International Domestic Soccer Discussion

[Commonwealth of Baker Park]

nitpicks that are really housekeep issues, I suspect:

3.05 is listed twice.

and criteria 10 in 3.04 (2) doesn't apply as their is no provision for Red/Yellow cards in xkorinate.

otherwise, I think it's a well thought document and would have no problems with codifying it.

[Kelssek]

If you're not basing it on leagues, why did you express it in terms of a league?

Right, I was being lazy. You got me. Nevertheless the rule wording clearly applies to associations.

But OK, forget multiassociations. A top league like Audioslavia could contract to 10 teams; their 7th ranked team would be qualifying. Yet 5/8 is where to "draw the line"?

I don't think this rule makes any sense in that IFCF does not otherwise take into account any direct relationship between league size and league strength. I would prefer a minimum league size of 8 teams be enforced, but I don't see that 2.04 is otherwise fair relative to how qualifying spots are handed out.

My understanding was a minimum league size was completely unacceptable to the community so I suggested that scaling down the spots they would get would be an alternative that lets people make that choice with a tradeoff.

But if a minimum league size gains traction, I have no problem with that replacing this idea either.

[Quintessence of Dust]

Right, I was being lazy. You got me. Nevertheless the rule wording clearly applies to associations.

I wasn't trying to "get" you: I just wanted to understand the reasoning for the rule. I still don't, really. Partly because the teams qualifying relate to CL places. For example, in a high ranked association with 8 teams earning 4 CL spots, its 5th and 6th teams could still earn CC places under this proposal. Perhaps you can justify it on the basis the high association ranking makes the association more competitive but it's still very inconsistent as the rule doesn't otherwise take into account association strength.

My understanding was a minimum league size was completely unacceptable to the community so I suggested that scaling down the spots they would get would be an alternative that lets people make that choice with a tradeoff.

But if a minimum league size gains traction, I have no problem with that replacing this idea either.

Fair enough. I didn't realize there was a consensus against a minimum league size (as I said, I thought it already was a rule). I'd prefer that too.

You seem to think I'm trying to "get" you, which I'm not, so I'll bow out here as I don't wish this to be adversarial.

[Astograth]

Thanks to the IFCF Council for this draft, it's a lot of things to codify and clearly took a lot of work.

My one disagreement regards 2.04. To me it seems unnecessary, counter to the spirit of NSS (which has always thrived on 'absurdities'), and frankly lacking in imagination.

I could, for example, decide my top 5 teams - which have all won UICA/IFCF competitions - go off and start a closed superleague as the new top flight. Would it be more 'immersion-breaking' to have that happen and get the full qualifying spots, or for them to recruit some 3 random punching-bag clubs to pad out the league numbers? What unfathomable situation or horrendous abuse would 2.04 be protecting us from that couldn't be done anyway by someone so inclined?

[Omerica]

3.02 For home-and-away ties, if the aggregate score is level, the following criteria decide which team advances:

1. extra time
2. kicks from the penalty mark

This isn’t something many people are going to be invested in, but extra time without the away goals rule is the worst possible arrangement. If IFCF abolishes the AGR, it should also scrap extra time for two-legged ties. We’ve departed from UEFA’s format before, so there’s no need for us to carbon copy their flawed decision here. (There’s also some irony that the away goal criteria in the group stages are also kept, but hey.)

I’m also not exactly sure about the size-based entry caps, but beyond that, some easily fixed typos and the continued existence of the CWC’s apostrophe, I think it’s well thought out document and commend the IFCF Council for bringing it forward.

[Kelssek]

My one disagreement regards 2.04. To me it seems unnecessary, counter to the spirit of NSS (which has always thrived on 'absurdities'), and frankly lacking in imagination.

I could, for example, decide my top 5 teams - which have all won UICA/IFCF competitions - go off and start a closed superleague as the new top flight. Would it be more 'immersion-breaking' to have that happen and get the full qualifying spots, or for them to recruit some 3 random punching-bag clubs to pad out the league numbers? What unfathomable situation or horrendous abuse would 2.04 be protecting us from that couldn't be done anyway by someone so inclined?

Others have their own opinions, but for me it's not so much about abuse but more of the realism (though I suspect I care more about this than most people here) and the sporting merit principle of it. A closed league of 4 teams where everyone qualifies all the time has no sporting merit involved whatsoever. It's less bad the more there are teams have an opportunity to make it but don't.

I wasn't trying to "get" you: I just wanted to understand the reasoning for the rule.

Sorry for coming off annoyed. Do you think it's an improvement if the rule also limits the CL spots for leagues of 8 and under? That said personally I have less of a problem with something "earned".

I don't know if there is a consensus against minimum league size either, but council people seemed to think there'd be a lot of resistance. I've heard that CH did enforce something like that informally but it's not something I was deeply involved in at the time.

[Audioslavia]

I've mentioned before that I don't think it's at all necessary to have an enforced minimum amount of teams for full quota of ChC spots, but it's not a hill I'd die on and it's clearly something the IFCF are passionate about.

A top league like Audioslavia could contract to 10 teams; their 7th ranked team would be qualifying. Yet 5/8 is where to "draw the line"?

The National League ran at ten teams for a number of seasons, and this exact thing happened in season six.

The National League Division 1     Pld    W   D   L    GF   GA   GD   Pts	
 1 AC Izotz Zubia                   36   18  12   6   119   93  +26    66 	CHAMPIONS CUP / AOCL
 2 Cazadores Cathair                36   19   9   8    70   45  +25    66	CHAMPIONS CUP
 3 1830 Cathair                     36   16   7  13    75   70   +5    55	CHAMPIONS CUP
 4 Artiglieria                      36   14  10  12    59   58   +1    52	CHAMPIONS CUP
 5 Oljestaden IF                    36   12   7  17    61   70   -9    43	GLOBE CUP
 6 Shamrock Cathair                 36    9  16  11    54   63   -9    43	GLOBE CUP
 7 Tout-Puissant Hasiera            36   10  12  14    61   66   -5    42	GLOBE CUP
 8 KT Moreazerua                    36   10  12  14    60   71  -11    42	RELEGATION PLAYOFF / CWC
 9 KT Itzalovalle                   36   10  11  15    58   67   -9    41	RELEGATION PLAYOFF
10 Burdoc Ridge                     36    9  10  17    45   59  -14    37	RELEGATED

I don't think it's particularly relevant. If, say, Italy did this in real life, I don't think anyone would begrudge Sampdoria/Fiorentina/Torino or whoever their Europa League spot for avoiding relegation to a wickedly strong second tier (which, admittedly, Audioslavian football never had according to LBCT/SBCC results). I assume the IFCF don't have my league in mind for this, and are instead concerned with newer/younger leagues. My main concern is that, in my opinion (which may be a minority one), small leagues are the best way for newcomers to get to grips with domestic football worldbuilding. Nobody can make more than a handful of teams interesting for a reader. Not straight away, anyway. I think we should be encouraging newcomers to start out with just six to eight well rounded teams and to expand from there.

