The World Cup Discussion Thread (OOC, version II)

[Eastfield Lodge]

OK then, what's your golden number of Matchdays that we're not allowed to go over? I say 22 as the maximum, with 18 as a preference.

Hr'rmm...
52 weeks in a year, allow 32 for the National League with those split between the Spring & Autumn sessions and most WC-related games normally occurring in the Summer gap; the two gaps don't have to be exactly equal in length, of course, but there are practical reasons why we can't push the season too far into the Winter, or have all 20 weeks of "gap" in the Summer; try to allow a full week for each qualifier or friendly, not only because of travel times & possible needs for acclimatisation but also because some nations' teams simply might not be able to play on particular days for one reason or another anyway; and we hrreally do want to keep some friendlies against traditional rivals in the schedule, as well as the actual qualifiers, because the increasing number of teams entering the contest as a whole reduces the chances that we'd get to face those sides otherwise; so say a twelve-week 'WC Season' in each of the two years, say at least two friendlies included in that for each year of qualifiers (with the 'pre-qualifiers' ones pushed back into the BoF/DBC year instead...), and a schedule like WC55's was & is just manageable without clashing with the League but any increase on that could be a bit awkward... and cutting the number of teams per group to 8 or 9, for 16 or 18 qualifying matches respectively per World Cup, would definitely be preferable.

You may be forgetting that groups of 10 also equals 18 matchdays.

[Kulverint]

I agree with Bears Armed on his proposal for a "pre-qualifier" stage. The current matchday situation is both annoying and tiresome.

[Valanora]

I've recently been made aware of a system that would allow for all current nations signed up for the World Cup and additional four entrants the ability to participate in the World Cup with our preferred format of a shortened qualifying stage. Given that the purpose of mine and Sorthern's bid was to cut down the "marathon" qualifying and not to exclude nations by and large, would those that endorse our bid be shocked and appalled if we were to amend the bid in light of this revelation?

Anyone have any opinion whatsoever?

[Starblaydia]

I've recently been made aware of a system that would allow for all current nations signed up for the World Cup and additional four entrants the ability to participate in the World Cup with our preferred format of a shortened qualifying stage. Given that the purpose of mine and Sorthern's bid was to cut down the "marathon" qualifying and not to exclude nations by and large, would those that endorse our bid be shocked and appalled if we were to amend the bid in light of this revelation?

Anyone have any opinion whatsoever?

As this may have been lost:

Proposing trimming nearly a third of the previous WC's numbers was a mistake, imho, and I'd welcome a system that let in the 15 or so current nations, both now and old, who would otherwise miss out.

I would have voted for the bid anyway, and if you did this, I'd be 100% behind it.

[Polar Islandstates]

If this is the one that Eastfield Lodge was talking about earlier, then this non-WCC member likes it.

[Andossa Se Mitrin Vega]

Anyone have any opinion whatsoever?

This is your bid and it is yours do do with as you see fit. The current model isnt winning anyh popularity contests, so I say have at it.

[The Babbage Islands]

I agree with Bears Armed on his proposal for a "pre-qualifier" stage. The current matchday situation is both annoying and tiresome.

As an advocate of two-tier qualifying going back to long before we actually tried it once, I offer a cautionary note. The criticism of the WC 54 format with which I had the most sympathy was the single round-robin interzonal; there was a clear preference for home-and-home as opposed to neutral sites. If you go double round-robin for both tiers, however, the tournament stretches out. Same with groups of larger than six teams when two tiers are involved.

If I were to bid a two-tier event again, I would go for 30 zonal groups of five or six (182 team cap) advancing two each, 10 MD, plus fifteen four-team interzonals qualifying two each, 6 MD. For 137 to 151 teams the backup plan would revert to 15 traditional groups in a single tier, 18 MD. The last Cup to draw fewer than 137 was WC 48.

I'm also doing some theoretical work with single round-robin schedules for five and seven teams where each team by design gets half their matches at home and half away on a roughly balanced basis. That could provide some five- and seven-MD alternatives for interzonals and open up different numbers of zonal groups, but introduces scorination challenges.

What it comes down to is that every change you make changes other things you may not want to change. I am glad that Valanora and Sorthern Northland have advanced their solution to the problem of overextended qualifying phases. But some of the other corollaries to that solution--principally, turning folks away in significant numbers--are awkward. Hence, this discussion. Two-stage qualifying has its own issues. So do 11- or 12-team groups playing 22 matchdays.

[The Babbage Islands]

I've recently been made aware of a system that would allow for all current nations signed up for the World Cup and additional four entrants the ability to participate in the World Cup with our preferred format of a shortened qualifying stage. Given that the purpose of mine and Sorthern's bid was to cut down the "marathon" qualifying and not to exclude nations by and large, would those that endorse our bid be shocked and appalled if we were to amend the bid in light of this revelation?

Anyone have any opinion whatsoever?

Speaking as someone who both endorsed your bid and made major changes on the fly to his own last (successful) WC bid in response to well-taken points, I say have at it. I doubt that I would be shocked or appalled.

