NationStates

Intro

Greetings, members of the World Cup Committee! Thank you for taking the time to read this bid which is presented to you by the Cassadagan Association for Soccer Excellence (CASE) and the Chromatik Football Federation (CFF).

Who Are You?

Cassadaigua is a long-time resident of the region of Rushmore that has become known for its unique culture. Cassadaigua’s society is different from what is seen throughout most of the world. In our nation, the female is the dominant gender and is superior to the male (though there has been a lot of progress in recent years towards gender equality). There are some groups who feel that men are greatly oppressed in our nation, but that is not really the case. If you are a man, and you are visiting Cassadaigua, as long as you are aware of our somewhat different culture, you should not have a tough time fitting in. After all, Cassadagan men that play by the rules here and respect their role can be very successful themselves. As long as you respect our culture, you should be fine while you are here. If you act disrespectful, then don’t be surprised if you are soon put in your place. You are expected to follow all Cassadagan laws, even if it is not a law in your own country.

Cassadaigua is no more or no less safe than any other nation. Socially, Cassadaigua is open to members of all faiths, and we respect your right to worship your respective deity in the way you see fit; or to not worship one at all. Homosexuality is accepted in the country, though we can’t promise that some random drunk in the stands or on the streets won’t make offensive comments.
As far as drinking is concerned, the legal age is 18, though many get away with underage drinking as it is not as aggressively policed as it may be in other lands. However, do not drink and drive. If you are caught, you will have a greater jail sentence then you might be expecting, and if you kill anyone by drunk driving, you will receive the death penalty. Smoking anywhere in public is banned, but legal in your own home. This applies to both cigarettes and marijuana. All other recreational drugs are banned.

A group of islands located in the far northeast corner of Atlantian Oceania, Chromatika is a land finally getting back on its feet after overcoming an apartheid caste system and going through a messy first free election. Gone are the days of the Chromatik Party through the efforts of the Rainbow Revolution; the Rainbow Party, under the new leadership of Keri Wyse Aart, is making strides on correcting past wrongs and uniting the Chromatik populace to be one people working toward the same goal.

A very strict nation in terms of recreation, smoking of any drug is banned in Chromatika to Chromatiks; any visitors are to express their intent before entering the nation. Drinking is allowed but only in moderation at designated restaurants and bars; personal possession of alcohol in one’s residence is also prohibited.

Please fly to Atlantian Oceania, namely Ramusok (Cosumar), Quebec City (Quebec and Shinguryeo), Cathair (Audioslavia), Busukuma (Banija), or Jhanna (Starblaydia) before flying to Chromia.

Chromatik domestic football just completed its fifteenth season, the fifth under this current third iteration. First, it was the Chromatik League, and then the League Chromatiks; now is the era of the Rainbow League System, with six leagues of sixteen teams. These are supported by the Chromatik Collegiate Football Association, the U-18s league, and multiple high school leagues put on by the six districts.

The Chromatik national team has been the pride and joy of the country since its inception, having had multiple members on the starting lineup play instrumental roles in the Rainbow Revolution, including Franscesca Larriet-Cortes, the first manager of Chromatika who martyred herself during that revolution. The current Premier, Keri Wyse Aart, is the wife of the first Captain on the Chromatik squad, Luuk Aart.

How experienced are you?

Cassadagan Hosting History

Soccer/Football: World Cup 54, 67, & 84, BoF 47, Cup of Harmony 57, 73 & 79, and Copa Rushmori 30.
Also: World Baseball Classics 18, 26, 40, 43, 45 & 50; World Bowl 16; World Lacrosse Championships 7 & 30, and conferences within the NSCAA Basketball tournament. Smaller events, as well.

Chromatik Hosting History

WCC events: BoF 46 and BoF 73, CoH 52, CR 11 (as Falconfar), AOCAF 53, AOCAF 59 The
Also: 12th U-18 WC, WCoH 18 and WBC 36, WB 41, Playoffs of NSCF 22, NSCF 23, and NSCAA 12

Format

As of this moment, we are at 139 signups not counting the two of us. Ideally, the first number to look for would be 150 (15x10), with 160 (20x8) being the next. If the host vote ends before we reach 160, all signups past the 150th would be put onto a waitlist until there are 160. (The number after that would be 180.)

