The second round of the U.S. Open Cup was tonight, so the matches for the third round are now set for next Tuesday, May 29 (home team listed first): Harrisburg (USL Pro) - New England Richmond (USL Pro) - D.C. United Charleston (USL Pro) - New York Columbus - Dayton (USL Pro) Philadelphia - Rochester (USL Pro) Michigan (PDL) - Chicago Kansas City - Orlando City (USL Pro) San Antonio (NASL) - Houston Dallas - Charlotte (USL Pro) Chivas - Ventura County (PDL) San Jose - Ft. Lauderdale (NASL) Portland - Cal FC (USASA) Carolina (NASL) - Los Angeles Tampa Bay (NASL) - Colorado Atlanta (NASL) - Seattle Minnesota (NASL) - Salt Lake Potential upsets abound - Minnesota is unbeaten in the NASL, San Antonio is up there in the standings, Tampa Bay is playing well, and with Colorado travelling a long way, there could be fatigue, Carolina is managed by Colin Clarke, and we saw what he did against the Galaxy with Puerto Rico. In the USL Pro, Orlando is continuing their great form from last season's title run, unbeaten in seven. Rochester has matched their record, both with 6 wins and a draw. Charleston is also always dangerous in this competition, and even though Hans Backe has said he'll play his starters, it's tough to see how that will play out. Also, with 9 MLS teams playing away from home on fields of always questionable quality, you never know what can happen. The fairytale match here, however, is Eric Wynalda's Cal FC against Portland at JELD-WEN Field. That's certainly one to keep an eye on. So here we go, MLS in the U.S. Open Cup, with a spot in the 2013-14 CONCACAF Champions League on the line.
And, amusingly, the Timbers had a similar deal with Wilmington, but Wilmington forgot they had to win to cash in their payday. Oops.
I can't complain about my FO playing by the rules everyone else is playing by. But I can complain about the USSF basically misleading everyone. Not much different than the previous years bidding system. At least this year all MLS teams are in the USOC. They do actually give teams who win the draw a chance to accept an offer from another team to host or host it themselves, and rather than the USSF getting the money the team who won the draw gets the money. So at least they are getting something out of it where in previous years they got jack and squat.
Also, flip the hosting situation for Chivas and Ventura County. The PDL team will be hosting instead.
via US Soccer: http://www.ussoccer.com/News/Lamar-...e-Pop-During-Second-Round-of-US-Open-Cup.aspx As for Chivas and Ventura County, well, they're both LA-area teams, so it would've been a pseudo home game for both, regardless of where they would've played. I'm sure a bunch of Chivas fans will find their way out to Ventura College.
https://www.facebook.com/atlantasilverbacks Take a look at the comments. This is not what this country needs if trying to grow this sport. Selling out your own fans, and more importantly, the USSF allowing clubs to sellout just for quick cash is completely unfair to the Silverbacks, or any other non-MLS clubs supporters. There is no MLS club near ATL, so the fans support, with time and money, the Silverbacks. Fans had tickets in hand, excited about this game. But I guess from the USSF's perspective, allowing the MLS to F over all those supporters and allow MLS teams to buy home field advantage is more important. You know, I don't blame Sea,nor do I blame Por, as the rules allow this, and this isn't disrespectful towards their fans.ATL can't say the same. I normally stay out of pro/rel conversations, but this is an example of why I'd be in favor. Quit this buying home field advantage shit, and simply let the good team rise and the bad teams fall.
The old system of buying hosting rights from the USSF was more palatable than the new system of bribing the opposition.
Call it what you want, but the team that is being "bribed" has a choice and they are receiving the money rather than the USSF. I find that more palatable. The ONLY issue I have with it is that the fans are getting screwed over. And I don't know the finances of the Atalanta Silverbacks, but this could be a big deal for them in helping them operate the team in the first place.
In a supposedly competitive event, a team should not be paying off its opponents. This is very different from paying the sanctioning body, which spends a lot of money to hold the event.
The USSF is still getting its money, that isn't changing. I am sorry we live in a Country where our lover division teams struggle each year to operate. I wish it wasn't that way. At least these teams have a CHOICE in the matter. Which is a step up from where it was previously.
