2019 U.S. Open Cup

Just out of curiosity, I was trying to find the odds of a non-MLS team winning the USOC. I thought I remembered seeing something about MLS teams winning 75% of the time against lower teams (if there is a different number let me know). So given the format, I've got a non-MLS team's odds at winning the whole thing at 1.4%.

 

Yeah surely the gap between MLS/non's has widened over the years.

Would be kind of nice if they introduced MLS a round earlier to give us more MLS/non matchups. Nothing too exciting about MLS b teams playing each other : /

The FA Cup intros the EPL in the third round, when they are only 20 of 64 teams, unlike USOC which is 21 of 32.

 

The English FA also has 92 professional clubs whereas the USSF only has 52. So in order to introduce MLS teams at the round of 64 you basically need to insert every professional team at the same time. If you don't you need to have a whole lot more USL2/NPSL/Local Qualifiers to fill out the field. In a scenario where all the teams came in at the round of 64 you'd need a minimum of 24 non-pro teams. Right now there are 32. You introduce both the USLC and MLS teams at the round of 64 then you need to qualify 18 teams into that round so the previous round needs to be 36 teams, which would 6 USL1 teams and 30 non-pros, which is less than the 32 now. If you play a qualifying round before and wanted to be fair (not giving USL2/NPSL priority seeding over each other or local qualifiers) you'd need to enter 60 teams. 28 more teams that lack financial backing for possible trips they may need to fund out of their own pocket, carpool to, or find a suitable stadium to play in (particularly if you are putting every game on ESPN+).

You actually make it easier if you allow MLS teams to enter their B teams like the Bundesliga and La Liga used to do. The Copa del Rey stopped allowing B teams but they have also shrunk the tournament since then. Through the 80's the CdR was open to B and C teams and had between 140 and 220ish teams playing in it. In 90/91 they no longer allowed those teams and shrunk the tourney to 86 teams. Now they have 83 teams, only allow certain numbers of 3rd and 4th division teams, and the La Liga clubs enter in the round of 32.

But looking at where teams start in the FA Cup is silly because there are a ton more teams and much less financial burden on teams to participate. If the USOC grows and there is more money then it becomes easier to subsidize local clubs to participate. But as it is now? You work with what you got and try not to cause too much hardship. I mean, we are only 5 years removed from clubs forfeiting games due to not being able to field players or secure a venue.

 

I think he meant reserve-heavy teams rather than official B teams.

 

I don't think so. Let's imagine for next year. And let's assume the following about expansion:
-2 MLS teams (Miami and Nashville)
-0 USLC teams (and actually losing Nashville)
-3 USL1 teams (Omaha, Penn, and Rochester)

Obviously teams and expansion are much more fluid and flexible in the lower leagues (and maybe even in MLS), but we'll work with that for now.

-1st round: 34 USLC teams and 12 USL1 teams and 36 teams from USL2/NPSL/LQ.
-2nd round: 23 MLS teams join 41 1st round winners


Hmm, you know what, as I type this out, I think I might be wrong, and PhillyMLS may be correct, because that second round would probably produce a lot of games between MLS and amateur teams, and I don't think the league or their players are particularly interested in that. Too much risk for a bad tackle leading to an injury or something.


I suppose one different option would be to have MLS and USLC enter in the same round, which would yield something like this:

-1st round: 32 teams from USL2/NPSL/LQ
-2nd round: 12 USL1 teams join 16 1st round winners
-3rd round: 14 second round winners
-4th round: 23 MLS + 34 USLC join 7 3rd round winners

Oddly, those 32 teams in the first round just happen to be the precise number of USL2/NPSL/LQ teams entered in this years USOC.



That said, after typing those options out, I suspect a split entry is probably the best solution for MLS. Something where some teams enter in one round and other teams enter in the next round. I don't know if that's playoffs/nonplayoffs/top10/bottom10 or what, but it's probably the best we can hope for.