15 groups of 10 nations put through a double round-robin would result in 18 matchdays with the top two automatically qualifying to the World Cup. 20 groups of 8 nations put through a double round-robin would result in 14 matchdays with the top finisher automatically qualifying and the second placed finishers partaking in a home-and-away playoff series for the right to enter the World Cup Proper. Regardless of the format chosen, we will be looking to implement the double matchday scorination, with the exceptions of the first matchday and the last matchday.

Tiebreakers

During the group stage, tiebreakers will be as follows: Points, H2H Points, H2H GD, GD, "coin toss" (scorinated play in game). Any seeding for playoffs will be done as follows: Position, Goal Differential, RP Bonus.

If there is a tie between more than two nations, one of the teams “clears” the others in a tie, we continue going down the list of tiebreakers, and will not go back to the top of the list. (example A, B and C tied with 40 points; H2H points is 6 for each. A has +5 overall GD, B has +4, and C is +4. A wins the tiebreaker. However, to determine B and C, we go to the next criteria point, which is H2H GD, instead of going back to H2H points).

RP Bonus/Other

Both users agree that quality of writing is greater than quantity, meaning that we will be using a cumulative RP bonus that rewards quality posts bountifully.

Providing a roster is highly encouraged, as it enables those in your group more ways to RP, thusly a grand amount of bonus shall be awarded to those who provide such, scaling with the quality of the paperwork provided worth up to three days of RP bonus. If a roster is not posted by MD1, 5% of rank will be deducted. Every day after will deduct an additional 10% to a max of 35%. If a roster is not posted by the ⅓ mark, only 70% of roster bonus will be returned; if a roster is not posted by the ½ mark, only 50% of roster bonus will be returned.

We will be using xkoranate 0.3.3, with the NSFS formula, and additive modifiers, while a day of RP bonus will be carried from qualifiers to the World Cup Proper.

Do you have any questions?

Great bid overall, thanks for offering to host!

Chromatika wrote:Tiebreakers

During the group stage, tiebreakers will be as follows: Points, H2H Points, GD, H2H GD, "coin toss" (scorinated play in game). Any seeding for playoffs will be done as follows: Position, Goal Differential, RP Bonus.

If there is a tie between more than two nations, one of the teams “clears” the others in a tie, we continue going down the list of tiebreakers, and will not go back to the top of the list. (example A, B and C tied with 40 points; H2H points is 6 for each. A has +5 overall GD, B has +4, and C is +4. A wins the tiebreaker. However, to determine B and C, we go to the next criteria point, which is H2H GD, instead of going back to H2H points).

I was curious as to why the "coin flip" for the group stage tiebreakers is a scorinated match instead of RP bonus, while the playoff seeding was. The use of RP bonus as a tiebreaker at all has come up recently, so removing it for one use case but not the other seems interesting.

Also, what exactly does "position" refer to in the playoff seeding?

Tagging as co-bidder.

Savigilane, thanks for the question. it has not always been a hard and fast rule about it being RP bonus over the scorinated result (perhaps a more recent trend, though), but we did feel good points were made about using RP bonus in response of the last WC, making us want to go back to using a scorinated result to determine a tie in this situation.

Seeding for the playoff refers to, in a format where a playoff would be required, to determine who ends up playing who within that playoff. For example, if 16 teams (number used hypothetically) made a playoff, #1 would play 16, #2 plays #15, etc.

The World Cup will be in excellent hands if you win hosting rights, I would look forward to participating with such reputable users at the helm and wish you good luck. I do have a query about the NSFS formula - did I read somewhere recently in a bid that it contains a bug that affects home advantage? If this is correct, I could see it being perfectly fine for the tournament end of business, but that seems counterproductive during the home-away qualification cycle. The disclosure of such a glitch was surprise news to me after being in and out of NS over the past decade, and perhaps I have misunderstood. Could I invite the hosts to clarify this?

