Well the USL and NASL are east coast heavy, so It may depend how many of them beat the lower level teams and survive the 3rd round. If all USL and NASL go pass the second round, you only have Minnesota, LA and San Antonio west of the Mississippi. Here are the 16 PDL teams
Its my understanding that a team must meet certain venue standards to host a game. Does anyone know what those standards are? Are the standards such that PDL teams, for example, will likely not host games?
It is probably an increasing criteria as they go through the rounds. PDL team at a HS field might meet requirements in first round, but by third, maybe not.
They're probably out there somewhere. But I could sum it up for you as "Many PDL teams probably aren't going to have sufficient stadium quality, and none of the USASA teams and very few of the NPSL teams will, especially as you get deeper in the tournament." Not that many PDL teams get that far in the tournament anyway. I would think Des Moines and Fresno and Portland and places like that could host easily. But Bradenton and West Virginia and Westchester? Probably not happening.
=Well most of the posts are bring up he negatives, i am going in a different direction. =I have always felt this is the true NATIONAL CHAMPION. (sorry MLS) It is about time the playing was leveled, even a little bit. =64 teams is great. And who knows, maybe after another 5-10 years as soccer on all levels continues to grow, we will bump it to a 128 team tourney. =some more thoughts: 1/ USOC needs a big national sponsor. MLS has most of the big ones. I wonder how many of them would take whatever $ they have budgeted and split a bit of it to the USOC? Putting their brand name in 19 MLS teams (16 in the USA) is one thing, but putting it into 64 markets would be bigger/different/better. 2/ TV- someone needs to do a consistent TV plan. One game from each of the 5 rounds is not that much. What that TV date would really need is a post game show with all the scores and some highlights from all the other games that night and then building up for the next round. 3/ As for the home team situation, assuming this is a true blind draw, i would offer the following = A/ If you are a small market and get the game and your stadium can handle the requirements, game is yours B/ If your stadium can't handle it, see about 'borrowing' a nearby stadium for this special- one off game. it should be a very big even in town. Examples- Say your the Pittsburgh Riverhounds- how about borrowing Heinz field. Or Minnesota NSC using the Metrodome. El Paso using the Sun Bowl. Obviously costs and the history of attendance in the town comes in to play on deciding this C/ Last option. You get the game and you just don't have the facility, then you should be allowed to defer the game to the other team. I say this, because some of the lower division teams will simply say they want to take on the LAG at HDC or the Sounders at Qwest.. Want to play on the big stage. = 4/ I would like NBC Sports to put a little coverage on the USOC this year, especially when the MLS teams are playing or just played. A simple explanation of the tourney, a little bit of history and maybe the brackets would be wonderful.
I suspect that Yoshou and Kenn have it about right and am looking forward to see how this plays out. I, for one, welcome these changes and am hopeful it helps the profile of the USOC. I also hope it helps draw new fans to the lower divisions. There is a certain unrefined rawness to USL and PDL level soccer that I find appealing. Sadly, few share my view. Attendance at D-III or lower level is rather sparse. Having the chance to host a big club could help drum up local interest.
Wow. Just wow. Not only completely plowing completely-plowed idea land, but remarkably unrealistic and naive besides. You don't get to "borrow" other people's fields, genius. The Pittsburgh Riverhounds certainly aren't going to "borrow" Heinz Field. Holy cow. Holy holy holy holy cow.
I'd like to see the draw for the round of 32 enable MLS and lower league teams to face one another. Maybe to make travel costs less, the bracket could be split into east and west, or four regions.
Yes, maybe next year this will happen, Pro soccer is east coast heavy (USL and NASL) so regional makes more sense. Now it could be argued that it should be regional starting with the second round, amateur teams have the least money. That would mean second round games were west coast PDL faceoff against other west cost PDL teams in the second round, then MLS teams in the third round. Right now is going to be really hard for the west cost and mounting PDL/Amateur clubs to travel east for the second round. (I guess one lucky team can go to LA). Perhaps next year it will be more regional based and less divisional based. At least until (and if) the tournament grows. I mean come on the US Open Cup has only been around for 100+ years, it needs time to grow
Well, this is a step in the right direction, and long overdue. And considering this is USOC, ANY step in the right direction is to be applauded, and is somewhat unexpected. Getting rid of the absurd MLS play in (which usually created more games, not less) is a good start. All the MLS teams come in in the same round. That is good. Widening the field is good. More participation. And the "random draw" until the QF (subject to a $15,000 fee) is a half step in the right direction. If they got rid of the fee, and went to a random draw for teams instead of brackets, AND extended it to the SF and Final, then that would be a home run. Still, a move in the right direction.