EDIT: My main point here should be this: Well done on codifying the rules. The work that must have gone into it is very much appreciated

[Greater Sanford]

There were a few things I noticed here. First and foremost, it's hard not to notice that this was an impressive undertaking by the IFCF team in compiling all this together. I'm glad we're seeing a formalized list of regulations for IFCF competition. That way, we know what we can and can't do. For example, I didn't know leagues of less than eight would even be allowed to compete in IFCF; had I known, I would likely otherwise have made some, if not all, of Pug Xily'a, the Sanford PREMIER League, or la Ligue de Xuois smaller than the eight teams I scorinated with. I'm glad most of all that it's been opened for community discussion, so that we can debate the merits or perhaps even improve the regulations, if such improvements can be made. I was sad to see the apostrophes will go (and slightly confused as to why they'll be kept for the CWC), though I'll accept the loss of those apostrophes if they cause a genuine hassle for data entry. I'm also lukewarm about the abolition of away goals. I'd have a mild preference for the abolition of the away goals rule for fixtures that go into extra time only but keeping the away goals rule in the first 180 minutes of the tie over just scrapping away goals altogether; still, I'd prefer either over letting away goals count in extra time. That said, the vast majority of this post — just about everything but this paragraph, to be honest — will be me chiming in against 2.04 specifically. Before I do, though, I do have a couple questions about it:

First off, as long as a non-multiassociational, non-top-thirty-two league submits all four of its Champions League and Challengers Cup qualifiers (under the previous status quo), association coefficients are calculated by dividing the coefficient points clubs earn by four, the number of clubs participating. Similarly, a non-multiassociational, thirteenth- through thirty-second-ranked league would have its coefficient subtotal divided by five, while a fifth- through eighth-ranked league would have its points divided by six, and a top four league would see its points slashed in seven. Would small leagues — whether limited to these rules as only capable of submitting three teams, or even just one — still arrive at their association coefficient by taking the average number of association coefficient points their clubs earned for them in that cycle, even if that's just three or one? Or would even a league that's only allowed to submit one team to IFCF have to divide their coefficient points by four, or some other number that isn't actually reflective of the quality of its clubs' performance in IFCF competition?

And second off, how would IFCF deal with the example of Robostania? Robostania submitted Innisfree FC for UICA Champions' Cup 72, and Commerce Heights accepted Robostania's entry for the tournament — despite it being a late entry; despite it not being in the right entry submission format; despite Robostania never having RPed domestics before or since; and despite not even providing a league table, any results whatsoever that might indicate Innisfree FC won its spot on sporting merit, or indeed the indication of any other club's existence in the entire nation of Robostania with which it could compete. Had Robostania submitted on time and in the right format, would a latter-day Innisfree FC be allowed to compete in a future IFCF Champions League?

My main argument against 2.04 echoes what Asto, in particular, has already mentioned; we're an RP community, fun is encouraged, & silliness is tolerated. I don't see why we have to put arbitrary restrictions on what is or isn't acceptable. Even if it isn't realistic, who cares? We have ponies, dragons, satyrs, goats, and fluffy bunnies prowling around our pitches; why can't a small league send a full contingent of IFCF qualifiers?

In fact, even if devotion to realism really is suddenly the end-all, be-all in NSS, I actually do see scenarios in which this limit would incentivize less realism. Take, as one example, this nation. Sanford has a population of just over 600 000 and a size of about 30 000 square miles, for a population density of about 20 people per square mile. That means we have the population density of Idaho but somewhere between a third and two-fifths of Idaho's size — closer to the population of Wyoming or Luxembourg. As you could imagine, we're largely rural; the population of our second-largest city's just a hair shy of 30 000. In my opinion, Sanford just doesn't have the population base to realistically sustain a large league stocked with fully professional, internationally competitive teams. Teams near the bottom of my table already should be flirting with semiprofessional status — now I have to add even more chaff if I want to compete at an equal footing with the rest of the world?

But an equal footing works both ways; by complying with IFCF league size regulations, would I actually be hurting my league's competitiveness? In other words, couldn't this rule be a Freeport-style loophole? If your association coefficient is the sum of the points your clubs earn in the CL & ChC divided by the number of spots you're eligible for, that'd only be three for leagues of eight or one for leagues of four. I've always heard that it gets harder & harder to move up with more clubs in your contingent because your additional clubs are weaker and tend to drag down your coefficient. If you don't have to worry about the worse teams dragging you down, your coefficient can go up more quickly as a result. For example, if these regulations were in place for this IFCF season, Sanford would only have three IFCF clubs, instead of four, since it's an eight-team league. That means fourth-place Railyards would have been excluded, but that doesn't hurt my IFCF coefficient because Railyards contributed 0 points towards my association coefficient. In fact, had this rule been in place, Sanford would now have a coefficient of 3.667, instead of 2.750. And even if Sanford rode this unfair advantage all the way to the top thirty-two, or the top eight, or the top four, Sanford would never have to submit anything but its three best teams to IFCF, as opposed to similarly-ranked nine-team leagues with five, six, or seven teams in the mix (respectively), since eight-team leagues cannot place multiple teams into the Champions League, even if (possibly in part due to this rank inflation) they were to become the top-ranked league in the world.

Again, thank y'all for compiling all this and presenting it to us in this way. However, I'm afraid I'm just a bit more stubborn about 2.04 than I am about the apostrophes.

[The Sarian]

Thank you to the Council for the thankless and, I imagine, extremely time consuming task of putting this together. I would just like to add my opposition to the minimum size standards. I understand the logic behind the change, but eight is far too high a number and would have negative consequences - especially on new or time poor players. When I returned to NS Sports, I plumped to create eight well-developed teams with distinct identities, and have slowly grown from there. It seems absurd and damaging to me that we would penalise new or newer players from developing in (at least my opinion) the right way.

Teams take time - from players to kits to identities to previews. The main reason that I have a relegation playoff in my league is so I can manage my time better and avoid the hours long process of integrating a new team into the top division when I am unable to do so. There should certainly be recognition of this fact - rewarding a player which does previews for twenty teams higher than one that does so for eight teams, for example. What there shouldn’t be is limits.

[PotatoFarmers]

First off, as long as a non-multiassociational, non-top-thirty-two league submits all four of its Champions League and Challengers Cup qualifiers (under the previous status quo), association coefficients are calculated by dividing the coefficient points clubs earn by four, the number of clubs participating. Similarly, a non-multiassociational, thirteenth- through thirty-second-ranked league would have its coefficient subtotal divided by five, while a fifth- through eighth-ranked league would have its points divided by six, and a top four league would see its points slashed in seven. Would small leagues — whether limited to these rules as only capable of submitting three teams, or even just one — still arrive at their association coefficient by taking the average number of association coefficient points their clubs earned for them in that cycle, even if that's just three or one? Or would even a league that's only allowed to submit one team to IFCF have to divide their coefficient points by four, or some other number that isn't actually reflective of the quality of its clubs' performance in IFCF competition?

UICA rules (slightly below the parts on multiassoc guidelines) state that if you submitted less teams than the number of spots you are given, than your coefficient is divided by the mean of number of teams you are entitled to (4) and number of teams you submitted (3). So the total coefficient is divided by 3.5 now.

And second off, how would IFCF deal with the example of Robostania? Robostania submitted Innisfree FC for UICA Champions' Cup 72, and Commerce Heights accepted Robostania's entry for the tournament — despite it being a late entry; despite it not being in the right entry submission format; despite Robostania never having RPed domestics before or since; and despite not even providing a league table, any results whatsoever that might indicate Innisfree FC won its spot on sporting merit, or indeed the indication of any other club's existence in the entire nation of Robostania with which it could compete. Had Robostania submitted on time and in the right format, would a latter-day Innisfree FC be allowed to compete in a future IFCF Champions League?

That's ridiculous, and extreme, in my opinion. I am not sure why CH didn't apply his own rules in this case, but I am pretty sure there are rules stating that an association must have a league with enough teams to fill up all their entitled IFCF spots. Or I misread the rules. Personally, that is a no from me.

[Kelssek]

Audioslavia, The Sarian - I agree starting small is a good method for new players but it is not the only way. You could also have 20 teams right off the bat and slowly flesh them out over time. A lot of people probably have ideas for more than four names of cities in their imaginary country, for instance.

