An "outsiders" view of the USOC/MLS relationship

"I come from an environment and culture where Cup games are part of the fabric as English football and European football."

And we don't. That's unfortunate, but reality. We don't come from that environment. We don't have that environment.

The English (especially, but you can apply whatever term you like to someone who comes into American soccer from abroad) often can't wrap their heads around the fact that, in many ways, we're like the Bizarro Planet. Things that matter elsewhere don't matter here.

And USSF can spend all the elusive millions in "local marketing" that people are just sure will be the difference between sparse crowds at USOC games and packed houses, it's still not going to change the fact that for the organizers, the tournament is an afterthought, for the competitors at the top end it's (largely) a pain in the ass exercise they'd just as soon forego, it's still a tournament conducted on Tuesday nights with very little advance warning, meaning teams can't sell group tickets for it, and there is simply no glory in either beating the Wilmington Hammerheads or beating another MLS team that you've already played twice before and will likely face again in the playoffs.

Chicago, the club that purportedly has the USOC as a priority and has won it four times, drew 8,000 people the last time they hosted the final. Which is one of the better crowds, actually, as finals go.

This is going to devolve into a "how to fix the USOC" thread, so I'll get out now. But thanks for the find, Jason. It's interesting, and a reminder (some folks need reminding from time to time) that the perspective of outsiders is often very different from our own. American exceptionism. It is what it is.

 

He has a point about the draw being conducted in the open though.

 

Oh, no question. Absolutely no question.

 

First, I would point out that in last year's League Cup final, Arsenal played their reserve team. And ManU held back their best players in this year's FA Cup semifinal.

Second, the winner of France's Open Cup is not given a ticket to the Europa League. So how big is it there? You heard very little about Barca chasing a Treble, compared to ManU in 1999. I suspect the Copa del Rey isn't a big deal.

My point is, yeah, I'm too lazy to take the time to look up the lineups for the open cup quarterfinals and semifinals in Italy and Belgium and Spain to see exactly how esteemed those cups are throughout Europe. But even so, my strong sense is that the US is closer to the world football norm than is England and Scotland. At least England and Scotland as defined by Mr. Smith.

Y'all are free to prove me wrong.

 

I bet David Moyes would rather have won a few more League games and play in the Champions League next year, than advance to the finals of the FA Cup.

 

Gary:

You might not have noticed this yet, but soccer, or football, as you call it, is several orders of magnitude less popular in the US than NFL/NCAA football, NBA/NCAA basketball, as well as being less popular than professional baseball, and in many areas, professional hockey.

You come from an "environment and culture" where soccer is the equivalent of NFL & NCAA football combined. The sooner you realize that and stop worrying about it and just worry about making soccer more popular and accepted, they better off you'll be.

 

This seems to say it does, unless I'm reading it wrong. Well, they go into fourth stage of qualifying, anyway.

 

What makes all things important in professional sports: M-O-N-E-Y.

When the winning teams of US OPEN Cup receive substantial money, more of that winning money going into players and coaches pockets...it will mean something.

I do think giving teams that win a spot in the COCACAF Champions League is a step in the right direction.

Money makes professional sports important. Period.

 

I think he's got two distinct issues here:

1. The way the fans and teams treat the Cup. Yeah, it's not as celebrated as over there, but isn't England pretty unique in that regard any way? And it's not like this hasn't been discussed to death by so many people.

2. The way the USSF runs it. Here he has legitimate beefs. The coin flip, the moving target on facilities (although the secondary site was a good choice, it's not all done publicly), the fact that the format is never understood until it is announced.

Until the USSF addresses some of those issues, the first thing will never happen. They, however, seem to act like they won't change things until the event becomes more popular. A sad standoff.

 

Re: An "outsider's" view of the USOC/MLS relationship

if US Soccer wanted to improve/alter the USOC, they'd talk to the Canadian and Mexican federations and find a way to include teams from those geographic areas as well.

sure, it would create more problems than it would solve (in terms of structure and scheduling), but it would/could also add something (in terms of relevance/intrigue) to the competition. I'd tune in for a NAOC, if one were created and if anyone covered it.

 

Re: An "outsider's" view of the USOC/MLS relationship

Maybe I'm being dense (or maybe my sarcasm meter is broken) but isn't this called the CONCACAF Champions League...?

Or are you calling for television coverage of games between the Wilmington Hammerheads and Alacranes de Durango?