[Krytenia]

SN, Val...show us what you got. Unless it's completely stupid, it'll fly with me.

[Valanora]

So, something quite unexpected came up (*glares at family*) and I'll be gone for an indefinite amount of time, though I hope to be back by Sunday or Monday. Sorry to those that may or may not face Pasarga in the CoH and anyone wanting questions answered in the bid thread (if Sorth doesn't want to answer without consulting me ).

[Qazox]

It's time for the black sheep to throw his two cents in...

I guess I'm in the minority when I think we need to have smaller groups (and therefore fewer match-days) and if there's any chance to get rid of some of the sign-up and dissapear teams, I'm all for it. Having a group of 10 teams in which just 2 nations RP sucks. Takes the fun out of it. I'd rather have groups of 6-8 teams in which 5-6 teams RP everyday as it forces you to earn your way into the World Cup, instead of just having it handed to you. This past Cup, I was in a group that had 5 consistent RPers (not including my puppet) and it was exciting not knowing that if I would make it or not.

As i said earlier in this thread, I'd rather have 60 teams that I know are going to RP compete for the World Cup than to have 140 teams and half don't RP.

[Chetkosk]

I'd rather have 60 teams that I know are going to RP compete for the World Cup than to have 140 teams and half don't RP.

You would actually consider restricting the world cup qualifiers to 60 nations? Really?

As I think I said earlier, I'm all for larger numbers of smaller groups - it's the simplest and most effective way of reducing the number of match days (i.e. 20 groups of 8 instead of 16 groups of 10; both of which involve 160 nations, but they are 14 and 18 match days long respectively).
The only downsides I can see to having large number of groups with fewer teams in them are that
(a) the hosts have to be able to handle the large number of groups
(b) you could still potentially end up in a group with few RP'ing nations. Then again that is just like life - luck of the draw.

I'm worried that adding restrictions to WC sign ups beyond a simple "soft cap" will only serve to alienate people.

[Commerce Heights]

It's time for the black sheep to throw his two cents in...

I guess I'm in the minority when I think we need to have smaller groups (and therefore fewer match-days) and if there's any chance to get rid of some of the sign-up and dissapear teams, I'm all for it. Having a group of 10 teams in which just 2 nations RP sucks. Takes the fun out of it. I'd rather have groups of 6-8 teams in which 5-6 teams RP everyday as it forces you to earn your way into the World Cup, instead of just having it handed to you. This past Cup, I was in a group that had 5 consistent RPers (not including my puppet) and it was exciting not knowing that if I would make it or not.

As i said earlier in this thread, I'd rather have 60 teams that I know are going to RP compete for the World Cup than to have 140 teams and half don't RP.

As long as we’re asking for impossibilities, I want world peace.

[Kulverint]

I agree with Bears Armed on his proposal for a "pre-qualifier" stage. The current matchday situation is both annoying and tiresome.

As an advocate of two-tier qualifying going back to long before we actually tried it once, I offer a cautionary note. The criticism of the WC 54 format with which I had the most sympathy was the single round-robin interzonal; there was a clear preference for home-and-home as opposed to neutral sites. If you go double round-robin for both tiers, however, the tournament stretches out. Same with groups of larger than six teams when two tiers are involved.

If I were to bid a two-tier event again, I would go for 30 zonal groups of five or six (182 team cap) advancing two each, 10 MD, plus fifteen four-team interzonals qualifying two each, 6 MD. For 137 to 151 teams the backup plan would revert to 15 traditional groups in a single tier, 18 MD. The last Cup to draw fewer than 137 was WC 48.

I'm also doing some theoretical work with single round-robin schedules for five and seven teams where each team by design gets half their matches at home and half away on a roughly balanced basis. That could provide some five- and seven-MD alternatives for interzonals and open up different numbers of zonal groups, but introduces scorination challenges.

What it comes down to is that every change you make changes other things you may not want to change. I am glad that Valanora and Sorthern Northland have advanced their solution to the problem of overextended qualifying phases. But some of the other corollaries to that solution--principally, turning folks away in significant numbers--are awkward. Hence, this discussion. Two-stage qualifying has its own issues. So do 11- or 12-team groups playing 22 matchdays.

I believe you misunderstand. What you are talking about the is WC54 system where everybody has to qualify to get in to the second stage of qualifying, and then we compete for WC places. What I would be advocating is a Pre-Qualifying round, as Bears Armed has stated, where those who are not in the top 60 rankings of the teams that have signed up must qualify for places in the qualifiers, thereby reducing the somewhat preposterous amount of matchdays we currently have.

[Bears Armed]

Incidentally, concerning precdents from the RL World Cup, doesn't at least one of the regional confederations that sends teams into that tournament operate some sort of two-stage or seeding system in its own competiton to select them? I seem to recall seeing this mentioned during an earlier discussion here...
Or does the USA's team really have to play qualifiers against all of the (twenty or so?) teams from the West Indies?


EDIT: Having said which, the format that Valanora & Snorth are offering now, with 20 groups whose winners and (after play-offs) half of the runners-up go forwards into the World Cup proper -- is one that I and the Bears find perfectly acceptable.

