I just took a quick look at the historic results of the Open Cup since MLS teams started competing. This year with three teams the MLS has the fewest teams qualifying for the quarterfinals since they started competing in 1996. 1996 - 4 1997 - 5 1998 - 7 1999 - 5 2000 - 8 2001 - 6 2002 - 7 2003 - 6 2004 - 4 2005 - 6 2006 - 8 2007 - 3 As much as I'd like to think that USL clubs are playing a much better brand of soccer than they're given credit for and are proving it on the pitch, I have a suspicion that MLS teams are taking this Cup less seriously this year. Though, I'm not at all sure.
That's a good point, but it's also worth noting that in the third round, five MLS teams lost to USL teams. That's never happened before (in one round). The biggest number of MLS teams to lose in one round was four, prior to this.
Seems like some, probably most, MLS teams took the Cup a little less seriously this year, due in part to too many competitions, or whatever other reason. If I were one of the 3 remaining MLS teams, though, I'd probably start pretty much a full strength side from here on out. Especially for NE and Colorado who have never won a US Open or MLS Cup. With the way things have played out, this is a great chance for them to get some silverware. It's even quite possible that an MLS team could win the Open Cup this year without facing another MLS team at any point.
There hasn't been an MLS v. MLS match yet, and neither of the semifinals will be. The thread lacks an [R], so I can't politely comment on whether the final has the potential to be all-MLS.
This also could be a fluke. And I'm not putting a damn (R) on thread for games that weren't on TV and, except for one, have been done for well over 24 hours.
Agreed on the (R), a good policy in general that gets a little silly around here sometimes. I do think this year is probably somewhat of a fluke, and next year probably more MLS teams will get through and avoid upsets. I also think it makes for a more interesting tournament when there are more upsets and fewer inter-MLS match ups that people see week in and week out anyway. But I'm also a fan of a USL team and a little biased in that regard, so who knows. I have no particularly strong feelings about the remaining teams, although I am hoping it ends up as an MLS vs USL final. Either of those possible match ups is fine with me, although I imagine NE vs Seattle might make for a better game. From what I've seen on tv in some of the USL Friday night games, Carolina is not the prettiest team to watch, and probably wouldn't score 5 against anyone.
If it is New England Vs Seattle in the final, I hope that US Soccer allows Seattle to have the final and forces the Revs to go cross country to Qwest Field. I also hope for Sounderfans sake, that Qwest field will be filled in the lower levels of the stadium. Hopefully the Mariners & the Seahawks will help them promote the Cup final for them so it can be a great atmosphere.
I've always loved your optimism How many Revs fans last night? a little over 1,000 ? Granted, it's against a Second Division team that most "typical" fans don't know anything about....but STILL....good lord.
Holy crap, why should they get EVERY game in the Open Cup on their home field? Seriously, they have played all four games at home thus far. Let them travel for once. Hell, I'm pissed that FCD is having to play on Seattle's plastic field in the semis. And BTW, that brings me to a little bit of insight as to why the USL teams might've done well this year: 8 out of 11 MLS-USL matchups were played at the home of the USL team. The only three games that the MLS team hosted were FCD's PK win over Atlanta and Rapids' win over the California Victory in the third round and the Revs' win over Harrisburg in the quarterfinals. Combine that with the subpar teams that many MLS teams have fielded in their matches and it's no wonder why the USL teams have been successful.
You do realize that the right to host a USOC match is a bidding process. Whoever puts up the best bid, hosts. Well, either FCD didn't put up a better bid than Seattle did, or they just didn't bid at all. And, if Fieldturf is sooooo terrible, 1) why are there so many euro sides using it in their training facilities, and 2) why has FIFA approved it as a playing surface, including for major international tourneys (over half this years U20 WC matches were played on it).
In theory, you are right, but it doesn't always work that way. Back in 2001 the Revs had made a bid to host the USOC final vs the Galaxy. Because of September 11, the last home game vs the Mutts was cancelled, so the idea was to honor any tickets people had for that game. The Revs had reportedly sold more than 16,000 (this was back when we used to get crowds) So the USSF had the option of a guaranteed 16,000 tickets sold or to let the Galxy host it in Fullerton in front of 4,000 of their closest friends. Reportedly, LA was worried that it was "too cold" to play in New England at the end of October, so the USSF capitulated. It may have been a case of not wanting to give the Revs too many home games in the Cup, since they had played many at home, but it seemed pretty stupid at the time. And that no one ever officially explains how these decisions are made makes matters worse.
I know how it works. And I'm pissed that FCD could apparently outbid the Rapids, but not the Sounders. I've highlighted the key words here. And yes, FieldTurf sucks. I know why it's been put in where it has been put in, but it still sucks.
No, your OPINION is it sucks. There are thousands of athletes in this country, both pro and amateur, from multiple sports, that would say you are wrong.
It'd be awesome if they could play in Seattle(i'd for sure go and watch them) SOUNDERS ALL THE WAY BABY
If we get a Seattle/NE final, it seems like it would be a terrible idea to have it in an empty Gillette instead of out in Seattle, where they would likely draw over 10K. By the way, has there been any announcement about who might host the final yet? If I had to guess right now, I'd say Dallas will beat the Sounders and host the final at PHP.