Wherein I fix the U.S. Open Cup. You're welcome.
by Steve Davis on Oct 5, 2010 10:44 AM EDT
Email
PrintSeattle hosts Columbus in the U.S. Open Cup final tonight. You knew that, right?
You almost assuredly did … if you like the soccer and you live in the Seattle. Or in the Columbus.
Otherwise … probably not so much.
So we arrive at the annual question that buzzes around and annoys the U.S. Open Cup: why can’t the little guy ever get the girl? Why can’t this little gem of a soccer tournament elbow its way into the national sports conversation?
It’s a nice little tournament, right? Shouldn’t it get just a little more love from fans and media? Or is this just where the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup is destined to fall in the national awareness?
Here are five ways, in no particular order, I’d suggest to amplify awareness. (FYI: before we get started, please understand that these will all be reasonable suggestions, none along the thoughtless, breathless oft-repeated lines of “market the tournament better!” That’s a little like discussing how to improve a soccer team and beginning with the unimaginative suggestion of “win more games!”)
Get a corporate sponsor: U.S. Soccer is set up as a support vehicle for the game. It’s not really set up to be a marketing machine. That’s not a criticism. I’m set up to be a writer; I’m not set up to be an attorney, so if you don’t want me representing you in court, I won’t take offense.
But major corporations devote many a cubicle to marketing and PR types, and they rely significantly on partners to help “tell their story.” So, would the 3M Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup really be so distasteful? Not for me. How about the Aetna Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup? Such a corporate partnership would bring new audiences into awareness and add ideas on how to spread the word in general.
(Four more, after the break ...)
Home and away matches: I really don’t like the way U.S. Soccer chooses venues, through bid processes. I’d prefer they just flip and damn coin. As it is, the bigger clubs (with more money to spend) will always have an advantage. That’s why a certain MLS club hasn’t played an away match in the tournament since 2007.
Better yet: How about, after the earliest rounds, just play home-and-away series? Yes, more matches would increase the summer match congestion. But that’s just part of the deal, and that’s why rosters are expanding next year for MLS clubs.
More matches equals more exposure. Of course, it also adds to operating expenses, so this might be a loss leader. It might not make sense in the long run, but it might be worth a try.
If home-and-away isn’t possible, how about this: Most MLS sides are introduced into the competition in the Round 16. This year, all eight matches in that round featured MLS sides against sides from U.S. Soccer’s lower tiers. Six of those contests were held in MLS cities. And the results? MLS sides went 5-1.
Upsets drive this tournament. So why not just give the lower tier teams the edge? Give them right to host the game. If the MLS side can manage a draw, they go back to big stadium inside the mean ol’ big city and get the opportunity to show the minnow a proper ass whuppin. Or not. But why not give the lower tier sides a more sporting chance? You know, give the wild game a hunting rifle and make it more of a fair fight!
Increase prize money: This one comes closest to the simple-solution syndrome: “Show me the simplest solution to a complex problem and I’ll show you the wrong solution.”
But in this case, I’d defend this suggestion as just part of the solution. And I think it might resonate.
The prize money this year is $100,000 for the winners and $50,000 for the runner-up. By adding something to the pot, teams might take the competition more seriously. (And too many MLS sides still don’t take it seriously … or at the least, they don’t prioritize it.) If the players have a big financial incentive, they’ll encourage their clubs to take the darn thing seriously.
How much would it take? Perhaps $250,000 for the winner. Even if the club takes half, that’s 4-large for each player on a 30-man roster. Not bad. How about this … Can U.S. Soccer and a corporate sponsor (probably through an insurance underwriter) create a bonus for the “Double?” That is, another $500,000 for the club that wins the MLS Cup and the U.S. Open Cup? Now that’s incentive.
Establish a permanent home for the final: The model here is the way the NCAA baseball championship has developed a relationship with Omaha, Neb. NCAA baseball is huge there. Yes, it would take a few years to cultivate this relationship, but once it took you might really have something special.
If the venue were, say, St. Louis – given the development of a proper stadium – you would have teams talking annually about “getting to St. Louis.” It would also deny a home-field advantage in the final like we have tonight in Seattle. If the tournament really is going to be taken seriously, you can’t have a final at a home ground – especially one chosen not on competitive merit, but in a secretive bid process. That just screams “small time.”