After all for most casual football fans, and probably for many football fans serious enough to express opinions about Paul Pogba on the internet, even the world's very top leagues are basically 3 or 4 teams with detailed identities along with a barely-differentiated mass of filler ("home ground: Ivy Lane, mascot: volcano?"). Of course, they are better people if they find out more but what I'm saying is that it's not the worst thing if someone only really has detail on four clubs and vague ideas about the 20 others they play against. Moreover some people might feel like it doesn't make sense in the context of their RPed country to have a (single digit)-team league.

The upshot is, some paths work better for different people. The rule also doesn't really penalize small leagues' chances of advancement, indeed the Freeport example created one source of hesitancy but to me at least it's a bridge to cross if we ever get to it.

More specifically responding to Greater Sandford:
I said that was my personal belief and I'm not using it as a rationale for IFCF rules. At risk of sidetracking, you can write nation populated by non-humans realistically, or nations with technology that doesn't exist or which according to current knowledge breaks the laws of physics (there is an entire genre of texts doing this; one such multi-million US$ project is being filmed nearby at this moment), and you can write all-human modern tech nations in godmoddy, nonsensical, and/or unreal ways.

You are quite right about why smaller leagues exist IRL, but extend that logic a bit, if that's as many decent clubs as there are in the country, how well should they realistically be doing in IFCF? How many of them would be able to participate if we applied costs of transportation, rules about stadium standards, etc.? I'm not actually saying we should go this far, I'm just taking your reasoning further to say that this "realism" thing goes both ways if you say it's unrealistic for your IC nation to have an 8-team league.

The design of the rule was not to penalize small leagues but rather to allow them within certain parameters. As you acknowledge this might actually end up unduly advantaging them - in which case it'd have to be revisited. Following the "formalize unwritten rules" approach would have just been a blanket "no leagues under 8 teams" rule which is what I have heard was the case during the UICA era.

CH evidently made an executive decision in the Robostania case that the benefit of a last-minute new participant being involved and getting to see their entrant accepted even to get knocked out straight away outweighed any costs of including them. Maybe this could be a hook to get them interested and stick around for next time when they'd do things properly. Maybe the one entrant made the numbers easier. But I actually don't see what bringing this up has to do with the league size issue since it seems more a case of CH going "alright fine whatever" rather than a considered decision to set a precedent.

But let's try to get something that we can work with and apply as a rule. Do you accept the idea that some rule ensuring there's no cases of entire leagues always qualifying for IFCF should be in place? Whether this entails a minimum size of 8, or limits on places a league is entitled to based on its size?
Or is it the numbers and thresholds being applied that are wrong - in which case what adjustment would be to you an improvement?

and slightly confused as to why they'll be kept for the CWC

Short answer: because the name is based on the RL defunct tournament, and because it is strictly speaking its own autonomous thing (I stand to be corrected if its current custodian has decided otherwise) retaining its own history and numbering scheme.

[Tikariot]

Question concerning something that I must have missed in 2.01 (3): Why is there a length limit to 20 characters now? Have results so far all been manually modified to accommodate any names longer than that or did something change? Just wondering since there are quite a few names >20 in the current competitions and would make for some odd abbreviations. Thanks.

[Eastfield Lodge]

Question concerning something that I must have missed in 2.01 (3): Why is there a length limit to 20 characters now? Have results so far all been manually modified to accommodate any names longer than that or did something change? Just wondering since there are quite a few names >20 in the current competitions and would make for some odd abbreviations. Thanks.

My bad, I interpreted the scorinator wrong. The limit is actually 25 characters.
The reason for the limit is that the formatting output of the scorinator limits it to 25 characters.

[Nephara]

With the posting of the CL group stages, the Window will slam shut in approximately 24 hours.

[Nephara]

It's 24 hours (and change) later; the window has slammed shut.

It's our most active window in history, as have been the last handful in a row. A number of tabs and filters had to be extended to fill the demand. It's great that so many people are getting involved, and yet the window in its current state has felt somewhat oversaturated to many in the community.

I haven't had that active a hand in recent discussions over the increased scale of the window (and related discussions on the pace of WCs and the tethering of the two tournaments), but I have been listening. I've decided to make a survey - no, it is not the same as the one posted earlier - to try and collect a more complete picture. If you've been involved with this window, please click the link; it's long on paper, but every answer is multiple choice, so it should not be too daunting a prospect.

Note that I am making no commitment towards democracy here, just trying to gauge where the mood is at. Common sense will be used, not FPTP; if 30% vote for a gender column, 30% for a pronouns column and 40% for no column, that will be taken as broad user acceptance of some form of gender/pronouns column. There's also a couple of occasions where not all options are represented in the answers (for instance, the 'mandatory bio' question), but they still fall broadly under an iron-fisted - laissez-faire spectrum.

No criticism towards any user was intended. The decision to summarise each issue beforehand and provide my own opinion was made to give context to more casual users; I am conscious of the fact that much debate happens on Discord, and that many community users feel this is an issue.

[PotatoFarmers]

You know, as the World Cup qualifiers come to an end, many would probably begin work on the domestic league in view of a possible IFCF deadline. While I am a member of the IFCF host committee, I don't intend to speculate on when this deadline may be, though end-June/early-July is a good estimate.

Anyways, I thought I would prefer to bring this idea that I thought of here. UEFA has taken the step of proceeding with a third tier in the form of the UEFA Europa Conference League. While I don't think such a league makes sense in the IFCF context, especially since we have our own variation in the form of the LBCT and the regional competitions, I thought about the possibility of having an expanded group stage. While I haven't exactly thought about the numbers and how this would play out, I believe that this change might make more sense in terms of addressing the issue of having huge preliminary rounds, as well as expanding the number of associations that could send multiple teams to the CL. Would also like to use this to kickstart any discussions about the current CL/ChC fornat as a whole, such as the coefficient calculation methods, the size of the preliminary rounds, and the format as a whole.

Thought I should bump this conversation, considering that there has been a general relook at how the IFCF system should work. Any number proposals, I can look at it and justify (from a numerical perspective) how it will/will not work out.

[Osarius]

Question concerning something that I must have missed in 2.01 (3): Why is there a length limit to 20 characters now? Have results so far all been manually modified to accommodate any names longer than that or did something change? Just wondering since there are quite a few names >20 in the current competitions and would make for some odd abbreviations. Thanks.

My bad, I interpreted the scorinator wrong. The limit is actually 25 characters.
The reason for the limit is that the formatting output of the scorinator limits it to 25 characters.

This doesn't have to be the case, fwiw.
Could just as easily use the length of the longest team name submitted as the limit if this is going to cause a problem for some people.

[Kelssek]

I'm genuinely mystified by the desire to revamp the transfer window apparently because there's too many choices? Oh well. I trust Neph's judgment on this.

As for the current IFCF structure, I agree with the idea of making a Conference League analogue that could take some of the strain off the Challengers Cup as well as give lower-ranked associations more sense of being able to progress and achieve something. I'd been stuck in the 40-70 ranks for a while before getting a few strokes of luck and I know all too well the kind of futile feeling you get of your clubs all getting knocked out first thing resulting in 0.5 points again.

What I'd do is reduce all associations to 2 Challengers Cup spots, and give everyone ranked below 32 (i.e. not getting the 2nd CL place) one place in... let's call it Tournament C. Obviously we can't have another CC so two name suggestions I'll put forward are Associations Cup or Unity League.

Teams eliminated from the qualifying rounds of the Challengers Cup would enter Tournament C. Unlike the LBCT, this will count for coefficients. Ideally, even if your domestic champion faceplants and lands you with 0.5 points, at least they got three bites at the cherry and had a chance to beat someone at their level rather than being pummelled by the world's dreadnoughts.

