2006 Open Cup

Discussion in 'US Open Cup' started by VioletCrown, Dec 30, 2005.

  1. cristoforo7

    cristoforo7 New Member

    May 14, 2003
    So we now can figure out which of the non-MLS teams have won the cash prizes for their "divisions" in the Open Cup:

    "Second Division" : $10,000 won by Charleston Battery by virtue of their win over Portland (Rochester had no wins over teams from the same division)

    "Third Division" : $10,000 won by Wilmington Hammerheads by virtue of their being the only such team to make it to the Fourth Round

    "Amateur" : $5,000 to Carolina Dynamo and $5,000 to FC Roma by virtue of both teams having 2 wins* against teams from "higher divisions"

    At least Dominic Schell can pay off $5,000 of his credit card bill a little bit quicker (assuming USSF pays up quickly)

    *For purposes of the cash prizes, advancing via kicks from the penalty mark equals a "win"
     
  2. Mikey mouse

    Mikey mouse Member

    Jul 27, 1999
    Charleston, SC
    Club:
    Charleston
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    is this the split or what you think it will be? That USOC loss against Dallas was tough to swallow but a little easier knowing the club might get a little more influx of cash out of it. (not to mention the PPV and ticket sales for the match)
     
  3. cristoforo7

    cristoforo7 New Member

    May 14, 2003
    It's how I interpret this language from the 2006 Open Cup Handbook:

    For Rochester and Charleston, tiebreaker 1 does not apply (zero wins apiece). As to tiebreaker 2, Charleston had one win (Portland) while Rochester had zero.
     
  4. Mikey mouse

    Mikey mouse Member

    Jul 27, 1999
    Charleston, SC
    Club:
    Charleston
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Thanks cristoforo7
     
  5. olujosh

    olujosh Member

    Aug 23, 1999
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    We're going to be doing a story on that in the off-season on usopencup.com -- but feel free to do some early research for us. :)
     
  6. jfrio

    jfrio New Member

    Jun 6, 2006
    I'm glad to see this topic here because it is possble that USOC will not award any money to Roma FC if they can figure out a way to get out of it. Based on recent communications from the board they are trying to say now that the win over Chivas was not actually a win, but a tie, and I would presume the same would go for the Laredo game. In much the same way that Bill Clinton wasn't sure what "is" is, the USOC board isn't sure what a "win" is. So, after what by most accounts has been a historic run for an amateur team to advance this far in the cup, the board is hoping to redefine the tiebreaker situation and award the money to the Dynamo. The tiebreaker according to the handbook is:

    *If two or more teams advance to the same round, the following order of steps will be used to determine which single team will be awarded the prize money:

    1. Team with the most victories against opponents from a higher division
    2. Team with the most victories against opponents from the same division
    3. Prize money to be divided equally among the teams

    On point number 1, by our counting, considering we advanced to the next round, we have 3 victories against opponents from higher divisions, as we "won" against 1 PDL team, 1 USL-1 team and 1 MLS team. The Dynamo does not have 3 victories against higher division opponents, but 2, so I'm not sure at all how they would even split the money with us. Nevertheless, it is clear that the board never envisioned having to pay an amateur team anything, and are now engaging in semantic contortions to try and keep the money "in the family".
     
  7. olujosh

    olujosh Member

    Aug 23, 1999
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Can you PM me with your info, I'd like to follow up on this story.
     
  8. cristoforo7

    cristoforo7 New Member

    May 14, 2003
    It's clear from the language of the U.S.O.C. handbook and the U.S.S.F. Policy Manual that the term "victory" when it pertains to U.S.O.C. games signifies advancing to the next round, including advancing via kicks from the mark. It does not mean only a win in regulation or OT.

    If U.S.S.F. refuses to give Roma $5,000, it will be in clear contravention of the language of the U.S.S.F. Policy Manual.

    Not only could it be construed as a breach of contract, it may even raise to the level of fraud -- possibly entitling Roma FC to recovery of its attorneys' fees in any litigation which might ensue.

