Seattle and U.S. Open Cup: Deserving champs, but a flawed process
by Steve Davis on Oct 5, 2011 11:18 AM EDT
Email
PrintFor the record, the scene at CenturyLink Field on Tuesday was everything you’d want, a cauldron of mean green, awash in Open Cup frenzy. And also for the record, Seattle is a deserving Open Cup champ, a club that takes the competition seriously and now has solid historical evidence to prove it. (The Sounders won their third consecutive Open Cup crown, the first side in 40 years to do so.)
Having said all that … it shouldn’t have happened that way.
I know this won’t be a popular post for the legion of Sounders faithful. And I sure don’t want to be a wet blanket on those deserved good feelings. But it’s time for the U.S. Open Cup to conduct itself as a proper competition.
Hear this: Nothing can ever be an actual, proper, completely forthright competition so long as host sites are chosen through financial heft.
Frankly, U.S. Soccer’s methodology throughout the tournament cheapens the entire competition. It’s a bit tacky.
None of this is Seattle’s fault. The Sounders are exercising their rights, playing within the tournament rules. It’s U.S. Soccer’s fault. Throughout the tournament, sites are decided through a bid process, one that ensures that bigger clubs can get the matches if they want them.
I understand that this system rewards clubs that do well at the gate, and there’s some value to that. On the other hand, it’s a competition. And again, no team should get to put their thumbs on the scales of athletic justice just because they have a fatter wallet than the next guy.
And here’s something else: the wonderful tournament is named after Lamar Hunt, an epic figure in American soccer and a man of unimpeachable honor and generosity. And I hate that a tournament named after Hunt, who never really cared about how much money he lost in the sport, has a site selection methodology attached to – let’s call it what it is – a money-motivated practice by an organization that apparently operates in the black.
Seattle has played seven consecutive U.S. Open Cup matches at home. Seven. That’s five or six too many by my counting.
Again, the Sounders are a very good team right now. But so is Chicago. And some of the difference on Tuesday was down to one thing: the Fire was playing on the road while Seattle enjoyed a huge home field edge. Again.
I said it before when D.C. United got so many matches at home in this competition, and I’ll say it again now: U.S. Soccer is wrong about this. Period. Its methodology was developed in another day, and it needs updating.
How? There are plenty of ways to make this process fairer. For instance, once matched, teams could simply flip a coin. If one side doesn’t want host duties (or simply cannot perform them, for whatever reason), they can opt out. Or be bought out. At least then it becomes their call.
Or, U.S. Soccer can limit the number of home matches for a club. Or, they can stipulate that two teams who have met before must play at the venue not used in the previous meeting.
There are also arguments for home-and-away aggregate goals series, although fixture congestion is an issue as it is.
Don’t forget, by the way, that sites selection for the FA Cup, the standard bearer that we all point toward as a model of what these things should be, is a random process.
132 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I respectfully disagree
Let me explain why I disagree with your points. Major League Soccer’s obsession with parity among its teams goes far beyond a salary cap extending into regulations on things such as how many charter flights teams are allowed to use each season and what types of hotels they’re allowed to stay in. The U.S. Open Cup’s host bidding system is a nice change of pace in this regard where teams/owners who choose to make the tournament a priority, and have the resources to do so, get an opportunity to provide their players a small competitive advantage in hosting a game.
I think the fairness of the game itself is unaffected by this and it is the sole responsibility of the referee to ensure that the rules are enforced equally on the pitch.
Note that while Seattle did host all 3 of their U.S. Open Cup games this season, RSL had actually outbid them for the semifinal and had they defeated Dallas in the quarterfinals, the semifinal game would have been played in Sandy, UT, not Seattle. Clearly RSL ownership decided that the Open Cup was a priority and wanted to give their team the best chance to win.
When club owners are essentially handcuffed by the league’s stringent rules enforcing parity, the U.S. Open Cup host bidding process is a rare opportunity for owners to "spend a little extra" on their team reducing their travel burden and ensuring a friendly crowd. So, given the entire landscap of top professional soccer in the U.S. I think your altruism here is misguided.
?
So you think unfairness should be an institutional part of the country’s oldest soccer competition? The bid system doesn’t just come down to which “teams/owners who choose to make the tournament a priority.” I read somewhere that the bid decisions are weighted by money promised, attendance expected, other factors that I’ve forgotten, and seemingly, subjective judgements from the bid committee. Oh, and there’s no transparency. As a Seattle fan, have you forgotten the smoke and mirrors DCU used to host the final in 2009?
Oh, and if Seattle wants to host games at Starfire, they need to make that pitch a decent size.
Also, I like the German Cup’s model of giving lower division sides the option to host their first game vs the top flight.
Unfairness?
The bidding process is already very fair from a business perspective. Team ownership is allowed to invest in their team by making more agressive bids. The better bid gets to host. This is completely fair. If you’re saying that it’s not fair for one team to have more support than another, and therefore more resources available for a bid, then that’s a problem that can’t be fixed frankly. If you’re saying that team ownership shouldn’t be allowed to look for ways to invest in the success of their team, then you need to look around. I watched a 60 minutes article last year about how the Miami Heat has a private jet for moving their team around during the season. Not charter flights, a private jet. If you’re saying it’s not fair for there to be a bidding process to host USOC matches, then it clearly can’t be fair for some NBA teams to have a private jet, and others not.
I bring up the officials, because the one place were all teams must be 100% equal is on the pitch. No matter how rich a team is, no matter how much support they have, etc. they deserve a fair game where all the rules are equally enforced. Don’t turn that level of fairness on the pitch into a desire for all teams to have an equal amount of money, supporters, resources, etc. That’s the point I’m trying to make.
Don’t confuse business fairness with
have you never heard the phrase home field advantage?
There are plenty of studies across a multitude of sports documenting that all other things equal, refs consistently favor home teams. A hosting process as skewed as the current approach makes consistent advantage to your club inevitable.
Don’t you know that the tournament has zero recognition in the larger sports culture? Heck, there are quite a few MLS fans don’t know it exists. There’s no TV coverage until the final because of that. If teams very rarely host or make a deep run, then how do you expect the popularity of the tournament to expand?
by fennsk1 on Oct 6, 2011 5:27 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Not that simple
I have heard of a home field advantage, but last I checked, it doesn’t change the rules of the game in favor of the home team. I’ve seen studies that show refs making more calls against the home team because they’re trying extra hard to not be biased. Regardless, the point is the rules are the same no matter who hosts.
There aren’t any MLS fans in Seattle, DC, Salt Lake, or Chicago that don’t know about the Open Cup. Look, US Soccer can’t make teams do marketing for U.S. Open Cup games and work hard to sell tickets to get fans to them. They can however, reward teams that do.
It’s going to be hard to change the host bidding system without screwing the teams that actually care about the Open Cup. If that happens, they may make things better in your eyes, but they will have made the tournament itself even less relevant.
by K61 on Oct 6, 2011 8:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Please cite these studies
I have heard of a home field advantage, but last I checked, it doesn’t change the rules of the game in favor of the home team. I’ve seen studies that show refs making more calls against the home team because they’re trying extra hard to not be biased.
Not to say I don’t believe you, but… ah, screw tact. I don’t believe you. Every study I’ve ever seen on this subject indicates that refs favor the home team.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
This is hilarious.
K61’s refusal to admit that hosting gives the home team an advantage is just fascinating. Obviously hasn’t made it to an Introduction to Logic class yet.
If you don’t want people to call it the Starfire Cup, let others host a game on occassion.
The implication is even more hilarious
The fact that you two seem to believe/imply that hosting a match somehow changes the rules in favor of the home team is equally hilarious.
