NationStates

The Football Association of Vilita, in cooperation with the Football Association of the Commonwealth of Baker Park, present a hosting bid for the 90th NationStates World Cup.

Both nations are located within Atlantian Oceania in close proximity to one another; Vilita has co-hosted the World Cup on four previous occasions--the last being WC 59—while Baker Park has been co-host of WC 84 with Cassadaigua. In addition, the users behind both nations have successfully hosted or co-hosted a myriad of events across a wide range of sports, and currently are involved as hosts of ongoing events.

Vilita & Baker Park have each established a foothold in the annals of the 'Eighties' World Cup cycle history, as the Jungle Cats captured back to back titles in WC 81 & 82 to join the exclusive club of nations with five championships; for the Bees, their qualification for the WC 80 Finals via the playoffs in their debut to the NSWC has carried over to their current record of being the only nation that has never failed to qualify for the 32 team field; a Fourth Place finish in World Cup 85, along with a quarterfinal appearance in WC 88 have been highlights of the sides' consistency.

Technical Specifications:
Matches will be decided by the use of the up to date xkorinate program, utilizing the NSFS formula with additive multipliers. All nations accepted for entry to the NSWC qualification tournament shall choose a style modifier between +5 (most offensive) and -5 (most defensive), with 0 (zero) being the midpoint, so as to stipulate how their team might be expected to perform. All nations are entitled to ASK to change their style modifier 1 (One) time throughout the duration of the tournament, by communicating said change via RP.

The distribution of nations to their respective qualifying group shall be based upon the Official KPB rankings calculated as close to the Group Draw as is practicable.

During the group qualification phase, there will be 2 (two) Match Days scored per cutoff, with the exception of the first and the last scheduled group round, with a minimum of 48 hours between each announced cutoff.
Role Play writing will be graded by the co-hosts on a consistent scale, with max points for a single cutoff added to all nations posting a roster in the designated forum thread. There will be a small carryover of total RP bonus for those nations that make the 32 team Finals.

The size of qualifying groups will be determined by the total number of valid entries on the date of cutoffs for entries for the World Cup and/or Baptism of Fire. The preference of the hosts is to have groups of 10, and to that end the use of a home & away playoff among group runners-up are a possibility.

The position of nations in the group table during qualifying shall be determined as follows (as applicable):
1) Result of a direct match(s) between opponents (head to head points)
2) The difference between the goals scored and goals allowed in the match(s) between two opponents (head to head goal difference)
3) If still tied, the difference between goals scored and goals allowed in all other matches not involving the opponents (overall goal difference)
4) If still tied, the team having won more matches within the group (wins)
5) If still tied, the team having [[scored more total goals or allowed fewer total goals]] (goals)
6) If still tied, a flip of a two sided coin (OOC-- RP bonus less starting pts)
EDIT--in the case of more than two nations that require tie-breaking, the process will be applied until at least one nation is eliminated, and begin again with the remaining competitors until all ties are resolved.

Any and all questions are welcomed and shall be answered to the best of the prospective co-hosts ability.

Good bid with good cohosts to carry out the task.

One question - what do you mean as in small carryover of total RP bonus in this case? Would it be one or two matchdays, or something more concrete on a scale (e.g. /5)?

Quebec and Shingoryeo wrote:Good bid with good cohosts to carry out the task.

One question - what do you mean as in small carryover of total RP bonus in this case? Would it be one or two matchdays, or something more concrete on a scale (e.g. /5)?

In World Cup 84, Cass & I carried over about the equivalent of 2 days max bonus. So maybe in that neighborhood.

Good to see y'all bidding. A few questions:

1) What's the thinking on preferring groups of ten?

2) If you have to choose, would y'all be more likely to stick to a preferred group size but also have playoffs, or pick a group size that avoids it?

3) What will be the max number of points one can earn on a single cutoff for their RPs? Can you give an example of what it would take to earn it?

4) if your nation was an interpretive dance, what RL dance would it most resemble?

Legalese wrote:Good to see y'all bidding. A few questions:

1) What's the thinking on preferring groups of ten?

2) If you have to choose, would y'all be more likely to stick to a preferred group size but also have playoffs, or pick a group size that avoids it?

3) What will be the max number of points one can earn on a single cutoff for their RPs? Can you give an example of what it would take to earn it?

4) if your nation was an interpretive dance, what RL dance would it most resemble?