The thing is, from a competitive stand point it sucks for ATL, but with the cash if they can pay their players salaries on time, or stay in business a little longer then they'd be silly to turn it down. It's not like they're going to make a killing selling 20,000 extra tickets to their home game, so you can't really blame them in that sense.
The one unknown in all this is how pissed off the fans will be. Pissed off enough to stop coming to games? If so, then it was a stupid, short-sighted decision. Who knows whether this will be the case or not. At the very least, after having a really good turnaround in their attendance this year, it would be really sad if this undermined that success.
Well, next Tuesday will be my 1st time at Blackbaud Stadium. We've never fared well at that venue, but who cares? It'll be a fun day out with the Empire Supporters Club.
I agree. I also don't know the team's finances but if they're struggling (especially at the gate) this move could piss off the fans to the point that it kills the team. This is nothing more than Seattle taking Atlanta's lunch money at recess. It's deplorable and shouldn't be allowed. Maybe Seattle can buy out their road playoff games too?
Weak sauce from the USSF to not announce buying him games would still b allowed when they announced the "revised" hosting rules. I can't blame MLS sides for taking advantage but my hope that the USSF was finally trying to improve the competition has taken a big hit. And for those keeping track its now 10 straight USOC/play-in games on the road for the Rapids, dating back to 2007. The odds of the Rapids losing 10 straight truly random draws/flips for home field are 1 in 1024, or about 1 tenth of 1 percent.
So Atlanta is now the victim? This is not Seattle taking Atlanta's lunch money. More like Atlanta's owners selling out their own fans to make some money. That the USSF, and Seattle for that matter, allows this to happen is shameless.
The FA Cup is a pretty well run competition. For various reasons the FA can get away with a random draw for pairings and for hosting, but they still allow teams to sell home field advantage. Now the big difference is that rather than going to extra time and penalties, a draw in the the FA Cup is replayed at the other team's stadium. So a team selling its right to host still has a chance to regain the home field advantage. I know that the USA isn't England, but the model of the FA Cup is pretty fair, and interest in the competition has sustained itself for a hundred and something years. I honestly love seeing likes of Seven Acre & Sidcup FC v Manchelsea Hotspurnal City United playing in a foggy mudpit watched by 4000 people trying to eat the world's hardest pork pies, but we can't even get a cross-MLS matchup on an internet telecast. I get that people are kind of tired of Seattle ripping through the Open Cup with home game after home game. I'm tired of it too. But the way to stop it is to beat them.
Well, whose fault is it that the Rapids weren't willing to offer an all-expense-paid weekend at Aspen for the Rowdies? Other than the aforementioned shady nature of these deals (mostly disappointed with the USSF for not spelling this out), my main problem is this: why not just give all lower-league teams home field advantage in the Open Cup, so that they can all try and cash in like this? That is, how come Minnesota and Atlanta have home games to sell, but Orlando and Dayton don't?
I'm pissed off at Minnesota. It's hard enough to convince people to go to their games out in BFE, but finally when they get an easy sell in an MLS opponent, they throw it away. I know they were looking for the money, but selling games away is going to do nothing to increase their dismal attendance numbers.
I understand the fans aren't going to like it, but it could be that many of the lower-level teams are praying they get a chance to host an MLS team just so they can sell the home rights and end the year in the black. If you end the practice you're probably hurting the lower level teams more than the MLS teams. It's not unprecedented in other contexts; every year major-conference NCAA football and basketball teams pay smaller schools to show up at the big school's venue and get clobbered. If the practice was ended, it isn't as if Penn State would travel to Slippery Rock in football; they simply wouldn't play each other at all. From a competitive standpoint, that's an unfair advantage to the big school, but it's just the way of the world. Same thing here.
It's the whatevereth anniversary of moaning about the fact that some teams, yours and mine included, just Do. Not. Care. about this competition. Calculating 2^10th power, or 2^100th power, won't change the mentality of such organizations. I hope, though I'm not optimistic about it, that the complaints made to RBNY HQ after the mockery that Backe made of the competition by sending Mike Petke and 11 dwarfs to play in Chicago last year will lead to a different approach. Blaming the people who are really responsible seems more productive than complaining about the USSF.