I don't like the current format where money buys home field advantage. The Sounders are in their 2nd straight final in some part because they are able to buy HFA throughout the tournament. I think we should brainstorm to figure out a better way to determine HFA. Here's my idea: HFA shall be given to the team who most recently had a USOC road game. If both teams were on the road the previous round (or after an equal amount of regressive home games), then it shall be given to the team with the longer recent or current streak of USOC road games. If both teams are equal in that, then it should be given to the team with the higher amount of all-time USOC road games. If still tied, then the team with the higher percentage of USOC road games. If still tied, then to the team with the better head-to-head USOC record. If still tied, then most Open Cups, Final appearances, Semifinal appearances, etc. If everything is tied after that, then have a coin flip. ___________ I believe it is better to seek to balance out HFA for all teams involved, it spreads the game more throughout the country. Thoughts and opinions will be appreciated.
I voted for balance because I objected to the other two options, but in reality I think a random draw or coin flip should be how its handled. Of course,the Rapids haven't played a home USOC game in over 3 years, so what do I know.
Well, while a random draw or coin flip will provide more balance than the bidding process, a system specifically designed to provide balance, will provide more balance. _ _ _ _ _ Here's hoping that the tournament organisers will find a way to make it a rarity that teams host consecutive USOC games. Thank you for your opinion. I owe you rep.
Last year Seattle played two away games, including the final. I think they played six all together, including play-ins. This year they played one away game. Four games total, this year. Most teams don't care about the USOC. That's why they don't bid anything. Only DCU and Seattle try for home games. Other MLS teams could care less. Lower division teams benefit from this, since hosting an MLS team is a big draw for them, but not vice versa.
Easy there, trigger. There are more teams that care about the Open Cup than DC and Seattle. True, there are others that don't put much effort into it, but Chicago, Dallas, Columbus, KC and others have put a lot of effort to win it. I know for me, the Open Cup has provided some of the best drama I've seen in professional soccer in the US.
Well I for one knows that RBNY/Metro always took the Open Cup Serious, but sadly they just haven't gotten out of the 3rd round in the last several years. 2006 was the last time they won a third round match at Wilmington Hammerheads. Still I would agree with some to form of a blind draw. If the US Open Cup committiee would extend the amount of MLS sides entering round three and add round 4 for a true Round of 16, then they should make two large pots. One pot for Round 2 Winners, one pot for Round 3 clubs ready to play. One ball per pot will determine the match ups and then find out who will host later.
Given the schedule congestion, is it worth considering the possibility of playing home-and-home instead of one game rounds?
HF should go to the team that did better in the previous years tournament. That would give at least a little more incentive for teams to try harder to win.
Except, that since there is a correlation between HFA and winning percentage, giving HF to teams that already win kind of has the tendency to become a feedback loop.
What are we trying to do with the USOC? I say we're trying to build the sport. So it should be high on fairness, and focuses on how to spread the wealth. I suggest three phases. I - weed out all but the best at each level - USASA, NPSL, PDL, USL Pro, NASL, MLS II - from the final 32 (8 MLS, 8 NASL, 8 USL Pro, 8 amateur) to the Round of 16, lower seed hosts, ranking them 1-16 in East/West geographical divisions. III - QF, SF and F - televise, televise, televise. Where it is lower division v upper division on the QF, lower division team hosts. Otherwise, random draw. SF and F, random draw.
I say give home field advantage to whoever has gone longest without hosting a usoc game. If both teams last hosted on same day, then give it to whoever's last usoc home game ended earlier that day. Or give it to the southernmost team on odd years, northernmost in even years. Why not? It's still better than the bid process. This isn't e-bay.
Until what I saw this year, yes this team took the Open Cup seriously. I was disappointed on what Backe did for the Quarterfinals. He sited too much travel and that was an excuse. I didn't like what I saw and hopefully his priorities will change for 2012. He needs to understand that just because there are alot of matches in July for RBNY doesn't mean you have to easily give up on a chance to win a trophy. It's too easy to quote someone and throw it in their face, I can see its very hard for you to not bother to ask me how I felt when he did this. I was disgusted by it and I hope this will change.
It taints the trophy and competition when the home field advantage goes only to a few richer/motivated teams.
I'm really looking forward to next year, when IKickAndIm50 will be covering all travel expenses for the new, random-draw Open Cup.
LOL. Well, it's also important we get blind draws for Gold Cup also. In general, we need to stop being so scared of honest competition. But i guess it takes time for the general american public to be more interested in and financially supportive of the sport for that to happen. Fair enough, but even if it isnt practical to change the Open Cup system right away, it DOES still taint it. How can it not?