Independent Associations Championship Discussion Thread

[PotatoFarmers]

Actually, I think there is an issue we forgot to address. What is the ranking system we will be adopting for the competition going forward? If we are using Ome's original proposed rankings, then how should the last competition's really awkward play-in round be calculated? I have no solutions for that using Ome's proposed formula, so I guess I will hope someone proposes something nice.

[FFI]

Hi everyone, Reçu here interrupting the international sport discussion to bring up domestic sport. We meant to do this last cycle and... I just didn't do it. My bad. So anyway we had said when we started the FFI that Razen and I would host it for the first four cycles and then open it up if other people wanted to be involved. Again, apologies for not bringing that up ahead of last cycle, but I guess here we are. Razen and I are happy to continue in our roles running it but we are also happy to show someone new the ropes. So that's point #1: the hosting "terms" are up for the FFI, does anybody want in?

A second point has to do with the names. It was originally my idea to name the competitions in Portuguese, since at the time I remember noticing a lot of Lusophone nations/users in the indie community and I thought it would be a fun bit, something to make the FFI unique and give a little identity or personality to what we were doing. However, it seems that it was a very unpopular decision, with some users complaining vocally and many renaming or translating the name of the competition in their submission posts. Obviously there was also a little confusion when we renamed the Copa das Confederações to the Taça das Confederacoes to avoid conflation with Rushmore's CdC, but it's sort of annoying that everybody writes the name differently in the IDSNW thread. So that's point #2: should we rename the competitions and the organization into English? It would sow even more confusion to change the name yet again, but hopefully then we'd finally be done with it.

Third, the domestic calendar is very crowded, and I've heard concerns expressed that it's unrealistic to have a second international club tournament within a single season. Would people perhaps prefer if the competition was shorter in-context so that it would be less pressure on teams? Perhaps it could be changed to a straight knockout format.

Finally, what other points would people like to bring up? Any other comments? I want to also check in to make sure the community is happy with the way things are going and see what else is on people's minds.

[HUElavia]

I think it should have an English name since that seems to be the Lingua Franca of all our nations together.

Adding on, I think a single stage elimination for the FFI would work well, maybe something similar to the RL's Copa del Rey or FA Cup in that regards with seeding and such.

[Squornshelan Remnant States]

IAC Concerns:
I do think a formal vote on whether to adopt the ranking system as used would be good, rather than leaving it unofficial and in the hands of each host to decide. Short of awarding all those who advanced directly to the octofinal equivalent points to if they had won a play-in match of their own, I have no bright ideas about how to accommodate IAC11's format in rank calculations.

FFI Concerns:
To address the last point first, I have always thought the inclusion of a group stage was unnecessary, and best eliminated. None of the Big 3 includes one in their tourney, and it strains suspension of disbelief to the limits trying to fit the extra matchdays in. We already have two tournaments as opposed to the one that suffices for the others, there's no need for them to be larger more extensive affairs on top of that.

For the second point. The language and the name are completely unimportant to me. The degree of unhappiness that some apparently feel about using Portuguese is incomprehensible to me. The use of any language apart from English (lingua franca on the boards as HUE has observed) is entirely arbitrary, but hardly without precedent, as two of the Big 3 do so. If a consensus among FFI participants is that English would be preferable, then fine let's use English, but I feel like a change at this point would be disruptive and serve no real purpose.

[PotatoFarmers]

To talk about the IAC:
I notice that there is a lack of a host bid currently. While I would love to start a hosting career with this IAC, I am currently living away from home during the weekdays, and my computer in where I live doesn't allow me to use xkor in any manner. (Wrong OS, wrong CPU architecture, etc. etc.) So unless the members are willing to see once a week scorination, I don't think I can be a suitable host.

As for the FFI, while a group stage may be okay, what makes things really awkward imo is the link between the LdV and the TdC. I find it really weird that LdV qualifier losers don't make it into the TdC qualifiers/group stage, and yet the LdV group stage 3rd place does. Maybe the format is in need for some sort of modification, though we better be quick with the format changes since the IFCF cutoff is likely to be due pretty soon.
As for having new scorinators, I would like to throw my hat in and say that I am willing to help any new people who are interested in scorinating the FFI. I understand razen (Havyn) is having some RL issues rn, and may not be that active, so I can step in to help if necessary.