30 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I really like that last point. However, there is always going to be a competition or two that the top teams don’t pay attention to. We see it England and we are seeing it with MLS teams.
I think your points are spot and could help but it is still destined to be the FA Cup of America. Some MLS teams that are not in the CCL or playoff hunt will take it seriously, some top teams might succeed solely because they are better than other teams and some teams won’t care and focus on other competitions.
I would be thrilled if the US Open Cup became the FA Cup of America.
As it stands it’s far closer to the League Cup.
by Aaron Campeau on Oct 5, 2010 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions
Love that Idea
The Cup should find a home and be there permanently. Great idea.
by Craig_de_Aragon on Oct 5, 2010 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions
The corporate sponsor is the best idea. I don’t know how difficult it is to find such a thing, though. Is suggesting getting a sponsor better than asking for “better marketing”? I suspect it is, but don’t really know.
On the match (outside of the final) venues, while home-and-home would be ideal, I don’t see it happening anytime soon. A coin flip would be better than the status quo, though. Almost anything is better than letting teams bid to host.
I could see a clever head of the tournament combining your first and fourth suggestion, where the prize money comes from (or at least partially comes from) the sponsor.
A set, neutral final venue would be awesome as well — if fans become more willing to travel. Sell a sponsorship for that game, too (if the tournament sponsor allows, I guess).
Follow Germany's example
The US Open Cup should look to Germany as their example, Steve.
The first round of the German Cup draw is set up to where every Bundesliga side is force to play away at a lower division team. Sometimes it’s second division teams with huge followings and in other scenarios you see Bayern Munich traveling to a team that normally gets a game of 2,500 people or less.
It would be a win-win for MLS teams especially if the draw is set up to have the MLS teams go play at relatively local lower division qualified teams. It gives those MLS teams a chance to extend their brand while giving the lower league sides a nice payday at the gate and a chance to knock off one of the big boys.
by Daniel Robertson on Oct 5, 2010 11:19 AM EDT reply actions
Except...
that I’ve seen MLS teams go to substandard fields combined with extremely rough, aggressive play and as an MLS coach your priority quickly becomes: “how do I get out of this game without losing any players?” In short, you devalue the tournament.
I think the problem with some of these suggestions is an attempt to make this tournament the FA Cup. Ain’t happening. It might evolve into something special over time. But not the FA Cup—that’s uniquely British and no-one else in any other soccer-maniac country has something like the FA Cup.
Let’s focus on how to make MLS teams care more about this Competition (rather than field sub sides) and how to get more media coverage.
1. Not home and away. In a busy season, you see teams have to triage out of necesity. In theory home and away is a lovely theory. In reality, only MLS teams eliminated from the playoffs would field their regular first team.
2. Play it at a time when there is not a final playoff crunch (ie: September with a final in October). Give teams a chance to field their first teams. As long as it competes with MLS playoffs and playoff races, it will be a distant second.
3. Get a viable MLS reserve league going. Most MLS teams field subs b/c it’s a good way to give them game exposure.
4. Get a sponsor.
Good points
Good points Joe, but you can’t do anything about rough, aggressive play. The Open Cup, IMO, is obviously about more than just the MLS teams and for the competition to be successful it has to incorporate teams down to the grassroots level.
Substandard fields will not be a problem as MLS grows as the MLS teams can fill bigger high school stadiums around the country as they get more popular.
by Daniel Robertson on Oct 5, 2010 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Good Points
It’s not that I want to do away with hard aggressive play. That’s going to be inevitable any time you get a small local team where this is their biggest game of the season (or all of the USL-2 players are trying to catch an MLS coach’s eye). That’s inherent to a David-Goliath matchup.
My biggest point is this: we’re trying to make it like the FA Cup—which it isn’t and will likely never be. And that doesn’t mean it can’t be a great competition.
