Talk Fantasy Football

Alkaline13 is trying to gauge support for a US/Canadian based World Cup, and preferences for location. Effectively its market research on behalf of the US/Canada bidding team.

AFAIK it is no way linked to the NAF decision making committee.

DoubleSkulls wrote:Alkaline13 is trying to gauge support for a US/Canadian based World Cup, and preferences for location. Effectively its market research on behalf of the US/Canada bidding team.

AFAIK it is no way linked to the NAF decision making committee.

Sure, but lets be up front about that, its a different thing to ask for general opinion than it is to say, "we would like to put the next WC in the US, how do you feel about that, and in fact which US City would you prefer?"

This is starting to sound niggly, i do realise, but market research can be skewed to fulfil a demand agenda, so if there was then an argument to the committee that said "we've got research to back up that there's strong support for a US-based WC" then this would be based on a slightly biased questionnaire.

I think as Geggster put it on the Naf site, there would be a degree of success if we got 200+ people over to the US for a WC, but it would come at a cost in terms of overall numbers. I myself would be happy to travel, but there will probably be a decline in numbers, so would that be a "success"?

Regardless, and to stay more or less on topic, i do think that there should be an addendum that stipulates there's a push from Alkaline and any of the guys who'd want to organise this, that that is their driver for the questionnaire. Nothing wrong with saying "I'm from one of the tournament-organising teams in the US, there's been discussion about where we hold the next WC, and we'd like your thoughts on that, and more specifically, which City."

I hope that makes sense, and i'm keen not to be a nay-sayer, but to hold the right weight of argument for a potential bid (which lets face it, this questionnaire is engineered to support) it should be stated up front that's its aim. If there is a significant weight of support, then there should be no issue with the numbers and you can safely say its well supported, on balance.

I think this was just an oversight by Alk13, this is just research for putting together the strongest NA bid possible. He could fix it by adding a note at the beginning of this thread.

If the question asked: "if the world cup was held in North America, where would you prefer it to be held?" it might yield better results. As the question is at the moment I was forced to answer that I dont want it to be in the US - not sure if thats the information you are looking for.

My questionnaire is in no way, shape, or form related to the NAF for NAFWC committee. It is, as Nazgob said, a fact finding mission.

I can respect the fact that people feel it is skewed. There are options on the location question to answer with any city you'd like, if you take the time to read - you CAN fill out as "other" and then write in your city of choice.

The 2 cities that I would prefer are listed specifically.. I'm also the one trying to gather the research. Why would I list 10 cities, 8 of which I could care less about? I'm not part of the NAFWC committee - I'm just some guy who wants to host the event in my own country instead of missing out on it again.

Another thing to consider.. all of my "skewed" research doesn't mean anything if the bid isn't accepted or if I lose the vote for host city. So don't fret, just fill the thing out

Done, hopefully by then ill be a good enough coach to get into a team

Dobby wrote:Done, hopefully by then ill be a good enough coach to get into a team

Since when did you need to be good? Not sure that can be said about me, some of my team-mates, or hakf our opponents, at least based on our WC '11 results!

well i aint got a team over a steady 150 yet ... but if you dont have to be great then ill be well up for a trip to the states

What's important is that you can get a team of 6 together - good doesn't come into it (unless you're one of those powergamers of course ).

sounds like a plan or see if anyone wants me to join with them ill have to ask around if any teams want me

Dobby wrote:well i aint got a team over a steady 150 yet ... but if you dont have to be great then ill be well up for a trip to the states

Neither do I and I captained a WC team!
The key criteria was to get 5 of your mates together*, who can all afford the tickets, travel, accoms, etc and get your name down on the list.


*And failing that, put out a call for 2 mercenary players

lunchmoney wrote: The key criteria was to get 5 of your mates together*, who can all afford the tickets, travel, accoms, etc and get your name down on the list.

*And failing that, put out a call for 2 mercenary players

This is the point when Al realised he didnt have 5 mates

...and his cunning plan to solve that problem

further adventures can be read in his forthcoming book, "Insurance and BB, what do you mean Im a Geek ?!!" (Working Title)

Done!