This also sort of aligns the ChC more with the RL Europa League; where each association is actually supposed to have two top performers from the league and the national Cup winner (most of us seem to do three from the league) - but unlike IRL, we still have the CWC.

This would have to replace the LBCT or RSC, though. I can't imagine IFCF would be able to handle something like this without cutting one or both. Personally, I've always found the LBCT and its predecessor sort of odd, and it's a bit strange in RPing the league too when the theoretically worst teams in the first division are also dealing with midweek international matches - realistically speaking, such a tournament would end up treated as a distraction and avoiding relegation considered far more urgent. It made sense at the time and it does have the virtue of letting us see lots of different club names in lights. It dates from the time when three different people were running the Champions Cup, Globe Cup, and Series B Champions Cup. I have no idea how people feel about losing it.

[Tikariot]

As still a relative newcomer to the whole thing, I will say that the LCBT has a certain charm for being off the beaten path, but I have no particular attachment. As you mentioned, in a league context teams that just got promoted would likely run into more problems with it than reap benefits due to either not having a strong enough squad to support both fighting against relegation and adding these games on top of it. IRL it shows often enough that teams that surprisingly qualify for a European competition have enough struggles with having to deal with league, cup and the added international games, which I would see similar and even worse for a team new to a league.

[Nephara]

Given the debate is moving pretty quickly, here's the results from the survey after 24 hours; 39 responses is already looking pretty representative, though I'll of course continue monitoring it.

EDIT I got a final response and 40 makes all the percentages look nice and clean so I updated the graphs lol


On the whole, people are more or less content with the window, but there's a definite appetite to get through it quicker. This makes sense; every day the TW goes on is a day's delay before people can start finalising squads, and we're crunched for time as-is. My inclination is that the next window will not have a Preliminary period, as was successful two windows ago, and will last a strict seven days, decoupled from the IFCF scorination pace. This will probably reduce bloat anyway.


This image offers a very persuasive argument against FPTP voting systems. As you can see, a significant majority want mandatory biographies, in some sense, but vary on execution. I don't think there's a strong mandate for 'all / any', so far, so I'll be trialling the most conservative and easy to enforce version; TW33 will mandate biographies for players on the TL, but not free agents, and without requiring full sentences.


The appetite for this is greater than expected, but as a fairly heavy-handed rule that's also difficult to enforce (definitions of 'regen' being hugely subjective), we'll shelve it for now. May be worth revisiting at a later date, however.


A solid majority don't want an official rating system. I am among them. No changes here.


People want standardised position names, and mostly to use the FIFA-style ones. My inclination is to standardise position names; people may use either the detailed RB/CM/LW/ST format, or the simplified GK/DF/MF/FW format. A significant minority of people use the latter format in their personal databases, and this feels like a good compromise solution; all that gets ironed out is the multiple redundant ways to say the same position. I'm willing to be swayed on the topic, though.


It's actually kind of hard to interpret the results on this one. Not even a third of people want it to be applied universally, one way or another, but a majority do want some kind of order established. It's just that there isn't really a clear preferred way to establish it. The easiest solution is probably to stick to the status quo, here. I personally want to enforce it across the board, but even though this isn't a democracy, i don't think I can justify it from this feedback. That said, I may change my own exemplars.


Again, a difficult split vote. Most people don't want a column, but a significant majority want some kind of indication. The conservative rollout is probably just to encourage and model putting pronouns in bios, both in the header ([pronouns] Player Biography) and in the exemplars.


(Owing to misclicks, add one vote to third tab, subtract one from 'treat different based on rank'.)
No majorities, but surprisingly high demand regardless. I'm actually coming around to the idea of a 'third tab', and do have a proposed solution in mind, as have others. I want to give that pitch its own post, though, which I'll probably make around this time tomorrow, as well as summarising some of the other ideas. There's some appetite to capping purchases per club, but my solution for a third tab will help with that. Still, on the basis of this, there's no mandate for any immediate change but might be some fodder for more serious discussion and exploration.

Thanks for participating, and hopefully this data can help shape and support the narrative.

[The Sarian]

I'm genuinely mystified by the desire to revamp the transfer window apparently because there's too many choices? Oh well. I trust Neph's judgment on this.

As for the current IFCF structure, I agree with the idea of making a Conference League analogue that could take some of the strain off the Challengers Cup as well as give lower-ranked associations more sense of being able to progress and achieve something. I'd been stuck in the 40-70 ranks for a while before getting a few strokes of luck and I know all too well the kind of futile feeling you get of your clubs all getting knocked out first thing resulting in 0.5 points again.

What I'd do is reduce all associations to 2 Challengers Cup spots, and give everyone ranked below 32 (i.e. not getting the 2nd CL place) one place in... let's call it Tournament C. Obviously we can't have another CC so two name suggestions I'll put forward are Associations Cup or Unity League.

Teams eliminated from the qualifying rounds of the Challengers Cup would enter Tournament C. Unlike the LBCT, this will count for coefficients. Ideally, even if your domestic champion faceplants and lands you with 0.5 points, at least they got three bites at the cherry and had a chance to beat someone at their level rather than being pummelled by the world's dreadnoughts.

This also sort of aligns the ChC more with the RL Europa League; where each association is actually supposed to have two top performers from the league and the national Cup winner (most of us seem to do three from the league) - but unlike IRL, we still have the CWC.

This would have to replace the LBCT or RSC, though. I can't imagine IFCF would be able to handle something like this without cutting one or both. Personally, I've always found the LBCT and its predecessor sort of odd, and it's a bit strange in RPing the league too when the theoretically worst teams in the first division are also dealing with midweek international matches - realistically speaking, such a tournament would end up treated as a distraction and avoiding relegation considered far more urgent. It made sense at the time and it does have the virtue of letting us see lots of different club names in lights. It dates from the time when three different people were running the Champions Cup, Globe Cup, and Series B Champions Cup. I have no idea how people feel about losing it.

I'd really like to see a Conference League-esque competition, and agree that LBCT is the best competition to scrap in order to achieve this. As an aside, I think Associations Cup is a fantastic name for it!

[Astograth]

The SBCC/LBCT Defender has logged on.

And to be honest, it's had a good run for a wacky competition that I love but most people don't pay attention to. It has a few RL analogues like the latter-day Anglo-Italian Cup but yes - unless we assume the prize money is extravagant, most clubs would probably not care much either until the end stages.

I think IFCF have mentioned on another occasion that someone would volunteer to keep the LBCT going no matter what, but I see many advantages to a Conference League type competition as proposed by Kelssek and, if the load of the LBCT is an obstacle to that, I'd also be in favour of moving on.

[Kelssek]

Based chiefly on my previous post on the issue, here is a hypothetical look at what Tournament C would've looked like this cycle.

Here are the assumptions in play:

• All associations have two Challengers Cup entries. The named clubs are those which would be in Tournament C instead of the Challengers Cup.
• The top 32 associations enter one club to Tournament C, and all other associations enter two clubs.
• ABC-5 refers to the extra club that would be entered from that association (assumed to be the 5th-place team in the league)
• Teams enter from the Challengers Cup playoff round (which will be known as the 4th qualifying round from next cycle), and from the Challengers Cup qualifying round (which will be known as the play-off round from next cycle).
• I might be very bad at working out formats, but it quickly became clear that every team being able to drop down from the Challengers Cup made the tournament really bloated and required five qualifying rounds + playoff round.
• To save time I didn't check for things like multiassociation leagues and other rules that would otherwise have to be applied and checked for. The lower-seeded Vilitan team wouldn't have got the bye to 2QR if I'd checked that.