Just making an imaginary dividing point, that may look something like this:

-1st round: 32 teams from USL2/NPSL/LQ
-2nd round: 34 USLC and 12 USL1 teams join 16 first round winners
-3rd round: Bottom13 MLS teams join 31 2nd round winners.
-4th round: Top10 MLS teams join 22 3rd round winners




I suppose the options are numerous.
With, of course, by far the most likely option being:
-4th round: all 23 MLS teams join 8 3rd round winners.

 

Yeah I should have phrased that better. This is what I meant^^

If you enter USL/MLS in the round of 64, it shortens the tournament by a round and ultimately would be less traveling for everyone. Could also do home field advantage for the lower tier to help them with the costs (assuming there is an acceptable field available). Wouldn't be too hard to orchestra.

But yes, I am glad teams are not forfeiting, ha. That is certainly a plus.

 

We don't know how many MLS clubs the best lower level club would have to advance past to win the USOC, and even if we knew the amount of clubs from each level in later rounds we can't assume a random draw, so even if the probability of an MLS club advancing over a lower level club was 75 percent for every game, we can't calculate the probability of a lower level club winning based on the possible matchups. Once the bracket is made for the rest of the tournament, we can calculate the probability of a lower level club winning. Having 16 clubs left with about 3 from lower levels is much easier to work with than with 32 clubs left and 11 from lower levels.

I'm going to Omaha next week, and I may go next May. If Omaha has a club in the USOC then, I may go. I saw the Red Bulls not use their best players and lose at the Cosmos in 2014. I've never seen a game between two lower level clubs. By "seen" I mean at the game.

I was going to ask what round of any USOC had the most games that were all the same day, but then it was posted that a game got moved from Tuesday to Wednesday. I'm still interested. Is there an archive that includes the date of every game?

 

We don't have nearly enough statistics to say anything solid yet, but I wonder what it portends for the current/future strength of the CPL that the most lopsided series of the first round was the one that DIDN'T involve a regional league qualifier. - VA and ASB played their CPL competition really close.

 

That there is a wide disparity between the teams? The Cavalry are easily the best team in the league, while Pacific is somewhere towards the bottom (although the bottom is fairly well populated).

Also, a significant chunk of their players came from L1O, so it shouldn't be surprising that their teams are vaguely comparable.

 

That and the fact that a lot of MLS clubs didn't take it seriously or didn't even enter.

 

Well, they had a lot of trouble against one in particular.

Of the 13 times MLS lost to a lower-division club between 1996-1999, six were to Rochester. Which, for reasons we all get, had a roster of a quality that approached MLS-level, and which second-division clubs have largely been unable to match since the primordial soup days.

Overall, 10 of the 13 were decided by the odd goal (which, obviously, the bulk of soccer games are). That's not always indicative of the true distance between any two clubs, but I'm not sure it's fair to say they had a lot of trouble in general. MLS teams were still trying to figure everything out in 1999. (And in only one of those games was the MLS team at home, San Jose in 1997.)

And I'll re-check, Tex, because my numbers are slightly different from yours and you're usually very thorough. But I have slightly different numbers than you. My historical mark is 73% for MLS advancement against lower-division sides from 1996-2018, which is fair enough to use. But it bugs me that we are off on a couple of recent years.

 

This is what I have.

The boxed-in column is the important one, advancement percentage. But I've also included W-L-T Pct. (ties counting as half a win, half a loss, as in the NFL) and just outright winning percent.



Taken in four-year blocks (the most recent block is just three years), you can see the advancement percentage rising, from 65% to 70% to 73% to 78%. The lower-division clubs ain't getting closer. (And, as we've seen with Cincinnati, at least, and despite what Soccer Twitter loses its mind over one Wednesday night every summer, being able to beat MLS clubs in a one-off tournament is not proof positive a lower-division club should be or could compete at that level.)

 

CPL teams are where MLS teams were in 1996 in terms of cohesion. I would not panic were I a CPL fan about close calls against lower level teams.

 

Rowdies @ OKC is underway after something like a 2.5 hour weather delay.

 

OKC 3-2 TB
31st minute

The break did not do the defenses any good.

 

4-3 in the 60th.

Quite a game you guys are not watching!