The real issue is this: how do we get MLS teams to take it more seriously? Some do, most don’t. You take it more seriously if it:
—doesn’t overlap with a season crunch (so don’t do it during the Fall, and work something out schedule-wise so it doesn’t overlap with other stuff like SuperLiga or CCC)
—play FEWER games, not more (thus, no home and home)
—while you can’t eliminate aggressive play, when you combine that with a field that you can sprain an ankle just walking on (let alone playing an aggressive, physical match) you get teams holding out starting lineups. So don’t force matches at llower clubs but encourage MLS sides. Yep, it reduces the chance of an upset but you’d see MLS teams field more regulars that way.
—get a sponsor (which would mean more publicity and more money) and then build that into standard MLS contracts (so more bonuses for playing in and winning USOC matches)
—the reserve league (so teams don’t view USOC as seasoning for youth). And inevitably, this will never go away: Brad Guzan gets his only PT when Friedel is hurt (almost never) or in FA Cup matches. Even the FA Cup gets used by some teams to blood youngsters.
I was VERY disappointed this year
that the Aztex got to play their first MLS team away. Last year having Houston here was amazing and a great way to get more attention for the team.
Not sure exactly why MLS decided to take things more seriously this year (CCL berth?), but it was very disappointing that MLS teams hosted most of the games. It really does seem to me that if they want to spread the gospel of the league, they should play those Open Cup games against lower division teams away.
Excellent Start Point
Three things I think I’d suggest to tweak from the current format.
1. No more MLS qualifying. With 16 U.S.-based teams next season after Portland moves up, have just the amateur qualifying tournaments in March. Then have MLS teams enter in the second round of a 64-team tournament. This reduces the number of early season games for MLS clubs, and means the chance for more upsets.
2. Set matchdays sooner. Get the schedule out in February, qualifying and main-draw. This gives the chance for the tournament to be better spread out, instead of the first three rounds happening within the same month. That encourages MLS clubs to play stronger teams, since they might only have to play one USOC game a month (April 1st round, May 2nd Round, June 3rd round, July Quarterfinals, August Semifinals, September Final)
3. Single-game format — regulation, overtime, penalties — at whichever club gets drawn to host. You’ll still want to try and keep the draw regional in the early rounds, to allow teams like Austin, Richmond and Kitsap to get FC Dallas/Houston, D.C. United or Seattle/Portland, but as you said lose the bids, give the lower division team a chance to host on the flip of a coin, drawing of lots, high card or whatever else.
There is so much potential in this tournament, and with the awareness of other countries cup competitions it’s actually a viable sell to U.S. soccer fans. Hopefully, it will start to matter more soon.
by Nicholas Murray on Oct 5, 2010 11:57 AM EDT reply actions
great points all around
The main thing I take from this article and the comments is that nearly any change would be positive.
I like Daniel’s idea of using the German model for lower sides hosting at least the first game for MLS sides.
They should divide the overall bracket into regions, so they don’t have to manipulate the draw to help clubs extend their brand. Also would cut down on travel expenses for everyone.
I agree with Nicholas that the MLS play-in games are pointless. Just have them enter the tournament a round earlier.
Another couple of points
- Get the final on ESPN3, at least. FSC doesn’t have enough viewership for this tournament and the video setup of the official site is weak.
- Throw down some money on the website. Using USoccer.com as an official site is a bit confusing.
- Simplify the brackets; make’m printable (see: march madness)
- Hire a historian to chronologize and sell the history of the tournament. Currently it seems merely old and antiquated, not old and prestigious.
Great ideas all
>Gaining a sponsor should also help US Soccer set aside the match-hosting bid process. As we all know it’s about who pays the biggest bounty, not about competitive balance. Having a sponsor would hopefully lessen US Soccer’s grasping for every last penny.
>I’m wondering if some rebranding might help. I know that “US Open Cup” has a lot of history behind it, but it doesn’t completely convey what it is to the casual soccer fan. Renaming it something like the “United States Soccer Championship” immediately tells you what it is. Especially if some of the above ideas are implemented to make the tournament more competetive.
You will hear us on Brougham, you will hear us on Occidental, you will hear us on King. We are all around you, there is no escape.
Start it earlier..
I have no idea about the logistics of this, but could it not be started earlier in the year? Maybe with the first few MLS rounds during preseason. MLS teams play USL teams in preseason anyways, why not just make it where those games count. This would:
-Reduce the summer congestion.