The Hypothetical IFCF Tournament C
Access list

First qualifying round
Sporting Iturributa (ASG) vs. SNL-5 (SNL)
Dalaris City (PFA) vs. YZH-5 (YZH)
QGP-5 (QGP) vs. FK-PRD Ofau (ZRH)
Cloudsdale Flyers (EQS) vs. ESL-5 (ESL)
Everfree Forest HC (EQS) vs. LFD-5 (LFD)
TAL-5 (TAL) vs. Stanton Town (KRY)
CBP-5 (CBP) vs. Wanda Island Wanderers (AFT)
NFX-5 (NFX) vs. Marthorpe City FC (FVA)
OME-5 (OME) vs. Ali Mercedes Carassai (MRC)
Molding (GRF) vs. FK Hvitirseid (KLD)
Austin FC (DAR) vs. PEL-5 (PEL)
SVG-5 (SVG) vs. Prei Dragonriders (MRN)
ACH-5 (ACH) vs. Saint Anne Athletic (OME)
Regium Immortal (OAM) vs. CSA-5 (CSA)
ACS-5 (ACS) vs. Blasting Beach (QGP)
Zenit Attawpiskat (QUE) vs. Cincinnati Siege (ESL)
Starlight Boulevard FC (SQR) vs. Mountain West Union FC (KRB)
INS-5 (INS) vs. Lagoon Red Diamonds (WRL)
Wilaamstad Wrijgers (TSA) vs. GGY-5 (GGY)
TKT-5 (TKT) vs. Dalton Town FC (CBP)
FET-5 (FET) vs. Carleton Park Rangers (XAN)
ERM-5 (ERM) vs. Elephant Valley FC (SNL)
Olympic (MYT) vs. PDN-5 (PDN)
Sporting Kohnhead City (KND) vs. PYA-5 (PYA)
HSP-5 (HSP) vs. Sheriff Tiraspol (PDN)
Bartholomew FC (BRP) vs. SCM-5 (SCM)
TSA-5 (TSA) vs. Mitra (ERM)
SC Oceanside (NFX) vs. Lumière (LCX)
Ying Yo FC (ACH) vs. WRL-5 (WRL)
Écho SC (RCN) vs. MRT-5 (MRT)
Nilayam (PCU) vs. DAR-5 (DAR)
Nazionale Acqui Bollente (SVG) vs. TLI-5 (TLI)
XAN-5 (XAN) vs. New Bastion (EOT)
Oriannor Mountaineers FC (TKT) vs. KND-5 (KND)
Cherrygrove City (SAL) vs. MUR-5 (MUR)
Beiyun Stars (YZH) vs. PCU-5 (PCU)
Fagli Cinquanta (SOR) vs. SFD-5 (SFD)
QUE-5 (QUE) vs. Malta FC (INS)
Kirkham Appliances (SYL) vs. SEV-5 (SEV)
Samaul FC. (ACS) vs. BRP-5 (BRP)
CHA-5 (CHA) vs. Mackrell United FC (SPI)
FC Inter Nantwich (TMB) vs. LGL-5 (LGL)
MRN-5 (MRN) vs. Liverpool Town (MUR)
Royal Crown FC (SCM) vs. STB-5 (STB)
I Hope (CHA) vs. SOR-5 (SOR)
LCX-5 (LCX) vs. Foxchester Rhinos (LGL)
Walkure Walhalla (PEL) vs. CBZ-5 (CBZ)
Clinepalas United (TAL) vs. RCN-5 (RCN)
SDG-5 (SDG) vs. Pasi TE (GGY)
Montfort Wanderers (TLI) vs. GRN-5 (GRN)
TMB-5 (TMB) vs. Azucena CF (HSP)
Aux Arcs (CSA) vs. KLD-5 (KLD)
Brattleboro FC (CDG) vs. OAM-5 (OAM)
Blades de Bretsaar (MRT) vs. SQR-5 (SQR)
Yemukpur CF (OPT) vs. SYL-5 (SYL)
OPT-5 (OPT) vs. Pawston City (FET)
SPI-5 (SPI) vs. Île d'Or (XUO)
Villa Arboles (CBZ) vs. BOL-5 (BOL)
CDG-5 (CDG) vs. SC Lagos (BOL)
Perseguput Gunung Putri (SDG) vs. XUO-5 (XUO)
Fernville City (GRN) vs. Superior Seven Stars (SEV)
MYT-5 (MYT) vs. Armada Sovran (PYA)
Railyards (SFD) vs. EOT-5 (EOT)
Jhanna City (STB) vs. KRB-5 (KRB)
Dynamo Buttercourt FC (LFD) vs. SAL-5 (SAL)

Second qualifying round
Oljestaden IF (AUD)
Ausharmuj Marusi (FFD)
Mar Sara FC (VAL)
Mynda Electra (BNJ)
Oakstone (EUR)
Sabrefell Moths (NPH)
Turoki Tide (VIL)
Jungle Strike FC (VIL)
Keppal Cosmos (ZWZ)
Northern Stallions (BRE)
Clayquot City (KSK)
Olympia Borograd (STL)
FK Torpedo Pawlograd (SVJ)
Tannenberg FC (VLD)
Crossroads (CMT)
Royal Jam FC (EFL)
Santos Luega (PAS)
Katashi-Kanatsu (KOR)
Emerald Coast (SRS)
65 winners from first qualifying round

Third qualifying round
42 winners from second qualifying round

Fourth qualifying round
21 winners from third qualifying round
55 winners from Challengers Cup 3rd preliminary round (3rd qualifying round)

Playoff round
38 teams from 4th qualifying round
42 teams from Challengers Cup playoff round (4th qualifying round)

Group stage
40 teams from playoff round
24 teams from Challengers Cup qualifying round (playoff round)

