C'mon...FIFA rankings? I can appreciate your optimism for the national team, but if Arena and USSF feel better about playing Mexico in chilly Crew stadium, then I'm going to accept that decision. I trust their understanding of our situation more so than some "questionable at best / downright goofy at worst" list handed out by FIFA.
As you point out, there is now a great rivalry that has developed between the US and Mexico. So I would think that no matter where the game's played there's probably gonna be a big crowd. It blows my mind to see how many people on these boards think the US can now beat Mexico any place any time. I hope they're right...but I think its absurd to think its fine to just purposely give away a home field advantage to Mexico or any other team for WCQ. As a previous poster said...remember the US vs. Honduras in RFK? I was there and it wasn't pretty.
By the way, dberg077, you say that because the USA is ranked #8 (looks like we're actually #9) we don't need any advantage but our own talent. You also state that we can beat Mexico anywhere, probably Azteca as well. Mexico's ranking is #4. Sorta tough to use a ranking system to bolster your argument when that same ranking system goes against your own premise, don't you think?
I'd be willing to hold our home match vs. Mexico in Dallas or LA if they agree to host their home leg in Cancun and give out free beer.
Dude, this is the World Cup. You cannot take any chances. Don't act like because of our high ranking we should just throw home field advantage away and act like we are too good for it. Why don't you go to the Mexican board and suggest that since they are #4 they need to stop playing in Azteca because it's too hard for opponents to win there? Sorry, but the only time our team should play in Texas for a World Cup game is if the opponent is Canada. Otherwise, why risk it? I'm not saying our current system is the greatest. I don't understand at all why the Panama game is in DC. We should send them all the way up to Seattle or something, because we shouldn't play games where the away team will have more fans than the US. And I just don't see how it is going to help improve the image of the game to the 'casual' fan if they turn on the TV or show up at the game and the crowd is anti-USA when it's suppose to be a 'home game' for us.
For all WCQ's we absolutely have to make some attempt at home field advantage. Trying to "toughen up" and possibly squander needed points makes no sense. Our whole National Team program rises (or falls) with WCQ. For all other competitions, friendlies, Gold Cup, etc., I agree with the premise that presenting varied environments will help the players in the long run. I suggest the following possibilities as WCQ venues for the Mexico game: Fairbanks, so long as it's either a late spring through early fall game. Not a large gate, but they can sell most of the tickets to the locals, and it may be difficult for a lot of Mexican fans to get there. Caribou, ME. Similar scenario. I think the Fed should do a detailed demographic study of the remaining places in the U.S. where there are few, if any, Mexican workers, and consider scheduling games there if those places are difficult for Mexican fans from other parts of the U.S. (or Mexico) to get to. Any other candidates? As for Los Angeles, well, it's gotten pretty ugly at the Coliseum, and while it's not quite Azteca, it's the closest you'll get to actually being in Mexico. One Gold Cup (98?) it got so bad that there was a large contingent of Mexican fans waiting for the players' bus to leave after the game. These "fans" pummeled the bus with all manner of missiles, and every epithet that has ever been uttered was used against the players. But of course no U.S.-Mexico game at the Coliseum is complete without the obligatory cups of urine and car batteries being hurled at the U.S. players when they leave during halftime, and the shrill whistling during the playing of the Star Spangled Banner.
The game would sell out most anywhere. FWIW, US played the qualy in Foxboro, I think, in 97 and it was very much sold out. I wasn't there, but it sounded pretty pro-US to me. I think the upper-East coast is pretty safe from the Mexican crowds. I forget exactly when it was, but the US played Mexico in RFK for friendly and it was a pretty solid US crowd. I would assume that since the US fans have gotten a little more educated that it would be an even more US pro-crowd if it were played now.
I may have an answer for that one... The Panama match is 72 hours after we play down in El Salvador. Minimize travel time as much as possible.
Funny how that works. You'd think that, since El Salvador exists on a strip of land between Mexico and South America, Seattle would be closer. The way that Central America curves southeast moves it closer to DC I guess. Don't have a map and I'm too lazy at the moment to look into it further.
El Salvador is directly south of Alabama. Seattle would be the furthest major city in the contiguous states.
That settles it then. Birmingham it is In all seriousness though, with the large central american population in DC, they obviously don't care about home field advantage as much, so they should play in Miami which is the closest.
Checked filght times at Travelocity... On October 10th, most commercial flights from San Salvador to SeaTac average around 10 hours in travel time (including a plane change in Houston or LA)... OTOH, flights to Reagan average around 7 hours of travel, including plane change (Houston, Miami, or Atlanta)... Granted, the team probably charters...but I imagine the actual time in the air probably has most of that 3 hour difference...