Thanks in advance.

Will one host scorinate the entirety of one group's matches? Or will every group's scorination be shared between the two hosts?

Tequilo: I am not aware of a glitch with the NSFS formula. Could you provide more information here? (Someone else can jump in to do to so, too). This was just brought to my attention. I will discuss with Chrom and get back to you and anyone else on this.

Baggieland: It will be split into halves, with Chromatika doing one half in its entirety, and me the other half.

Very glad to see a roster bonus implemented here. We did have a significant number of rosters last edition - and obviously we can't draw a link based on that, it did *feel* like there were more rosters (I haven't done a study into this, someone can feel free to if they so desire)
Would you mind just explaining it a bit more - if you don't post a roster, there is a penalty on your rank. But if you post a roster later, you lose out on some of the RP bonus from the roster, but do you get the lost ranking back again?

While I have a preference for SQIS-related formulas, I see the need for balance so don't begrudge the decision to use NSFS. I'll be happy to support this, considering the quality of the bid and the known ability of the co-hosts. Good luck.

Ethane wrote:Would you mind just explaining it a bit more - if you don't post a roster, there is a penalty on your rank. But if you post a roster later, you lose out on some of the RP bonus from the roster, but do you get the lost ranking back again?

The concept here is this: if a nation provides a roster after the midway point, they will have their RANK restored. However, if we would have given their roster 4 points (for their roster bonus) had been posted before the beginning of the competition, it will only be given 2 points (or 50%) on the grounds of being late, for their roster bonus.

Haven't forgotten about Tequilo's Q. We'll get to it tonight.

Cassadaigua wrote:

Ethane wrote:Would you mind just explaining it a bit more - if you don't post a roster, there is a penalty on your rank. But if you post a roster later, you lose out on some of the RP bonus from the roster, but do you get the lost ranking back again?

The concept here is this: if a nation provides a roster after the midway point, they will have their RANK restored. However, if we would have given their roster 4 points (for their roster bonus) had been posted before the beginning of the competition, it will only be given 2 points (or 50%) on the grounds of being late, for their roster bonus.

Haven't forgotten about Tequilo's Q. We'll get to it tonight.

Ah yes, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification!

I am happy with the bid overall, just going over the details to provide some more clarity and clear any lingering doubts that I may have.

Host Bid wrote:Tiebreakers

During the group stage, tiebreakers will be as follows: Points, H2H Points, GD, H2H GD, "coin toss" (scorinated play in game). Any seeding for playoffs will be done as follows: Position, Goal Differential, RP Bonus.

Any particular reason why GD was placed ahead of H2H GD? Also, following the interesting issue last cycle with Trolleborg and THE, did the hosts consider putting Wins in the tiebreakers?

Host Bid wrote:If there is a tie between more than two nations, one of the teams “clears” the others in a tie, we continue going down the list of tiebreakers, and will not go back to the top of the list. (example A, B and C tied with 40 points; H2H points is 6 for each. A has +5 overall GD, B has +4, and C is +4. A wins the tiebreaker. However, to determine B and C, we go to the next criteria point, which is H2H GD, instead of going back to H2H points).

I would want to clarify this rather carefully, because it was last cycle that I went through the rules of different regional tournaments/the World Cup RL, which then I realised that this might even be up for interpretation.

In your example, to determine B and C's position, will it be H2H GD between B and C, or H2H GD between A, B and C? I think the FIFA WC uses the former while UEFA competitions uses the latter, which is rather surprising imo. But just to be sure.

Host Bid wrote:RP Bonus/Other

Both users agree that quality of writing is greater than quantity, meaning that we will be using a cumulative RP bonus that rewards quality posts bountifully.

Do you mind sharing your RP scale? As well as the ratio between 1 matchday's worth of RP bonus to the Roster Bonus.

Alright, this post will answer Tequilo's question, and the questions from Poafmersia.

