World Cup 67: Cassadaigua/Equestrian States- Host Bid

[Cassadaigua]

WORLD CUP 67- OFFICIAL HOST BID
CASSADAIGUA/EQUESTRIAN STATES

I. Introduction

The nations of Cassadaigua and Equestrian States would be honored if members of the World Cup Committee vote for this bid to co-host the upcoming World Cup. We strongly believe in our ability to put on a great sporting experience for everyone who signs up.

This is a historical Cup for Cassadaigua. As we use a 4-year calendar, this would be the the 100th anniversary of our first foray into World Cup competition. Naturally then, nations that qualify for the World Cup and play in Cassadaigua would be part of this celebration. In those 100 years, the nation has won two World Cups, as well as a Cup of Harmony championship. If chosen as the winning bid, the championship game will be held in Concord Heights, Cassadaigua. The culture of the nation, with the female being the dominant gender can provide some inspiration for RP for nations that might otherwise be looking for something to talk about. It has a proud history in many sports, and was one point away in the most recent International Basketball Championships from becoming the first nation to win the World Cup, World Bowl, World Cup of Hockey, World Baseball Classic, and International Basketball Championship.

The Equestrian States, hasn’t been around as long as Cassadaigua, but is hardly new to NS Sports. First appearing in the Baptism of Fire prior to World Cup 58, the nation has competed in every World Cup since, as well as participating in five Cups of Harmony. For a long time, the Equestrians did not have much success in the World Cup, failing in six attempts at qualification and coming up one goal short in the playoffs on three separate occasions. Finally, in World Cup 64, the Equestrian States reached the group stage and has qualified for each of the two World Cups since, finishing third in its group each time. In other major tournaments, the Equestrian States has seen considerably more success, making regular knockout stage trips in the World Baseball Classic, World Bowl, and World Cup of Hockey, as well as claiming victory in the 27th Di Bradini Cup. The Equestrian States also offers a different cultural setting, with the majority of its population consisting of sapient ponies and other intelligent non-humans (though small communities of them do exist, contrary to popular belief).


II. Format

You think a Casaran format was a change from the norm? Just wait ‘til you read this!!!

Ok, I kid. We are using the normal and conventional format. Give us a “blah” for originality if you want, but you know this format will work. You don’t have to think, “how will they pull off a standard qualifying session with 20 groups of TBD number of teams where everyone plays everyone home and away, once?” Know your groupmates. Know who you’re playing, where, and when, at all times. Ahhh, the joys of predictability.

The target is TWENTY GROUPS. Not thirty. Everyone plays everyone at home and away, and the 20 group winners advance to the World Cup. Now, those 20 second place teams? Yep, you guessed it. They play a home-away playoff against a seeded rival* and the team who advances will be decided on aggregate. (*seeded rival= 20 second place teams are sorted by record, and seeded so that the best second place team plays the worst second place team, point wise). We are of the belief that this provides a better qualifying experience, even if a little longer, then a 30-group “win the group or else format”, that may be a little shorter.

That gives us a 32 team World Cup to be played in Cassadaigua or Equestrian States.

Hosts will be seeded in accordance to their rank. For example, Cassadaigua would probably be a “pot 4" team. Therefore in the World Cup draw, Cassadaigua would be in pot 4, not pot 1.

Tiebreaker will be: Wins, H2H (H2H points then H2H GD), GD, GF. If all else fails, then a tiebreaker game.


III. Scorination & RP Bonus

Xkoranate, with SQIS formula will be used. Without going into specific numbers, we will be using a generous system of per-day bonus, which will be cumulative throughout qualifying.

What about that RP bonus you accumulated during qualifying carrying over into the World Cup, you ask? I like reading minds, after all. We will not completely reset your RP bonus, and you will get some carryover into the World Cup proper. This amount will typically be equivalent to one MD worth of bonus.

When it comes to evaluating RP’s, we respect that everyone has their own unique styles. But whatever style you prefer, we are looking for: originality, creativity and usage of all information in which you have at your disposal. In other words, if you provide a game report with an opponent that has provided a roster, but you use none of their player names, don’t expect a high grade. Quality > Quantity.


IV. Experience

The proposed co-hosts have successfully worked together in the past, co-hosting Cup of Harmony 57. If elected as the winning bid, there would be no shortage of experience.