First preliminary round

(ASG)       Sporting Iturributa    6–1    SNL-5                     (SNL)   5–1   1–0
(PFA)              Dalaris City    2–1    YZH-5                     (YZH)   0–0   2–1
(QGP)                     QGP-5    2–3    FK-PRD Ofau               (ZRH)   1–0   1–3
(EQS)         Cloudsdale Flyers    6–2    ESL-5                     (ESL)   0–1   6–1
(EQS)        Everfree Forest HC    2–5    LFD-5                     (LFD)   1–3   1–2
(TAL)                     TAL-5    5–4    Stanton Town              (KRY)   5–2   0–2
(CBP)                     CBP-5    0–2    Wanda Island Wanderers    (AFT)   0–1   0–1
(NFX)                     NFX-5    1–4    Marthorpe City FC         (FVA)   1–2   0–2
(OME)                     OME-5    1–0    Ali Mercedes Carassai     (MRC)   1–0   0–0
(GRF)                   Molding    4–0    FK Hvitirseid             (KLD)   2–0   2–0
(DAR)                 Austin FC    7–1    PEL-5                     (PEL)   4–1   3–0
(SVG)                     SVG-5    1–3    Prei Dragonriders         (MRN)   0–2   1–1
(ACS)                     ACS-5    3–4    Blasting Beach            (QGP)   3–1   0–3 
(OAM)           Regium Immortal    7–2    CSA-5                     (CSA)   3–1   4–1 
(ACH)                     ACH-5    1–6    Saint Anne Athletic       (OME)   1–3   0–3 
(QUE)         Zenit Attawpiskat    3–3 a  Cincinnati Siege          (ESL)   2–2   1–1
(SQR)    Starlight Boulevard FC    5–3    Mountain West Union FC    (KRB)   2–3   3–0
(INS)                     INS-5    1–5    Lagoon Red Diamonds       (WRL)   1–4   0–1
(TSA)       Wilaamstad Wrijgers    2–3    GGY-5                     (GGY)   1–2   1–1
(TKT)                     TKT-5    4–4 a  Dalton Town FC            (CBP)   2–4   2–0
(FET)                     FET-5    2–1    Carleton Park Rangers     (XAN)   1–1   1–0
(ERM)                     ERM-5    3–1    Elephant Valley FC        (SNL)   2–1   1–0
(MYT)                   Olympic    3–1    PDN-5                     (PDN)   2–0   1–1
(KND)    Sporting Kohnhead City    9–1    PYA-5                     (PYA)   5–1   4–0
(HSP)                     HSP-5    5–2    Sheriff Tiraspol          (PDN)   3–0   2–2
(BRP)            Bartholomew FC  a 3–2    SCM-5                     (SCM)   1–1   2–1  (aet)
(TSA)                     TSA-5    5–4    Mitra                     (ERM)   3–3   2–1
(NFX)              SC Oceanside    3–2    Lumière                   (LCX)   2–2   1–0
(ACH)                Ying Yo FC    4–3    WRL-5                     (WRL)   3–3   1–0
(RCN)                   Écho SC    3–2    MRT-5                     (MRT)   2–2   1–0
(PCU)                   Nilayam    3–2    DAR-5                     (DAR)   2–1   1–1
(SVG)  Nazionale Acqui Bollente    3–4    TLI-5                     (TLI)   3–1   0–3
(XAN)                     XAN-5    2–4    New Bastion               (EOT)   1–2   1–2
(TKT)  Oriannor Mountaineers FC  a 2–2    KND-5                     (KND)   1–0   1–2  (aet)
(SAL)          Cherrygrove City    2–3    MUR-5                     (MUR)   2–1   0–2
(YZH)              Beiyun Stars    3–4    PCU-5                     (PCU)   1–2   2–2
(SOR)           Fagli Cinquanta    4–2    SFD-5                     (SFD)   2–1   2–1
(QUE)                     QUE-5    2–4    Malta FC                  (INS)   2–3   0–1
(SYL)        Kirkham Appliances    6–1    SEV-5                     (SEV)   4–1   2–0
(ACS)                Samaul FC.  p 4–4    BRP-5                     (BRP)   2–2   2–2  (4–3 pen)  
(CHA)                     CHA-5    0–2    Mackrell United FC        (SPI)   0–0   0–2  (aet)
(TMB)         FC Inter Nantwich    4–0    LGL-5                     (LGL)   4–0   0–0
(MRN)                     MRN-5    5–3    Liverpool Town            (MUR)   2–3   3–0
(SCM)            Royal Crown FC    7–3    STB-5                     (STB)   4–1   3–2
(CHA)                    I Hope    1–0    SOR-5                     (SOR)   1–0   0–0
(LCX)                     LCX-5    1–3    Foxchester Rhinos         (LGL)   1–1   0–2
(PEL)          Walkure Walhalla    5–2    CBZ-5                     (CBZ)   3–1   2–1
(TAL)         Clinepalas United    4–4 a  RCN-5                     (RCN)   3–2   1–2
(SDG)                     SDG-5    3–1    Pasi TE                   (GGY)   2–1   1–0
(TLI)        Montfort Wanderers    6–2    GRN-5                     (GRN)   4–1   2–1
(TMB)                     TMB-5    1–0    Azucena CF                (HSP)   1–0   0–0
(CSA)                  Aux Arcs    4–0    KLD-5                     (KLD)   3–0   1–0
(CDG)            Brattleboro FC    3–2    OAM-5                     (OAM)   1–1   2–1
(MRT)        Blades de Bretsaar    3–5    SQR-5                     (SQR)   2–2   1–3
(OPT)               Yemukpur CF    0–3    SYL-5                     (SYL)   0–2   0–1
(OPT)                     OPT-5    2–5    Pawston City              (FET)   2–4   0–1
(SPI)                     SPI-5    5–4    Île d'Or                  (XUO)   5–1   0–3
(CBZ)             Villa Arboles    0–2    BOL-5                     (BOL)   0–2   0–0
(CDG)                     CDG-5    6–4    SC Lagos                  (BOL)   4–3   2–1
(SDG)   Perseguput Gunung Putri    3–0    XUO-5                     (XUO)   2–0   1–0
(GRN)            Fernville City    4–3    Superior Seven Stars      (SEV)   3–2   1–1
(MYT)                     MYT-5    5–0    Armada Sovran             (PYA)   4–0   1–0
(SFD)                 Railyards    7–3    EOT-5                     (EOT)   5–1   2–2
(STB)               Jhanna City    5–2    KRB-5                     (KRB)   2–1   3–1
(LFD)     Dynamo Buttercourt FC    4–3    SAL-5                     (SAL)   2–2   2–1

Second qualifying round

(AFT)    Wanda Island Wanderers  a 3–3    MUR-5                     (MUR)   1–1   2–2  (aet)
(ASG)       Sporting Iturributa    2–3    Fernville City            (GRN)   0–1   2–2 
(SOR)           Fagli Cinquanta    4–4 a  Oljestaden IF             (AUD)   2–3   2–1 
(BNJ)             Mynda Electra    3–2    SDG-5                     (SDG)   2–2   1–0 
(ESL)          Cincinnati Siege    0–3    Northern Stallions        (BRE)   0–3   0–0 
(HSP)                     HSP-5    1–3    Bartholomew FC            (BRP)   0–2   1–1 
(CBP)            Dalton Town FC    4–3    Pawston City              (FET)   4–1   0–2 
(CDG)            Brattleboro FC    1–3    TLI-5                     (TLI)   0–2   1–1 
(LFD)     Dynamo Buttercourt FC    1–6    Crossroads                (CMT)   1–5   0–1 
(LFD)                     LFD-5    2–6    Austin FC                 (DAR)   2–4   0–2 
(EFL)              Royal Jam FC    4–0    Malta FC                  (INS)   2–0   2–0 
(SDG)   Perseguput Gunung Putri    5–1    Cloudsdale Flyers         (EQS)   3–1   2–0 
(TAL)                     TAL-5    0–5    Oakstone                  (EUR)   0–4   0–1 
(RCN)                   Écho SC    4–3    Ausharmuj Marusi          (FFD)   3–2   1–1 
(BOL)                     BOL-5    1–4    Marthorpe City FC         (FVA)   0–2   1–2 
(PCU)                     PCU-5    4–4 a  Molding                   (GRF)   3–2   1–2 
(CHA)                    I Hope    1–3    Sporting Kohnhead City    (KND)   1–2   0–1 
(MYT)                     MYT-5  a 3–3    Katashi-Kanatsu           (KOR)   1–0   2–3 
(ERM)                     ERM-5    0–2    Clayquot City             (KSK)   0–1   0–1 
(MRN)         Prei Dragonriders    3–1    MRN-5                     (MRN)   2–1   1–0 
(CSA)                  Aux Arcs    2–1    Olympic                   (MYT)   1–1   1–0 
(TMB)                     TMB-5    4–1    SC Oceanside              (NFX)   2–0   2–1 
(PEL)          Walkure Walhalla    2–1    Sabrefell Moths           (NPH)   2–0   0–1 
(OAM)           Regium Immortal    4–1    TSA-5                     (TSA)   2–1   2–0 
(SQR)                     SQR-5    4–5    Saint Anne Athletic       (OME)   3–2   1–3 
(SCM)            Royal Crown FC    2–4    Santos Luega              (PAS)   1–2   1–2 
(PFA)              Dalaris City    7–3    Foxchester Rhinos         (LGL)   4–2   3–1 
(QGP)            Blasting Beach    1–4    Nilayam                   (PCU)   1–2   0–2 
(SFD)                 Railyards    4–1    Mackrell United FC        (SPI)   2–0   2–1 
(ACS)                Samaul FC.    1–3    Starlight Boulevard FC    (SQR)   1–2   0–1 
(SRS)             Emerald Coast    1–3    Jhanna City               (STB)   1–2   0–1 
(SYL)                     SYL-5    2–4    Olympia Borograd          (STL)   2–3   0–1 
(SVJ)      FK Torpedo Pawlograd    4–2    FET-5                     (FET)   3–2   1–0 
(TKT)  Oriannor Mountaineers FC    7–1    OME-5                     (OME)   4–1   3–0 
(RCN)                     RCN-5    0–7    Montfort Wanderers        (TLI)   0–4   0–3 
(VAL)               Mar Sara FC    3–1    FC Inter Nantwich         (TMB)   3–1   0–0 
(SPI)                     SPI-5    3–10   Jungle Strike FC          (VIL)   2–5   1–5 
(CDG)                     CDG-5    1–8    Turoki Tide               (VIL)   0–3   1–5 
(EOT)               New Bastion    3–4    Tannenberg FC             (VLD)   1–3   2–1 
(WRL)       Lagoon Red Diamonds    2–0    Kirkham Appliances        (SYL)   1–0   1–0 
(GGY)                     GGY-5    2–1    FK-PRD Ofau               (ZRH)   0–1   2–0 
(ZWZ)             Keppal Cosmos    4–1    Ying Yo FC                (ACH)   2–0   2–1

