Suggestion for change to qualifier rules/status

Given that VTES is stagnant and/or in decline,
Given that the "If you win a tournament, then you qualify" rules has been well-received,
Given that the bookkeeping required is incredibly minimal and already being done, essentially,

I would like to suggest that, for 2012, we change the qualifier rule from:

"If you win a tournament, then you qualify (for that calendar year)"

to

"If you win a tournament or are a finalist in two tournaments, then you qualify (for that calendar year)"

I believe that this would continue to have the effect of forcing some level of competence in order to attend a continental championship, as well as (theoretically) increasing tournament attendance.

{Note that I do not wish to remove or change the existence or status of qualifier tournaments, as I believe keeping a "premier event" track to be a boon to VTES.}

I don't think its a bad idea.
I do like that winning any 10+ tournament gets you qualification for the following year and so I've been planning to run at least 4 of my own events which would potentially allow others to qualify.

"Two times" means you need to check twice.
I would be happier with "If you have a GW, you qualify". It's simple, clean, fair.
The issue I currently have with it is: does it change round3 ?

Are there a lot of players who are failing to qualify? Is there a problem here that needs solving?

If so, making all finalists qualify would probably do the trick. Does that make the bar too low? Maybe some sort of statement of intent is in order. How exclusive should this club be?

vtesocrates wrote: Are there a lot of players who are failing to qualify? Is there a problem here that needs solving?

Well said!
Those are Words of Wisdom TM.

vtesocrates wrote: Are there a lot of players who are failing to qualify? Is there a problem here that needs solving?

The "problem" I see and the benefits which I believe would result were outlined in my OP.

Pascal Bertrand wrote: "Two times" means you need to check twice. I would be happier with "If you have a GW, you qualify". It's simple, clean, fair. The issue I currently have with it is: does it change round3?

vtesocrates wrote: ...making all finalists qualify would probably do the trick. Does that make the bar too low? Maybe some sort of statement of intent is in order. How exclusive should this club be?

"All finalists qualify" is too low a requirement, because of the quantity of small tournament that are now being run, which would essentially make the USA's qualifier system "top 50%".

"Get a GW and you qualify" is too low a requirement, because people could play a S+B deck just to guarantee they get 1GW, and then they could play improperly afterwards, since the rest of the tournament "doesn't matter". I don't see this behavior at qualifier tournaments, so while it *may not happen* I don't see a reason to take any chances.