Importance of Home Field

[VioletCrown]

1996 Oct. 30 Washington D. C. United (MLS) 3, Rochester Rhinos (A-League) 0
1997 Oct. 29 Dallas Burn (MLS) 0, Washington DC United (MLS) 0 (PK 5-3)
1998 Oct. 30 Chicago Fire (MLS) defeated Columbus Crew (MLS), 2-1
1999 Sept. 15 Rochester Ragin' Rhinos (A-League) defeated Colorado Rapids (MLS), 2-0
2000 Oct. 21 Chicago Fire (MLS) 2, Miami Fusion (MLS) 1
2001 Nov. 4 Los Angeles Galaxy (MLS) 2, New England Revolution (MLS) 1

I can't remember where 2000 was played. I know that '97 and '99 were at neutral sites (Indianapolis and Crew stadium, respectively). The rest were all held at the stadium of the team that eventually won.

Based on that alone, the Crew to be the favorite.

Here's hoping that the both of them have a long run in the MLS Cup playoffs so that we see two in-form teams for the final.

...But no too long. I want to see Dallas raise that ugly plastic MLS playoff trophy.

[Dr. Wankler]

Originally posted by VioletCrown
I can't remember where 2000 was played.

Soldier Field.

[VioletCrown]

Originally posted by Dr. Wankler


Soldier Field.

So. The home team has always won.

I understand that the USSF needs some attendance, but this is too obvious a trend. I don't like the idea of giving the game to one team or the other. It's too much of an advantage.

[TommyMack]

Yeah, but "neutral venue" operations like MLS cup aren't an amazing idea with a young league, either. How ridiculous was it that two California teams had to play to a very "unsoldout" Ohio stadium. Due to ABC's insistance at showing it at such an early time during the day, we LA and SJ fans had to start drinking at 10am (not that that's too bad). I happen to think there would have been more people there had ti been either at the Rose Bowl or Spartan stadium.

tmack