[Kelssek]

Third qualifying round

(BRP)            Bartholomew FC    1–3    Keppal Cosmos             (ZWZ)   1–1   0–2 
(PEL)          Walkure Walhalla    3–4    Royal Jam FC              (EFL)   2–4   1–0 
(GRN)            Fernville City    1–4    Crossroads                (CMT)   1–2   0–2 
(PFA)              Dalaris City    4–3    Northern Stallions        (BRE)   1–3   3–0 
(GRF)                   Molding    6–2    Jhanna City               (STB)   3–1   3–1 
(AFT)    Wanda Island Wanderers    2–7    Jungle Strike FC          (VIL)   0–3   2–4 
(MRN)         Prei Dragonriders    3–0    Mar Sara FC               (VAL)   2–0   1–0 
(MYT)                     MYT-5  a 4–3    Railyards                 (SFD)   1–2   3–1  (aet)
(DAR)                 Austin FC    2–3    Montfort Wanderers        (TLI)   1–3   1–0 
(GGY)                     GGY-5    3–2    Écho SC                   (RCN)   2–2   1–0 
(KND)    Sporting Kohnhead City    3–2    Oljestaden IF             (AUD)   2–0   1–2 
(CBP)            Dalton Town FC    3–1    TLI-5                     (TLI)   2–1   1–0 
(TMB)                     TMB-5    2–4    Starlight Boulevard FC    (SQR)   2–4   0–0 
(WRL)       Lagoon Red Diamonds    5–2    Mynda Electra             (BNJ)   3–1   2–1 
(OAM)           Regium Immortal    1–2    FK Torpedo Pawlograd      (SVJ)   0–1   1–1  (aet)
(FVA)         Marthorpe City FC    2–1    Olympia Borograd          (STL)   2–1   0–0 
(OME)       Saint Anne Athletic    1–3    Turoki Tide               (VIL)   0–2   1–1 
(PCU)                   Nilayam    2–1    Oakstone                  (EUR)   1–0   1–1 
(PAS)              Santos Luega    3–2    Perseguput Gunung Putri   (SDG)   3–1   0–1 
(CSA)                  Aux Arcs    1–4    Tannenberg FC             (VLD)   0–3   1–1 
(KSK)             Clayquot City    2–3    Oriannor Mountaineers FC  (TKT)   2–1   0–2

Fourth qualifying round
Note: Some clubs appear twice because they lost in the relevant round of the Challengers Cup as well as won the previous round of Tournament C

(GGY)                     GGY-5    2–3    Dalaris City              (PFA)   2–3   0–0 
(WRL)       Racing de Terranova  p 3–3    Mar Sara FC               (VAL)   2–1   1–2  (7–6 pen)
(MYT)                     Liria    2–2 a  Oljestaden IF             (AUD)   2–2   0–0 
(TKT)     Anhedron Wanderers FC    0–3    Dalaris City              (PFA)   0–2   0–1 
(CDG)   Victoriaville South End    3–5    Jungle Strike FC          (VIL)   1–1   2–4 
(OME)         Corona Christiana    1–4    Malavan Romainbourg       (OME)   1–1   0–3 
(FVA)         Marthorpe City FC    2–3    CF Bondstad               (TSA)   1–2   1–1 
(GRF)                  Korsbach    5–1    Sterling City United      (DAR)   2–1   3–0 
(TLI)        Montfort Wanderers    2–5    Dalton Town FC            (CBP)   2–3   0–2 
(TLI)                Waterfleet    0–2    Condottiere               (FPT)   0–1   0–1
(FVA)       Binclestead Wood FC    1–2    Tanrısal                  (PAS)   1–1   0–1 
(WRL)       Lagoon Red Diamonds    1–0    Gortz United              (ASG)   1–0   0–0
(MRN)              Wyvernscrest    3–5    Patrons                   (OAM)   2–1   1–4  (aet)
(SAL)         Royal Michaeltown    5–4    Ostholden Town            (ACH)   3–4   2–0 
(CBP)              Learfield FC    1–0    Sporting Ceneisis         (AFT)   1–0   0–0
(XAN)                Bearden FC    4–3    Royal Jam FC              (EFL)   2–1   2–2 
(LGL)            Coastal United    1–5    Turoki Tide               (VIL)   1–3   0–2 
(PCU)               Pesub Ubung    4–1    Lumineers                 (QGP)   2–1   2–0 
(DAR)        Romanopolis United    5–1    Santos Luega              (PAS)   2–0   3–1 
(PCU)                   Nilayam    3–5    Ashton Olympic            (KRY)   2–3   1–2 
(MRN)         Prei Dragonriders    1–3    Marque                    (BRE)   0–2   1–1 
(OAM)                  Hibernus    3–3 a  Northern Stallions        (BRE)   2–3   1–0 
(GRF)                   Molding    3–1    Couziers-Olympiques       (KOR)   2–1   1–0 
(GRF)                   Molding    1–0    Rammsissil                (VIL)   1–0   0–0
(KND)    Sporting Kohnhead City    3–0    FK Torpedo Pawlograd      (SVJ)   2–0   1–0 
(GRN)             Crownville FC    1–4    Crystal Fair HC           (CRY)   1–3   0–1 
(TKT)  Oriannor Mountaineers FC    3–4    RGS Athletic              (EFL)   1–0   2–4 
(XUO)              Ville Soleil    1–7    CASK Thorsborg            (SVJ)   0–7   1–0 
(SFD)             Martin Luther    2–0    Tropicorp FC              (TUR)   1–0   1–0 
(SVG)             AS Villeneuve    1–4    Olympic                   (MYT)   0–2   1–2 
(TMB)             Serrapince FC    1–3    Mliona-Lpaka              (TUR)   1–2   0–1 
(OPT)         Spoltekia Kapitol    1–7    Revolutionaries           (EUR)   1–3   0–4 
(SCM)            Samurai Cop AC    0–2    Crossroads                (CMT)   0–1   0–1 
(NFX)                SC Psychic    3–4    Tannenberg FC             (VLD)   2–2   1–2 
(SQR)    Starlight Boulevard FC    2–1    Royal Canterlot HC        (EQS)   2–1   0–0 
(TSA)           Zilverstraat SC    2–4    Keppal Cosmos             (ZWZ)   1–2   1–2 
(MYT)                     MYT-5    0–2    Jungle Strike FC          (VIL)   0–1   0–1 
(GRF)                 Hofvinger  a 4–4    Para Wanderer's FC        (BRP)   2–1   2–3 
(GGY)       VfR Steinigestrasse    3–5    Mar Sara FC               (VAL)   3–3   0–2

