackson, Smith - they all chose IN I believe).

Had he bombed out at my house, there was a big tournament in Indiana literally the next day, and I would have told him to go. Werdrick and Jackson both went to that IN event because they decided in the last 2 months of the year (for the various variables listed above) that were focusing in on Indiana and wanted to PLAY BETTER in that state to give themselves the best chance at the IN SCS.

If my dad, Werdrick and Jackson declare Illinois in October, that Indiana tournament gets 3 less participants (well 2 really since my dad actually had a good day at my place).

EDIT: I'm using my dad as an example because that's the best 'real world' example I have. It's not about somehow trying to find ways to HELP MY DAD at the expense of everyone else out there. Anyone that thinks I'm designing IFPA rules to help out my family is crazy (besides making sure that Zach is #1 of course)

That player should find a game in town, organize a no-charge event every single week, and take it upon themselves to earn enough points to qualify. It's all out there in front of them if they want to put in the time and do the work (travel expenses = next to nothing).

Check out these local events within the Seattle local community:

http://www.ifpapinball.com/view_tournament.php?t=10995#results
(averages 20+ points to the winner every week for the WA SCS)

http://www.ifpapinball.com/view_tournament.php?t=11367#results
(averages 11+ points to the winner every week for the WA SCS)

http://www.ifpapinball.com/view_tournament.php?t=10404#results
(averages 11+ points to the winner every week for the WA SCS)

I see something like that, and I'm MOTIVATED to do the same in my town with little resources.

So, for 2016 with $0 I start a monthly tournament 7 miles from my house. Our first month is going on right now:

https://www.neverdrains.com/level257/playerIndex.php

When all is said and done I fully expect the winner to get ~20 points for the IL SCS. Over the course of the year that's ~240 IL SCS points just for the winner of this monthly event, let alone the trickle down to the other places.

Honestly, within the local communities it rarely ends up being a money thing IMO (there are of course circumstances where this is absolutely true), but more likely than not it typically falls under the lack of time/motivation to organize something.

Previous WPPR systems severely limited the ability for people to do something like organize an event that would award 240 points in a year, or in those Seattle examples over 1000 points in a year to the winners. They would all be limited to 25 for the year. It's WIDE OPEN now for people to create as many points as they want within their communities, and to me that's by far the best change we've made in terms of motivating those communities.

To reach the top of the world rankings and maintain your position requires having some extra money to toss around, I agree with you there. However, it really doesn't cost much at all to organize and play regular events at a local location to build up SCS points throughout the year. We run a free weekly between league seasons and it's not a ton of points each week, but they definitely add up!

http://www.ifpapinball.com/rankings/custom_view.php?id=151

My $0.02 as a former state champ -

The entire issue is caused by one big event dominating a state's competitive pinball scene. In the case of Georgia, Pinvasion @ SFGE brings in a lot of the circuit players. Circuit players showing up adds a fair amount of WPPR value of the tourney. Also, because SFGE packages tourney entries with some ticket packages, LOTS of people play a few entries, increasing the WPPR value of the tourney, but posing no threat to locals active in the scene and traveling circuit players. As one would expect, the circuit players rise to the top. (They also tend to spend a lot more on qualifying, but that's a different debate.)

14 of the top 25 players "in" GA, earned SCS points only from events held at SFGE.

Between leagues, charity tournaments, and normal tournaments, the Atlanta scene alone held at least 28 other events during 2015. All of those events are dwarfed by Pinvasion.

My, probably too simple, solution. To qualify for the SCS, a player must play in at least 2 (maybe even 3) events separated by at least 7 days. This protects burgeoning scenes from being cherry picked by circuit players, doesn't punish regional players who cross borders, and even encourages circuit players to come to a state more than once (hopefully encouraging regional growth as well because big players attract more participants).

Those points don't count because you guys refuse to travel to Cincy

Great example of what local communities can do to squash the impact that the one-time regional/national events have on the SCS standings.

Guys . . . guys . . . really . . . guys (in my best Kaneda podcasting voice) . . . the answer to all your problems lies in running as many free tournaments within your local communities as you can. Get those players out competing as often as you can, and the out-of-staters simply don't stand a chance. This declaration stuff wouldn't matter because everyone in the top 30 will all be local people that only play in that state anyway.

If that's not the case (like Illinois right now for example), don't blame the system, blame the players for not organizing enough stuff. I blame myself for IL and am doing my part by starting our Level 257 Super League for 2016. By the time Expo comes around I plan on the impact of those results to be far less than it has been in previous years.

My $.02 of reality as the SCS organizer and supreme leader

15 out of the 16 players in the field for the Georgia State Championship would have passed your 'test', with only Eric Fisher earning his GA SCS points from Pinvasion.

So tell me how instituting this rule changes anything for the tournament that's happening on Feb 13th?

Which circuit players cherry picked Georgia? (the answer is 'player' singular - it was Eric)

I'm not seeing any other impact on the GA SCS. Once you guys go from 28 events to 100+ events in the state, Pinvasion will mean even less and Eric won't even have the opportunity to cherry pick Georgia.

To be fair to Eric, he didn't actually get to cherry pick anything - he wasn't in the top 16 for any state and had to rely on other players to make their declarations before he even had a chance to bubble up anywhere.

When I emailed him about Illinois (he was 58th), his response was, "I just want to play ANYWHERE I can make it in".

The reality is if you change something because you think it will work better, there will always be someone else that will be upset with the new rules.

When is the state championship coming to Marathon?

