10/14 "mainstream media coverage"

Discussion in 'MLS: News & Analysis' started by kpaulson, Oct 14, 2003.

  1. sanariot

    sanariot Member

    Nov 19, 2001
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The Times article gives a fantastic rundown on some of the history of the Open Cup. Among other things, they mention that the largest crowd ever to watch a final was a crowd of over 20,000 in 1929. Let's hope this year's final tops that.

    I did notice an error in the roundup section at the bottom in reference to the Jamaica-Brazil game this past weekend. He says that Damani Ralph was on the Jamaica roster but didn't play. I watched that match on TV, I'm pretty sure I saw Damani playing.
     
  2. kpaulson

    kpaulson New Member

    Jun 16, 2000
    Washington DC
    Let's hope. Chicago drew 18k in 1998 and 19k in 2000. You'll have no complaints from me about the location of this year's cup if it draws anywhere near those numbers.
     
  3. BhoysFC1995

    BhoysFC1995 New Member

    Nov 30, 1999
    NYC
    i really think there is not much of a chance for 20k on a weeknight in giants stadium.
     
  4. kpaulson

    kpaulson New Member

    Jun 16, 2000
    Washington DC
    You don't say.

    Time to start paying attention - NJ Herald

    Women outshine men - NJ Herald

    MLS teams command field - NJ Herald (AP, but interesting...)

    Galarcep's article is good, as always. However, I think he's got his facts a little off. I think, since MLS started to participate, there's been at least three matches-- and two finals-- to draw more than 15k: The 1998 final, a 1999 game at Colorado and the 2000 final.

    It doesn't take away from his main point though: the competition doesn't get the respect it deserves.
     
  5. krolpolski

    krolpolski Member+

    He did not play.

    As for the Times article on the USOC history, it said, with regard to the largest crowd: "A crowd reported to be more than 20,000..."

    That means it was a guestimate. There were no tickets sold and counted. That means the largest crowds for Open Cup final matches were in Chicago. Where this cup match should've been held.
     
  6. kpaulson

    kpaulson New Member

    Jun 16, 2000
    Washington DC
    Who was that that entered in the game in the 38th minute?
     
  7. sanariot

    sanariot Member

    Nov 19, 2001
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  8. sljohn

    sljohn Member

    Apr 28, 2001
    Out of town
    According to Thereggaeboyz.com the Jamaica lineup was:
     
  9. Frieslander

    Frieslander Member
    Staff Member

    Feb 14, 2000
    North Jersey
    Enough whining from the Chicago people. Chicago has already held 2 OC finals. Let East Rutherford have it's first before Chicago gets it's 3rd.
     
  10. sanariot

    sanariot Member

    Nov 19, 2001
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    If you look in the forums over there, the fans are giving ratings of Damani Ralph's performance. I watched the match. I saw him play.
     
  11. kpaulson

    kpaulson New Member

    Jun 16, 2000
    Washington DC
    Hey, fair enough-- if your criteria is simply to spread it around (btw, I think East Rutherford actually did host a final in the 70s? Soldier FIeld did in the 20s too) to try to grow the tournament.

    But, I think if you wanted to have the biggest profile match now, you'd probably have been better off with Chicago.

    Not really whining-- just an observation.
     
  12. sanariot

    sanariot Member

    Nov 19, 2001
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Not according to the USSF:

    "RECORD 20,000 WATCH NEW YORK HAKOAH SC CAPTURE 1929 CROWN: After 13,937 spectators saw the teams’ first encounter at the Sportsman’s Park in St. Louis on March 21, 1929, a record-crowd of 20,000 showed up at Dexter Park in Brooklyn, N.Y., on April 7 to watch the second leg of the 1929 Open Cup between New York Hakoah SC and the St. Louis Madison Kennels._ The New York Hakoah SC swept the two-game final 5-0 on aggregate."

    http://www.ussoccer.com/news/fullstory.sps?iNewsId=27538&itype=4129&icategoryid=385
     
  13. sanariot

    sanariot Member

    Nov 19, 2001
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I agree that with the international match taking place on the same night, it would have made sense to hold the final there as part of a doubleheader, but there does seem to be a bit of whining on the part of some Chicago fans (not you).
     