-Give coaches extra games early on to sort out their teams.
-Make MLS teams care more about the games even if they dont care about the tournament. You would seem more big names as they would play to get their fitness.
-There is always a buzz for every game early in a season. Heck, fans get excited about a scrimmage because they’ve missed their team so surely they would be excited about a cup match.
Lots of teams already play in stupid preseason cups, why not move the real one? Kinda like the Mexican interliga.
Can't
Unless you somehow let in all the PDL/NPSL teams. The USASA teams might be able to finish their qualifying earlier. Some states are starting their qualifiers for the 2011 Cup this or next month.
The problem is, with the way things are set up now, there’s a limited number of PDL and NPSL teams allowed in, and they need to play a few games to decide which ones. As their season doesn’t start until the edge of when college finishes, that’s an earliest possible start date. You could push it up four weeks if you took a suggestion below and just decide that the top 8 finishers in each league from the previous season are this year’s qualifying teams. But that’s the most you could move it.
All of your ideas are great, IMO...
… but I especially like #1 and #5. I take a little issue with the home-and-home idea, since I like the one-off format of a single-elimination tournament. If you lose, you’re out… that’s what makes it different from a league table.
The FA Cup doesn’t have a sponsor, but the FA does have the Milk Littlewoods Challenge Rumbelows Coca-Cola Worthington Carling Cup. There’s also the Johnstone’s Paint Trophy, Carlsberg FA Trophy, Coca-Cola Championship, Barclay’s Premier League… there’s quite a precedent there for successful corporate sponsorship and marketing.
One Quick Note
The F.A. Cup has actually had three sponsors, including current one E.ON, but it’s referred to as ’The F.A. Cup presented by E.ON" for publicity purposes and no-one actually uses the sponsors name colloquially.
Very few of these would work
after thinking and thinking about how to make this tournament ‘better’ for more than 10 years….i’m left with these thoughts.
a. the mass population will only latch onto events that create a sufficient amount of ‘drama’
b. they also won’t gravitate to it if they can’t relate to it and/or it’s not part of their cultural dna.
c. players and organizations will have to WANT TO win this thing to create a basic level of passion. they don’t now and there have been tons of articles about soccer leagues around the world where cup competitions are suffering from the lack of desire to win them.
in short….this is a MAJOR uphill battle of the usoc as there isn’t the drama of an ncaa basketball tourney/super bowl…..there isn’t the connection to soccer as part of our viewing culture….and there isn’t the passion from the actual participants (by in large)
as for your points:
1. a corp sponsor would help….but, ask yourself, what do ‘I’ get if i’m a corp giving money to this? it is a very under attended, under promoted, under written about event.
2+4. did you know that u.s. soccer has already stated that they already lose $200-250k per year on this tourney. adding more matches increases loss and getting rid of the bid process (where ‘supposedly’ they gain more money from the winning bid) increases loss. and increasing prize $ CERTAINLY increases loss. us soccer probably sees themselves as some sort of ‘charity’ for this event….but, they are definitely not going to increase their losses. and ask yourself what loses $ if they DO allow themselves to increase loss on this event. i doubt that it will come out of their pockets….it’ll come out of youth programs, development programs, etc…
3. i’m all for giving the lesser clubs right of first refusal when mls enters…but, again, it’ll likely increase $ loss. mls teams coming to a smaller market might increase that team’s gate receipts….but, many play in such small facilities that it may not offset what a larger team would bring in with significantly smaller gates. of course many mls teams play their ‘home’ games in ‘away’ venues for that very reason. i used to go to ludlow (from boston area), ma all the time to see usoc games for both the revs and the w.mass pioneers.
5. i’ve always thought that having a ‘final 4 weekend’ in a permanent location would be one way to increase interest (and maybe corp sponsors are easier to find for that as opposed the ‘entire’ tourney). at first, i thought the soccer hall of fame in oneonta would have been the best location to coincide with induction ceremonies. however, that was before i actually WENT to oneonta (not to mention it’s closed now). i’d be for a more 2nd tier city with a soccer city like st. louis. tho, seriously, it would be a long time b/f you’d find players saying anything like….let’s ‘get to st. louis’.