For a tournament that doesn’t make money (and many are saying that it loses money) this bidding process is probably the only way it can be viable. But no, you guys are saying screw the need for money (it grows on trees) you want your team (who probably couldn’t get 5,000 out to watch) deserves (nay, has the right) to host matches. Screw the teams (DC, Seattle, Chicago, RSL) that actually care about this tournament enough to market it, play starters or rotationals, and actually travel their head coach to the match. Screw them, and screw money for that matter. This tournament has no business needs. It has no need for viability. It has no need for marketing. If you twist my head just right, the host biding process seems to have some favortism built in that doesn’t favor your team. Blow it up!
The fact is every team in the tournament has a shot at the trophy. They all play on regulation size pitches (possibly not their own though). They all are provided a refereeing crew from US Soccer to ensure that the game is fairly played. The rules are not changed to favor any team in this regard.
If your team isn’t hosting a round, it’s because they were outbid. If you don’t like it, don’t complain that the biddnig process must be changed, complain to your FO that they didn’t bid more. Go support your team so that they can bid more.
I think the USOC is a loser that should be abolished entirely
The US soccer scene cannot support a cup competition. There’s not enough interest. And I don’t give a rat’s ass about tradition.
And I’d rather see no cup competition than a fake competition in which the rules are stacked in favor of the highest bidder.
Your argument is laughable. The rules of every single reputable sporting competition require that teams have equal numbers of home and away games, and that where that is impossible, the extra games go to a team that earns them through on-field performance. Where that does not occur, the competition becomes a running joke (see: columnists discussing Jim Boeheim’s non-conference scheduling strategies).
I have no desire to hand however many thousands of dollars of my own money over to a team to bid on a USOC game. That does not, much as you might like to think it does, prevent me from observing how retarded this format is.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
Not for you then
I have no desire to hand however many thousands of dollars of my own money over to a team to bid on a USOC game
The clubs finance the bids from their own resources, not from money donated by fans. Nevertheless, if you don’t support your own team by buying tickets to their league and/or USOC games, then your opinion really isn’t relevant to this discussion.
by K61 on Oct 9, 2011 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Also, did you read my first post
That you’re replying to now? I get that there’s a competitive advantage to hosting and I think it’s important that team owners have a way to invest in the success of their team. They aren’t changing the rules. Each team gets 90 minutes to try to win. I think it’s an important facet of this tournament to allow teams to put verying degrees of emphasis on it. Teams that put more emphasis on it will travel less, have a favorable crowd, and therefore give themselves a better chance to win, but it’s not done by changing the rules of the game.
The place where you both run afoul is when you imply that the rules of the game are changed to favor the team that’s hosting.
It's not changing the rules of the game, nor is it necessarily an advantage through ref bias.
Home-field advantage is often advantageous psychologically and through familiarity, as well. Seattle, for example: used to playing and practicing on turf, specifically their turf, more than other teams, playing in front of 36,000 deafening fans, familiar with weather conditions, and able to better exploit pitch dimensions (which, if you weren’t aware, are NOT uniform throughout the league) because they do it all the time. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the rules of the game change, other than you.
The current system rewards financial clout and capital outlay and creates a sort of “might makes right” situation – you could argue that it’s fair, and in American economic culture you wouldn’t necessarily be wrong, but you would be hard-pressed to find too many people to support your opinion. And it won’t be more economically beneficial for long, by the way – even Seattle will begin to disregard the cup if they realize they can purchase a title 9 out of every 10 years.
And I would argue it doesn’t benefit the fans of teams who care most about the cup – no NASL or USL club could afford to outbid Seattle, but their fans would treat an Open Cup win and CCL berth as exponentially more glorious and amazing than a league title in their respective groups. The current system essentially shuts them out unless they get a path to the final littered with PDL clubs and teams like New England who don’t give a damn.
A knockout cup competition is meant to try and create a level playing field for all teams in the competition, so that games are decided by the team on the field and not any extraneous circumstances. The minnows are supposed to have a legitimate shot at the giants. The current system works to eliminate a key part of the level playing field, and that’s why there’s so much objection to it.
Founder and Editor of The Bent Musket on SBNation.
Twitter: @Stoehrst or @TheBentMusket
by Steve Stoehr on Oct 7, 2011 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions
False
no NASL or USL club could afford to outbid Seattle
This is simply not true. The USL Portland team outbid Seattle in ’09 and ’10. In order to win the USOC those years, Seattle had to win on the road in Portland. Portland fans did treat those matches as the “end all” of their season. Huge crowds. Tough wins for Seattle.
by K61 on Oct 9, 2011 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Did I not say that those clubs would treat them as the be-all end-all?
I believe that’s exactly what I said. Portland is a major exception to the rule, and now that they’re in MLS, we won’t see their like again in this competition. Some USL and NASL clubs will outbid certain MLS teams (specifically the ones that place no value on the competition, like New England), but the case of Portland, which was a team that was incredibly rich and popular by the standards of any NASL/USL club, is really a one-time thing.
I mean, if you really think Orlando is going to outbid Seattle next time – provided Seattle continues to take the competition as seriously as it has recently – then I suppose there’s no argument to be made here, since your reality vastly differs from everyone else’s.
Founder and Editor of The Bent Musket on SBNation.
Twitter: @Stoehrst or @TheBentMusket
by Steve Stoehr on Oct 10, 2011 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions
To clarify
By “the rule” I mean the rule I set out where USL/NASL clubs won’t outbid MLS teams.
Founder and Editor of The Bent Musket on SBNation.
Twitter: @Stoehrst or @TheBentMusket
by Steve Stoehr on Oct 10, 2011 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions
Wrong
As I mentioned in a comment below, 2 lower division clubs outbit MLS clubs in ‘11, 3 in ’10, and 6 in ’09. Portland is no exception to “the rule.” There is no rule except that a team’s ownership has to give a crap before they win a hosting bid. I think that’s pretty fair given the circumstances.
The fact that the rules are changed to favor home teams on an ad-hoc, unpredictable basis
does not mean that they are not changed. It just means that you can’t precisely predict when the changes are going to occur.
When teams play at home, fouls committed by their players become non-fouls, non-fouls by the other team become fouls, onside players for the other team become offside, and so on. That’s the definition of changing the rules.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
If that's true then
If that’s as true as you’re making out to be, then no team should host. Ever. Games should be played in a vacuum where it’s completely fair in every possible way. Economic viability, fans, and owners who give a crap be damned.
by K61 on Oct 9, 2011 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions
That sounds a lot more like what you were saying
You’re making the argument that there’s no such thing as ref bias and home-field advantage is a myth, so yes, by your own volition, that’s how games should be played, I suppose.
Founder and Editor of The Bent Musket on SBNation.
Twitter: @Stoehrst or @TheBentMusket
by Steve Stoehr on Oct 10, 2011 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm not making that argument at all, never was
I’m refuting the usage of the term “unfair” when it applies to the host bidding process.
You first
I don’t keep a database of every article I’ve ever read. It would be hard to find the study and I don’t care enough about proving it to you to go dig it up. You brought up studies first and I was tactfully saying that I don’t believe you either. Just because the results of your “study” panders to the sentiment of this blog post doesn’t mean it actually exists.
I will point you to this article I read earlier this week where the ref of the 2010 USOC final talks about how important it was to call the game farely regardless of the large crowd or the high stakes.
Of course he's gonna say that
Do you really expect an official to come out and say “hey, it’s my job to call a fair game, but sometimes I don’t.” Not sure anyone is arguing that refs are purposefully biased, it just works out that way in many cases.
Founder and Editor of The Bent Musket on SBNation.