Cassadaigua has hosted three WCC-sanctioned tournaments (World Cup 54, Baptism of Fire 47, and Cup of Harmony 57). Experience also includes hosting two editions of the World Baseball Classic (18 & 26), and World Bowl 16, competitions which are often regarded as the next biggest tournaments within NS Sports. Additionally, Cassadaigua is highly active in hosting smaller collegiate tournaments, such as NSCAA 5.

The Equestrian States has hosted a number of events, most notably the 57th Cup of Harmony with Cassadaigua. Elsewhere on NS Sports, the user successfully hosted the 25th World Baseball Classic, 21st World Cup of Hockey, and currently is hosting the 29th Di Bradini Cup. Other, less well-known tournaments the user has hosted include Market Cup VI, Quidditch World Cup 5, and all four editions of the Equestria Cup. Non-hosting duties on NS Sports include acting as the current Vice-President of the World Bowl Committee and calculating the rankings for both that tournament and the World Cup of Hockey.


Feel free to ask questions at any time!
Thanks to Paradystopia for providing the above logo!

[San Jose Guayabal]

If there's two teams who shares the 2nd place and they are in a posible-seeded situation, which will be the tiebreaker?

And also I like the Casaran way but the traditional way is reliable and better than Casaran, this bid will probably win, good luck Cassadaigua and Equestrian States and congrats to Cassadaigua in her 100th anniversary.

[Maklohi Vai]

I'm definitely liking this one: standard, solid, and straightforward. Not saying that Legal's bid isn't, but this one jumps out on those accounts to a greater extent. I have one question which I presume I already know the answer to: you say the last resort tiebreaker is a tiebreaker game. Assuming you upheld article-subject agreement, this means one game only. Will this be held on neutral ground?

his 100th anniversary.

*her. Cassadaigua is female, fyi.

[Cassadaigua]

If there's two teams who shares the 2nd place and they are in a posible-seeded situation, which will be the tiebreaker?

And also I like the Casaran way but the traditional way is reliable and better than Casaran, this bid will probably win, good luck Cassadaigua and Equestrian States and congrats to Cassadaigua in her 100th anniversary.

I assume you are talking about breaking a tie between two second place teams in different groups to assume their seeding for the playoff? In this case, we will use the criteria of Wins, GD, GF. If still tied, we will eliminate the each second place teams result against the last place team of their respective group, and go at Wins, GD, GF. If still tied, we will eliminate, the next to last team of their respective group, and so on until the tie is broken. If still not able to break the tie, I will simply flip a coin. I don't think tiebreaker games should be played simply to determine seeding. Thank you for the congrats and maybe we'll see you in Cassadaigua to join in on the ceremonies.

I'm definitely liking this one: standard, solid, and straightforward. Not saying that Legal's bid isn't, but this one jumps out on those accounts to a greater extent. I have one question which I presume I already know the answer to: you say the last resort tiebreaker is a tiebreaker game. Assuming you upheld article-subject agreement, this means one game only. Will this be held on neutral ground?

Thank you for your support. Yes, the game will be on neutral ground.

[Qazox]

Why a single-match playoff instead of the more commonly used 2-leg playoff?

[Karditan]

Why a single-match playoff instead of the more commonly used 2-leg playoff?

Are your referring to this? Because I'm fairly sure home-away means 2 legs.

Now, those 20 second place teams? Yep, you guessed it. They play a home-away playoff against a seeded rival* and the team who advances will be decided on aggregate. (*seeded rival= 20 second place teams are sorted by record, and seeded so that the best second place team plays the worst second place team, point wise).

[Qazox]

Why a single-match playoff instead of the more commonly used 2-leg playoff?

Are your referring to this? Because I'm fairly sure home-away means 2 legs.

Now, those 20 second place teams? Yep, you guessed it. They play a home-away playoff against a seeded rival* and the team who advances will be decided on aggregate. (*seeded rival= 20 second place teams are sorted by record, and seeded so that the best second place team plays the worst second place team, point wise).

Ignore my question.

[Equestrian States]

Because I'm fairly sure home-away means 2 legs.

Yes it does.

This totally subtle tag brought to you by the colors pink and purple.

[Gregoryisgodistan]

Will you use away goals, extra time, and penalty kicks if necessary to decide the two-legged playoff? If so, how will this affect KPB rankings?
Also, Gregoryisgodistan supports this bid, both OOC because it doesn't use Casaran, and IC because you're not Saintland.