WTF? So you get special considerations because you are running it people will answer you and you get that info for your records but others cant do the same thing because they dont have the influence you do? Has nothing to do with asking nicer it has to do with how much influence you have.

Also the whole you just need to hold more events actually has a very bad impact on state championships. Like in WI you say they just made many more events to lock the out of staters out. Well you are no longer getting the top 16 in the state anymore, you are getting the people who have more free time to drive around to all the events all over the state. The top 5 will more than likely still be there but after that it is just who has more free time to attend a pinball tourney every week.

This is actually a good look at pinball players and how they shake out in real life.

99.8% don't really care, and the other .2% just pissing and moaning endlessly aboot the same shit over and over.

Keeping it here because it's related to my request for hosting a KY tournament...

Simply put, I was asked to host the OH SCS on its first year and accepted. Began working on games and planning. Couple weeks later I was told that the majority of qualifiers from Cleveland flat out refused to drive to Cincy and would simply not show up if it were held here. Enough stink was raised that the finals were eventually yanked from Cincy and moved to the Cleveland area. If you wanted to come here, you were definitely in the minority.

This is why I'd rather host a KY-qualifying tournament. At this time I have zero interest in the OH SCS, but will support KY by competing in Louisville. I'd like to support KY by giving them another event, but I'm not hauling games 30 miles from fairfield to florence just to do so. If IFPA eventually lets "border cities" host events for neighboring states, then KY will definitely get more events Considering Phoebe has hosted in the past, and is handling (not hosting) KY's current SCS, I'd say there's enough entanglement between the two states already...

I get why you can qualify for multiple states etc. but it comes down to that persons choice of what state they want to represent if they should win. I like saying I'm the NJ State Champion, because I live in NJ.

So to each his own, if I qualify in any other state I don't care, I just want to represent or try and win the state I live in, so I make sure to attend as many events in my state as possible. Just think of the confusion when your talking to someone at the local pub when your from NJ and you tell them your the FL state champion, thats not my style - I'll sit out that year if I don't make my state.

For the other states that have very few or no tournaments, you have to do what you have to do - just play pinball where ever you can.

That sucks that you put in work and then found about the location change. I'd be annoyed as well in your position.

If you're referring to the 2014 OH SCS, there were 10 NE Ohio players and I can say that myself and at least 3 or 4 others had no issue with the trip. I can only think of two people from the list who could have been vocally against the travel, but I'm not getting into personal names on a public forum. I think whatever opposition from the Cleveland crowd you were informed of must have been the minority speaking louder than the rest of us who were down for whatever.

No problems Here in CT. We have New Yorkers coming here all the time playing in my events. Love having them. Some drive 2 hours each way every week to play in our leagues. If they want to play the SCS here that fine by me. Jerry Bernanrd is from NY and is last years winner. No one was upset by that.

We don't have any issues with the SCS here at all. I guess part of it is that the SCS will always be at The Sanctum and run by me and every event run in the state all year is run by me. It's tiring but I love it. No one else here would ever think of running an event even though we have huge turnouts. It's a single unified community that's huge and it's pretty nice. Extremely glad to have it.

New England is a bear to fill up the SCS in each state with the NEPL but non of us mind and understand it's anyone's right to play whereever they want. Making any hard choices on state declaration before the year end points are final seems silly and if it's just a "guide" to help it's also pointless because you still have to confirm with people even if they didn't declare your state and everyone can still change their mind.

-Jim

If a State Rep is getting some push back from players playing a "nanny nanny boo boo, i'm not telling" kind of game, email me and I'll assist. I'll make sure my influence is used in a positive way to help.

We're just not on the same page at all then, because this is PRECISELY why I created the SCS. Our World Ranking system comes with limitations on how many events actually count towards your standing. The SCS was designed with the purpose of allowing players to play as often as they want, with the motivation that the more they play the more points they will accumulate.

The SCS is not about making an accurate ranking of who is the best player in the state. It's about motivating communities to organize more events for their player base, with the hope that SCS point accumulation can entice players to show up. If it takes Dave Bell 52 events to qualify for the AZ SCS (and yes he played in that many), more power to him to do that while others sit on the sidelines. It means that the local events get supported with more attendance, which is especially important for public location events.

I think at this point it might be easier to change the SCS name to:

"Championship of events held within the state based on players who aren't actually the best players in the state but those with the most free time".

I rename it the . . . COEHWTSBOPWAATBPITSBTWTMFT! That actually almost rolls off the tongue just as nicely

It is up .1% over last year

We can arrange that for 2018 if you are willing to host.

currently the most active areas of the state and those associated tournament directors have organized a plan to rotate the SCS every year among the 3 main areas of active competitive play which are currently Milwaukee, Appleton, and Madison. I would wholly encourage you to create a scene in the Marathon (Wausau) area and start hosting events on a regular basis in that region. I am sure that the remainder of the TDs would happily welcome the rotation of Marathon into the group for SCS hosting! MORE events and more collections open to the public is always a great thing in my POV. Also it is only fari to rotate among the active regions in a large state as far as I am concerned (both out of fariness that people should be willing to host where able and players should eb willing to travel when able)

If you are seriously interested Russ, then please hit up Tom and myself and we can help you get started to get things moving in your next of the woods.

Side note, if any MKE folks are readingf this and interested in hosting next year for SCS, it is set to rotate back to MKE but we lost our previous TD since Jon moved and unsure of what locations would be avaiable or good. Please ping me to discuss as it would be great to get things solidified soon.

i LOL'd

Russ is in the FCPL and hosts once a year. He has a great collection and if he is serious about hosting I would certainly take him up on his offer.