Playoff round

(GGY)                     GGY-5    1–3    Dalaris City              (PFA)   0–1   1–2 
(WRL)       Racing de Terranova    4–5    Mar Sara FC               (VAL)   1–3   3–2 
(MYT)                     Liria    4–3    Oljestaden IF             (AUD)   2–2   2–1 
(TKT)     Anhedron Wanderers FC    5–1    Dalaris City              (PFA)   4–1   1–0 
(CDG)   Victoriaville South End    0–2    Jungle Strike FC          (VIL)   0–1   0–1 
(OME)         Corona Christiana    3–2    Malavan Romainbourg       (OME)   2–1   1–1 
(FVA)         Marthorpe City FC    2–0    CF Bondstad               (TSA)   1–0   1–0 
(GRF)                  Korsbach    4–2    Sterling City United      (DAR)   2–1   2–1 
(TLI)        Montfort Wanderers    3–2    Dalton Town FC            (CBP)   2–1   1–1 
(TLI)                Waterfleet    1–2    Condottiere               (FPT)   0–1   1–1 
(FVA)       Binclestead Wood FC    5–2    Tanrısal                  (PAS)   2–1   3–1 
(WRL)       Lagoon Red Diamonds    2–5    Gortz United              (ASG)   1–4   1–1 
(MRN)              Wyvernscrest    6–2    Patrons                   (OAM)   5–2   1–0 
(SAL)         Royal Michaeltown    5–5 a  Ostholden Town            (ACH)   3–5   2–0 
(CBP)              Learfield FC    3–2    Sporting Ceneisis         (AFT)   2–1   1–1 
(XAN)                Bearden FC    2–1    Royal Jam FC              (EFL)   1–0   1–1 
(LGL)            Coastal United    0–1    Turoki Tide               (VIL)   0–0   0–1  (aet)
(PCU)               Pesub Ubung    4–3    Lumineers                 (QGP)   3–2   1–1 
(DAR)        Romanopolis United    2–3    Santos Luega              (PAS)   2–2   0–1 
(PCU)                   Nilayam    1–4    Ashton Olympic            (KRY)   1–1   0–3 
(MRN)         Prei Dragonriders    1–3    Marque                    (BRE)   0–1   1–2 
(OAM)                  Hibernus    5–2    Northern Stallions        (BRE)   4–2   1–0 
(GRF)                   Molding    4–2    Couziers-Olympiques       (KOR)   1–1   3–1 
(GRF)                   Molding    3–3 a  Rammsissil                (VIL)   1–3   2–0 
(KND)    Sporting Kohnhead City    3–6    FK Torpedo Pawlograd      (SVJ)   0–4   3–2 
(GRN)             Crownville FC    1–4    Crystal Fair HC           (CRY)   1–2   0–2 
(TKT)  Oriannor Mountaineers FC    1–2    RGS Athletic              (EFL)   1–1   0–1 
(XUO)              Ville Soleil    2–4    CASK Thorsborg            (SVJ)   1–4   1–0 
(SFD)             Martin Luther    2–1    Tropicorp FC              (TUR)   2–0   0–1 
(SVG)             AS Villeneuve    0–5    Olympic                   (MYT)   0–4   0–1 
(TMB)             Serrapince FC  p 4–4    Mliona-Lpaka              (TUR)   3–1   1–3  (3–1 pen)
(OPT)         Spoltekia Kapitol    2–5    Revolutionaries           (EUR)   2–4   0–1 
(SCM)            Samurai Cop AC    2–4    Crossroads                (CMT)   1–1   1–3 
(NFX)                SC Psychic    3–6    Tannenberg FC             (VLD)   1–2   2–4 
(SQR)    Starlight Boulevard FC    2–4    Royal Canterlot HC        (EQS)   0–3   2–1 
(TSA)           Zilverstraat SC    2–3    Keppal Cosmos             (ZWZ)   0–2   2–1 
(MYT)                     MYT-5    0–5    Jungle Strike FC          (VIL)   0–2   0–3 
(GRF)                 Hofvinger    1–2    Para Wanderer's FC        (BRP)   0–1   1–1 
(GGY)       VfR Steinigestrasse    1–2    Mar Sara FC               (VAL)   0–1   1–1

Group stage
Because of an error I made calculating the numbers of advancements there's a "Extra" placeholder club.
Teams are sorted by seeding - first team is pot 1, second team pot 2, etc.

Group A
Jungle Strike FC (VIL)
Bikarish (PFA)
Molding (GRF)
Learfield FC (CBP)

Group B
Rammsissil (VIL)
Chromatik (CMT)
Lakewood City (TMB)
Corona Christiana (OME)

Group C
Crystal Fair HC (CRY)
Olympic (MYT)
Para Wanderer’s FC (BRP)
Hibernus (OAM)

Group D
RGS Athletic (EFL)
Royal Daulapura (ERM)
Mancodas Athletic FC (PFA)
Montfort Wanderers (TLI)

Group E
FC Capri (VAL)
CASK Thorsborg (SVJ)
VZRH Matov-Uri (ZRH)
Anhedron Wanderers FC (TKT)

Group F
Admiral Storevik (SVJ)
Mar Sara FC (VAL)
Pesetih Titih (PCU)
Serrapince FC (TMB)

Group G
Jungle Strike FC (VIL)
Marque (BRE)
Bruncester United AFC (KOR)
Liria (MYT)

Group H
Dalaris City (PFA)
Crossroads (CMT)
Gortz United (ASG)
Wyvernscrest (MRN)

Group I
Condottiere (FPT)
Royal Canterlot HC (EQS)
Marthorpe City FC (FVA)
Fagli Cinquanta (SOR)

Group J
AC Izotz Zubia (AUD)
Duke of the North (PAS)
Ashton Olympic (KRY)
Korsbach (GRF)

Group K
Turoki Tide (VIL)
Ephesian FC (ZWZ)
Mercia Bromham (KRY)
Extra (XYZ)

Group L
Keppal Cosmos (ZWZ)
FK Torpedo Pawlograd (SVJ)
Loxthorpe Rovers FC (FVA)
Tikariot City FC (TKT)

Group M
Arsenal de Releinthi (AFT)
Steinaux (GRF)
Binclestead Wood FC (FVA)
Bearden FC (XAN)

Group O
Megabrantid SC (SRS)
Mar Sara FC (VAL)
Einherjar (PEL)
FK Vselitamak (PYA)

Group P
Tannenberg FC (VLD)
Langmere Green Rovers FC (FVA)
Jaglan Royals (SRS)
Ostholden Town (ACH)

Group Q
Revolutionaries (EUR)
Santos Luega (PAS)
Martin Luther (SFD)
Pesub Ubung (PCU)

I'm not going to simulate this further as the idea was to see what the main phase of the tournament looks like with the format I had in mind. Some conclusions from this exercise: it does seem to give a non-trivial chance for even zero-coefficient associations to get into a group stage. The chances might be slightly better, even, since the doubled-up entrants will only appear once in a "real" competition (note again that these are clubs that would have entered Tournament C directly, but in IFCF7 lost in the late ChC qualifying rounds). Overall it seems good...?

[Legalese]

That was helpful, Kels, thanks for that. Maybe it's just me, but the names I see are so familiar that it doesn't seem to fit the point of such a league, since it's just the also-rans of the good leagues anyways ?