Twitter: @Stoehrst or @TheBentMusket
by Steve Stoehr on Oct 7, 2011 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Your turn, K61.
“Home field advantage exists in every sport, at all times in history, and in all geographies,” said Moskowitz, Fama Family Professor of Finance.
“And it’s remarkably consistent,” he added, citing statistics from the five most popular team sports—football, basketball, baseball, soccer, and hockey.
Boyko studied the number of goals scored by a team at home versus those scored while away, and found that teams scored 1.5 home goals on average, and 1.1 while away. Crowd size also had an impact on the number of goals scored by the home team, and for every additional 10,000 people in the crowd, the advantage for the home team increased by about 0.1 goals.
In addition to affecting the number of goals scored, the away team received more penalties, implying that referees are making calls in favor of the home team, possibly as a result of the influence of the crowd.
Now go use Google and find an intelligent researcher that says anything that supports your position. Might be harder for you than it was for me. No one is saying that homefield fundamentally changes the rules of the game, but you have to admit that the home team has many levels of advantage.
Besides, US Soccer has said they’re changing the format away from the bid system. It was an antiquated approach born in a period where soccer was struggling to stay afloat in this country. Glad we’re past that stage and moving on.
US Open Cup <> MLS
The US Open Cup is not Major League Soccer. It is open to all clubs and should not be constrained to the monied clubs’ venues.
I don’t think the issue is referee’s fairness in calls, but in the psychological advantage a team has playing in their own stadium in front of their own crowd.
I’d like to see either the FA or German Cup’s methodology used instead of the current Cup methodology of “money rules.”
Seattle's home-field advantage certainly isn't int he refs
That much is true. 40,000 screaming fans wearing headache-inducing rave green is the home-field advantage. Quite a culture shock for the rest of MLS, most of whom play in front of 15k on average. God help any NASL, USL or PDL club that has to play them…
Founder and Editor of The Bent Musket on SBNation.
Twitter: @Stoehrst or @TheBentMusket
I completely agree that the system needs to be changed
But every game but the final has been in front of 4k ish fans.
Also, the travel setup needs to be changed. MLS teams should be allowed to charter every flight that isn’t MLS related.
US Open Cup <> FA or German Cup
Just like we don’t have promotion/relegation (and never will), our cup competitions don’t have to be exact matches of how they do it in Europe. We’re capable of doing it our own way and not catoring to Eurosnobery on everything.
I don't think that's Eurosnobbery
“Our own way” right now destroys the magic of knockout competition. It really has no business being the system in ANY American sport…and lo and behold, I don’t think it is.
Founder and Editor of The Bent Musket on SBNation.
Twitter: @Stoehrst or @TheBentMusket
by Steve Stoehr on Oct 7, 2011 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions
What exactly is the magic that's being destroyed
Every team in the tournament has a shot at winning it. Giant killers can exist (see ’99 Rochester Rhinos). Somebody has to host these games since having a 2-legged series in every round would be too much of a burden. Given that the tournament runs at a loss, how do you propose they determine hosting rights? Flip a coin and let teams like Dallas and Columbus host in empty stadiums. How is that magical?
by K61 on Oct 9, 2011 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Dallas/Columbus is a risk you take
But chances are that’s not how things end up. A coin flip would be a far more fair and even way of determining things than the current system.
I think it’s funny we keep arguing this when USSoccer has already pledged to change the system, and several of the teams who have benefited from the current way have also condemned it. If there’s anything that pokes a hole in the myriad arguments you have made here, the biggest one is probably that.
Founder and Editor of The Bent Musket on SBNation.
Twitter: @Stoehrst or @TheBentMusket
by Steve Stoehr on Oct 10, 2011 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions
As I said below
I also favor some changes in the bidding process, but not because I think it’s inherently unfair. I’d just like to see more transparency in the bidding. I still have doubts about whether DC actually outbid Seattle in ‘09. I think their GM, Kevin Payne, who sits on the US Soccer board of directors, may have pulled a few strings. In the end it doesn’t matter, we won on their turf. Meh.
The thing that scares me is that they might change the bidding process in some major way, alienate the teams that give a crap, and destroy any momentum they may currently have. That would be a shame and we’d all be losers if that happened.
I Agree
First, Congratulations to Seattle Sounders and to the City of Seattle.
The USOC should be a random drawing and each draw should be a major event. What makes the FA Cup so interesting is small town clubs have a shot of hosting a monster club like Man. U, Liverpool etc. Small USL clubs could use the much needed revenue boost from visiting MLS franchises.
I hope US Soccer gets their head out of their ass and fix this competition. I hate MLS but love competitions like CCL and Open Cup.
I like your thoughts...
I like your thoughts here as it relates to comparing the FA Cup, but tell me, why the “hate MLS” stance?
I hate MLS
Because MLS limits quality to seek a profit. Pays our domestic players peanuts . Overpays for foreign talent who are over the hill. I live in a city that will never get a team because of MLS expansion policy. Clubs do not own players outright but the league does. Make Clubs independent and Promotion Relegation.
Someone here
doesn’t understand how much money the MLS makes… or how much money the European teams lose.
We had 100 years for the “natural independent club with pro/rel” to happen.. and it didn’t happen. Something had to change, and it did. Welcome to our real, growing, not in heaps of debt and being forced to sell out, financially viable league.
by musamonster on Oct 6, 2011 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
MLS Makes $$$?
No you’re wrong. most MLS franchises are hemorrhaging money according to Forbes mag. Growing league? Lets look at TV ratings my friend.
So if they are hemorraging money
are they not growing?
MLS makes money
Teams are losing money, but MLS as an organization shares revenue and also pools revenue from the marketing arm, SUM, which runs national team games for the US and Mexico, in addition to MLS friendlies. MLS is actually very, very lucrative as a company, even with multiple teams in the red.
Founder and Editor of The Bent Musket on SBNation.
Twitter: @Stoehrst or @TheBentMusket
by Steve Stoehr on Oct 8, 2011 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I feel for you on the expansion front
But you have to realize that a lot of the stuff you listed isn’t viable in America. USL tried to make pro/rel a reality ten years ago and failed miserably. NASL didn’t have reins on spending and failed miserably. This is America – soccer isn’t king, and things have to be taken one step at a time.
Founder and Editor of The Bent Musket on SBNation.
Twitter: @Stoehrst or @TheBentMusket
by Steve Stoehr on Oct 7, 2011 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Steve
When are we going to stop making excuses for owners. As for your citation of promotion relegation 10 years ago wasn’t relegation VOLUNTARY?! Not the same Steve and clubs were still not independent.
100 years
and it didn’t happen. Something had to change. Sorry.
Are you @soccerreform in disguise?
Find a guy named Ted Westerveldt on twitter, the two of you were made for each other.
Founder and Editor of The Bent Musket on SBNation.
Twitter: @Stoehrst or @TheBentMusket
by Steve Stoehr on Oct 8, 2011 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions
no team should get to put their thumbs on the scales of athletic justice just because they have a fatter wallet than the next guy.
Win or lose, we'll always be there for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Oct 5, 2011 12:43 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I agree that the process is unfair right now,
but I feel that it is more of an issue for the earlier rounds. The non-MLS teams in the tournament are particularly crippled by it. They have no chance to win a bid and don’t have much for a travel budget.
As long as they just let the reigning champion host the final, then we will continue having it here in Seattle anyway.
Sounders 'til I die
The Open Cup would go bankrupt if they didn't sell the rights to host
The organization isn’t financially robust enough to stand on it’s own – and I think that is your biggest obstacle to getting to the parity of hosting you speak of.
