Perhaps we could draw Mexico in Azteca as Game #2; then have Dempsey, Edu, Bradley, Johnson and Zusi pick up yellows in Game #1, to get it over with.
Two to three (likely) of these home Hex matches will be at midweek (Tuesday or Wednesday). The others will be on Fridays. (Assuming Concacaf doesn't do something strange in June.)
Sea has potential as a NT venue, if and when they get grass. I don't want to see anything other than a friendly played on turf and even that I wouldn't like too much but would tolerate. Does anyone know if KC can be expanded? Seems it definitely can behind the goals. Would be nice if Columbus was expanded too. Or Por when and if they get grass. It'd be nice to have an MLS venue with grass which can expand to 25-30K. Too bad SJ won't be done until after the Hex. That should also be a nice venue and one I can drive too. But even that stadium will only hold about 18500 if I remember correctly. It's tough. NFL stadiums in large markets with a lot of immigrants will allow for larger crowds but we lose some of the home field advantage. MLS stadiums with grass in smaller cities have great potential as we've recently seen with pro American crowds, but the stadiums are pretty small. Hopefully someday we can get about 30K in MLS stadiums with pro American crowds, but that requires some of these MLS teams to start expanding.
While I'm not sure I agree that we've had 30K US fans at numerous games in the last few years, I'll respond by saying that even if we have 30K that means there are still at least 31K (with Soldier Field being the smallest NFL stadium) seats to fill. If we cant be sure we can fill most of them then we shouldnt be playing there. WCQs need to go where we have as a home field advantage as possible. Additionally, by keeping matches in the SSS the ticket situation is controlled completely by our people. "The other games shouldn't matter"... ALL WCQs matter. We had to get a draw or better in our final match just to make the hex.
But CONCACAF is working with a group that is associated beneficially with US Soccer to schedule the venues. According to Wikipedia an the link below, SUM is involved with (and/or will help decide) Gold Cup venues for 2013. http://www.concacaf.com/page/GoldCup/NewsDetail/0,,12813~2657806,00.html
Yes but CONCACAF wants to make money. So they are going to schedule games like: USA - Canada in Detroit Panama- USA in Tampa Mexico in Dallas, Charlotte, Chicago Jamaica in Miami and New York. In other words they are going to be looking to fill seats (especially in an off year Gold Cup) and are going to do exactly the opposite of what the US fed might do if it wanted home field advantage for us.
Agree with a lot of this. But it is also possible (though perhaps not likely) for US Soccer to secure a Top3 finish with one or even two home games to spare. Venue selections will be done on a rolling basis, and the Oct date could potentially be scheduled as a big venue money-grab in which the match result isn't critical.
Well lets look at it shall we? WCQ vs Antigua Tampa 24,000/65,000 Gold Cup Canada Detroit 28000 / 65000 vs Panama Tampa 27000 / 65000 vs Jamaica DC 45000 (no doubt help by El Salvador as the nightcap The next two games featured Mexico which meant guaranteed sell outs Barbados LA 11000 Trinidad Chicago (Toyota) 11,000 Cuba RFK 20,000 Guatemala Denver 9,000 Mexico Columbus Obvious sell out 23,000 Trinidad Nashville 23,000 / 67,000 Honduras Chicago Soldier Field 55,000 / 61000 El Salvador Rio Tinto 19,000 Costa Rica RFK 36,000
I meant the Boston metro area. I guess I just think we should aim big for the hex. Honduras drew 55,000 in Chicago. I like those types of mixed atmospheres. I really don't think 30,000 away fans hinders the team in terms of results. Home field advantage is more than just the crowd/fans.
To play devils advocate, a few of our players remarked at how nice the change was to have a completely pro American crowd in Columbus. Chero directly said the USSF should strongly consider smaller venues like that as it helps. A few guys commented before yesterdays game they were looking forward to another mostly pro-American crowd. I do think it matters. Maybe not a whole lot, but when you can clearly hear all the pro American chants in KC or Col, and compare that to pro American chants being somewhat filtered/drowned out due to stadium size and a large portion of the crowd backing your opponent, i think it's noticeable.
I was at the Honduras WCQ at Soldier Field. Of the 55,000 in attendance, while there was alot of white and blue, I estimate that it was 60-65% USA fans. Absolutely awesome atmosphere. Many of the Honduran fans were painted and having a fantastic time. Actually enjoyed watching them enjoy the match as well. The USA victory sure didn't hurt, I suppose. Conversely, the 2007 Gold Cup final at Soldier Field was sold out and probably 95% Mexican.