USSF says lower division teams relish the chance to host MLS teams under the new format. Are their chances of winning better? Take a look. /shameless plug
There are standards. I have a USOC handbook that is a couple years old has them listed out. Most the requirements are things like lighting, field conditions, available medical staff, etc. I would think that availability of the venue is what would keep most teams in PDL and even some USLPro and NASL from putting in a host bid. With a condensed schedule, it doesn't allow some teams to secure the venue on short notice.
I can't imagine which NASL or USL Pro teams wouldn't have sufficient stadiums. I mean, the USOC has had games played at high school and small college stadiums before, so even Pittsburgh's current place would, you'd think, suffice. Aren't any NASL stadiums I can think of. They're not all optimal, but they should all be sufficient. Ditto with USL Pro. Dayton's not good, but they're probably not going to make an effort to host anyway. And there are good PDL stadiums and not-so-good ones. You'd imagine any team that doesn't have a sufficient stadium (and I can't figure out who that would be off the top of my head) isn't going to be that interested in hosting anyway.
I could've swore it looked like more than that. Oh well. Guess I'm not a good estimator. I never saw any attendance figures from that game.
16 PDL teams are in based on 2011 regular-season standings. Which - at least in the PDL's case, especially - is a challenge because PDL rosters are probably less consistent from year-to-year than divisions above them. The players who play in this year's Open Cup may have had nothing to do with the success of the PDL team in 2011. Or they may have. Eastern Conference: Carolina Dynamo, Long Island Rough Riders, MPS Portland Phoenix, Reading United. Southern Conference: El Paso Patriots, Laredo Heat, Mississippi Brilla, Orlando City U23s. Central Conference: Chicago Fire Premier, Des Moines Menace, Michigan Bucks, Real Colorado Foxes. Western Conference: Fresno Fuego, Kitsap Pumas, Portland Timbers U-23s, Ventura County Fusion. So all we need are the 16 other amateur qualifiers and we'll know the field.
I remember Ocean City was trying hard to get their game against DC United at home a few years back, but it fell through for some reason... I assume it was the bidding process....... I'm sure there is a good handful of PDL teams that would be able to host if they wanted.
Well, look at the ones above. Some of those teams can draw a crowd pretty nicely. We'll see how many of the other amateur teams even have a yard for the first round.
This is actually what I wish they'd do for the USASA teams, take the Final Four/Eight from the USASA tournaments the previous year which is akin to how the Germans qualify their teams outside the top two flights.
Don't they take the eight USASA teams from the tournaments of the current year now? Doesn't that make more sense?
I should finished my thought: Taking the previous year's USASA teams would allow them to not have to wait for this year's qualifying and start the tournament earlier, avoiding the four rounds in four weeks and giving teams time to market their home matches. The state associations could also have more time do their own tournaments, or maybe merge them with the much-larger "amateur" cups they run anyway.
Yeah, but if the USASA teams are going to play PDL teams in the first round, PDL teams can't have many of their players compete before May 1 (if they're NCAA players). Unless the recent NCAA reforms have changed that. The first round begins on May 15 this year. How much earlier do you think you could go and have PDL teams be at full strength? IF you want this to be an all-inclusive tournament, you have no choice but to respect the PDL limitations, which say you've basically got these guys in fighting shape from mid-May to mid-August (when they go back to school) and that's that. And if anybody ever does shift seasons, that blows the whole thing to hell.
I've never been that a big fan of the place the PDL holds in the US soccer "pyramid", so I wouldn't mind if they weren't really considered for the Cup, but I agree it would remove a significant portion of the tournament's field and appeal.