 

To be fair, and I don't know Gary Smith, but I didn't get the impression he was whining so much as just incredulous. Which is to be expected. I'm sure when Bobby Valentine first went to Japan he said, "WTF? Tie games? What is that? And what's with the practice every day for 9 hours and having pitchers throw every day?"

It's all about what you're used to. American soccer is, to those used to TROTW, probably like Italian baseball would be to us.

 

Re: An "outsider's" view of the USOC/MLS relationship

And then it wouldn't be the USOC, would it?

In theory, the USOC is great. But we don't have the depth to make it a truly interesting competition, it's going to be dominated by MLS teams (whether they're interested or not), and the constraints of the format and the limited time in which we have to play it makes for a tough combination.

Yes, USSF could do a lot of things better/more clearly. It doesn't help matters that the leagues involved keep expanding or contracting on a seemingly annual basis, making a format tough to stick to. And we're not to the point where fans are going to get on board just yet.

 

Re: An "outsider's" view of the USOC/MLS relationship

no. the NAOC would be an open tournament (to all teams based in Mex/US/Can). everyone would play single elimination (and there could still be a lot of lower-level play-in games to narrow down the field). it would not be a league. it would be like the NIT, or any simple fully bracketed single-elimination tournament.

sure. but there's likely be better/other games that could get specific tv/media coverage on any particular night of the tournament.

the complaint that the Rapids and Sounders are playing this extra game in a tournament that no one really cares about, could be replaced with concerns about a slightly more meaningful (or interesting in the sense that these could now be international/regional) group of games if the Rapids were playing Toluca and the Sounders were playing Montreal (for example).

perhaps the way to make the games more compelling are to expand the contest so it is not simply a domestic club competition.

right. it (the NAOC) would be bigger and "better."

in theory, the USSF could take the initiative here and craft a tournament/event (along with their neighboring federations) that could/would do a lot of what some others are trying to do (with such things as the SuperLiga or the ideas of a combined MLS/FMF) and still operate as a club competition separate from whatever Concacaf may be trying to do with their CL.

 

Re: An "outsider's" view of the USOC/MLS relationship

What if we took four MLS teams and four Mexican teams and had them play in a tournament in the summer? You could have two groups of four, everybody plays three games, then we have semis and the final. Just need a name for it.

And now CONCACAF has to get involved. Because USSF probably can't just exercise dominion over such a tournament.

USSF has invited non-CONCACAF teams to the Gold Cup before, so there's precedent. I just am not sure it behooves us to have Montreal win the US Open Cup. Solely by virtue of tradition, which isn't always the best reason. But there you are.

 

Re: An "outsider's" view of the USOC/MLS relationship

leagues are boring. (inviting some teams and not others makes for a questionable competition.)

single-elimination knock-out games are exciting. (when every team is invited and every club has a chance, everyone is theoretically happy.) no team is guaranteed 3 games in the hypothetical NAOC. (and in theory not all NAOC games would need to be played on US soil.)

this is not a marketing exercise, it is (hypothetically) a competition that really will determine a "top club" in North America (at least for this one competition -- and of course depending on how seriously the clubs and the fans take the event).

there are Canadian teams in MLS. can't see why there can't be a combined USOC/Nutrilite-Canadian-Championship. would Concacaf or Fifa raise a fuss about a "domestic club competition" (separate from league play) actually consisting of clubs from multiple "domestic" leagues?

would Mexican clubs be interested in a NAFTA-club tournament? probably more so than they are in the current version of the SL exhibition.

a joint US/Mex/Canadian union (specifically just for the NAOC) of the 3 federations each part equally exercising dominion over this event (annual competition/tournament/exhibition) could work quite well, if it could ever be set up.

and that opinion would add intrigue to the games. if players on the US teams felt the same way, then there's the potential for these games to be "better" given the presumed efforts to prevent the Montreal's or the Morelia's in the competition from capturing the NAOC (formerly the USOC and/or the Canadian Championship and/or the SuperLiga and/or anything else that these clubs will have to stop doing in order to focus on this hypothetical NAOC).

league competitions would continue as usual, as would truly regional events such as the Concacaf CL.

 

Another tournament MLS teams don't particularly care about.

Give them a spot in the MLS playoffs, and then you'd have something they'd care about, but that would involve the possibility of letting lower division teams into the playoffs. (Please note that I'm not actually suggesting this.)

