You forget that the team their going against in the semifinals is coached by Dom's main rival for that US National Team job. At this point, it seems really hard to pick a winner in that Houston - Seattle semifinal. It's not as clear cut as you seem to think it is, especially with Seattle playing in their lucky Starfire Complex, on that turf they like.
So how did Seattle (as a play-in) get a home game? Besides the fact that they're in the top of the lower bracket, I can understand why DC is getting home games/top bracket. Looked around various posting but did see anything about this. I guess this explains it (not bidding seriously): https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1020883
Do you really think they're taking a different approach than in years past? Backup goalie, mostly reserves in the lineup. They're just getting better results this time, plus the bench doesn't extend quite as far with only 24 players.
Reminds me ... I need to do that "How the bidding process works" story so we can just post a link rather than taking the time to explain it every time. We get emails about it all the time.
I agree with this. The Dynamo are not putting more effort into the U.S. Open Cup this year. We are just forced to play more starters than in the past because we don't have enough reserves to play an all-reserves team.
That's common ... people see success and they think 'they must be taking it seriously this year' -- by the time they start really paying attention it's the semifinal or the final, and by then, most teams (usually) play mostly starters, since they're so close to actually winning it all. (SEE: New England 2007)
That's a horrible example because NE 2007 took it seriously from the very first game. Their starting lineups for the 4 games: Matt Reis, Avery John, Michael Parkhurst, Jay Heaps, Marshall Leonard (Khano Smith 61), Andy Dorman (James Riley 57), Gary Flood (Kyle Helton 84), Wells Thompson, Steve Ralston, Pat Noonan, Taylor Twellman Matt Reis, Avery John, James Riley, Jay Heaps, Steve Ralston, Shalrie Joseph, Jeff Larentowicz, Wells Thompson (Marshall Leonard 46), Andy Dorman, Taylor Twellman (Adam Cristman 63), Pat Noonan Matt Reis, Avery John (Sainey Nyassi 91), Michael Parkhurst, James Riley, Khano Smith, Shalrie Joseph, Jeff Larentowicz, Steve Ralston, Andy Dorman, Adam Cristman, Pat Noonan (Chris Loftus 106) Matt Reis, Jay Heaps, Michael Parkhurst, James Riley, Andy Dorman, Jeff Larentowicz, Steve Ralston, Khano Smith, Wells Thompson (Adam Cristman 78), Pat Noonan, Taylor Twellman
Good point, I forgot that the Revs actually fielded a decent roster for the Open Cup that year -- how'd that work out for them? Better than it did in 2000, that's for sure.
I don't think you see Houston play more starters in the semis (or final if we get there). We have a MLS game in Toronto on July 18, then the USOC game in Seattle three days later. And with players still gone for the Gold Cup for both U.S. and Canada. Our lineup for the semi will be pretty much what we have played so far. And the final would be more of the same. The Dynamo play 5 games in the two weeks before the USOC final with three league and two CCL matches including a game in Colorado two days before the USOC final.
But that's stupid, as Houston can easily afford to tank a game or two (or ten) in MLS and still coast into the playoffs. Why not play your starters and try and win the USOC too?
Ask Dominic Kinnear, I guess. What do you win if you win the USOC? ($50k, I know, big deal.) A spot in the CCL, which they can get anyway if they win the Supporters Shield or MLS Cup. Other than that, and other than pleasing the few of us who care, what's really in it for an MLS team to win the Open Cup? At times I find myself wondering out loud if the USOC wouldn't be better off without MLS teams in it at all.
Over the years, I've started to care less and less about the teams that MLS fields. If they don't want to put their best team out there, fine. It sets them up for being upset by a lower division team, which makes for better drama. I mean, let's be honest ... if MLS teams put their Best 11 out there for every Open Cup game, we'd see fewer upsets, and we'd probably all be complaining that there's not enough drama. But that IS a good point made earlier, it's a little too easy to make the playoffs in MLS (although that may change as the league gets bigger), so maybe that could allow you to put some effort into the tournament. But I think as long as the prize money remains at $100,000 ... I can't see the teams breaking their necks over the Open Cup. A Champions League spot is a great start ... let's just hope that they don't take that away (which I would be really surprised if they did ... I'm not sure why the United States' would get a CCL spot taken away anyway)
Despite what some people may think (including me on occasion), there are smart people in the MLS, USL, and USSF. How about they all get together this off-season for the purpose of trying to figure out how to get this to work for everyone. Certainly it doesn't work now, but there must be a way that someone can come up with that it can.
