SCS brackets/streams/updates


It’s past years championship but is taking place in the same year as the rest of the events counting towards scs.

Besides the one instance mentioned has the scs been a deciding factor in anyone else’s placement? Typically it’s not a huge point haul and the bleed is very quick with such a small field.

Can you work your magic filters @pinwizj and subtract all scs stats from a state and seeing if it changes the top 16 dramatically?


It’s like the winner of the Super Bowl starting off the next season with one win, then saying every team had a chance to make the Super Bowl so it’s fair.

If the ease filter is the only reason, is it really that difficult to change this:
“State = NC”, “Year = 2017”

To this:
“State = NC”, “Year = 2017”, “Tournament” NOT LIKE “IFPA % State Pinball Championship”

I’d say probably easier than adding the 20 event limit where you have to sort and then cut off at 20…


I can’t easily . . . I’m sure someone with more free time than IFPA staff right now can manually go through and do it :slight_smile:

Outside of 1st/2nd place the points drop prettttttty quick for every SCS with only 16 players.


1 win out of a ~10 wins needed to make the playoffs represents 10% of the season.

I think that of the points available for most states, 10-14 WPPR’s represents far less than 10% of the season points available for that state.

Ease of filtering isn’t the only reason, but the State Championships aren’t the only “circuit style” events that are included in a state every year. Other championships like the Upstate NY Championship, Mad City Championships, Flip City Championships, PAPA Circuit Final, etc. all have an open qualification process that pulls in data from other events.

SCS standings count every IFPA sanctioned event held within the boundaries of that state. It’s a super easy rule to understand and a super easy rule for us to handle logistically (now with the $1 fee these funds have to flow through appropriately).

I haven’t seen a material impact of players that would not have qualified for their state without the assistance of those SCS points, but I’m welcome to be proven wrong if someone wants to dig that up.

Between the 43 states, Washington DC, and 7 Canadian Provinces, that’s 816 qualifying spots up for grabs. How many of those 816 players wouldn’t have gotten in without those results counting?

There’s one, Jason Werdrick (who would have just qualified in another state). Can we get to 3% impact and find 23 other players?

Also just to add . . . I total understand people that have the opinion that these shouldn’t count. I will also say that the MAJORITY opinion is that they not only SHOULD count, but should be artificially inflated to count for more than they truly grade out to being worth . . . FWIW.


I can see both sides of the coin regarding Zero points vs Inflated as a few invite only events are inflated already.


The impact isn’t just who makes/doesn’t make the finals, there’s also the seeding once you make it. Without having access to the data other than looking at the web page, but just looking at the Illinois page for example I see there are a bunch of players that a 2 or 3 point change would make a difference in position.

I don’t know and maybe there are some, but I can’t think of any “real” sport that has the annual championship results count toward the next years championship. If the SCS is supposed to be seen by outsiders as legitimate, I don’t think the “too hard to filter” or “doesn’t really make much of a difference” excuses help that.

I’m also a little confused by people who think they should count more, are they saying the points should be artificially inflated toward making the SCS the next year or just for world ranking? There’s a big difference between those two, and I think you’d have a hard time finding a majority of players that didn’t make the SCS that think the scoring should be increased for that event for making the SCS the next year. If you’re actually hearing that then I suspect you’re talking to the small percentage of people who are qualifying and not the great majority who aren’t.


Yes, this is clearly the one missing piece of the puzzle to us being taken seriously by outsiders as being “legitimate” :slight_smile:

We’ve had easily over 100 media pieces that have run throughout the previous 4 years of the SCS process, and not once has anyone even asked about the State Championship results counting towards the qualifying of the following season.

Like most sports, the championship process is a clusterf*ck. NCAA March Madness, win your conference championship, or good luck with the “committee” getting you in. The committee aspect of the selection process is laughable if you stretched that to the IFPA State Reps reviewing the resumes of all the players in the state and choosing which ones make it in. Certainly doesn’t seem to hurt the “legitimacy” of the NCAA Championships.

I just ran Illinois, and Lyman and myself would swap the 3/4 seed. The 12/13/14 seeds would all shuffle up as well (13 becomes 12, 14 becomes 13, 12 becomes 14). I wouldn’t consider any of that activity “material”.

WPPR’s are WPPR’s, so this is “one in the same” I’m sure for anyone that has expressed their opinions to me. IMO the “great majority” couldn’t care less about any of this. SCS counting, not counting, what the hell SCS even is, is probably what the “great majority” are thinking. I think you have a similar sized group of people that “care” and feel it should be worth more, and people that “care” and feel it should be worth zero.


Wow, that’s quite the response.


Mr Hartman,

Life’s more fun when you stop caring about how folks run their clubs.


Hey everybody! I’ve been watching this thread for a while and a couple things have been made clear:

  1. There are several people who take issue with the way the IFPA rankings are currently calculated (be they state rankings, national rankings, world rankings, etc)
  2. These people show up in any thread regarding the ranking system or even unrelated to it (as in this case) to make their voice heard.
  3. Many of these people have been bringing up these same issues for a while, in some cases years.
  4. @pinwizj has been giving the same responses for those same years.

I am generally not the type to shut down discussion of any given topic, but these threads are rapidly becoming tiresome. I understand that in some cases Josh will come out and say “Hey here’s a thing, what do you all think?” and discussion will ensue, and I think that is fine. However injecting these things into an unrelated thread, especially around topics that have been discussed to death and for which there is no reasonable assumption that anything will happen to satisfy the party involved, is getting old. Take it up with Josh in private if you must, but lets try and keep things on track here OK?




texas has no position changes


I know most people use Challonge for brackets but with Matchplay having a rating system will people migrate over to that? I dont know of any cons is doing so.


Here’s just some insight into what I’m seeing locally with the SCS and growing a scene.

Up until 2017, Tennessee had no real pinball scene to speak of. I and others would try to run tournaments around Nashville but rarely had any with more than 10 people.

In 2017, Memphis (about 3 hours away) has a pinball scene explode out of nowhere. An arcade opens and they start having weekly tournaments with more than 20 people. Nashville starts an active league and our players really have to really work at playing more tournaments to make the SCS cut.

Nashville is now going to have more tournaments in 2018. Partially due to our base growing, and partially to try to keep up with Memphis. There’s now a friendly rivalry in the state between the two groups.

It’s not everyone’s experience with the SCS, but it has had a huge benefit to us. Viva la SCS!


This is what I hope to see develop with KY between NKY and Louisville in 2018. Should be fun!


I always like people using Match Play. That said, you can submit your Challonge brackets for inclusion in Match Play Ratings:

  • Create your bracket on Challonge
  • For player names use the player’s name exactly as it appears on their IFPA profile
  • Play your tournament
  • Go to
  • Click “Submit event”
  • Paste in your Challonge bracket link and hit the button


The fact that LAX is the same weekend as IFPA Nationals will have a pretty big impact :slight_smile:


We don’t have any plan to stream the Utah SCS right now, but our Challonge bracket is here:

We had to go to 18 to get filled. Our #1 seed isn’t a local, but he comes out to nearly all of our monthly events and definitely earned that #1 seed though a combo of solid play and consistent attendance. He’ll be tough to take down.


Nova Scotia won’t be streamed (to the disappointment of millions) but here is our bracket:


Delaware’s Challonge bracket is here:

Thanks to the team at Rage Tilt pinball they will be streaming Delaware’s championship!