On one hand I’ll say you’re right, Steve – it isn’t 100% fair that a team doesn’t have to travel in a competition (although the cynic in me would point to Seatte’s best road record in the MLS anyway – they seem to play better when not at Century Link, but that’s a different discussion). But what about seeding? Shouldn’t teams that play well be rewarded with homefield advantage, much like playoffs? The Sounders are undefeated in all Open Cup competitions since joining the MLS, and are returning champs. If there was a seeding system, wouldn’t they be #1 anyway?
Another big issue is attendance & interest. If the Open Cup rounds were hosted by coin flips or something similar, you’d have matches with 2,000 spectators. If Dallas had beaten Seattle in the semis and won the flip to host Chicago for the Final, you’d have a Final at Pizza Hut Park with 5,000 people watching.
What you saw last night was far more loud & energetic than even the MLS Cup Final last year. A team that can get the bigger crowds obviously has more motivation to place a higher bid to host, and for the sake of raising Open Cup’s profile and awareness, that’s what you want – a stage to show the loudest & largest number of fans. I know many are sick of hearing about Seattle’s numbers, but it really is good for the league & this competition. Hopefully the popularity grows so other teams can pull that number of fans on a rainy Tuesday school & work night for a competition that NY couldn’t even be arsed to deal with.
It’s like the MLS playoff system – not really fair, but it’s intent is to keep the most people interested as long as possible, since this sport is playing second-fiddle in this country. The Open Cup is even smaller, playing second-fiddle to MLS league play and rarely getting recognition. God forbid the Red Bulls made the Final. Backe might have actually left New York just so he would’t have to be there and field a starting XI team.
It’s great when the team that takes the tournament so seriously can show the country WHY you should take it seriously. If the USOC can grow in popularity and stand (financially) on it’s own two-feet, I would be all for seeing a change of the system as you suggest.
SSFC | What I do for fun: Sometimes-Interesting
The organization isn’t financially robust enough to stand on it’s own
I’m sorry, are you referring to an organization other than U.S. Soccer?
I'm living in the past
Still thought it was run by USASA. My apologies. That wasn’t really much of a reason though – just the kick-off sentence of the post.
The following points are more important to the discussion and not relevant to finances.
SSFC | What I do for fun: Sometimes-Interesting
by ABTsportsline on Oct 5, 2011 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Shouldn’t teams that play well be rewarded with homefield advantage, much like playoffs?
No Cup competition anywhere else works that way. National Cups are a tradition that allows every club in the country a chance.
If Dallas had beaten Seattle in the semis and won the flip to host Chicago for the Final, you’d have a Final at Pizza Hut Park with 5,000 people watching.
Dallas pulled 10,600 for the Open Final in 2007. They also have the 3rd largest percentage increase in attendance this year. Quit it with the FCD hate. They’re making progress. And don’t be so arrogant to assume that only your club is the only one capable of pulling a nice crowd when a trophy’s up for grabs.
What you saw last night was far more loud & energetic than even the MLS Cup Final last year.
Of course it was. That’s inevitable when one of the teams hosts it. That wouldn’t change until MLS wisened up and put their final in a home stadium.
No Cup competition anywhere else works that way.
Why does this have to be like any other cup competition. We’re capable of doing things our own way. We don’t have promotion/relegation and we seem to be surviving without it.
National Cups are a tradition that allows every club in the country a chance.
How does the host bidding process deprive a club of their chance to win the tournament? The referees need to ensure that the game is called fairly. Where it’s played is irrelevant to the fairness of the competition. It’s driven by business needs. The competition runs at a loss currently, and the bidding process helps to minimize those losses.
Dallas pulled 10,600 for the Open Final in 2007.
10,600 < 35,000 by a wide margin. The bar has been raised. Under the current system and the fiscal uncertainty of the whole tournament, if Dallas can’t draw better, they shouldn’t be allowed to host. This has nothing to do with the fairness of the tournament/sport either. The referees will call fair matches. Dallas is entitled to a fairly called game, but that’s where the entitlements end. The team who can contribute more to the fiscal viability of the tournament should be allowed to host. Otherwise we have no tournament.
Of course it was. That’s inevitable when one of the teams hosts it.
It’s not inevitable if Dallas or Colubus hosts it.
by K61 on Oct 6, 2011 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions
If there was a seeding system, wouldn’t they be #1 anyway?
No.
What have they won that has been contented by all MLS teams???
Nothing, OK, yeah, they should be ranked #1 because . . .
I'm confused
Are you saying not every MLS team has a chance to win the Open Cup every year. That’s incorrect.
by K61 on Oct 6, 2011 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions
You're right
It was stupid when DC United played 37 consecutive home games or whatever it was, and it isn’t right that Seattle (we) can play every match or most matches at home as well. Taking nothing away from the quality of those Seattle teams or the decisions of the front office, who are just playing within the system they’re given.
But as far as money affecting competitiveness that’s a boat that’s sailed way, way out of the harbor. Is using money or geographical cachet to get a player like Henry that no other team could get less competitively unbalanced than using money to get home field advantage?
Also, there’s a very good chance that the Galaxy will be playing for the MLS Cup at home this season. How was that decided?
Nos Audietis
Galaxy won't be playing the MLS Cup at home
unless they can get there first… Just like TFC had the opportunity last year (ha ha!) and the Sounders had the year before. Would the MLS like to see the Galaxy play in the Cup at home? Sure, it’s only good business, just like the NBA hoping the Lakers make the finals or MLB hoping the Yankees make the World Series… but the MLS Cup at the Home Depot Center is more a matter of convenience and not wanting a cold final like last year rather than playing favorites.
Of course it would have been funny if Chivas had made the final instead.
Everybody knows LA was going all in for a MLS cup this year
Seattle was an expansion team and Toronto was middle of the pack. The league office knew they were giving a big advantage to LA this year.
by Dizzo on Oct 6, 2011 3:38 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Maybe...
but this league also sees a lot of top to bottom movement and vice-versa… It wouldn’t be impossible to see TFC climb make it the the cup final last year (as the Rapids did), and even though they were brand new, the Sounders made the playoffs and could have made a run for the final. Yes, the Galaxy will have an advantage with the final at home, and sure, the league would love to see Beckham hoist the Cup, but nothing is guaranteed… and the league wanted to avoid what happened last year.
IT absolutely is NOT a matter of "convenience"
LA is the golden child of MLS, they were deliberately given the cup this year so that Goldenballs and Judas could have an easy coronation to the MLS Cup.
Just look at all the shenanigans that were pulled back in 2005 to ensure that Judas ended up in LA.
Win or lose, we'll always be there for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Oct 6, 2011 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Wow someone here is a hater...
Maybe if San Jose had a stadium, then they could get the MLS Cup.
Of course the HDC is a matter of convenience… It’s going to be warm, have plenty of fans to get there, had hosted it before so has plenty of experience… What kind of “shenanigans” did TFC pull to host the Cup last year?
Why is was no one complaining in the NFL that it was “unfair” that the Colt had the opportunity to host the Super Bowl this year… oh yeah.. cause they’re big boys.
Just looked up 2008 USOC Final numbers-
…the year before MLS Sounders put such a priority on the tournament.
Attendance: 8,212. In three years that jumps to 35,615. Does it grow that big without Seattle taking the competition seriously & bidding to host? Would the tournament still be viewed as a “nuisance” by most of the league?
SSFC | What I do for fun: Sometimes-Interesting
I’m not sure that Seattle’s interest in the USOC has seriously lifted interest in it by the rest of the league. There are some clubs (DCU, Chicago, Columbus) that tend to take it more seriously, because with expansion and weaker performances in the league, this is their best chance at a trophy. However, how many other automatic playoff spot bound teams actually made a serious effort in the tournament? Home advantage coupled with playing lots of first teamers made it unsurprising that you guys got to the final and won it. Therefore, it was not a particularly exciting final to watch from a neutral standpoint.
by Karlito Vargas on Oct 5, 2011 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions
How many English teams really take the League Cup seriously?
