Did the prize increase result in increase attendance in Jr & Srs. A study please read

[JohnnyBlaze]

Southern Plains- Houston, Texas

Masters-261
Seniors-77
Juniors-58
Event Total-396

66% of the event was attended by MA

Great Lakes- Fort Wayne, Indiana

Masters- 329
Seniors-98
Juniors-52
Event Total-479

69% of the event attended by MA

North East- Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Masters- 306
Seniors- 78
Juniors- 60
Event Total- 444

69% of the event attended by MA

Northern California- Santa Clara, California

Masters-253
Seniors-89
Juniors-30
Event Total-372

68% of the event attended by MA

So to look at the attendance numbers from the US Regionals it would seem that the increase in prize compensation for both Srs and Jrs DID NOT have a positive impact on increasing attendance in those age divisions. I mean 30 Jrs in California? Cmon that is pathetic!! On average each Regional in the US, the Masters age division represented at least 68% or more of the playing field. That is close to 70%!! Those numbers show that MA is undoubtedly the division that supports this game regardless of the prize decompensation. So with experiment #1 that Tcpi has tried in increasing JR and SR #'s for Regionals was a failure.

As I have stated numerous times before, one of the best ways to even out these attendance problems would be to change the age divisions. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with any arguments about a 12 year old playing a 6 year old or a 17 year old playing a 13 year old in the below scenario. I am just stating the simple fact that if Tcpi wants better numbers the only achievable way to do this is to reset the age divisions to something similar below:

Jr division: 12 and under

Sr division: 13 - 17

MA division: 18 + or (18-29)

Super Masters 30 + (We dont need prizes, these are for Pokeparents that bring their children to events)

If you agree or disagree with these findings please post on this thread.

 

[Aron Figaro]

I don't remember all of the numbers, but in Ontario we had a record low 17 Juniors attending the event, despite the increased accessibility. From what I have seen, it seems to be more social barriers to entry for the kids, with a lot of intimidation going on, because we get tons of juniors out at league that could be competitive. I just never see them at big events, and having talked to some of their parents, that's not going to change until things get friendlier.

 

[LOLZ]

Can't tell, is this a thread to complain about the additional prize support for juniors/seniors at regionals or a thread calling for change in the structure of the age groups.

You may want to clarify this, because I can see this thread turning quickly off the intended thread topic.

 

[jogon]

This thread could very well be about two topics at once.

I agree that an age group shake up would definitely change the way organized play works but I do not think there should be a super seniors group at all.

 

[Yako]

I'm currently 28. I have no kids. I'm stuck in that weird age group where all the pokeparents are older than I am and all the competitive players are younger than I am. I play for the thrill of the competition. What would happen to someone like me in 2 years when I turn 30 and only have pokeparents to play against? There's no way I'd keep playing. It's bad enough already that if I were to win a scholarship, I'd be hard-pressed to find someone to transfer it to so I could convert it into money. If I had to play in a separate division I'd have to move on to another game.

Also, your percentages of MA players are meaningless until you compare them to the numbers from last year so you can see if there was an increase or a decrease in the percentage of junior/senior players. Let's say last year the percentage of MAs was 75%. If this dropped to 69% this year and overall attendance increased, wouldn't that mean that POP made a good decision prize-wise?

 

[GodBlessAmerica]

For reference, at the Philly Regional Championship, I know that there was at least a drop in attendance for seniors.

Earlier this year there were 105 seniors at Philly, this weekend there were 78.

I don't remember the numbers for Juniors from earlier this year, but the fact of the matter is that TPCi still didn't increase attendance in the younger divisions with their ludicrous decision on prize support.

 

[TAndrewT]

So to look at the attendance numbers from the US Regionals it would seem that the increase in prize compensation for both Srs and Jrs DID NOT have a positive impact on increasing attendance in those age divisions.