 

Re: An "outsider's" view of the USOC/MLS relationship

Awful idea. I would, however, absolutely be for clubs from other federations that are in American leagues to be in the USOC, so long as they were in a similar situation to a club like Cardiff City, who participate in the English league system, rather than the Welsh league system. I would love to see teams like Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto, Puerto Rico, and Bermuda in the USOC. They play in our leagues, why not our cup? I would be upset, however, if anyone thought of adding clubs like Club America, Sevilla Bayamon FC, or Italia Shooters. That would completely eliminate the point of such a tournament.

 

Re: An "outsider's" view of the USOC/MLS relationship

i can completely see this stance and argument.

i just think that "internationalization" is the way of the future. domestic cups (even those expanded to allow in "clubs from other federations that are in American leagues") seem limited and boring -- relative to the world of soccer that is available out there.

if MLS expands to TFC and VAN, it seems like the logical step to have the USOC include them (and Montreal and PR and Bermuda as well).

and if MLS is serious about plans to work with the FMF on some kind of (league) competition (and it already is with the SL), it would seem that FMF teams being involved in the USOC "cup competition" (soon to be the NAOC if this crazy idea gets any traction amongst the decision-makers) isn't that radical of an idea.

Club American can participate in club events/competitions on US soil (be that InterLiga, SuperLiga or the 2009 World Football Championship) -- it doesn't seem that much of a stretch to have them and other Mexican clubs as part of a revamped USOC -> NAOC.

 

Re: An "outsider's" view of the USOC/MLS relationship

a - I wasn't serious.
b - You're the guy who advocates a group stage MLS playoff format, so I find that odd.

See "Champions League, CONCACAF."

There could be, sure. There could be a Martian component, too. Or a co-ed competition. Wouldn't be the USOC, then, would it?

"Well, I'll ask heem, but I doan theenk he'll be very keen. He's already got one, you see."

So, the CCL without all the Carribean ********ers, that's what you're proposing?

Seems to me like having a CCL and having one just for the three of us (USA/Mexico/Canada) and SuperLiga would be superfluous, but maybe that's just me. We could do time zones, too, if you like.

 

Six out of seven outsiders think the USOC is a joke. Emilio, why so glum?

 

Re: An "outsider's" view of the USOC/MLS relationship

the goals/needs of a post-season MLS competition are different from the goals/needs of a season-long all-inclusive domestic (now potentially triple-domestic) club competition.

(note: I think you need to look at the message, and not always the messenger. a discussion of ideas doesn't have to be about those having the discussion.)

no, it wouldn't be that "USOC" we all know and love/hate.

and I can see that argument for wanting to keep/limit the USOC to that US part. (although, I don't see the argument for wanting to include Martians or women's clubs.)

I could also see the argument (at a certain time) for not having Canadian teams in MLS.

but MLS lost that (US-only) model -- and that seemed to work well for the business of the league/sport here.

and SL exists as obviously there is some interest in joint projects between MLS/FMF teams.

i have. i think its qualification standards and format (and need to include clubs representing all the leagues within Concacaf) distract from making it a "Champions League." but it is what it is, and good for Concacaf for doing what it thinks it can to improve/change the full confederation's club competition.

I'm not stating that the NAOC would crown the "champion" of Concacaf, it would be an expanded "tri-domestic" cup, that would crown only the North American (not the full Concacaf) Champion. (much more so than that SL exhibition does.)

where would this hypothetical NAOC fall in the hierarchy of CCL, SL, USOC any other clubs competitions? who knows?

no. the CCL has qualification standards. CCL is a Concacaf event.

this "tri-domestic" cup competition would be different since it wouldn't be burdened with the needs of what Concacaf has to do with their vastly more multi-national club competition.

a NAOC would be an open cup -- all geographically appropriate teams (or teams in the US/Mex/Canada and other teams who compete in those leagues) would compete each year in the NAOC competition (if they chose to).

absolutely, the SL would be superfluous (if the NAOC model replaced the current US-only USOC), and the SL could be dropped/killed and SUM could actually work with the USSF to promote/market/care-about the NAOC (instead of completely ignoring -- and thereby harming -- it as they do with the USOC).

if SUM is so eager to have expanded interactions/competitions with Mexican clubs, I would think a NAOC could be a possible avenue for that blossoming relationship.