First, the NSFS issue: After a discussion with Chromatika about this, we are going to stick with NSFS. This was not without careful consideration of the issue presented, which up until this morning, was not even something that I was personally aware of. We talked about the alternatives, which are SQIS and SGIS, and the potential pitfalls of those formulas. When stacking up these three formulas, we still feel that NSFS is the best of the three. Apparently, also, the NSFS formula issue was first known in 2016. So, we've gone 4+ years with this being known, at least to some, and the Cups have gone smoothly where it was used. We'll be asking around to see if there have been or are any fixes in the works to this problem, but regardless, NSFS will remain the formula of choice.

Now, for Poafmersia's question, and I am going to start with the ask about the RP bonus scale. We will not be making this public. It has been observed that over the last few World Cups, this information was provided, but for quite some time before then, it was not. It will be generous in how it is provided, but bid decisions should not come down to very specific numbers here, which we both agree on. We've been doing this a long time, and have, through experience, been able to figure scales that provide a strong balance between RP and rank, as well as roster bonuses.

Next point? Tiebreakers: did we consider wins? Yes, but at the end of the day, neither of us like it, so it did not make the cut. However, we have made an adjustment now to put H2H GD over GD. On the three way tiebreaker, the determination would still be with A, B, and C down the line, yes. Or, in your example, the "former".

Cassadaigua wrote:Alright, this post will answer Tequilo's question, and the questions from Poafmersia.

First, the NSFS issue: After a discussion with Chromatika about this, we are going to stick with NSFS. This was not without careful consideration of the issue presented, which up until this morning, was not even something that I was personally aware of. We talked about the alternatives, which are SQIS and SGIS, and the potential pitfalls of those formulas. When stacking up these three formulas, we still feel that NSFS is the best of the three. Apparently, also, the NSFS formula issue was first known in 2016. So, we've gone 4+ years with this being known, at least to some, and the Cups have gone smoothly where it was used. We'll be asking around to see if there have been or are any fixes in the works to this problem, but regardless, NSFS will remain the formula of choice.

Thanks both for having a look at this and also to Græntfjall for digging out the original conversation. Like you Cass, I was not aware of this until I saw a passing comment in a recent bid - I think that in itself probably tells us that we don't need to worry about it or we'd have had years of skewed results and arguments. I guess it's also worth pointing out it doesn't apply a disadvantage as such since it's the same for everyone.

Cass sure loves her some AO co-hosts for the World Cup.

To the situation with the NSFS formula and the home advantage "glitch"--there will never be consensus on what the 'right' formula to use for WCQ is. It'll never happen. In three years being part of NSWC--going on 9 cycles--there has always been enough randomness in quali to mimic RL drama--I'd almost say more.

NSFS is a horrible, boring formula for everything, except the WC. You want scoring and unpredictability for your domestic leagues? Go crazy with the variations of S(Q/G/L) IS. I mix & match them in my domestics.

I'm neither pro- nor anti- one bid over the other based strictly on which formula the co-hosts choose.

In fact, I hate both of these co-hosts and this bid.

Cassadaigua wrote:Baggieland: It will be split into halves, with Chromatika doing one half in its entirety, and me the other half.

That worries me. I would much rather have the entirety of one group's matches being scorinated by one host. Obviously all the groups can be shared between the two hosts, but one host to one group should be the way to go.

Baggieland wrote:

Cassadaigua wrote:Baggieland: It will be split into halves, with Chromatika doing one half in its entirety, and me the other half.

That worries me. I would much rather have the entirety of one group's matches being scorinated by one host. Obviously all the groups can be shared between the two hosts, but one host to one group should be the way to go.

Sorry to butt in here...

The co-hosts use the same RP scoring and formula, and this has been the default process for WCQ for a long time.

Cassadaigua wrote:Now, for Poafmersia's question, and I am going to start with the ask about the RP bonus scale. We will not be making this public. It has been observed that over the last few World Cups, this information was provided, but for quite some time before then, it was not. It will be generous in how it is provided, but bid decisions should not come down to very specific numbers here, which we both agree on. We've been doing this a long time, and have, through experience, been able to figure scales that provide a strong balance between RP and rank, as well as roster bonuses.