[Equestrian States]

Will you use away goals, extra time, and penalty kicks if necessary to decide the two-legged playoff? If so, how will this affect KPB rankings?

Yes, that'd be the normal procedure for two-legged playoffs. That being said, the playoffs don't actually have any effect on the KPB rankings.

[Barunia]

Will you use away goals, extra time, and penalty kicks if necessary to decide the two-legged playoff? If so, how will this affect KPB rankings?

Yes, that'd be the normal procedure for two-legged playoffs. That being said, the playoffs don't actually have any effect on the KPB rankings.

How will extra time and penalty kicks be scored, considering that xkoronate does not allow for aggregate scores. This is presuming of course, that the teams are tied after away goals.

[Cassadaigua]

Yes, that'd be the normal procedure for two-legged playoffs. That being said, the playoffs don't actually have any effect on the KPB rankings.

How will extra time and penalty kicks be scored, considering that xkoronate does not allow for aggregate scores. This is presuming of course, that the teams are tied after away goals.

ES and I had to discuss this scenario first, so apologies on the delay.

If they were still tied after away goals were factored in; we would be to use xkoranate again and scorinate a separate match that has extra time and penalties enabled, and use that result to determine the winner. For example:

Leg 1:
Cassadaigua 1-1 Equestrian States

Leg 2:
Equestrian States 1-1 Cassadaigua

Using the above, the teams are tied on aggregate and on away goals. So now, we would go back into xkoranate and set up a match between Equestrian States and Cassadaigua again with extra time and penalties enabled (ES in this situation would be the home team for this extra scorination since they were the home team on the second leg).

Let's say that gives us a result of:
Equestrian States 6-0 Cassadaigua

That 6-0 score isn't what's important, but it would give ES the winning goal in "Leg 2". ES could be free to RP this as being a 2-1 win in ET or in penalties.


That said....we are very much open to better solutions from others. What has the contingency plan been for other hosts who have done this set up? It looks like past hosts have been fortunate to avoid this in recent Cups that used this? (which of course means it would happen to ES & I in about 8 of the 10 matchups!)

[Polar Islandstates]

Personally, if there were a way to get a playoff in NSFS to match your previous formula as closely you could I'd advocate switching scorinator for the playoffs.

Otherwise, just sim twice, home and away. If it's a draw, sim a third time with extra time and penalties enabled, on neutral ground. If there's a win for one team (normal time or extra time), simply add one goal AET to the original second leg in that team's favour. If it ends in penalties, simply copy the penalties result over and attach it to the back of an extra time in the second leg in which no goals were scored.

Take the 'choice of scoreline' out of the RPers hands. They don't count for KPB anyway, so you'd be fine to do this, imo.

[Ko-oren]

Using your example for the extra time goal thing:

Leg 1:
Cassadaigua 1-0 Equestrian States

Leg 2:
Equestrian States 1-0 Cassadaigua

I then resim until I get a draw as result, while I have 'allow draws' disabled (and home advantage as well, to give both teams a chance). Right after the draw result, you get the ET and Pen thing. Say it is this:

Equestrian States 1-1 Cassadaigua 1-3 AET

Which means Cassadaigua scored twice in ET. I add those two goals to the original second leg, and we get:

Leg 1:
Cassadaigua 1-0 Equestrian States

Leg 2:
Equestrian States 1-0 Cassadaigua* (1-2 AET)

as my final result. It's still random, and it's possible to score more than once in ET.

[San Jose Guayabal]

Should this bid wins, you'll make a kind of sponsor/partner system for the cup, which would yield an extra RP bonus?.

[Patistan]

are you going to introduce every nation like last time

[Bears Armed]

This bid has the Bears' support.

(Despite mild surprise amongst some of urrs that the Equestrian States aren't going for a '4-legged playoff' system... )

[Equestrian States]

Personally, if there were a way to get a playoff in NSFS to match your previous formula as closely you could I'd advocate switching scorinator for the playoffs.

Switching scorinators was - in fact - one of the options Cass and I discussed earlier to solve the problem. However, we felt that it was important to use the same scorinator and formula throughout the tournament to maintain consistency. Anyways...

