And that matters to the tens of thousands of Mexicans, Guatamalans, and anyone else you can think of that will hoard tickets at the big venues how exactly? I suggest you watch next week's game in Houston and then get back to us. What's the point of playing at home if you don't have a home crowd? Might as well play the match in Acapulco or Cabo.
I understand your point. Does USSoccer worry about US fans staying away from games if they don't hold a majority of the crowd? What exactly is the profile of a US fan? Kinda fairweather....
U.S. supporters don't have the numbers other nations do within our own borders. It is reality. It sucks. But when life gives you lemons, you make lemonade. Having such games as US-Mexico in Columbus, while a smaller stadium, will net the same amount of U.S. supporters. Somewhere inbetween 10,000-15,000. Having that game at CCS means only 8,000-10,000 mexico supporters are present, as opposed to 40,000-50,000 supporters in an NFL stadium.
Exactly. Village, if you want to see Mexico, make plans to fly to Columbus. It's worked there twice, with a 4-0 aggregate towards the good guys, so why change it? Speaking of which, has the US ever lost in Columbus? I know that doesn't mean much on the grand scheme, but it does speak volumes towards a home-field advantage. Columbus can host the game, and have the stadium be overwhelmed with USA fans. This game will be in Columbus, and anything else would be idiotic. Sure, they COULD hold it in a larger stadium and net more money, but if the USA's WC hopes are on the line, then we certainly don't want that with a crowd of 90% opposing fans. The guy who mentioned fans changing travel plans is correct. If hundreds (if not thousands) of people have to change their flights, hotels, rental cars, at the last minute, then US Soccer better foot the bill. Let's assume that the cost of the original ticket would be completely refunded. You'd still have a lot of pissed off fans who would have to start all over again.
So in Columbus, from your stats, the US has ONLY a 2/3's majority. (?) You've answered my question ... fairweather US fans
Where exactly are you going with this? I'm not sure what your argument in the context of U.S. stadiums for WCQs is. I look forward to the day when we have an entire side of a stadium in the U.S. doing this... [youtube]CJUIp50zXWA[/youtube]
It was confirmed by the Crew General Manager last night during the USA game that US Soccer has signed the contract (or done the confirmation or whatever) to place the USA - Mexico game in Columbus in 2009. Official announcement to follow in the next few days.
According to Ives, there are seven cities vying for the three home games in the 2nd round: DC, Dallas, Los Angeles, Denver, Seattle, Chicago and Columbus. http://www.soccerbyives.net/soccer_by_ives/2008/02/six-sites-vying.html It'll be interesting to see how they fall. Given that LA has the first round game, and that according to HardHatMike C-Bus will get the final round Mexico game (not that we should be surprised by that, but a nod to him for having the "official" word), I would think that would count those two out, or at least move them down the list. Of the remaining cities, I would expect Seattle to get one, to help with the MLS hype. Since Dick's is the newest SSS, that should help their odds. DC is a nice spot for the Euros if we have a single home game, for travel reasons. The Nats have spent a lot of time in both Chicago and Dallas, so that may work against them in this case. But of course, that will keep them in the mix for one of the four remaining games during the hexagonal.
Dallas, Chicago, Denver might work for the semifinal round. Dallas would provide the shortest flight from Cuba, Chicago might provide a temperature advantage against Cuba and I've already mentioned the benefits of playing Guatemala in Denver. That would leave DC, Foxboro/Hartford, Columbus, Seattle, Salt Lake and one wild card for the final round.
U.S.A. vs Mexico in Houston, meh probably not a great idea on several levels. U.S.A. vs Canada in Houston, probably a great idea on several levels. Least of which is a proven soccer community, the cross over appeal with our local media when Rico and Chinger could paly against Pat and DeRo and of course Houston has never received a WCQ. We don't deserve it, we've earned it!
While I don't doubt that Houston would be a great spot for Canada, I have to suggest no for the reason that the building is climate controlled. I want Canada to have to play in the worst conditions that we can get them into. The hotter and more humid the better. Think Birmingham in August or something like that.
You mean like Robertson Stadium in August?!? With a sold out 31K and rabid pro U.S.A.! I'd actually have no problem never having to go back to Reliant for U.S.A. international football. Legion Field in Birmingham is supposedly going to be getting rid of God's stuff and going Field Turf. So there goes that Southern Soccer venue. I have incredible memories of going to Alabama for U.S.A. soccer.
