While I agree that from a competitive standpoint, having the game played at Buck Shaw is the best option, I think a lot of people are going overboard with the comments about the league breaking its own rules. The rules were aimed at providing a home advantage so the game would be well attended and the home team would have a lot of support, as well as the home team not having to travel. Those advantages all still occur if the game is played at Stanford. From what I've heard, the issue is not just the size of the stadium, it's more about the infrastructure. The lack of any suites for corporate sponsors as well as reasonable accomodation for media is the larger issue, and that would not be improved even if the Quakes could arrange to bring in additional temporary bleachers. In addition, though, the actual number of people able to attend has to be an issue. Every single MLS Cup has had attendance of at least 21,000, with 9 out of 16 Cups exceeding 30,000. Here's the Wiki page , scroll down to the "Results" section and you can also see the year by year attendance. As for "home field advantage" from a competitive perspective, the Quakes are undefeated at Stanford stadium the past two years (1 win vs LA this year, 1 draw vs New York last year), so it's not like they play horribly there either. And if the team does get to MLS Cup and the FO markets the game and gets 35,000+ people at Stanford, that could be an even bigger home field advantage with the much larger crowd support. I would prefer it to be at Buck Shaw, but am realistic and can see some positives from having it at a larger, nicer venue like Stanford. I just hope that this is a problem that we end up having, as arguing about whether we have to play at Stanford or Buck Shaw is a much better problem to have than dealing with the team getting knocked out of the playoffs before then.
Oregon 6-0 Oregon State 5-1 Stanford 5-1 Stanford plays Oregon State and Oregon in the next two weeks.
Why should we be focused on legislative intent as opposed to the letter of the law? And it's not "going overboard" to expect MLS to scrupulously adhere to its own rules. By my count, there are nine home-field advantage scenarious in the 2012 playoffs (2 knock-out rounds, 4 conference semi-final rounds, 2 conference final rounds, and 1 MLS Cup final). MLS has now changed or has suggested it will change on-the-fly during the playoffs its rules for home-field advantage in 2 of the 9 (the DC/NY conference semi-final and the MLS Cup final if the Quakes qualify). In other words, in more than 20 percent of the total scenarios, 1 of every 4.5 playoff rounds in this year alone, MLS is changing or threatens to change its rules. If the final is shifted from Buck Shaw to elsewhere, the odds of MLS unilaterally divesting a team's earned home-field this season will have been higher than the odds of losing at Russian roulette (1 of 6). A league with those sorts of odds is not a league which takes fair competition seriously.
Do you believe that previous MLS Cups (except 1997, 2002 and 2011 by situation) were unfair because they were held at neutral sites? Also, do MLS rules specify that the Cup must be held at the regular venue of the hosting team? This year, the Quakes FO chose voluntarily to host one regular season match at AT&T Park and one at Stanford. While I prefer that the Quakes would host a potential MLS Cup at Buck Shaw, I don't agree that moving it to a larger local venue is necessarily unfair. I don't want to open a can of worms in this forum, but the switching of venues in the DC/Red Bull series resulted from an extraordinary situation (Superstorm Sandy) just like the shortening of the regular season after 9/11/2001.
And that's why it can't be there. The field will already be prepped for Raider football by MLS Cup gametime. That and the Coliseum is too far according to the FO. They want it in the Southbay, not Oakland, not SF.
If league rules call for a specified site in advance, it is not unfair for the Cup final to be held at that specified site, even if by chance it turns out to be the home-field of one of the participants, as happened in the three instances you indicate. It is, however, unfair for the league to announce rules and willfully violate them.
Untrue. The switching of venues resulted from the supervening intervention of the league office. Hurricane Sandy did not necessitate that DCU's home-field advantage be sacrificed. Therefore, the proximate cause of the switched venues was MLS' decision to switch the venues. Likewise, nothing necessitates that Buck Shaw be sacrificed for the MLS Cup final save the league's disregard of its own rules when it finds those rules inconvenient.
True, but only one of those losses is in conference. What will really tell the tale is this coming weekend. Stanford is playing the higher ranked and higher standing Oregon State team. Unless they upset them, Stanford's hopes die this weekend and we know where the MLS Cup game would be in the event the Quakes make it all the way. And even if they do upset them, Stanford then has to go up to Autzen Stadium and beat the Ducks at home, which is even less likely to happen.
A venue decision will likely need to be made prior to the Stanford v Oregon game unless some very skilled contingency planning and negotiation takes place.
From mlssoccer.com: "MLS Cup: The MLS Cup is a single championship match hosted by the finalist with the best regular-season record." The "rule" does not mention where the finalist must host the match. Moving a potential MLS Cup from Buck Shaw to another venue may not be ideal, but doesn't violate the league's rules. Especially since the present team has hosted MLS matches at the Oakland Coliseum, Candlestick Park, Stanford Stadium and AT&T Park instead of at Buck Shaw (in addition to hosting US Open Cup matches at Cagan Stadium and Kezar Stadium.)
I wouldn't mistake a one-line website summary of the rule for the rule itself. And the summary you cite is effectively meaningless as a rule. A host is defined as a person who receives or entertains guests at home or elsewhere," http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hosted, which doesn't really address the venue location. Perhaps the summary you cite is the rule. But typically the host, not the guests, decides where the entertaining takes place. And, as mentioned previously, Quakes coaches and players prefer Buck Shaw.
What makes you say that? The Stanford v Oregon game is on the 17th. The MLS conference championships will also be decided that day. So in reality the venue doesn't need to be set until that day anyway.
Even assuming that organizing a big event at Stanferd or elsewhere is a big deal, the Quakes have been considering Stanferd, Spartan, and Buck Shaw for a while now, therefore, they have almost certainly discussed and even planned with the other venues. I'm sure that they have at least "half-baked" plans for how to do the Cup Match at all three venues. Why do so many of you think that they would leave this until the last minute? I'm sure that we could pull off the Cup Match at any of these stadia, even Buck Shaw. Sure, Stanferd might be the best choice, but not having a backup and a backup to that in the wings would be completely foolish. And if Stanferd is your first choice, then you're already making plans and arrangements, just in case. Ya know? GO QUAKES!!! - Mark
It's a no go for the simple reason it can't fit a soccer field on its tiny field. It's makes Spartan look expansive. But if that weren't enough it's also got fake grass and is FAR too large in terms of capacity.
I say we put up temporary stands around PAL Stadium in San Jose and call it a day - with a little nod to the Frogs in the process. Gerber says he doesn't want to play at Buck Shaw, so there you go, Gerbs. If we can get 15-20k with temporary stands around PAL we're good. There'd be some nice healthy lines at the snack shack too.
I say that Wolff should simply tell Garber: "Sorry, bra, but we've tried every venue, and it's just not gonna work anyplace but Buck Shaw. Since you've proven irrefutably that you're far from averse to changing your position more than a meth-addict yoga class, it won't be any problem for you to agree to this..."
PAL is even smaller than Buck Shaw. Wouldn't it make more sense to just put some extra stands around Buck Shaw?
Like I said earlier, maybe hundreds more could be crammed into the scoreboard end, but, other than that I don't see where. Maybe you could totally dismantle the temp stands and put in a bigger set-up, but, not sure how feasible that would be. The other problem is the getting around room and facilities. The walkways are already crowded, and the facilities inadequate.
Which is why PAL is an insane idea. There's no way PAL could be expanded to accommodate a proper sized field or a stand big enough in time. To say nothing of PAL being the most inaccessible stadium in the Bay Area.