World Cup 67: Cassadaigua/Equestrian States- Host Bid

[Liventia]

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.

Doesn't stop it being used in real life.

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.

I think you're overstating this. The WCC did indeed approve a World Cup bid which chose not to use the tiebreaker, but I would say the WCC chose to approve a different bid the cup before rather than "rejecting" one that wanted to use it. People voted for it; thus the WCC did not "reject" it.

[Equestrian States]

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.

Doesn't stop it being used in real life.

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.

I think you're overstating this. The WCC did indeed approve a World Cup bid which chose not to use the tiebreaker, but I would say the WCC chose to approve a different bid the cup before rather than "rejecting" one that wanted to use it. People voted for it; thus the WCC did not "reject" it.

I believe you're taking that bit of my post entirely out of context, Liventia. I'd agree that neither of those points is really a valid OOC reason to not use the tiebreaker, but I explicitly stated in the first sentence of that second paragraph you are quoting from that they were in-character justifications. The actual reason that Cass and I decided not to use the tiebreaker is in the first paragraph:

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.

I apologize if I wasn't clearer earlier about this.

[Alasdair I Frosticus]

Insofar as my opinion on these things matters - which likely isn't as much as it used to - this bid has my full support.

The World Cup is not the place for the Casaran system proposed by the competing bid. NSWC qualification should, where possible, use the same base methods we find in RL qualification - home and away round robin groups, supplemented at the discretion of the hosts by home and away playoffs.

The Casaran system has no RL World Cup precedent or equivalent, and its use undermines the unspoken assumption that's sustained the World Cup since WC1 that our tournament should take the RL tournament as its primary model.

So I'll be voting for this bid.

I also have full confidence in Cassadaigua and Equestrian States as hosts.

[Andossa Se Mitrin Vega]

Insofar as my opinion on these things matters - which likely isn't as much as it used to - this bid has my full support.

The World Cup is not the place for the Casaran system proposed by the competing bid. NSWC qualification should, where possible, use the same base methods we find in RL qualification - home and away round robin groups, supplemented at the discretion of the hosts by home and away playoffs.

The Casaran system has no RL World Cup precedent or equivalent, and its use undermines the unspoken assumption that's sustained the World Cup since WC1 that our tournament should take the RL tournament as its primary model.

So I'll be voting for this bid.

I also have full confidence in Cassadaigua and Equestrian States as hosts.

^ this

[Liventia]

This bid has received my vote, for reasons already outlined by others.