[Tequilo]

On IAC:

I think it unfortunate that we didn't take an opportunity to discuss this earlier as looking back we don't seem to have developed a broad consensus yet on how to proceed, and it seems a little late in the day now with bid(s) required soon, some unhappiness on rank coasting, assuredly accidental, in the last tournament and the structural anomaly there with the play-in round. Personally I would just ignore that round and have done with it. But are we happy with the formula? Is there time for an extended debate right now with bidding due? On this I think, if I were to bid, I'd go with what we had, ignore the play-in, and start a review of how it panned out afterward - I may offer a bid up to that effect. It will be interesting to see how a double champion fares this next tournament and whether we will have created an unstoppable monster (no offence to Poaf!). If we have the same formula, won't that be three tournaments in a row? That provides decent data for review, for those that enjoy such analysis.

On FFI:

Though I wouldn't say I was especially unhappy about the language, it certainly didn't flow off the keyboard very easily for an (ashamedly) mono-lingual English speaker. I would not mind at all if English was preferred... I think we should keep FFI though, (a) to preserve a nice graphic identity and (b) because FIFA - it doesn't really matter what it stands for or what language it was assembled in, it just is what it is.

On reorganisation - I would ditch groups too, does seem like a lot of football with those in there. Might I even suggest merging into one tournament? With IFCF providing all the options for sub-champion/alt-champion qualifiers, I wonder if FFI needs more than one tournament. A straight three-in plus champion?

[Quintessence of Dust]

FFI: I would be happy to offer my assistance if needed but make no particular claim if those more experienced are preferred.

Personally I kinda liked the Portuguese in that it's not a language you see much on the forums (though I suppose that's true of many languages) and nods to Caf, who was influential in NS's nascent domestic football scene, but don't see it as a big deal either way.

[Squidroidia]

For the IAC, personally I would love to bid but with school catching up to me (State tests and whatnot coming up), I will not be able to bid for IAC 12. Maybe by IAC 13 I will have the room to take it on, but that isn't for sure. As for doing the rankings, I agree with what Teq said: Do away with the play-in round and treat it like it doesn't really exist. It was very, very awkward and if I were doing it, I would do the usual round of 24 format.

For the FFI: I do offer up my hosting for the next cycle (Preferably Taca das Confederacoes like Razn did), but I'm not going to give an opinion on the naming issue. FFI or IFF or ICA or whatever, it's not my problem. However, I think it's in the best interest of the Squidroidian clubs that the competition moves to a knockout style format (Like the AOCL and Rushmori CDC), which leads to burnout for any teams competing in both IFCF and FFI competitions once the group stages (At least in Squidroidia) kick off. I don't know if it's going to condition the Squidroidian FA to stay with the Indies, but the one thing they want more is to avoid major team burnouts that may send the big clubs down to the Challenge League.

[PotatoFarmers]

Coming back to the issue of the rankings, I think it ultimately boils down to 2 ways:
1) Count all teams skipping the first play-in round as having won a match (a bye), giving them all 3 points, together with whatever result in the first play-in round.
2) Drop the play-in rounds completely and count from the Round of 16.

Personally, I think the former is nicer, because imo teams that make it to the knockouts should gain a slightly larger advantage over teams who didn't. Though the latter may also make sense, I can see the argument for it. Whatever manner it is employed in, I think the rank keeper should make the decision. (I would assume this role to be Kitkat, since they were the ones who made the original rankings used for the last 2 tournaments anyway)

[Omerica]

1) Count all teams skipping the first play-in round as having won a match (a bye), giving them all 3 points, together with whatever result in the first play-in round.

This is how I handled the IAC 7 knockout stage, for the record. I think discarding the second play-in stage is a bit harsh of Vykta, who would come away with fewer rank points than the Quemorr Isles, but we may just have to chalk that up to the knockout format being awful.

I think with the sign-ups opening two weeks ago, we are too far along to have an extended debate, so this should be the last cycle this interim system is used. I will be updating it until sign-ups slam shut, so all entrants with KPBs get proper credit for them.

[IAC Organising Committee]

Simply noting that host voting for IAC-12 is now open. Only nations currently signed up for IAC-12 (and have successfully completed a previous IAC) may vote.

[FFI]

Hi Reçu again for the FFI, as Havyn is still away due to RL.

With the IFCF approaching we don't have a ton of time to hash out every single FFI detail as a community, so I think I'll make a couple unilateral decisions based on feedback I've seen, and we can keep talking about it.

For the language thing, we will be changing to English as although I agree with people that it's inconvenient to do a name change again, once it's finally done we can stop worrying about it. We'll also keep the FFI acronym. How do 'Federation of Football Independents', 'League of Victors', and 'Confederations' Tournament' sound? My thought is that 'Victor's League' sounds too much like a Champions' League rip-off, but maybe it's more natural? And on the other hand 'Tournament of the Confederations' fits the old acronym but is a bit unwieldy, and 'Confederations' Cup' sounds too much like RL. But maybe people disagree? [Either way, I won't make people stress about getting the names exactly right for this cycle, although the rebrand should be complete: we've dealt with several cycles of chaotic signups already, we can handle one more.]