It seems the top teams only really do when they are close enough to grab it.
League cups don't offer a UEFA Champion's League berth
by chrisperry1983 on Oct 6, 2011 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Very true
But what of the “glory”? The “silverware”?… I personally think the League Cup is a waste.
It's a cool thing to win
and is fun for the fans. But league cup is not a fair comparison to USOC, because there is some real value attached to it by getting a CCL play-in berth
by chrisperry1983 on Oct 6, 2011 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions
But in both leagues
where they complain about playing too many games…
Without the CCL berth, what good would the Open Cup be? Without the CCL berth, teams would still hold the Supporters Shield and the MLS Cup in highest regard.
In terms of money and exposure,
the Europa League vastly outweighs the CCL.
Nice try.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
Nice try what?
Without the CCL what it the merit of the Open Cup? Answer the question, please…
He was replying to chrisperry1983, not you.
Paul was just pointing out that League Cup gives the winner a Europa League spot. Far more valuable than the USOC’s CCL prize.
You're comparing apples and oranges
The holy grail of MLS is a spot in CCL. The holy grail of Premier League is UEFA CL, not Europa League. Yes Europa is more valuable when compared head to head with CCL, but it’s not something we compete in. Europa League is to UEFA Champions League as SuperLiga is (was) to CCL.
by chrisperry1983 on Oct 7, 2011 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I do take back the 'real value' comment though
That was probably too far. I do realize there is value in Europa League. I was trying to emphasize the point though and I didn’t do a very good job of that.
by chrisperry1983 on Oct 7, 2011 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions
CCL Holy Grail?
BwAAA hha hahah ahah hahaha aha hah.
That’s a good one.
You do know the firs C in CCL is for CONCACAF right?
For the MLS
it is, if regarded rightly… and that is the door to the Club World Cup.
Try re-reading my post
The holy grail of MLS is a spot in CCL.
The holy grail of EPL is UEFA CL.
Is there something funny about that? That an MLS team would aspire to get into CCL?
by chrisperry1983 on Oct 8, 2011 12:11 AM EDT up reply actions
UEFA Champions League… but MLS doesn’t get into that. CCL is our way to prove we are the best in North America… and get to play South America’s and Europe’s best in the Club World Cup
That isn't at all what I said
The argument the guy was making was that FA/League cup get you into Europa league and that Europa league is far superior to CCL. I said he is comparing apples to oranges. The CCL is MLS’s holy grail. That is what we strive to be in. Whereas in the EPL, they strive to be in UEFA CL.
Just so everybody is crystal freaking clear, I know the difference between the confederations, I know which league gets into what, etc. I don’t know how I can make what I’m saying any more clear.
by chrisperry1983 on Oct 8, 2011 1:23 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I'm comparing the relative incentives of winning each of the competitions
You implied that there was no “real value” to winning the League Cup. That’s clearly false— the Europa League place is highly valuable to clubs, far more so than a CCL place (which I’m not convinced has any monetary value at all, given the generally horrible attendance at CCL games).
The reason teams don’t try hard for the League Cup is fixture congestion, not lack of incentive. The incentive is fine, given that you only have to win six games to get a European slot.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
But without the Europa League entry
what does the League Cup mean? Is Man U really that proud of their 2010 League Cup win, or was it just a nice token trophy?
I personally think the League Cup is a distraction, and as much as I like the USOC, it too is a distraction.
I took that statement back
It was a mistake to write that – I was over emphasizing my point and said that. Yes, it is a false statement.
by chrisperry1983 on Oct 9, 2011 8:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Neither does the FA Cup
Both of them offer Europa League berths though
Founder and Editor of The Bent Musket on SBNation.
Twitter: @Stoehrst or @TheBentMusket
by Steve Stoehr on Oct 7, 2011 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with this point completely.
I’d be most in favor of a two leg, aggregate goals situation, or random draw. Unfortunately, it’s unlikely to change because money is at stake, and this competition currently cares more about selling tickets that having a proper tournament competition. “Bidding” to be a host of a round of the tournament when you’re the club that’s playing in it seems very absurd to me.
Two-legged rounds would create more problems than it solves.
Yeah, it would fix a lot of neutrality issues, but the increase in fixture congestion would be a total nightmare.
Founder and Editor of The Bent Musket on SBNation.
Twitter: @Stoehrst or @TheBentMusket
And it'd eliminate the intensity of single elimination knockouts
No way would the FA cup and others have the giant-killing upsets if there were home/away for every round.
by chrisperry1983 on Oct 6, 2011 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Two-game playoffs should die in a fire
They’re not soccer games. They’re quasi-sort-of-games-and-sort-of-half-games.
People are always bitching about “changing the rules” when it comes to penalty shootouts. I have no idea why two-game playoff series are not treated in the same manner, as they drastically change the normal rules of the sport by effectively making a game twice as long as it otherwise would be.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
It would seem
“That’s how they do it Europe and South America so that’s how soccer should be done.” That might be a popular opinion.
I kinda like it personally, especially since it takes away any home field advantage and allows both fanbases easy access to the matchups. Who said a soccer game had to be 90 minutes? At what point did that arbitrary number become the word of God? Why not 60? Or in this case… 180, broken up over 2 separate events?
Well, 90 minutes has been in the Laws for over 100 years
So there’s that. But home-home two-legged fixtures have also been a part of soccer for a century, so there’s that.
Founder and Editor of The Bent Musket on SBNation.
Twitter: @Stoehrst or @TheBentMusket
by Steve Stoehr on Oct 7, 2011 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Because two game play offs:
1. Pretty much resemble a game of soccer
2. Are fair
3 Are a bigger sample size than one soccer game and a shootout
4. Less likely to result in a penalty shootout which don’t resemble a game of soccer.
5. and Most importantly, generate more $$$ for the owners
If penalty shootouts are such a great idea let’s end baseball with home run contests, basketball with free throw shootouts, and playoff hockey with those hokey regular season shooting contests.
#5 is wrong
When teams like NE, Dallas, or Columbus host a USOC match in front of ~2000 supporters, I doubt they make enough money to cover turning the lights on in the stadium.
by K61 on Oct 9, 2011 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Not a profit, more like "we don't lose as much."
Trust me, I’m in the New England market. The Revs don’t make any money, and the Krafts only use them to minimize losses outside of football season. See, for all those teams you mentioned, keeping the stadium open while not in operation costs money, so holding events with even 2000 people doesn’t necessarily make a profit, but it minimizes loss.
Founder and Editor of The Bent Musket on SBNation.
Twitter: @Stoehrst or @TheBentMusket
by Steve Stoehr on Oct 10, 2011 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions
This seems like a stretch
The way I am understanding what you say: the major costs of running a stadium are outside of its actual operation, and that costs of opening it up for a game or event are ancillary and are more than covered even if there’s a low turnout?
I don’t know what type of deals they have with local utilities, the food/beverage provider they source, etc. Maybe they get a bulk deal for being a big consumer of their resources? In my mind I’m trying to equate it to owning my house and I pay based on usage for electricity, water, gas, etc. If my family stops living at my house, all I have is a mortgage payment as nothing else gets used. With a stadium it seems like opening it up for a minimal number of fans wouldn’t cover the cost of electricity, water, gas, food labor, security, ushers, etc. Seems like you’d lose more money on top of just your mortgage.
by chrisperry1983 on Oct 10, 2011 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions
It depends
But I believe a 5,000 person crowd at Gillette covers costs, or at the very least costs less than not having an event there at all. Then again, Gillette is also surrounded by Patriot Place, so perhaps the balance sheets assume other revenues as well.