  14. Brad May

    Brad May New Member

    Feb 26, 1999
    San Jose, CA
    Wonder if Bettina Wiegmann is worried about the Bundesliga "riding on their coattales"?
     
  15. HalaMadrid

    HalaMadrid Member

    Apr 9, 1999
    ...in the modern era, and there was a shade under 20k in 2000.
     
  16. ElJefe

    ElJefe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 16, 1999
    Colorful Colorado
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    ...where it would be the undercard for a couple of meaningless international friendlies.
     
  17. Revs007

    Revs007 Member

    Nov 11, 2000
    Boston
    I say the Open Cup should be held at the same venue every year. None of this rotating Bull *#*#*#*# for the Finals.

    Can someone explain to me why the USSF is so incompetent in everything having to do with this event.

    The only thing i must give props to the USSF is that they are pretty consistent with the scheduling for all teams participating. What I mean is they have the dates locked in months in advance. Something Concacaf can never get right with it's Champions Cup.

    God sometime's i wonder WHO THE HELL IS RUNNING THESE FEDERATIONS.
     
  18. Anthony

    Anthony Member+

    Chelsea
    United States
    Aug 20, 1999
    Chicago
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Maybe because if you hold it on a neutral site, 1000 people will show up.

    And why should it be in the same place ever year? It is a big country, so if you move it around, people can came who otherwise couldn't or wouldn't.

    Let's be real, it is not the Super Bowl.

    .
     
  19. Jimbob

    Jimbob New Member

    Jul 17, 1999
    Washington DC
    It was surprising to open up the Times and see that Open Cup Primer. It's great to see some of our country's neglected soccer history retold, especially within the context of two of our early World Cup teams.
     
  20. bunge

    bunge BigSoccer Supporter

    Oct 24, 2000
    MLS Cup proves you wrong.
     
  21. Anthony

    Anthony Member+

    Chelsea
    United States
    Aug 20, 1999
    Chicago
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You are right.

    IN 1999, the last time they used a neutral site, 4,455 showed up.
     
  22. kpaulson

    kpaulson New Member

    Jun 16, 2000
    Washington DC
    Where it would draw 20k on its own and probably upwards of 40k with the meaningless friendlies.

    Look, the Mexican team draws 30k or so in Chicago. The open cup has drawn about 20k. Chicago actually cares about it.

    In New York, you'll end up with 10k who care about it.

    Can you explain to me how, numerically speaking, that's any kind of improvement?

    If you want to argue that we need to spread the Open Cup Final around so that it gets exposure (for godsakes the Superbowl has been held in Minneapolis), the decision makes sense. I'm willing to go along with that.

    But--- it would be more "high-profile" in a town that's shown that it will support it. Even as "undercard" to meaningless friendlies.
     
  23. JCUnited

    JCUnited Member

    Oct 7, 2002
    South Bend, IN
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Yes, Chicago did draw nicely for the two finals they've held (I was there and brought two others--great game in a cold drizzle), but this being a midweek game would have hurt them if not for those international friendlies. Not arguing against Chi-town, since the friendlies would have helped draw a crowd.

    However, without those friendlies, I think even chi-town would have trouble drawing even 10,000 for this midweek game.

    Just tossing another thought into the cauldron.
     
  24. bunge

    bunge BigSoccer Supporter

    Oct 24, 2000
    A couple of thoughts.

    One, we would have had a few weeks extra of ticket sales since our semi game was played first.

    Two, even without the friendly, we are newly back at Soldier Field and in Chicago. This would be a boost.

    Three, Soldier Field is new and a lot of sports fans and non-sports fans are interested in seeing it. This will help attendance to every game this year.

    Four, if there were no friendly and we'd been at Soldier Field all along, the numbers probably wouldn't be at around 20K. But, with both factors in our favor the attendance would probably have been around 40K.
     

Share This Page