Tequilo makes a valid point about simply combining the two tournaments. What do people think of this? Or perhaps a format change as Poaf suggested (how exactly would you do that, Poaf?) I think for this cycle since the deadline is so close (my fault for procrastinating on this) we'll hold off and allow more discussion. On the other hand, general consensus seems to be that a straight knock-out format is preferable, so both tournaments will move to this.

Finally, for another host, I will again make another unilateral decision and accept your offer, Squidroidia, to help out with-the competition-formerly-known-as-the-Taça-das-Confederações, since the other two offers seem to be more of a 'in case you really needed help' thing and to be honest the workload is manageable for one person.

Is everybody alright with this? Any thoughts on any of that?

[Muralos]

I missed North Alezia's roster and only graded their pre-MD1 RP. This means I will have to rescore their match against Poafmersia. I apologize for this error. The new score and Group B match table should be out in the next 30 minutes.

(Edit: it has been done!)

[Bunkaiia]

Hi everyone, this is my first such tournament and I am excited to be here and learn. Thank you for having me!

[Muralos]

Hi everyone, this is my first such tournament and I am excited to be here and learn. Thank you for having me!

Thank you for joining the tournament! We are all happy to have you here too

[United Pink States]

I missed North Alezia's roster and only graded their pre-MD1 RP. This means I will have to rescore their match against Poafmersia. I apologize for this error. The new score and Group B match table should be out in the next 30 minutes.

(Edit: it has been done!)

Pro Tip: Slow down, take a deep breath, and make sure that all posts are read and accounted for before scorinating. This is really something that should not happen, but learn from it. Remember that nothing is more important in hosting than accuracy.

[Muralos]

I missed North Alezia's roster and only graded their pre-MD1 RP. This means I will have to rescore their match against Poafmersia. I apologize for this error. The new score and Group B match table should be out in the next 30 minutes.

(Edit: it has been done!)

Pro Tip: Slow down, take a deep breath, and make sure that all posts are read and accounted for before scorinating. This is really something that should not happen, but learn from it. Remember that nothing is more important in hosting than accuracy.

Thank you for the comment, Cass! I was far too rushed reading the pre-MD1 RPs.

[Omerica]

With my involvement now over… congratulations to the finalists, thank you to Almuzahara and Muralos for hosting and death to the participation trophy third-place playoff. o/

---

EDIT: I had chosen not to make comments on this due to (a) the IAC being on and (b) concern that my opinion on these matters would not be welcome, but now that (a) is no longer of concern…

For the language thing, we will be changing to English as although I agree with people that it's inconvenient to do a name change again, once it's finally done we can stop worrying about it. We'll also keep the FFI acronym. How do 'Federation of Football Independents', 'League of Victors', and 'Confederations' Tournament' sound?

For the record, if I had commented sooner, I would have genuinely proposed “Federation of Football Independents”, so I think my opinion on that name is clear.

My thought is that 'Victor's League' sounds too much like a Champions' League rip-off, but maybe it's more natural? And on the other hand 'Tournament of the Confederations' fits the old acronym but is a bit unwieldy, and 'Confederations' Cup' sounds too much like RL. But maybe people disagree? [Either way, I won't make people stress about getting the names exactly right for this cycle, although the rebrand should be complete: we've dealt with several cycles of chaotic signups already, we can handle one more.]

I, for one, am not concerned about the “Victors League” sounding too much like a Champions League ripoff by virtue of the fact that it is the Champions League for the indies. As for the secondary tournament, I’d like to put forward the “Confederations Trophy” as a possible alternative should the tournament not be scrapped entirely. I’ve dropped the apostrophes here, as I wager eliminating them would be least likely to result in confusion.

Tequilo makes a valid point about simply combining the two tournaments. What do people think of this? Or perhaps a format change as Poaf suggested (how exactly would you do that, Poaf?) I think for this cycle since the deadline is so close (my fault for procrastinating on this) we'll hold off and allow more discussion. On the other hand, general consensus seems to be that a straight knock-out format is preferable, so both tournaments will move to this.

I’ve always been of the opinion that Rushmore’s Copa de los Príncipes is a warning signal that regional Challengers Cup equivalents are highly unlikely to survive, but I’m not really concerned whether it lives or dies.

[Almuzahara]

Thank you to everyone for giving us the honor of hosting IAC12, and for participating so thoroughly! Congratulations and commiserations to the two finalists, respectively.