I don't think your numbers support that statement, for quite a few reasons:

1. I haven't seen final attendance numbers for Ontario Regionals yet. Aron mentioned 17 for Juniors; does anyone have SR/MA numbers for Ontario yet?

2. It is tough to translate last season's Regionals to this season's, but we could try. I think to compare apples to apples, we'd have to compare the two Fall Regionals seasons, because they both represent times immediately after rotation (where players have just aged up, but not enough time has passed for new Juniors and Seniors to start playing & take their places). Here's that comparison:

Fall 2011:
Virginia: 26/63/140
Oregon: 67/97/211
Rhode Island: 22/52/138
SoCal: 25/50/248
Missouri: 37/73/219
Florida: 38/62/182
Indiana: 50/75/220
Total: 265/482/1358

Fall 2012:
Texas: 58/77/261
Indiana: 52/98/329
Pennsylvania: 60/78/306
NorCal: 30/89/253
Ontario: 17/??/??
Total: 217/342+??/1149+??

Those numbers are incomplete, but what they suggest is that average attendance per Regional increased in all divisions, but total attendance dropped in all divisions. (Unless there were more than 209 Masters in Ontario.)

3. Changes in the prize structure aren't the only possible cause for why fewer total Juniors and Seniors attended Regionals last weekend than the previous fall. Juniors' and Seniors' attendance at Regionals may be more sensitive to travel distance than Masters. The economic fortunes of players' families, and their commitment to spending money on cards and travel, also undoubtedly affect attendance (though I'm not sure which direction that would change things over the last year). In general, it's always going to be tough to use attendance numbers to extrapolate to causes.

I do think the question is an important one, but I'm not sure we will ever have a certain answer.

 

[Tapin]

I'm currently 28. I have no kids. I'm stuck in that weird age group where all the pokeparents are older than I am and all the competitive players are younger than I am. I play for the thrill of the competition. What would happen to someone like me in 2 years when I turn 30 and only have pokeparents to play against? There's no way I'd keep playing.

As a member of the group, I'd love to see an option for "old people" -- above a certain age, you have the option of registering and playing in what is effectively a sanctioned, simultaneous side-event. If you want to play in Masters, go ahead; if you'd just rather pass the time, play instead in the "super masters" (or whatever) division where CP aren't awarded, ELO isn't taken into account, and (as a bonus) there's likely going to be a small enough attendance that you'll be finishing up about the same time as your Junior player that you brought.

There are a handful of people in my area that are Pokeparents that compete at or near the top tables, and I wouldn't want to force them to play against theme decks and "what's that card do" all day long. At the same time, it would likely a logistical nightmare for TCPi/P!P to try to keep track of people who could theoretically be in two different divisions simultaneously. So, take the easy way out: have a non-premier side-event.

(And at that point, perhaps there's really no reason to limit it by age. Want to play competitively? Step right up to the J/S/M registration table! Just looking for a few matches for fun? Came with your kids/boyfriend/girlfriend and don't want to lose every single game? Right over here, please.)

 

[losjackal]

Fall Regionals prizes announced: 9/10/2012

First Regionals tournament: 10/13/2012

If you want to call this a case study and form a conclusion, you ought to wait for more time to pass and certainly factor in the other two upcoming Regionals dates to meaningfully measure the impact of a change.

 

[Yako]

I like both of Tapin's ideas. Just saying.

 

[TAndrewT]

If you want to call this a case study and form a conclusion, you ought to wait for more time to pass and certainly factor in the other two upcoming Regionals dates to meaningfully measure the impact of a change.

Yeah, I don't think that will be accurate either though. I'm sure the total number of Regionals attendances will go up this year, just because there are 3 Regionals instead of 2. But in a way, it also wouldn't be fair to somehow divide this out either, because for some players Regionals attendance depends on the CP structure, (Why go to 3 Regionals, when you can only count 4 total States + Regs?) and surely on location.