Everyone here is making the assumption that the Fed is basing venue selection on what will favor the US more to win. They pick them based on how much money they can bring in as well. US/Mexico will not be in a small stadium in the tundra. I wish it were so but there is more to this equation then just home field advantage sadly. Living in DC this policy has benefited me as the US always plays at RFK in the Hex against a central american team. RFK is not a nice stadium. DC United has been trying to get a new stadium for awhile now to no avail.
Normally I would agree that USSF is all about the money grab, home-field advantage be damned. But I think the way this round went and along with the likelihood that the loss from failing to qualify is greater than the short-term gain from selling 30,000 tickets to Hondurans, the USSF may look to go the Columbus-KC-Salt Lake route for the games vs. Mexico, Honduras & Costa Rica, and maybe a Houston-Denver route for Jamaica & Panama. I'd at least hope they look at the SSSs and restricted ticket sales to see what home-field advantage they can create, knowing that regardless of the restrictions you place on tickets, the opponents will get them (or US folks will sell them).
I just think playing exclusively in places like KC, C-bus, and Salt Lake sends a bad message. We shouldn't be afraid of playing in our biggest cities. What does it say when we feel like we can't play the biggest games in New York, LA, Chicago, DC, Boston, or the Bay Area.
I think Hartford is perfect for a qualifier. The stadium seats 40,000 and we drew 36,218 back in 2010 vs. Czech Republic in a pre-WC friendly, a WCQ would no doubt sell out. I think Glendale, AZ could be a potential location. The stadium holds a minimum of 63,000 but can be expanded with temp seating. We drew 22,403 for our Camp Cupcake friendly vs. Venezuela. It's a huge metro area starved of soccer and I think a well promoted WCQ could sell out. Even 50,000 wouldn't look that bad there. Columbus, SLC, and KC are pretty much locks for 3 of the games, but these good size cities that don't have an MLS team or get much soccer their way like the Phoenix area, Hartford, etc. could do a good crowd for a WCQ game. Jacksonville was pleasantly surprising with about 45K showing up for a friendly vs. Scotland. But of course we need to see the schedule first if they're gonna use a stadium that also has a football tenant.
Feb. 6 (one game) March 22-26 (two games) June 7-18 (three games) Sept. 6-10 (two games) Oct. 11-15 (two games) PLEASE BE MEXICO ON THE ROAD!!!!
So even before you look at crowd split, the only games with 30K+ are the Jamaica game in DC, the Mexico games outside C-Bus, the game against Honduras in Chicago and Costa Rica at RFK. The match vs Jamaica had another match sharing the day. And we were not the home team in the other matches.
I know qualifiers on the left coast are rare (and for good reason) but I wonder if something in the Bay Area would do well. They have Stanford Stadium, which would not be in use for the Feb-June matchdays. Even AT&T Park works quite well for soccer, although it would only be available for the February matchday. It has a really great crowd for a friendly there a few years back.
It says we dont give a damn what others "think", we play to win and we use any advantages we have. This is WCQ. It's absolute nonsense to agree to give up home field advantage and play in a hostile environment in our own country just because someone else thinks it makes us look scared. We will play the biggest games in those cities in NFL stadiums when we are confident that we can fill the places with our own fans and not give up home field advantage in home qualifiers.
I was at the game in Chicago. It felt like a home game. You're right, we're the second most popular national team in the country. The only team more popular is Mexico. So play that game in C-bus, or KC. The other games should be in bigger venues.
Man who cares how big the stadium is? A smaller venue packed with mostly U.S. fans is a way better atmosphere than a larger stadium with 5-10k empty seats with 50/50 split between home/away fans. WCQ aren't money grabs and actual competitive game so you can pretty much bank on Mexico being at Rio Tinto, KC, or Columbus. Jamaica and Panama are really the only games you might see in a bigger venue. I'd be willing to bet Red Bull gets one as well. USSF isn't short sighted enough to risk not making the WC one cycle for a short term increase in ticket sales. I'd love to see a WCQ in Portland/Seattle, but I'd put it at less than 5%. Seattle isn't going to permanently install grass with the Sounders, Seahawks, and UW using the stadium at once.(I know the Huskies are only there temporarily, but not sure when they are out). And if they do install temporary grass, it'll be similar to a Concacaf road field. (Juding from the euro friendlies they had there). Portland is on the narrow side, and due to climate concerns won't be installing grass permanently either. Off Year Gold Cup is the definition of a money grab and will be played in all NFL Stadiums looking to maximize attendance. Which makes sense because its held here every year because they can do that. I can see Seattle getting a US game here. Hopefully they won't get shafted on 4 of July again.