Either at Robertson or even over at Rice (but I think they have turf over there as well, but barhopping in the Village pre-game would be fun even though the stadium is a hole), but not at Reliant. I want them outdoors and miserable.
Crew Stadium has hosted the last two WCQs between Mexico and US. It has been ideal from a U.S. standpoint. A true homefield advantage.
You dont think a 40k stadium full of US fans in the freezing winter will be a better home field advantage?
I would like that too. Dicks Sports Park would be a good place to open up also because the last opening round game we played was in Columbus and it didn't draw a large crowd. I think it was around 9,000 fans.
I just realized that nobody posted the news that Los Angeles will host the Barbados/Dominica match. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2008/02/usa_at_hdc.html There were a lot of good arguments here for using a smaller stadium for a match that doesn't draw well historically and not forcing a federation with limited funds to travel an extra 3,000 miles. Playing this match in LA makes complete sense.
=I went to the last WCQ's in LA back in the 80's-couple times against T&T and the ill-fated Costa Rica game, that kept us from qualifying for the WC =As we know, the NATS can really only play Canada, any of the Carib islands, Belize, Jaimica, Prob.. Haiti and Cuba in LA and hope to have a home field advantage... =I home we sell this game out.. 27,000+ may be a tall order against a small Crib county. They are going to have to keep ticket prices reasonable and market to the LAG season ticket holders, as well as USSF , Sams Army etc.. to sell the place out.. = As for the games..We have a decent chance of playing Cuba in the next round (if all holds to form).. I have a crazy suggetion- play them in Miami ! At Pro Player or whatever its called, assuming the Orange is torn down by then..Not being from Miami, I can't say if the Cuban community would come out to support the country they are living in now (USA) or the country their family and history is from.... Could be a huge payday for the USSF and heck, we are used to playing before away crowds at home... = Canada can be played anywhere, the further north and east though, will bring more traveling fans... = As for Mexico, why be extreme with them... It will depend on the time of year we play them.... If its winter , how about Green Bay ? Thought I read there was some rumblings of trying a game there.... Heck, why not Honolulu or Alaska or something?
Looks like I'm going to make my first trip out to Fort Hunt. I'd love to have a quali at Lambeau, but it's not wide enough. I think it's been covered.
First of all, we don't get to choose when the game would be played. In the 2001 cycle, it was in February, and the cold worked to our advantage.In the 2005 cycle, the game was in September, so the weather didn't help. But, the venue was chosen because it was successful the last time around. We have no clue when the game will be in the next cycle. Second, since we have now won the last two WCQ there against Mexico, it will continue to be chosen. Whether it's a good luck charm, or a psychological advantage, or just a fluke, or any other reason, there's no need to mess with a winning formula. As long as the US keeps beating Mexico at Crew stadium (and since winning, and therefore qualifying, is what those games are all about), why would USSF want to change anything? Finally, to your original question, no, there isn't a 40,000 stadium in Columbus. The only venue in Columbus that would be larger than Crew Stadium is Ohio Stadium, which is where Ohio State University's football team plays (and where the Columbus Crew played before Crew stadium was built). There are several problems with using Ohio Stadium: 1) It holds 102,329 people, far too many for a US Soccer game. 2) The field dimensions itself are far too small (106 yards x 62 yards) for soccer. 3) The Crew left the stadium in 1999. Since then, the playing surface has been changed from natural grass to FieldTurf. 4) Again, it's someone else's stadium. So, US Soccer doesn't really have control of it. For instance, when we played at Crew Stadium in 2005, the OSU football team had a home game at Ohio Stadium, so even if they had wanted to play there, they couldn't. For instance, the dates for the games in the hexagonal round have been released. One of the dates is October 10. If that date ended up being US-Mexico, it would conflict, as Ohio State will be playing Wisconsin at home on October 10 2009.
My ideas for great locations.....assuming all fields work. Mexico- Columbus Smaller Carib. Nations - Durham, NC Another Small Carib Nation - Bloomington, IN Small Carib. Nation - Omaha, NE Cuba - HDC Another idea.....could we play mexico in foxboro?