Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'US Open Cup' started by Yoshou, Oct 5, 2011.
you should hope to draw Reading harrisburg or pittsburgh away.
Any chance we'll see San Antonio drawn to play Houston? I really want to see that one go down
the hilarity is that for this season the Scorpions have to play in a giant high school football stadium across the street from their future home.
the hut looking building in the left of the picture is the lockerooms, it tickles me to imagine soccer players being led out from a high school football lockeroom.
It looks awesome. I am really hoping for a blind draw.
I'm dying for the day the Union draw Ocean City away.... would be the best game ever.
I just stumbled upon this, and it does look awesome. Philly has actually played their starters in the Open Cup, but lost in the first "qualifying" round both times (away to MLS teams). This new setup bodes well for us, and interest in the Cup in general.
To paraphrase Coach Nowak, "It's silverware, no? Then we're going to try to win it." Let's hope that attitude catches on.
So what does the MLS schedule release tell us about the USOC schedule? Anyone want to comb through and see which non-FIFA, non-CCL weeks have no midweek games scheduled?
Posted at TheCup.us today:
That's a pretty cool way to do it. That way USOC gets its cake and gets to eat it too. They still get the money and, if both teams pony up the cash, people get the blind draw. That is until the semis and finals.
Here's what I'm thinking:
Tuesday, May 15, 2012 - 32 Amateur Clubs
Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 16 R1 Survivors + 16 D2 & D3
Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - 16 R2 Survivors + 16 MLS
Tuesday, June 05, 2012 - 16 R3
Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - Semi Final
Tuesday, August 07, 2012 - Quarter Final
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 - Final
Another step in the right direction. And it looks like the right-sized step too, as for right now, I still feel the USOC Final would benefit more from having 30K fans than it would from having a blind draw.
I still have one question: will round 3 still be "MLS vs non-MLS", or might it be a truly blind (plus regional) draw where you could possibly see Portland playing Seattle right out of the gates?
Regardless, there seems to be one likely outcome from this proposed flat fee/blind draw proposal: more MLS teams losing to teams from lower divisions. The last 2 years, it seems like MLS has been far more aggressive in trying to get home games against Div 2/3 teams, with only one or two exceptions (Rochester and their ilk) each year. With this new flat fee, I'm sure a lot of NASL/USLPro teams will gladly say they'll pay up to get a 50/50 chance of hosting an MLS team. So of course, more road games = more losses for MLS teams.
That said, with the full complement of 16 MLS teams entering this year, MLS should still have a firm grip on the tournament. But more overall games and more road games will likely mean more MLS losses.
Okay, I have another question: what if neither team wants to pay the flat fee? Lets say both Harrisburg and the Red Bulls both say they don't want to pay that fee for a 3rd round game. Will that mean they can't be drawn against each other?
Thinking about it a bit, I guess I'll answer my own question and assume the answer is: yes, that means they can't be drawn against each other. So US Soccer will have 2 pots for the 3rd round draw: definite road teams and possible home teams, and then they'll have to do the usual regional splits after seeing who ponies up for the right to possibly host.
If that happens, they may have to delay the announcements of potential matchups a bit this year. Or they'd have to make the matchups slightly less regional than usual. Because using the above example, they couldn't announce a potential quarterfinal of "winner of Harrisburg vs Team A will play winner of Red Bulls vs Team B". They could only have one non-paying team in every pod of 4.
Of course, that's all hypothetical. If every single MLS, NASL, and USL Pro team says they'll pay from Round 3 through to the final, then there are no problems and US Soccer can announce any pairings they want.
What's the most clubs that have competed in one U.S. Open Cup? Before 2011 when was the last time (if ever) that more than 40 clubs competed?
It would be before the 2006 US Open Cup tournament.
Those "changes" are just a bullshit smokescreen.
The clubs that don't care about it now aren't going to all of a sudden shell out $15k. Hell, over half of the MLS clubs wouldn't even make that money back in ticket sales. Also, with the way they set up the brackets regionally, teams on the coasts will continue to travel miniscule distances even if they don't "win" the bid.
With these "changes" Seattle will still host every game, or travel to Portland at the absolute furthest.
Wah? If a team doesn't want to pony up $15k to host, then they don't deserve to.
The dollar amount isn't the issue here. The issue is about having to actually make a payment to host.
The payment itself isn't even a guarantee that you will host. If both teams do bid for it, they'll probably rig the "blind draw" just like with those bogus coin tosses. Why? Because they can get more money if they give it to the team they think will give them a bigger payday from ticket sales. On top of that, I'd bet that the USSF would keep the bid money from both teams to cover "tournament costs" or some bullshit like that. You may think that sounds farfetched, but thats exactly the kind thing they're already doing right now.
The inherent problem many people have with the current system is not addressed at all by this proposal. It just puts lipstick on a pig.
Daaamn. How many layers of tinfoil are in your hat anyways...
I'll repeat myself since you seemed to have missed this sentence:
"You may think that sounds farfetched, but thats exactly the kind thing they're already doing right now."
That sentence isn't wrong, as much as a lot of people try to ignore it. The system is broken and needs real reform. Not just new window dressing.
I used to care about the Open Cup. I really did. But the last five or so years have made me realize how woefully broken the tournament is.
Then Quinn, the system will never be fixed. If you think that's what they do then they're always going to do that, even if they make hosting free besides the percentage of ticket sales they get. And I have no issue with them taking a percentage of ticket sales. Its their competition, they have to cover their costs. But if you believe that they're weighting the scales to get hosts with more ticket sales then the system is never going to change.
I think its the teams that have been weighting the scales by not caring enough to get into a bidding war or (in the Rapids case) actively trying to avoid hosting. This at least gives a level playing ground for those teams who would be willing to host but don't want to get in a bidding war to do it. They agree they would pay the $15K if they win the blind draw and then they get a chance. The Rapids will still refuse to pay the $15K because they're cheap bastards, but most MLS teams will be willing to pay it, and probably some NASL teams.
The system will change when they actually have someone running the show that is motivated to make changes happen. The only reason they're addressing this now is because they have been getting enough flack that it's difficult for a lot of people to take it seriously.
It really is beyond my why people seem to be lauding this as a good thing. If the changes don't actually address the fundamental problems with the competition, what good is it actually doing? Change just for the sake of change is stupid.