---

IAC12 Host Report: RP Bonus Distribution

As promised in our host bid, the below report contains information about the range and distribution of RP bonuses given in the most recent IAC. While information about individuals’ RP bonuses will be kept secret, we wanted to provide the distribution of bonuses given in the interest of transparency.

A cumulative bonus scale of 0-2 was used for roleplays and rosters. As there were ten total opportunities for bonus (one roster, five group stage MDs, and up to four knockout stage MDs), this would lead to a theoretical maximum bonus value of 20, which is slightly higher than the post-IAC11 maximum ranking, Poafmersia’s 18.147. Of course, in practice, the maximum bonus value of 20 was not achieved. This is a significantly more generous RP bonus scale than we would have given for another tournament. However, due to the temporary nature of the current ranking system, as well as concerns over rank coasting and general RP activity, we opted to more generously reward roleplaying efforts during IAC12. The hosts were given a host bonus of 2 as well (although this did not save Almuzahara from becoming the third host in the past three IACs to be eliminated in the group stage).

The mean bonus awarded for RPs was 1.25 and the standard deviation was 0.47, with a 25th percentile of 1.00 and a 75th percentile of 1.50. The minimum bonus given was 0.2 and the maximum bonus given was 2.0, reflecting our desire to use the full bonus range allotted. Below is a histogram containing the full distribution of bonuses given. Note that the 2.00 - 2.25 range below contains RPs that were given the full bonus; no bonus values above 2 were given.

[Omerica]

We may not even be at the halfway point of World Cup qualifying yet, but it would be easy to let time to get away from us again. We would should have plenty of time to discuss rankings before opening the sign-ups for IAC 13.

Banija/Silver Beach kicked off the IAC ranking debate by proposing the adoption of the Copa Rushmori ranking formula and I think it’s more or less the formula that will get the most widespread support, so I propose that we dump our interim formula and adopt the CR formula with one amendment: the most recent IAC cycle should be weighted 4× instead of 3×. So for IAC 13, the formula would be:

4×PPG(IAC 12) + 2×PPG(IAC 11) + PPG(IAC X) + KPB(Post-WC88)÷10

IAC debutantes (or teams returning after a 3+ cycle absence) would be given credit for any KPB points they have unless they’ve entered any of the last three editions of the AOCAF Cup, Copa Rushmori or Coppa Esportiva, in which case they enter unranked. (EDIT: Given current circumstances, the “unless” clause has been struck.)

Obligatory link with what the ranks would have looked like for IAC 12.

[Recuecn]

I know you've withdrawn your support for this proposal, KitKat, but I still favor your original suggestion from a couple cycles ago, here.

As a quick recap, the basic formula is

4×(PPG in IAC n) + 2×(PPG in IAC n–1) + (PPG in IAC n–2)

However, this is one of two options. The second is a nation's KPB divided by 2. Whichever option is greater is applied.

I support this for a few reasons. The first is that it's nothing more than a formalization of how we've done things in the past. Only a few cycles ago, before we started talking about a ranking, hosts would say "we'll use WCC ranks but grant a bonus to teams without one who have participated in the IAC in the past." That's essentially what this suggestion is.

Second, it's more realistic. I realize the irony of me saying this, but it doesn't make sense that a nation would do very well in the world cup and not in the IAC. Often nations will reuse a roster from one competition to the other, so in my opinion performance in the two tournaments should be related. Taking the best of a nation's ranks preserves this connection without hurting teams who aren't in the World Cup since they can still rank up in the IAC itself.

Third, although I love the way that the IAC has created a community out of a ragtag group of misfits, we're not a region and we don't need a true 'regional' ranking. We can mooch of the KPB/WCC rankings at least in part just fine, because after all, the IAC is sort of just a mini-World Cup. It brings together nations from all sorts of regions who have little in common besides a love of the game. I think this is one reason that the IAC hasn't really blown up and that a few notable indies don't bother to participate - the tournament is kind of redundant if you already have the World Cup to go up against everybody from everywhere. I'm not hating on the IAC at all, it's my favorite NSS tournament, and it plays a very necessary role, fills an important spot in the calendar, and like I said, I love the community. But we don't need a rank formula that starts to set us apart in any way. At that point you might as well join a sporting region. It's good that we're conscious of the fact that we want to be welcoming to nations who have participated in the IAC but not the WCC, but that needs to go both ways. (I hope Arch will join us someday, and when he does it would only make sense for him to be ranked highest.)