Founder and Editor of The Bent Musket on SBNation.
Twitter: @Stoehrst or @TheBentMusket
by Steve Stoehr on Oct 10, 2011 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Good stuff
I don’t know what break even points are for this type of thing, but it’s interesting to think about having venues open to minimize costs. A fun topic for sure, but that is probably the econ nerd inside me saying that.
by chrisperry1983 on Oct 11, 2011 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions
Maybe a slight tweaking in order....
….but, i noticed nobody has brought up the story from last year (or the year b/f) that us soccer had been taking a $250,000 hit on this tourney annually. maybe some minor tweaking in order to assure ‘x’ amount of games in a row. but, if that’s true, that us soccer is taking that big of a hit….what would you have them do? as much as i’d like to see random draws and that teams NOT play the same teams from their region year after year….anyone’s argument that doesn’t address the finanacials now-a-days….well, hate to say it (including the author here) it’s just ‘fanatasy football’.
Obviously the answer
is for some rich Arabian to start sponsoring it :)
by musamonster on Oct 5, 2011 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I would have USSoccer force teams to take it more seriously
They need to lean on MLS clubs (you know the lower leagues are already all-in on this) to fight and make the competition more relevant. Part of that is expanding roster restrictions a bit more – 30 players SHOULD be enough, but under a $2.7 million cap, if you get hit with injuries it’s still a little rough – but a lot of that is just a concerted effort by the league as a whole to pressure obstinate owners (like the Krafts, who are running my team into the ground) to pay more attention to cup competitions. The fans will respond if the team and organization take it seriously.
Founder and Editor of The Bent Musket on SBNation.
Twitter: @Stoehrst or @TheBentMusket
They can't
They can’t just make them take it more seriously just like governments can’t make citizens take voting more seriously.
If USSoccer wants it to be taken more seriously, then an easy thing they could do immediately is significantly increase the prize money. The winner currently gets $100,000. Divide that among 25 players (assuming coaches and ownership don’t take a cut) and you only get $4000 each. Not exactly an incentive. There should honestly be a $1M prize at the end.
Unfortunately, to offer such a prize, they have to start getting income from the tournament. As MLively points out, they’re currently running the tournament at a loss. So you end up with a chicken/egg problem where they need to increase the prize money, but they don’t want to increase the loss they’re taking on it.
So honestly, I don’t think much is going to change immediately. The increased attendance and emphasis seen by a few teams (DC, RSL, Seattle) in recent years is a big deal and I think is a workable path to a brighter future. If USSoccer redoes how the bidding process works and, as a consequence, punishes the teams who are actually emphasizing the tournament, they could do more harm than good.
by K61 on Oct 6, 2011 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions
The majority of MLS teams are operating at a loss
But the organization operates at a profit – because of SUM, among other things. That’s just one example of a sports organization subsidizing one arm that loses money with the higher profits of another arm. It would be very, very easy for that to happen.
And I’m not saying they need to lead a military junta in to MLS to force them to care. I meant, as you suggested, improving incentives for the winners, threatening certain sanctions, etc. etc. There are things within their power that USSoccer can do to exert pressure, and it may not work with everyone, but I bet it would get the point across and make things better.
Founder and Editor of The Bent Musket on SBNation.
Twitter: @Stoehrst or @TheBentMusket
by Steve Stoehr on Oct 7, 2011 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Okay as Is
I’m a DC United supporter. Yep, DCU did what Seattle is doing now. But here’s the flip side: part of the wonder and joy of this competition is that small clubs can be giant killers. Some of those “small” clubs have first-rate fields like the Charleston Battery. And then there are others….ugh. Twice DCU played open cup matches where coaches deliberately left off key players (they stayed at home) NOT b/c DCU wasn’t taking the competition seriously but b/c there was fear of players getting injured by the quality of the field.
It’s one thing to be an English club with small, ramshackle stands that seat 2,000. You still have a decent pitch to play the match on. But some lower division sides in the US have fields where injury is a risk.
Additionally, let’s be honest—not all MLS teams take the competition seriously. So reward the clubs who care about it. Maybe in 10-15 years when all minor league clubs have good fields and the NE Revolution finally start taking the competition seriously, then it’s time to look at what Steve proposes. Until then, this is a competition that half of MLS isn’t passionate about so anything that encourages passion and rewards clubs who care about it should be tolerated.
I Just Wish
They made it an exciting tournament instead of a joke.
Why not just adopt the exact format of the FA Cup and then go from there?
MLS should take it seriously and insist its a proper tournament or pull out, the current situation is intolerable.
True.
I like the Open Cup… it is unique to American sports, But at the same time it is also just “cute”… unnecessary, and for many teams, seams to get in the way of their real goals: Supporters Shield, MLS Cup… and Champions League. But, hey, to those teams that take is seriously,,, more power to em I guess.
How is it unnecessary for teams?
It’s by far the easiest way into CCL. Until USOC doesn’t offer a CCL berth, it’s a big deal.
by chrisperry1983 on Oct 6, 2011 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions
MLS is starting to get this
Jason Kreis is the most recent convert:
http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2011/06/28/kreis-us-open-cup-shortest-way-back-concacaf
by K61 on Oct 6, 2011 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions
True...
But take away the CCL berth and what does it mean? It only has value because of the CCL, not it’s own merits.
I'm asking
what is the true value of the Open Cup? How many actually want to win the Cup and how many just want a CCL berth? If there was no CCL berth for the Open Cup, would any MLS teams play in it? Would the Sounders pay the bucks to hope to host it?
If we gave the berth to some sort of preseason tournament would that suddenly become much more important than the Open Cup, or would the Cup stand on it’s own merits? The FA Cup only allows entry to the Europa League (still a big deal to most English teams), but not the Champions League. But the big teams take it seriously. It stands on it’s own merits.
Probably works the same way it does in a lot of other countries
For the top teams, it’s cool to win silverware but they don’t care THAT much. For the rest of the league, cups are a major priority because it’s a chance at more money, greater exposure, and silverware they may never have another way of getting.
For example, we’d love to win the Open Cup again in New England. Especially since, for the last two seasons, our lack of competitiveness in league play became painfully apparent by week 5. Or, as a Newcastle United fan, I want to see the Magpies focus on the League Cup or FA Cup – we haven’t won anything significant since ’69, or ’55 if you think domestically. ANYTHING would be nice at this point.
Founder and Editor of The Bent Musket on SBNation.
Twitter: @Stoehrst or @TheBentMusket
by Steve Stoehr on Oct 7, 2011 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions
What I would like to see:
An open, transparent bid process. The USSF sets what it needs as far as stadium conditions, fees and turnout for each round of the competition. The team that can arrange a public bid that covers the minimum can host. If both bid the minimum then the host is determined by coin toss. USSF gets what it needs to fund the tournament. Teams are encouraged to get fans out to cover the min. turnout. Even small teams have a chance to host if they have the right facilities.
by Dizzo on Oct 6, 2011 3:46 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I like this idea a lot.
The main problems facing the USOC right now as I see them are:
- Fairness. A competition isn’t taken very seriously when hosting of games can be more or less bought.
- Standards and Finances. There are plenty of lower-level teams in the US that play in stadiums with substandard money-making capabilities, and pitches in (sometimes dangerously) bad condition.
Your solution solves both of those problems.
Then they’d just need to further incentivize the clubs (bigger champion’s prize) to take it seriously. Once all the clubs treat it like a real competition, sponsors, TV coverage, and fans will follow.