So, put another way: I know I wrote a bunch of number earlier in this thread, but even that was a bunch of malarkey. I don't think we'll ever know.

 

[dtrain]

Fall Regionals prizes announced: 9/10/2012

First Regionals tournament: 10/13/2012

If you want to call this a case study and form a conclusion, you ought to wait for more time to pass and certainly factor in the other two upcoming Regionals dates to meaningfully measure the impact of a change.

Not necessarily. I feel this thread could help sway TPCI's decision for prize support for this coming winter regionals.
I attended the fall regionals for VGC up in Toronto and Juniors had a record 3 players in their division. Had I decided to bring my younger cousin up to play that would have been a free $500 stipend for him. Instead the $500 in that divison went to waste. All divisions should really have equal prizes so that Masters don't feel left out. I know that even if I won a stipend and I was a junior player my parents would never let me go there since they are strict.

 

[losjackal]

So, put another way: I know I wrote a bunch of number earlier in this thread, but even that was a bunch of malarkey. I don't think we'll ever know.

Agreed. The people paid to make sense of it will figure out something meaningful in the data. The rest of us are just seeing what we want to see and having a nice chat about it.

---------- Post added 10/16/2012 at 12:07 PM ----------

Not necessarily. I feel this thread could help sway TPCI's decision for prize support for this coming winter regionals.

I've got no problem with another thread complaining about prize support. My beef is with attempting to pass off one data point as a case study and concluding the effort did not have a positive effect. It's just too soon to tell.

 

[psychup2034]

Also, your percentages of MA players are meaningless until you compare them to the numbers from last year so you can see if there was an increase or a decrease in the percentage of junior/senior players. Let's say last year the percentage of MAs was 75%. If this dropped to 69% this year and overall attendance increased, wouldn't that mean that POP made a good decision prize-wise?

Based on TAndrewT's data, last year's percentage of masters was 65%. This increased to 68% this year. Also, overall attendance decreased.

It's unclear whether POP made a good decision prize-wise, but I think reasonable to say that the decision to split Regionals into three weekends, making them farther away for the average player, and increasing players' transportation costs to attend Regionals is hurting attendance. I think whatever gains (if any) made by increasing prize support for Juniors and Seniors are more than offset by the questionable decision to split Regionals into 3 weekends without increasing the total number of Regionals events.

Not that any of this is surprising. Some parents of Juniors and Seniors have been complaining about the 3 Regionals structure for a while now. (And then there's always this post.) If TPCi is serious about increasing the attendance of Juniors and Seniors at Regionals, they will revert back to the 7-8 Regionals per weekend that we had last year and abandon this 5 Regional per weekend malarkey.

 

[FincastlePokemon2]

Don't forget, this year there are 3 Regionals instead of 2. (Which was, in itself, a change last year.) A professional statician could probably give you more solid numbers, but the "apples to apples" to see if Junior or Senior attendance increased can only happen after attendance is reported for all three Regional Fall, Winter and Spring.

Then we can know:

1. If the TOTAL number of juniors and seniors playing in all regional championships has changed
2. If the TOTAL number of juniors and seniors playing in a specific regional location has changed
3. If the TOTAL number of masters playing in all (or any single) regional has changed

(Of course a math whiz would also tell you that you'd need to factor those totals by some "funky" number to adjust for the different number of opportunities to play, as well as the difference in travel cost/availability based on the season/weather/location.)

Bottom line - it's too soon to tell.

Bottom, bottom line - I guarantee TCPI will get all of the data that they need to decide if it was effective, and theirs will be accurate (based on actual reported results, discrete P!P IDs, etc.) So we may still end up with numbers that can be interpretted to fit whichever side of the arguement you want to take.

 

[vanderbilt_grad]

I'm 43. I've won Cities, top cut states & regionals, and generally tend to do well in most events I play in. Am I a poke-parent? Sure. Am I competitive, yes. I'm not interested in being regulated to a super-masters group.