…..one last comment.
mls teams should NOT have qualifying.
stats show that most of them only get 1-2 extra games for their ‘reserves’ by playing in this thing…and with a newly announced (i think) reserve lg….they don’t need it.
simply take last year’s winner and the top 7 in standings (pts/games played) by early june and be done with it.
permanent field
…..i’m wondering if there would be any ‘demand’ by any cities to ‘bid for’ a final four usoc weekend annually? could include some sort of youth tourney(s)/clinics, etc….
Seattle takes USOC seriously
Seattle Sounders obviously take this tournament seriously. I am sure that there are steps that can improve the tournament and increase the publicity. But I think the biggest boost is the Sounders throwing out the challenge to the rest of the league by dominating the tourney these past two years. There is nothing like someone dominating a competition to motivate others. Players and fans alike get excited about knocking another team from their perch. that leads to publicity, media attention and fan interest.
Neutral Field
I am sorry Steve, but the neutral field idea is just horrible. After seeing 31,000+ fans at Qwest Field last night going crazy with the drama of the game. I just shudder to imagine what it would look like in St. Louis. ’
Now I like St. Louis, but do you really think you would get more than 10k semi-interested fans?
Seattle takes it seriously and it shows on the field and in the stands. I don’t think you want to remove that from the tournament.
Yeah, but what if Seattle doesn’t make the final or win the bid? No team in MLS is anywhere near as well supported by media and fans than the Sounders.
How much did DC draw for the final vs Seattle last year? Now imagine a FC vs San Jose final. On a weekday. yikes.
Not saying that neutral site is definitely better, but the idea is not “horrible.”
Seattle has done well for 4 years
2 semi-final appearences for the USL-side. 1 player of year tourney. Same GM. Even now 4 tourneys later there are 3 players on the squad from that first performance.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
I had no idea this existed until now
This tournament is awesome, and I will be following next year. I do not really have an MLS team since Miami no longer have the Fusion. However, this will give me a true reason to really pull for Miami FC.
"If winning isn't everything, then why do they keep score?"
-Vince Lombardi
Corporate sponsorship is a must, as it will lead to the other item mentioned, the bigger purse. Also, I like the idea of letting the minnows host the sharks after they have played a round amongst themselves. As far as a home and home or a neutral site for the final, I think that is too much schedule congestion.
Also, Champions League qualification needs to go to the winner (and they should actually know before the afternoon of the final that is what they’re playing for). Larger purse, the opportunity to make more money next year will lead to more seriousness.
If US Soccer were to build themselves a stadium somewhere, I could see the possibility of doing the neutral site, but I don’t really have an issue with the bid process other than the fact that it isn’t really clear how the process works.
I’ve noticed that my non-soccer friends can’t really get the concept of more than one competition going on at the same time. Not sure how to fix that other than to educate your friends as it comes up.
overall but permanent field especially
I think most of your suggestions are good ones, even though I agree some of them might appear to be to the cheque signers. The permanent field concept doesn’t work for me for a number of reasons, though.
1) Whichever city you end up designating as a permanent home will need to have a soccer specific stadium, ready to host the match. Otherwise, you’re going to play a Cup Final on a grid iron field replete with foreign (to soccer) logos.
2) It then follows that, with a 3S pitch employed, there would need to be a permanent tenant installed to make the facility financially viable. There goes your home field antidote.
3) What’s wrong with a home team playing in the final? As long as they haven’t bought their way in, I see no problem with it. Real Madrid, although they blew it, had the opportunity to play the CL final before the Santiago Bernabeu crowd, last year, and closer to home, NFL teams occasionally play the Super Bowl in their home stadium. As a rare occurrence, it’s memorable.
4) No, that was it. Just three objections.
Just for the Record...
No team has ever played in the Super Bowl on their home field. Though the possibility certainly exists every year.
by DissidentAggressor on Oct 6, 2010 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Timing is everything
Start the tournament during pre-season. Finish it during the first month of MLS. Look at Spain. I believe they finish it before the league even starts. It would also be a good way to test new players, who are trying to make the team. At the very least, make the preliminary rounds early. A couple of months later the final rounds.