I apologize for the delay Legal.
1/2) With two exceptions--I'm speaking in MY experience on NS--10 has been the 'default' size for groups, 83 & 85 being the two that have had different sized groups

Obviously you don't deal with byes, and the 18 match format works well. There are kinds of ifs/and/buts that can be discussed about the varying factors that get discussed every cycle--burnout, people losing interest in the 2nd half. I think we can stipulate that 89 provided a lot of close tables into the final 2-3 cutoffs.
LATE DISCLAIMER--upon review of WC 84 materials, we had 15 groups of 11 in that tournament. 15/15 went through.

The same discussion about 'playoffs, yea or nay?' is another one that will be a forever topic. Without Vil's specific guidance on the subject, I still feel as though I can state that we will not let Perfect get in the way of Good, or workable, in terms of group size/playoff considerations.
This is my view--WC80 had 2nd/3rd placed sides playing off for the non-auto places in the Finals. I thought it was a very good, fair format (of course I would, b/c I was a 3rd place team) but I know it had detractors and we've not had a repeat of it since.

I think we would want to have a format where group winners would not have to be involved in any sort of playoff scenario. Path of least resistance.

3) On the RP question, I've had the great fortune of being a co-host with two of the very best in the business--Banija and Cassadaigua. I learned a great deal from each of them, and I would say they are closer in "technical" hosting elements to one another than even they probably realize.
Does anyone use a point scale that is non-fractional?

Three Thirteen nations in WC84 Quali earned total bonus (RP + roster) that was equal to at least 50% of their their pre-qualifying KPB points.
A safe number to guess...between 8-15% of the current Max possible KPB (65.92)

This is a lot of words to answer basic questions...

We will provide examples of near-max bonus quality RP in the OP of the everything thread.
Additionally, we will attempt to be transparent in our dealings as is practicable.

4) the Maleviziotis.
https://youtu.be/dgvJ69CaI6s

Una domanda veloce:

Dato che il tema di questa offerta è un ovvio richiamo a Italia '90, ci sarà anche un po' di lingua italiana coinvolta nella scorinazione?

(A quick question: Due to the theme of this bid being an obvious call back to Italia '90, will there be a bit of Italian tongue involved in the scorination as well?)

Would you foresee the vote for awarding 1.5 KPB for playoff losers change the acceptance towards playoffs in the qualifiers?

When is your preferred time to start the WC? In our BoF bid we mentioned the playoffs would probably conclude after Christmas -- does that work with what you had in mind, or were you looking to begin before New Year?

TJUN-ia wrote:Una domanda veloce:

Dato che il tema di questa offerta è un ovvio richiamo a Italia '90, ci sarà anche un po' di lingua italiana coinvolta nella scorinazione?

(A quick question: Due to the theme of this bid being an obvious call back to Italia '90, will there be a bit of Italian tongue involved in the scorination as well?)

è una buona offerta, no?

Questa nazione non può garantire che qualsiasi menzione gratuita di Roberto Donadoni comporterebbe punti bonus pieni, ma si potrebbero fare delle considerazioni.


(it is good bid, no?
This nation cannot guarantee that any gratuitous mention of Roberto Donadoni would result in full bonus points, but considerations could be made.)

What's the reasoning with leaving out a penalty for not rostering this time?

Graintfjall wrote:When is your preferred time to start the WC? In our BoF bid we mentioned the playoffs would probably conclude after Christmas -- does that work with what you had in mind, or were you looking to begin before New Year?

I don't think we will be anywhere near ready to start qualifications prior to Christmas. We will stay in touch with you on dates.

PotatoFarmers wrote:Would you foresee the vote for awarding 1.5 KPB for playoff losers change the acceptance towards playoffs in the qualifiers?

No

Tumbra wrote:What's the reasoning with leaving out a penalty for not rostering this time?

Honestly? I forgot to add it into the description and once again, Vil failed in the editing process.

Has the penalty proven to be a motivation for nations to get rosters in ahead of the beginning of WCQ? I'm asking not having looked at the numbers from the last couple of cycles where it was included.
We will certainly stress in the OP that rosters are extremely important and that failure to submit one is harmful not just to fellow competitors but also to the overall RP bonus.

Thanks for bringing this up (adding to my list of things to address in OP).

A quick question before I cast my vote: if playoffs are used, what will the format for them be? (i.e. how will level ties be resolved?)

Omerica wrote:A quick question before I cast my vote: if playoffs are used, what will the format for them be? (i.e. how will level ties be resolved?)