I don't understand
I still don’t see how people are equating who hosts the match to the fairness of the match. The match must be called fairly in all circumstances. Who hosts the match can be determined by a number of methods, and since the USOC runs at a loss, US Soccer takes bids for hosting. This doesn’t affect the fairness. Seattle lost the bid to host the 2009 final, however the ref called the game evenly (for the most part) and Seattle had a fair chance to win. That’s the only thing every team in the tournament is entitled to. Hosting rights are not an entitlement.
Don’t try to construe a business decision as affecting the fairness of the sporting event.
by K61 on Oct 6, 2011 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions
So, if MLB was to declare that from now on, so it can make more money, the Yankees would host all playoff games,
that would not impact the fairness of the sport.
This is an incredibly bad argument.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
by PaulThomas on Oct 7, 2011 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Instead
they let the All Star game be the deciding factor :)
You seem to be making all of your arguments in a vacuum, among other things.
I’ve refuted all of your points previously, so I won’t repeat myself. Suffice to say you aren’t seeing the big picture.
Founder and Editor of The Bent Musket on SBNation.
Twitter: @Stoehrst or @TheBentMusket
by Steve Stoehr on Oct 7, 2011 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions
You seem to be picking and choosing which points to refute
Scroll all the way up to the top and read the first comment to this blog entry (which I posted). In it I readily admit that hosting a match has it’s advantages. What I take issue with is to label the host bidding process as “unfair.” The rules of the game are not changed. Somebody has to host these games since having a 2-legged series in every round would be too much of a burden. Given that the tournament runs at a loss, how do you propose they determine hosting rights? Flip a coin and let teams like Dallas and Columbus host in empty stadiums. That’ll do wonders for the tournament (like it has for the past 10 years). Things have improved in the last 3 years with this tournament. Obviously with more attention comes more baseless complaining.
I love how so many of you take issue with it now that Seattle has won 3 in a row, destroyed previous attendance records, and provided a template for how to be successful in this competition. The bidding rules are fair whether you admit it or not. The team that makes the better bid and meets scheduling criteria gets to host. The end. Seattle didn’t get to host in ‘09 because we were asking for the schedule to change (because a Mariners game was in the way). So DC hosted. We won anyway. How did we win when DC hosted? Isn’t that an “unfair” advantage? No! We won because the game was executed by the referee in a fair manner and we played better and scored more goals. This is not complicated.
If your team isn’t winning the right to host a match, don’t go complaining to US Soccer about how it’s not fair and the system must be changed. Complain to your FO about why they didn’t bid enough to be the host (what this guy said).
by K61 on Oct 9, 2011 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not complaining about the Revs not getting hosting rights
I could give a damn less. I’d rather see us take it seriously, THEN go all in for hosting rights.
The Open Cup hasn’t improved quite so much in the last three years, except in Seattle. Yes, it has destroyed attendance records and yes, for Seattle at least, it has become a profitable venture. But Open Cup games are still contested in empty practice stadiums by reserve teams all over the country right now, right up until the semifinals. The new system is a decent business decision – but it is not fair.
Yes, a coin flip is far more fair. A coin flip gives you a 50/50 chance at hosting. It seems somewhat arbitrary, yes, but it is inherently fair. Allowing teams to silent bid is not, unless both teams are on equal financial footing. The current system delivers an advantage to teams with deeper pockets. By definition, that makes it unfair. That’s all I’m saying – and that’s irrefutable logic.
Again, like I’ve said before, the bidding rules are fair if you view things through a certain economic lens, by basically saying that if other teams wanted it that bad, well, they should just spend more money. The difference is that while MLS teams may have that option thanks to league revenue sharing putting everyone on more or less equal footing, USL and NASL teams do not. They don’t all have the same amount of money available. So, once again, by founding the process on a characteristic that is uneven across the board – i.e. team affluence – you are creating an inherently unfair system. Honestly, if you don’t get that I don’t know what to tell you.
Founder and Editor of The Bent Musket on SBNation.
Twitter: @Stoehrst or @TheBentMusket
by Steve Stoehr on Oct 10, 2011 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Ahh, I see
I think I see where the disconnect is. I “get” that the bidding system is a way to buy an advantage for your team. Again, I admitted that in my first post (way up at the top). However, I think that rewarding teams who aren’t making an effort to raise the profile of the tournament by letting them host over a coinflip would destroy the tournament in its current financial condition. Like I said in the beginning, I think it’s very important for the tournament to reward teams who take it seroiusly. It’s also very important for owners to have ways to invest in their team. The fact that some owners don’t is unfortunate, but it’s difficult to call that unfair.
I brought up USL Portland and how they never lost a hosting bid (even when bidding against Seattle) and you dismiss them as a one-off. There will be others in the future. Is Seattle a one-off for MLS? I guess we’ve got a whole world of one-offs here.
The bottom line is I have a real hard time labeling the bidding system “unfair.” That implies that rules are being changed, and they’re not. The game is fair. The bidding system provides a competetive advantage to the higher bidding team. If competitive advantages are “unfair”, then the Miami Heat should turn in their private jet now and it should be made law that visiting locker rooms must be as big and nice and comfortable as home locker rooms. Right? There’s a thousand other competitive advantages that could be labeled “unfair” by teams and fans who don’t enjoy them. That’s the reality of pro sports. On the field though, things must be fair. Period. And they are.
In the end, I have a hard time calling owner investment to provide a competitive advantage “unfair.” It implies cheating. There has been no cheating. There has only been a realization by some ownership groups that the USOC is the quickest way to the CCL which is a priority for them.
by K61 on Oct 10, 2011 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
It's unfair when the point of the competition is to create an equal playing field.
I get what you’re saying, but like I said before, that only applies if this competition were contested solely amongst MLS teams. If that were the case, I’d be all for this idea. Teams make varying amounts of money, but the organizations all get the same revenue-sharing checks at the end of the day – so they all have the wherewithal to put in competitive bids. Then, at that point, you’re basically daring teams to make the competition a priority, and I kinda like that concept, if I’m honest.
But when you’re throwing lower-league teams into the mix it becomes unfair and it messes with the whole point of an equal-opportunity knockout competition, which is essentially what these sorts of things are supposed to be. And I think the most compelling argument in my favor is the fact that USSoccer is re-evaluating the process and changing it, at the behest of organizations like the Sounders, who have benefited greatly from the current set of circumstances. If the winners in this scenario are still saying “you know, this probably isn’t right,” then I’m inclined to believe it’s not right.
I think Portland and Seattle are one-offs because there aren’t other organizations like them. While another non-MLS team with the passion to try and make it work may arise, I doubt we’ll see another with the resources. At the very least, I would feel comfortable asserting that no non-MLS team will have the resources to outbid concerned MLS teams more than once in a decade. USL and NASL just don’t generate the cash. The two aforementioned examples were old clubs with entrenched support that were already outdrawing everybody else in their leagues – there isn’t a whole lot of that left that isn’t in MLS, especially now that Montreal are in for 2012.
At the end of the day, a coinflip concept doesn’t reward teams who don’t take it seriously – in fact, it doesn’t reward anybody. And the teams that DO take it seriously (Seattle, Portland, etc.) will still end up in the later rounds ahead of those who don’t, and the later rounds are where the money is anyway. I just feel that, for one, allowing teams to bid for the home field is unfair to lower-league teams; and two, once we do get to the later rounds where it’s all down to teams who have obviously bought into the competition, it doesn’t sit well with me to have them get into a bidding war. Either seed them (also anathema to what the tourney is supposed to be about) or make it random.