I completely understand the rationale for this, but would you be willing to share the scale after the tournament's conclusion? In my experience, the disparity between RP bonus scales can be bigger than people realize, so having the information on it after the fact could be good for (at least) calibrating things.

(As an example, in World Cup 85 out max bonus was about three times bigger than World Cup 86's, if I recall correctly)

Farfadillis wrote:

Cassadaigua wrote:Now, for Poafmersia's question, and I am going to start with the ask about the RP bonus scale. We will not be making this public. It has been observed that over the last few World Cups, this information was provided, but for quite some time before then, it was not. It will be generous in how it is provided, but bid decisions should not come down to very specific numbers here, which we both agree on. We've been doing this a long time, and have, through experience, been able to figure scales that provide a strong balance between RP and rank, as well as roster bonuses.

I completely understand the rationale for this, but would you be willing to share the scale after the tournament's conclusion? In my experience, the disparity between RP bonus scales can be bigger than people realize, so having the information on it after the fact could be good for (at least) calibrating things.

(As an example, in World Cup 85 out max bonus was about three times bigger than World Cup 86's, if I recall correctly)

Sorry for the long wait in reply.

Cassadaigua and I would be willing to disclose the RP bonus scale after the tournament for comparison's sake.

Cassadaigua wrote:On the three way tiebreaker, the determination would still be with A, B, and C down the line, yes. Or, in your example, the "former".

I am curious as to the reason behind including results from teams no longer tied in “head-to-head” tiebreakers. I also want to point out that the tiebreaking method proposed will require manual checking of the tables, as xkoranate uses recursive tiebreakers rather than the “straight down the list” method.

Saltstead wrote:

Cassadaigua wrote:On the three way tiebreaker, the determination would still be with A, B, and C down the line, yes. Or, in your example, the "former".

I am curious as to the reason behind including results from teams no longer tied in “head-to-head” tiebreakers. I also want to point out that the tiebreaking method proposed will require manual checking of the tables, as xkoranate uses recursive tiebreakers rather than the “straight down the list” method.

There is not a specific reason other than this being our method of choice. A hard set rule has not been in place for this matter in the history of the World Cup, so this is simply the way we went. If we went the other way, the same question would probably be asked by someone else. We can check the tables if its necessary.

Cassadaigua wrote:There is not a specific reason other than this being our method of choice. A hard set rule has not been in place for this matter in the history of the World Cup, so this is simply the way we went. If we went the other way, the same question would probably be asked by someone else. We can check the tables if its necessary.

This is a departure from usual practice, though. I don’t object to “straight down the line” as long as it’s communicated in advance, but including results from teams that are not tied in “head-to-head results” genuinely baffles me.

PotatoFarmers wrote:In your example, to determine B and C's position, will it be H2H GD between B and C, or H2H GD between A, B and C? I think the FIFA WC uses the former while UEFA competitions uses the latter, which is rather surprising imo. But just to be sure.

While it is just about a moot point now, I must briefly correct the record here. UEFA do not define “head-to-head” in the latter way, but the former:

Regulations of the UEFA European Football Championship 2018-20 wrote:Article 15 Equality of points – qualifying group stage
15.01 If two or more teams in the same group are equal on points on completion of the qualifying group stage, the following criteria are applied, in the order given, to determine their rankings:
a. higher number of points obtained in the group matches played among the teams in question;
b. superior goal difference from the group matches played among the teams in question;
c. higher number of goals scored in the group matches played among the teams in question;
d. higher number of goals scored away from home in the group matches played among the teams in question;
e. if, after having applied criteria a) to d), teams still have an equal ranking, criteria a) to d) are reapplied exclusively to the matches between the remaining teams to determine their final rankings. If this procedure does not lead to a decision, criteria f) to l) apply in the order given to the two or more teams still equal;
…

Article 20 outlines the same criteria for the final tournament (minus away goals). Now I don’t expect the hosts to reverse their redefinition of “head-to-head”, so I reckon the matter is now closed.