Fourth, I love the simplicity of the formula and the parallel structure with the KPB system. When we divide the KPBs by 2, we get the same 4-2-1 pattern, and that mirroring is just very aesthetic to me. Of course, the KPBs will be worth more because they also include qualifiers, etc, but I think that's probably ok for the max KPB rank to be a bit higher than the max IAC rank. It would be a theoretical 60% difference between a perfect 3-cycle streak in one compared to the other, but for one thing no one's ever had a perfect 3-cycle streak, and for another winning the World Cup is a much more impressive achievement and in my opinion deserves a greater rank reward. Otherwise I would also be open to KitKat's amended suggestion which multiplies the KPB by 7/23 instead of 1/2, so that the max for the IAC and the KPBs are then equal. (I think that's what she used for IACX, iirc.)

Sorry that's so long, I guess the TL;DR is that I think the benefit of picking the greatest from IAC/KPB ranks instead of doing the copa rushmori way is that it's more realistic (good wcc teams are still good) while also doing a better job of not penalizing teams not in the WCC.

[Omerica]

Otherwise I would also be open to KitKat's amended suggestion which multiplies the KPB by 7/23 instead of 1/2, so that the max for the IAC and the KPBs are then equal. (I think that's what she used for IACX, iirc.)

This is correct. I could be convinced to raise that scaling factor to ⅓, given how it’s far easier to go on perfect runs in the IAC than WCQ, but any more than that brings me back to the point VilTur raised that got me to lower it in the first place: creating a glass ceiling for non-WCC nations.

I think I did a good job of creating a temporary way to seed teams, but the ruminations of Anaia nations—which is mostly made up of former AO members—entering the IAC while they found their footing as a region really hammered home a (imo) big flaw in the system as it currently exists: a Baker Park, Eura or Brenecia could waltz into the IAC and immediately start pounding everyone to dust. Regionals have ranking systems to protect their longtime members from being steamrolled by high-ranked transplants and indie rankings should be there to do the same for longtime indies.

If there’s widespread support for keeping more-or-less the current system, I will happily defer.

[Squornshelan Remnant States]

While initially in favor of the interim, either/or ranking system, the Anaia situation, poor though my understanding of it may be, does highlight a somewhat distressing potential for highly ranked first time entrants throwing off the current balance. An influx of a dozen or more such entrants, while unthinkable in the past, could easily reduce some longtime IAC participants to relative irrelevance. I don't believe there is any such predatory intention on the part of the Anaian nations rumored to be considering IAC participation. All the same, it doesn't sit right with me that we leave the door open to this possibility.

And that is how I now find myself in agreement with KitKat in supporting the adoption of the CR formula, or something very close to it.

[Zwangzug]

Disclaimer: I've participated in a couple IACs as both a master and puppet-ish team, and it hasn't really "clicked" for me as an engaging RP opportunity, so I don't think it's likely that I will be returning anytime soon. They've been well-run and I'm glad it exists as a thing, it just hasn't been as fun for me as I've hoped.

And again emphasizing these are only my personal feelings, and that it may make me a hypocrite, my gut reaction is to sympathize both with:

(I hope Arch will join us someday, and when he does it would only make sense for him to be ranked highest.)

a Baker Park, Eura or Brenecia could waltz into the IAC and immediately start pounding everyone to dust. Regionals have ranking systems to protect their longtime members from being steamrolled by high-ranked transplants and indie rankings should be there to do the same for longtime indies.

Just in terms of "these other teams have existing regional tournaments that they're eligible to participate in, so them immediately dominating here would feel 'against the spirit of the tournament'" (whatever that is), but also, "teams that do not have existing regional tournaments they're eligible to participate in should be able to hit the ground running here." (I recognize that this may be a self-serving argument in my case, but again, I don't expect to be taking advantage of it.) It's too soon to say what will happen with Anaia, but Audio's slide show (linked on discord) gave me the impression that there was infrastructure for a tournament already in place, and my gut feelings are that even at its current size, an Anaia football tournament would have a "major" level of activity that Sonnel and Melayu don't.

I don't know if there's a workable compromise between these two lines of thought, I just wanted to underscore that they're both relatable and even coexist.

[Recuecn]

I will be honest, I had not heard about Anaia at all. (Which felt weird to me... right? Like, the whole thing was kind of weird? Like, where were the headlines? Am I really that out of touch? Just me? Oh.)

Anyway, not sure it changes my opinion. I'd be more than happy to have a whole bunch of great and experienced rpers join us, I think that would be kinda awesome. Imo we can only benefit from that kind of growth. So it makes sense to be welcoming to newcomers - I think that's always been our goal, it's just that some potential newcomers right around now look very different from the kind we usually get.

I'm not saying we lie down in the mud and say 'please trample us, owo'. I probably do feel a bit more conservative about kpb multipliers now too. But mostly I'm excited to make a bunch of new friends.