That said, I wouldn't mind some changes to the age groups. The thing to keep in mind is that it's already HARD for a 5 year old to play a 10 year old ... and even more difficult for a 5 year old to try to compete with a 12 year old. Just for example, I would much rather see the creation of a new 16-20 year old division rather than making Juniors go higher than 10 years old.

As for the prize support changes.I agre that it's too early to tell, and that other factors are important here such as the 3 weekend structure vs what we had in the past. Still, meaningful prize support does impact attendance IMHO. Heck even something small like giving all juniors a free pack or two for attending might make the difference in a few cases.

I also wouldn't mind masters being charged $5 for attending an event to boost prizes.

 

[SummerDaze]

I think to compare apples to apples, we'd have to compare the two Fall Regionals seasons.

At least with respect to the Philly Regional, last spring's Philly Regional is the proper measuring stick because it drew from a similar territory. The fall Regionals were split between the NE and Virginia, so the East Coast player pool was split. That being said, there were fewer Jrs at this Philly Regional, as well as fewer Srs (Master increased by almost 25%).

I agree that it's not fair to say that the change in prize support is a failure in terms of bringing in new Jrs and Srs based solely on tournament attendance at the fall Regionals, but I'd bet the ranch that the winter and spring Regionals will confirm that the new prize support structure is not having it's intended effect. The simple fact is that no kid (or parent) who is not already involved in the game has any clue what the prize structure is, so could not be inlfuenced by it, and those already playing would be playing anyway. If they really want to get younger kids into the game, they need to ramp up the marketing machine and make playing TCG "cool." Otherwise, all TPCi is doing is risking alienating the players in the age group that is supporting the game. Given the healthy attendance in the Masters division this fall, the prize support issue doesn't appear to have had much of a negative effect. However, they can only draw from the well of player good will so often before people will leave the game.

As for the rejiggering of the age groups, I think that makes sense, if for no other reason than it will even out the attendance figures somewhat and make the tournaments run more in parallel. As it is, my son usually ends up sitting around for 2 hours after he finishes because Masters plays twice as many rounds as Jrs. That's bad on a whole host of levels, but mostly because it makes the experience less fun for the kid, and therefore only increases the chance the kid will lose interest at some point.

I would be a little concerned with 12 year-olds playing 7/8 year-olds because there is a big developmental difference between the ages, and the beating the younger kids likely would take again is not conducive to them continuing in the game. I'd probably want to see Jrs at 11 and under, and Srs from 12-17. As for there being an old-timers division, I personally would not want to see it. I play the game because I enjoy the competition, and I want to play against the best. There are quite a few Pokeparents who rank right up there (JohnnyBlaze being one of them), but it would not be as much fun for me if I were cut off from the main field.

 

[JohnnyBlaze]

Sam - I never saw NJ Bob's post back in July but I have to agree with him 100%, thanks for sharing that. As a parent of 3 players and a player myself I do find the grind to be way too taxing. Im wondering now if the low attendance in Jr and Srs is attributed to the fact that 3 Regionals a year is too taxing on the family unit's finances. Personally we did not go to Philly Regionals as we did not have the finances to stay overnight nor the finances to drive down as both of our current family vehicle have over 100k. The main trip my family looks forward to a year is Nationals in Indy. We are saving our money for that. Face it plane tickets are also getting out of hand for the average American family of 5 to afford.

 

[Prime]

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that The Pokemon Company, International has already allocated their funds for each event for this whole season already and, regardless of the data presented, will not be able to change the prize structure for events later this season.

I also agree that taking just the data from the first set of regionals is an awful little amount of data to work off of. I'm not saying the conclusion at the end of the season will be any different than it is now, but any study cannot fully represent the issue without a beefy amount of data behind it.

 

[HenryP]

The one thing it did increase was cheating, there were about 3 Game Losses and Prize Penalties per round in Indy and 1 DQ all in Seniors.