2nd placed teams, seeded pairings, home/away ties, no away goal, IC extra time/penalties for level scores which would OOC be an additional scored match.

I personally like away goals, but as we've moved away from it in IFCF, a case can be made to move away from it for WC.

Commonwealth of Baker Park wrote:extra time

Giving an unfair advantage to second-leg hosts is unfortunately a dealbreaker. I am genuinely sorry, because I could have otherwise put in a favourable vote.

.

Omerica wrote:

Commonwealth of Baker Park wrote:extra time

Giving an unfair advantage to second-leg hosts

Second-leg hosts = higher seeded team.

If scores happen to be level after 2 scorinated matches, the team that was the higher seed due to performing better over the duration of qualifying earns a tiny miniscule little advantage of potentially winning the match at home in extra time before the coin flip of penalties.

Typically the list of folks clammoring for the away goals rule to be implemented in any competition is quite small and its abolishment from major international competition such as UEFA is well in line with the decision Baker Park has posted above to not utilize this feature in breaking a level score over 2 legs.

Coming in with some receipts… In the UEFA Champions League and Europa League from the 2009–10 qualifying rounds to the 2019–20 playoff rounds (excluding the first knockout round—where the seeded teams were guaranteed to play the second leg at home—and ties where one or both legs were awarded):

• 51.9% of ties decided in normal time (1081 of 2084) were won by the second home team versus 48.1% by the second away team (1003 of 2084);
• 54.3% of ties decided in extra time (44 of 81) were won by the home team versus 45.7% by the away team (37 of 81);
• 62.9% of aggregate wins after extra time were by the home team (44 of 70) versus 37.1% by the away team (26 of 70);
• Ties decided on penalties were split almost exactly 50/50 between home (34 of 67) and away (33 of 67) teams.

The advantage of playing extra time at home is not “miniscule”; going straight to penalties would be fairer regardless of whether the AGR is used or not. Disregarding such anomalies as the bonus-broken tie between South Newlandia and Oberour Ar Moro in WCQ88 that decided the order of legs between the two, the difference between teams at the level of the qualifying playoffs is small enough that awarding a significant advantage to any is arguably inappropriate.

I would, however, like to end on a positive note and thank the bidders for answering. Good luck to everyone.

Omerica wrote:Coming in with some receipts… In the UEFA Champions League and Europa League from the 2009–10 qualifying rounds to the 2019–20 playoff rounds (excluding the first knockout round—where the seeded teams were guaranteed to play the second leg at home—and ties where one or both legs were awarded):

• 51.9% of ties decided in normal time (1081 of 2084) were won by the second home team versus 48.1% by the second away team (1003 of 2084);
• 54.3% of ties decided in extra time (44 of 81) were won by the home team versus 45.7% by the away team (37 of 81);
• 62.9% of aggregate wins after extra time were by the home team (44 of 70) versus 37.1% by the away team (26 of 70);
• Ties decided on penalties were split almost exactly 50/50 between home (34 of 67) and away (33 of 67) teams.

The advantage of playing extra time at home is not “miniscule”; going straight to penalties would be fairer regardless of whether the AGR is used or not. Disregarding such anomalies as the bonus-broken tie between South Newlandia and Oberour Ar Moro in WCQ88 that decided the order of legs between the two, the difference between teams at the level of the qualifying playoffs is small enough that awarding a significant advantage to any is arguably inappropriate.

I would, however, like to end on a positive note and thank the bidders for answering. Good luck to everyone.

I appreciate the breakout for each of those scenarios. I certainly would've thought ties with a clear result would be higher for the second leg host.
As I said, my personal belief is away goals are a perfectly good way of deciding a two-legged playoff (again, I also fully disclose that I made the Final for the first time on that basis, but that is independent of my opinion).

I don't take your decision personally, and I appreciate your clear, rational reasoning for it.

I'm not sure I understand the hubbub over home advantage. You're bidding using NSFS, in which home advantage is broken, so won't home advantage in the playoffs be very minimal anyway?

I know this is a little late, but how many teams move on per group. Maybe it's somewhere else, but I didn't see it.

Saterun wrote:I know this is a little late, but how many teams move on per group. Maybe it's somewhere else, but I didn't see it.

The 1st place team in each group advances to the World Cup. 2nd place teams advance to a playoff round, the winners of which also advance.

All other teams may be eligible for an invitation to the Cup of Harmony if they meet a minimum RP threshold to be determined by the elected host of the CoH!