After a bit of discussion, Cass and I have crafted the following system to determine the result of playoff matches in which the aggregate score and away goals tiebreakers are not enough to determine a winner:

In the event that the aggregate score and the away goals tiebreaker do not give us a winner in a playoff match, a third match will be scorinated using xkoranate with the SQIS formula in which the home team of the second leg will also receive home-field advantage. The match will also be set up to use extra time and penalties if necessary to decide a winner and will be scorinated immediately after the second leg in the playoffs. From the score of the third match, the result of the period of extra time will be determined using the following system:

a) If the third match ends in regular time, with the winning team scoring 1 or 2 goals and the losing team scoring any number of goals, the winning team is shown as scoring 1 goal and the losing team scoring none in extra time following the second leg match.

ex. Cassadaigua wins the third match by a score of 2-1; the posted result would be Equestrian States 1-0 Cassadaigua (1-1 AET) (1-2 agg.)

b) If the third match ends in regular time, with the winning team scoring 3 or more goals and the losing team scoring no goals, the winning team is shown as scoring 2 goals and the losing team scoring none in extra time following the second leg match.

ex. Equestrian States wins the third match by a score of 4-0; the posted result would be Equestrian States 1-0 Cassadaigua (3-0 AET) (3-1 agg.)

c) If the third match ends in regular time, with the winning team scoring 3 or more goals and the losing team scoring at least one goal, the winning team is shown as scoring 2 goals and the losing team scoring 1 goal in extra time following the second leg match.

ex. Cassadiauga wins the third match by a score of 3-2; the posted result would be Equestrian States 1-0 Cassadaigua (2-2 AET) (2-3 agg.)

d) If the third match ends in extra time, we will use the extra time score, ignoring goals scored in regulation in the third match.

ex. Cassadiauga wins the third match in extra time by a score of 4-4 (6-4 AET); the posted result would be Equestrian States 1-0 Cassadaigua (1-2 AET) (1-3 agg.)

e) If the third match ends in a penalty shootout, we will use the result of the shootout and the extra time score, ignoring goals scored in regulation in the third match.

ex. Equestrian States wins the third match in a penalty shootout by a score of 2-2 (4-4 AET) (5-4 pen.); the posted result would be Equestrian States 1-0 Cassadaigua (3-2 AET) (3-3 agg.) (5-4 pen.)

Seems simple enough, right? The system provides participants with an exact result for use in RPs, partially incorporating PIS's suggestion while also allowing for teams to score multiple goals in extra time as Ko-oren mentioned in his post. At the same time, it also avoids the potential issues that could arise with resimming the third match several times.

---

Should this bid wins, you'll make a kind of sponsor/partner system for the cup, which would yield an extra RP bonus?.

We will not be using a sponsor/partner system for the cup as an extra RP bonus as such a system would put users who do not participate in it at a disadvantage.

are you going to introduce every nation like last time

I assume you are referring to the mind-blowing images Audio made for the last WC. If so, the answer is (unfortunately) no. Though I'm pretty good at maximizing the potential of Paint.net, which I've used to create most of the visual effects I use in my own tournaments and RPs, it would take far more time than I have available to me to produce images that could compare with those.

[Gregoryisgodistan]

In case d, wouldn't it be 1-3 on aggregate? Cassadaigua won the first leg 1-0, Equestrian States led the second leg 1-0 before extra time, then Cassadaigua scored 2 goals in extra time and Equestrian States scored none.

Also, in case e, will you not apply away goals again after extra time if both teams score the same number of goals? In which case the away team would win if they both score? I actually like it better this way, even though it deviates from RL precedent.

[Liventia]

Also, in case e, will you not apply away goals again after extra time if both teams score the same number of goals? In which case the away team would win if they both score? I actually like it better this way, even though it deviates from RL precedent.

Your suggestion doesn't deviate from real life (at least in UEFA competitions); away goals apply both after 90 minutes and extra time in the WCQ playoffs (and knockout stages of other UEFA competitions).

[Gregoryisgodistan]

Also, in case e, will you not apply away goals again after extra time if both teams score the same number of goals? In which case the away team would win if they both score? I actually like it better this way, even though it deviates from RL precedent.

Your suggestion doesn't deviate from real life (at least in UEFA competitions); away goals apply both after 90 minutes and extra time in the WCQ playoffs (and knockout stages of other UEFA competitions).

Yes, but it seems that away goals will NOT be applied after extra time in this case. Otherwise Cassadaigua would have won before the shootout.