That's part of the problem with soccer in this country: everybody thinks they know best and no one is willing to compromise. "For the good of the game" is, largely, lip service. People do what's best for themselves. I do not believe that there are enough people at the various echelons of soccer in this country who honestly care about this tournament - at least not enough to actually do whatever it would take to make it a worthwhile event.
I wonder what Seattle's story is. They seem to be taking the tournament almost as seriously as they did when they were in the USL. They outbid all MLS teams they have gone up against for home field rights. The team's management seems to find something worthwhile about the tournament. I can imagine the team putting heavy marketing into a CCL appearance next year if they were to get into that competition.
Seems like Seattle is doing everything to make a great first impression. That may help them for quite a while with their fanbase.
Good for them. Also, realistically, they can't be considered favorites for MLS Cup or Shield. So hardware and international play after only one season in MLS would be giant. If that's their thinking, I think they're on the right track.
To be honest, no one can really be a favorite for any hardware in MLS. I mean Chivas had that massive lead to start and they're sliding back, Sounders had that lull and are now on the move, the Crew are back in the playoff hunt, etc., etc. So if I'm the Sounders I'd just go for as many titles as possible and see where the chips lay in November. The effort alone is endearing them to the fans and the trophy case could be quite impressive if the ball bounces right for them come playoff time.
Why not? They're three points behind Houston in the Shield race with the same number of games. They have 28 points from 17 games. Points accrued by shield winners, last five years, after 17 games: 2008 - Columbus (28) 2007 - DC United (27) 2006 - DC United (37) 2005 - San Jose (28) 2004 - Columbus (24) Points accrued by MLS Cup winners, last five years, after 17 games: 2008 - Columbus (28) 2007 - Houston (32) 2006 - Houston (30) 2005 - Los Angeles (25) 2004 - DC United (21) Seattle has at least as many points after 17 games as four of the last five Shield winners and at least as many as three of the last five MLS Cup winners. Not saying they're going to win either (they've already saved the league, for God's sake, "Do we need to do everything around here?"), but there's no realistic reason why you couldn't consider them to be at least even with most everybody else to win either or both. No reason at all.
Because first you would have to get them to agree that making it work better is a worthy goal. If they really wanted to, they could make it better. But something would have to give somewhere else. And that something else might be more important or more lucrative or whatever. To a certain extent, it does work. Everybody gets a game or two to run out the scrubs. A few teams get a little extra excitement. One gets a bit of prize money. It could be better but I don't exactly know where the motivation to make it better will come from.
Where the tournament got its name. A generous rich man who has a love for footy and wants to develop it in the US. I know we have Billionaires as owners. I don't see why one hasn't ponied up a bigger sponsorship and thus a much bigger final prize. If your wealth is in the Billions 2 million a year to make it the biggest prize a USA team can achieve shouldn't be hard. And that would re emphasize the tournament.
Because....they don't see it as worth it? Is that the answer? Could you see that? See, naive twentysomething newbie people always think that it's no problem at all for rich people to spend their money on someone else's hobby.
Question was asked where I answered where it could come from. It would come from a rich mans generosity. I never said they would spend their Money. I said If someone really loved american soccer and had the money. Such as Lamar Hunt. They'd be willing too as Lamar Hunt did. On a side note You could possibly be one of the most negative people I've ever come across.
To ensure a $2 million prize would mean setting up an endowment that would be able to consistently return $2 million annually in investments conservative enough to ensure that the capital is conserved. In other words, you're talking about investing a hundred million dollars or more--not pocket change even if your wealth is "measured in the billions." Just for some perspective, there are just over 200 people in the United States with assets of more than $2 billion. For anyone else, you're asking them to take more than five percent of their net worth and give it away to, essentially, other extremely wealthy people. This is not realistic. More realistic would be a limited-time corporate sponsorship, like horse racing's Triple Crown had for a few years with Visa. But that's hard to set up when part of the deal is that the sponsor has to make you better known before they get any benefit out of it.