    This is especially true because one of the U.S.O.C. Committee members has an inherent conflict of interest, i.e., Mr. Marcos. He has a financial incentive to see Carolina get the entire $10,000-- this is one of the teams that pays annual fees to him in his for-profit business.

    It would be truly outrageous if U.S.S.F. failed to pay Roma the $5,000. I can refer Roma to some good litigators in Texas and/or Illinois if it comes to that.
     
  9. cristoforo7

    cristoforo7 New Member

    May 14, 2003
    Regarding the number of victories versus teams from higher "divisions", the PDL and USASA teams are in the same "division", i.e., the amateur division, under U.S.O.C. rules.

    So the win over Laredo was a win over a team from the same division, not a higher division. U.S.S.F. has that part correct-- but it is clearly incorrect about how it is interpreting the term "victory" as applied to the prize money.
     
  10. cristoforo7

    cristoforo7 New Member

    May 14, 2003
    I am sure the New York Times writer who wrote the article about Roma -- Jack Bell, I think -- would love to write a blurb about how U.S.S.F. and Marcos are attempting to scam Roma out of its money.
     
  11. cleazer

    cleazer Member+

    May 6, 2003
    Toledo, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Surely there must be some sort of precedent for this. Don't tell me that none of the top teams from years past never had any pk wins.
     
  12. cristoforo7

    cristoforo7 New Member

    May 14, 2003
    There might not be any precedent. It depends on how long they have been using the tiebreaking system printed in the 2006 Open Cup Handbook.
     
  13. jfrio

    jfrio New Member

    Jun 6, 2006
    Cristoforo-

    Do you happen to know where in the USOC handbook the USASA and PDL teams are combined in the amateur category? I'm aware that is supposed to be the case but couldn't find the exact language. Page 5 lists USASA seperate from PDL so I'm just curious where that specific item is referenced and I can't seem to find it. Thanks.
     
  14. cristoforo7

    cristoforo7 New Member

    May 14, 2003
    The following is from the current USSF Policy Manual:

    Adult Council = all amateur teams (including PDL)
    Division III Professional = USL-2
    Division II Professional = USL-1
    Division I Professional = MLS
     
  15. cristoforo7

    cristoforo7 New Member

    May 14, 2003
    In Section 303(b) of the Open Cup Policy, the relevant language states:

    My emphasis added.

    So a team prevailing "by kicks from the penalty mark" is "the winner" of the match.

    Open Cup Policy thus clearly regards advancing via kicks from the penalty mark to be a "win". A "win" = a "victory" by any sense of the English language, so a victory includes prevailing via kicks from the penalty mark.

    Roma FC therefore obtained two victories (or wins) versus teams from a higher division, i.e., Miami FC and Chivas USA. Roma FC is entitled to 50 percent of the $10,000 prize. Q.E.D.
     
  16. olujosh

    olujosh Member

    Aug 23, 1999
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I can understand why they would label the games a "draw" from an official standpoint....but I think that's a lame way to determine who splits the money. Especially in this case...you're telling me Roma doesn't deserve $5,000 for their efforts? I think it's a rule they should clarify....and/or change.
     
  17. scaryice

    scaryice Member

    Jan 25, 2001
    Roma doesn't deserve any money. Games that end in on penalties are officially recorded as draws. That's what FIFA does at the World Cup, and that's the standard worldwide. So they're just whining over nothing.

    However if the USSF didn't spell this out clearly in their rules, I guess they have a point on a technicality.
     
  18. cristoforo7

    cristoforo7 New Member

    May 14, 2003
    The point of the prize is that you get money for advancing the farthest, not for winning the most games in regulation or OT.

    Otherwise, for example, you could have Team A advance to the quarterfinals with a 2-2-0 (W-T-L) record in the first 4 rounds, winning 2 times in KFTPM, but the monetary prize would go to Team B that only advanced to the fourth round with a 3-0-1 record in the first 4 rounds because Team B had 3 "wins in regulation/OT" versus Team A with 2 "wins in regulation/OT" and 2 "wins via KFTPM" (which somebody does not want to call "wins" because they are via KFTPM).