[Equestrian States]

In case d, wouldn't it be 1-3 on aggregate? Cassadaigua won the first leg 1-0, Equestrian States led the second leg 1-0 before extra time, then Cassadaigua scored 2 goals in extra time and Equestrian States scored none.

A slight derp on my part when setting up the examples that has since been fixed. Thanks.

Also, in case e, will you not apply away goals again after extra time if both teams score the same number of goals? In which case the away team would win if they both score? I actually like it better this way, even though it deviates from RL precedent.

Your suggestion doesn't deviate from real life (at least in UEFA competitions); away goals apply both after 90 minutes and extra time in the WCQ playoffs (and knockout stages of other UEFA competitions).

Cass and I will discuss this as well. I'll point out that I was unable to find any NSWC precedent for away goals actually being applied after extra time in the playoffs, nor was I able to generate such a scenario on NSFS in over 200 attempts to do so. Regardless of what Cass and I decide, the fact of the matter is that there has only been one two-leg playoff since the tournament moved to these forums in which extra time has been used. It doesn't happen very often but then again...

It looks like past hosts have been fortunate to avoid this in recent Cups that used this? (which of course means it would happen to ES & I in about 8 of the 10 matchups!)

Furthermore, a scouring of all previous World Cup bids made on these forums also revealed that only two bids have even mentioned the the away-goals-after-extra-time tiebreaker. The first was made by Paripana (aka Commerce Heights) and Valanora for WC50, and intended to use the tiebreaker if needed; though the bid was unsuccessful. The other was made one cycle later, by CH (again as Paripana) and Septentrionia for WC51, and explicitly stated that the tiebreaker would not be used. The second bid was successful, though the eventual format of the qualifiers did not necessitate a playoff. In the three and a half years (and 15 WCs) since then, this has not been brought up in any bid thread, nor has (to my knowledge) the issue of scorinating a two-leg playoff using xkoranate been mentioned.

ICly, one could take the WCC's acceptance of the WC51 bid as precedence for not using the tiebreaker; but that's just ICly, and is largely irrelevant to us OOCly.

[Cassadaigua]

The following is how we would handle CTE nations in qualifying:

In our structure of 20 first place teams advance and then the other 20 second place teams play in a playoff, let's assume the second place team in a group goes CTE. The resolution for this is to simply give the best second-place playoff team (throughout all the groups) automatic qualification, have the other 18, still existing second place teams play for the remaining 9 spots.

If a first place team goes CTE, the 2nd place team of the group gets the automatic spot. Then we put the above into play where the best second place team overall gets that automatic spot and the 18 still existing nations play for the remaining 9 spots.

We will not, in any case, "move a 3rd place team up", and feel this is the better solution.

[Vilita]

In our structure of 20 first place teams advance and then the other 20 second place teams play in a playoff, let's assume the second place team in a group goes CTE. The resolution for this is to simply give the best second-place playoff team (throughout all the groups) automatic qualification, have the other 18, still existing second place teams play for the remaining 9 spots.

We will not, in any case, "move a 3rd place team up", and feel this is the better solution.

You could look at it as if the top 2nd place team was 'drawn' in the playoff against the CTE team, who does not show up, and therefore a walkover in favor of the top drawn 2nd place team.

[Equestrian States]

After discussing the issue, Cass and I have decided that we will not be using the away goals after extra time tiebreaker as the "third match" we scorinate is supposed to determine a winner in the event of a tie after two games, and the winner generated by xkoranate should be the team that advances in the end. If the program determines that the home team should win on penalties after giving up a lone goal to the away team, that final result should be respected and not discarded as unnecessary.

We also offer the following in-character validation for the decision to not use the away goals tiebreaker after extra time: Were the tiebreaker to be used in this situation, it would put the home team for the second leg at a disadvantage by giving the opponents 30 more minutes to gain the lead in the away goals tiebreaker that the home team did not have. The logic applied in this case is similar to that used by recent hosts of the World Baseball Classic in not using runs scored, as the rules of the game limit the opportunities the home team has to score if they possess the lead after the top of the ninth inning. Furthermore, as was mentioned in my earlier post on the matter, the WCC approved a World Cup bid that explicitly stated the intention to not use the tiebreaker after rejecting one that stated an intention to use it just one cycle earlier.

edit: Added emphasis for clarity.