Founder and Editor of The Bent Musket on SBNation.
Twitter: @Stoehrst or @TheBentMusket
by Steve Stoehr on Oct 10, 2011 8:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Portland was not a one-off
In the third round this year, 2 MLS teams were outbid by smaller USL and PDL teams. The Rochester Rhinos outbid Chicago and the LA Blues outbid the LA Galaxy. Things are not as dire as you make them out to be. If a team gives a crap, they can outbid anybody. Seattle only plays the final at CenturyLink. All early rounds are played at StarFire (if they win the bidding) which seats 4,000. That’s not really that hard for even a mildly supported team to outbid. They just have to give a crap. In 2010 there were 3 (including Portland hosting Seattle). In 2009 there were 6 MLS teams outbid (including Portland over Seattle). Still think it’s unfair for smaller, non-MLS clubs? Portland’s no one-off.
I also favor some changes in the bidding process, but not because I think it’s inherently unfair. I’d just like to see more transparency in the bidding. I still have doubts about whether DC actually outbid Seattle in ‘09. I think their GM, Kevin Payne, who sits on the US Soccer board of directors, may have pulled a few strings. In the end it doesn’t matter, we won on their turf. Meh.
The thing that scares me is that they might change the bidding process in some major way, alienate the teams that give a crap, and destroy any momentum they may currently have. That would be a shame and we’d all be losers if that happened.
I doubt it would alienate teams that care
As you said, Seattle plays early games at Starfire, so you can’t really imagine they’re making a boatload of cash on those matches. It’s the late rounds and the final that are the moneymaker (if you can call it that), and the major incentive is the CCL berth. So, even if you take away the bidding process, the teams that care will still care because I would bet my right arm that the reason they care is the CCL berth, not the opportunity to play a few more games in front of local fans on a practice field. Taking away one method that could ease their passage is unlikely to dull their appetites, I would think.
I should point out that I think you’re making good points, as evidenced by the fact that I’ve had to consciously morph my own opinion as you’ve put up good defenses on certain facets of the argument. I am and remain diametrically opposed to allowing teams to silent bid (or open bid, though that would be better) for home-field advantage in what is ostensibly a wide-open equal-opportunity nationwide knockout cup competition.
Founder and Editor of The Bent Musket on SBNation.
Twitter: @Stoehrst or @TheBentMusket
by Steve Stoehr on Oct 11, 2011 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions
Tempest in a Teapot
Buying hosting rights…you can do that in most cup competitions in the world. We just don’t see it at the later stages of the FA Cup b/c the clubs at that point can afford to host and their stands can hold more than 2,000 or 5,000 fans.
If you want to call “boo” on unfairness, than don’t let either of the clubs host the final game (b/c that’s a significant advantage). Nah, let’s have Seattle and Chicago square off at….Kraft Stadium. Anyone best that might draw 4,000 fans? Or how about Pizza Hut Park? I mean it was built by Hunt, sounds like a great place to host. Again…4,000 fans? Or maybe less? And half of those might be traveling from Seattle and Chicago!
Right now, half of the MLS teams don’t take the cup seriously. So reward the teams that do, that aim to win, that will big big amounts to host every game. B/c at some point all the MLS teams will take it seriously, all will bid big amounts to host and we can look at doing what Steve suggests. But right now, maybe 8 teams in MLS care about this competition. So reward them for doing so.
BTW, since Seattle won the competition for the 3rd time, does that mean that the trophy gets retired (and replaced with a new one) ala the Jules Rimet trophy for the WC?
by JoeWillmore on Oct 6, 2011 3:44 PM EDT reply actions 4 recs
Joe - could not have said it better myself.
Sports. Right?
rec'ed.
All over the map with this post, but I’m a couple cocktails deep into the evening. So…
I’d be curious at how much of the gate the away teams receives. I’m sure there is a cut.
And on another note, I read somewhere that US Soccer was losing something like $250K a year on the Open Cup? I can’t reference it and I don’t know what timeframe that covered. I’m willing to bet hosting a final with +30K goes a long way towards covering that ground. Teams don’t care as much about it partially because the payout to the team is only around $100K if I read right. You can’t really justify paying more to the players if you are losing money at the tournament.
Having said all that, I don’t disagree with comment saying it’s not fair. But the reality is if teams don’t care enough to send a decent squad, and if the tournament is in the black, what other option do you have? Not have it?
People are complaining about this a lot but don’t seem to take into account the reality of the situation. I don’t know much about the FA Cup, but it sounds like it’s a draw. So that all fine considering you’ll always have a full stadium due to the history and that away support is only a short bus ride away. That doesn’t work in the U.S. of A. Outside of Vancouver and Portland, both more than 3 hours away driving, we then have San Jose and Salt Lake which are ~800 miles away for Seattle who has good traveling support…
So fill up the stadiums that do fill up! To me it seems that the difference in one thousand tickets sold to the knockouts is a big deal right now to the USOC. And for the Final to be on Fox Soccer Channel is great press for the Cup overall. Maybe when the competition becomes solvent (if it’s not already), the Final is a home and home.
In fact, why not do a home and home for the final, where the highest bidder hosts the second leg starting in 2012? I suppose it’s a though considering we have the expanded roster now. Schedule the teams that qualified for the CCL only on the weekends the last few months of the regular season, then the CCL and USOC during the week. Seems like most of the MLS teams are handling the CCL fairly well this season.
by SoundersForever on Oct 7, 2011 1:44 AM EDT up reply actions
The final isn't really an issue
As long as it’s going to be hosted by one of the teams in the final, I’m good. There’s almost a month between the semis and the final, so away fans can make travel arrangements. You could even use whatever process necessary to determine the host before the semis are played, just so you can make an easy announcement right after the games are over.
It’s the rest of the competition that sucks. The earlier stages should be decided a different way, PROVIDED both teams can provide a playable pitch, of course. If Joe’s Sunday Soccer Club somehow gets a fixture against LA, I would expect that the local rec pitch wouldn’t be considered as a viable ground, and maybe the HDC is your only option.
Founder and Editor of The Bent Musket on SBNation.
Twitter: @Stoehrst or @TheBentMusket
by Steve Stoehr on Oct 7, 2011 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm Glad You Are Such a Good Arbitrator of Opinion
that you are able to judge that everyone else’s opinion on this blog is irrelevant and that since you are satisfied, everyone else should be.
Incredibly solid logic.
Let them eat cake.
I'm in England
I’m a Sounders fan in England – maybe it’s where I live, but I find it hard to get full satisfaction from winning the cup by beating everybody solely in home games. The feeling of true achievement is having to go away to tough environments and surviving to fight another round. I can understand the final being at one or the other’s venue, due to the vast distances involved, unlike over here – hold it at a neutral venue and it’s going to be a final with a pitiful crowd. But that should be random, not “bought”, and certainly you can’t hold two consecutively! Well, like I already said, maybe my views are formed because of where I live and watching the FA Cup, where magic happens every year, normally at the venue of a lower league club at home to a club in a higher division. Sometimes a MUCH lower league club – a club two divisions lower sending the big team packing is not that uncommon in the FA Cup, and the whole country celebrates them and makes them heroes for a week or two. Yes, home advantage CAN be massive. I even remember a non-professional team beating a side from the top division once at their tiny little ground. They were about 100 places lower in the football ladder. They’d never have pulled it off if they’d sold their right to play at home, which is their option, but if they get drawn at home, it’s THEIR option. Some take it, but it’s their option. If their home ground is a cow field but they got drawn at home and want to play there, they can. And what do you know, the team of pampered superstars sure ain’t looking forward to having to play there!
by SoundersGuy on Oct 13, 2011 11:59 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