[The Babbage Islands]

I believe you misunderstand. What you are talking about the is WC54 system where everybody has to qualify to get in to the second stage of qualifying, and then we compete for WC places. What I would be advocating is a Pre-Qualifying round, as Bears Armed has stated, where those who are not in the top 60 rankings of the teams that have signed up must qualify for places in the qualifiers, thereby reducing the somewhat preposterous amount of matchdays we currently have.

I don't misunderstand at all. Two tiers are two tiers, whether I call them Zonal and Interzonal and treat them together as qualifying, or whether you call them pre-qualifying and qualifying and consider them separate events. The only difference is that you choose to (effectively) pre-advance a certain number of teams to your "qualifying". That will reduce the total number of matchdays for the select 60, but increase it for the others.

[Bears Armed]

I believe you misunderstand. What you are talking about the is WC54 system where everybody has to qualify to get in to the second stage of qualifying, and then we compete for WC places. What I would be advocating is a Pre-Qualifying round, as Bears Armed has stated, where those who are not in the top 60 rankings of the teams that have signed up must qualify for places in the qualifiers, thereby reducing the somewhat preposterous amount of matchdays we currently have.

I don't misunderstand at all. Two tiers are two tiers, whether I call them Zonal and Interzonal and treat them together as qualifying, or whether you call them pre-qualifying and qualifying and consider them separate events. The only difference is that you choose to (effectively) pre-advance a certain number of teams to your "qualifying". That will reduce the total number of matchdays for the select 60, but increase it for the others.

But IC, at least for those nations that use a 4-year World Cup cycle with the BoF in the first year and the World Cup proper in the fourth, that increased number could then be spread over 3 years rather than just 2...


^_^

[Osarius]

Incidentally, concerning precdents from the RL World Cup, doesn't at least one of the regional confederations that sends teams into that tournament operate some sort of two-stage or seeding system in its own competiton to select them? I seem to recall seeing this mentioned during an earlier discussion here...
Or does the USA's team really have to play qualifiers against all of the (twenty or so?) teams from the West Indies?

Yeah CONCACAF's system is a bit weird.
They have 35 teams, so they have a two-legged playoff round for the bottom 22 ranked
The eleven winners playoff against the other 13 teams. The 12 winners then go into a group stage system which splits like the Scottish Premier League.

Doing something like that with the NS World Cup would be a bit messed up for new teams though. Two games and you're out, which kinda defeats the purpose really, imo. Any other format (like swiss style ranking eliminations, or double or triple elimination brackets, for example - which could guarantee at least eight games) would be far too convoluted and probably wouldnt shrink the field (and certainly not the workload for hosts) enough anyway.

I much prefer the idea of using smaller groups with playoffs, personally. Although some might be a bit PO'd about that. But with the old system of x groups, top two advance... I could finish 3rd in my group and not get in, despite having a better record than some group winners. So ... you know. Luck of the draw and all that.

[Newmanistan]

COH Clarificiation please: We're (the Rockets) playing in Saugeais now?

[Qazox]

I'd rather have 60 teams that I know are going to RP compete for the World Cup than to have 140 teams and half don't RP.

You would actually consider restricting the world cup qualifiers to 60 nations? Really?

...

By that I mean I'd rather have teams that will RP participate than filler nations that are there just to make numbers. I know that it is practically impossible to prevent teams from signing up who will not RP.

[Saugeais]

COH Clarificiation please: We're (the Rockets) playing in Saugeais now?

IDK what Sarzonia is thinking, but everything he scores is in his nation, and what I score is in mine. You would be in his region then.

[Andossa Se Mitrin Vega]

I don't misunderstand at all. Two tiers are two tiers, whether I call them Zonal and Interzonal and treat them together as qualifying, or whether you call them pre-qualifying and qualifying and consider them separate events. The only difference is that you choose to (effectively) pre-advance a certain number of teams to your "qualifying". That will reduce the total number of matchdays for the select 60, but increase it for the others.

Exactly. Both operate on the same basic premise but use different routes to get to the same place. Now, would the teams eliminated earn KPB points? If not, then I prefer TBI's method where every team had the chance to earn some rank.

[Errinundera]

IDK what Sarzonia is thinking, but everything he scores is in his nation, and what I score is in mine. You would be in his region then.

I was scratching my head about it. Seemed odd that the hosts' own teams weren't playing in their own country. No matter. It has been a well run and enjoyable series.

[Sarzonia]

COH Clarificiation please: We're (the Rockets) playing in Saugeais now?

IDK what Sarzonia is thinking, but everything he scores is in his nation, and what I score is in mine. You would be in his region then.

What I was thinking was because Sarzonia was competing in the Cup of Harmony and was automatically placed in Group A that Groups A-D, which you were scoring, were in Sarzonia while Groups E-H, which I was scoring were in Saugeais.

[Qazox]

My three puppets at their first CoH: all won at least 1 game. Took me until my 3rd to win one game. Is it wrong to e jealous of my puppets?