    So if the prize is to go to the team (or teams) that advance the farthest, the intent of the tiebreaker is (and should be) to measure who those teams advanced against, not whether they beat them in regulation, OT or KFTPM.

    Arguably, if you want to go in the other direction and exclude KFTPM, you could also exclude OT wins because in a traditional W-T-L system, those are also draws because there was no winner in regulation time. See the FA Cup, for example, where if it is a draw after regulation, there is a replay and there is no OT. (One of Carolina's wins was in OT.)

    P.S. I hate KFTPM and it's a poor way to decide who wins a game or advances in a tournament. I also agree that for record keeping purposes, a KFTPM win should be regarded as a draw. However, the purpose of the Open Cup money prize is to reward the teams that advance, regardless of how they advance, and just as importantly, the language I quoted above shows that USSF's Open Cup Policy regards advancing via KFTPM as a technical "win", i.e., a "victory."
     
  19. cristoforo7

    cristoforo7 New Member

    May 14, 2003
    And if USSF wants to somehow factor in wins via KFTPM in its tiebreaker system (such as creating a third tiebreaker step which excludes advancing via KFTPM as "wins"), it clearly can do that, but the tiebreaker is not currently written that way. That would have to be a change for Open Cups in 2007 and beyond.
     
  20. cristoforo7

    cristoforo7 New Member

    May 14, 2003
    USSF relents late last night (from today's Dallas Morning News):

    Roma fights over bonus

    I have to agree now with USSF that the teams should split the money 5,000/5,000, based on the wording of the tiebreaker.

    With the tiebreaker as currently worded, a USASA or PDL team's win over a USL-2 (or USL-1) club counts the same as another such team's win over an MLS team.

    So I would not fight very hard for the full $10,000 if I were Roma. They are entitled to the $5,000 and can claim the greater achievement.

    Roma's KFTPM win (a draw for record keeping purposes) over Chivas USA is certainly more impressive than Carolina's OT win over Seattle. But the money award tiebreaker rule does not account for that, so Roma gets bragging rights and $5,000, but not $10,000.
     
  21. ButlerBob

    ButlerBob Moderator
    Staff Member

    Nov 13, 2001
    Evanston, IL
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well, in a earlier post today you mentioned that prize is for going the farthest. And now your doing a comparison about who they beat and putting a weight into that. It seems fairly straight forward that since they both advanced to the same round they should split the prize. I would think that's the bottom line. Glad to see that they are getting part of the prize. I would imagine that the US Open Cup is even more of a money loser for the lower level teams.
     
  22. cristoforo7

    cristoforo7 New Member

    May 14, 2003
    I am not sure of your point, Bob.

    The tiebreaker is clear to me, it doesn't give any more weight to a win over an MLS team than it does to a win over a USL-1 or USL-2 team. That doesn't mean that Roma can't have bragging rights for prevailing against an MLS team-- the tiebreaker is for determining who gets the money, not for determining who earns the most respect among the soccer public.

    Roma and Carolina both get major respect from me for their achievements in the 2006 Open Cup, but Roma gets more respect for their result against Chivas than does Carolina for its result against Seattle.
     
  23. scaryice

    scaryice Member

    Jan 25, 2001
    They both advanced to the same round. We're talking about the tiebreaker.
     
  24. cristoforo7

    cristoforo7 New Member

    May 14, 2003
    Exactly, which is why the tiebreaker concerns-- and should concern-- the ostensible quality of the teams they "won" against, not which teams they "won" against by scoring more goals in regulation or in OT. In Open Cup Policy parlance, "won" equals advancing-- including advancing via KFTPM.

    Regardless, USSF has seen the error of its ways and perhaps will make the tiebreaking rules more explicit next year.
     
  25. jfrio

    jfrio New Member

    Jun 6, 2006
    They may record them as draws, but that's irrelevant in a direct elimination tournament. At the World Cup, teams advance on penalty kicks when games end in a draw. That's because someone has to advance, i.e., there has to a "winner". The concept's pretty clear to most people...
     

Share This Page