http://www.ussoccer.com/news/fullstory.sps?iNewsid=37310 RFK Gillette Lincoln Cowlumbus PGE Park Home Depot
You can see the WUSA influence in these selections: heavy east, some in extreme west, and a parking lot in the middle. What about Soldier Field? Reliant Stadium? I guess the Philadelphia Eagles care more about women's sports than the New York Giants. Another reason that the Jints svck.
Ok, now we still have to wait for (a) the team draw, and (2) the match fixture. With 6 stadia, will the USA team end up playing in all 6 sites, if they advance to the final? I thought I read that the proposal has Portland hosting the semi-finals, and Los Angeles the final. If all this is true, then at least the USA won't have those kind of criss-crossing trips like in 1999. Would all group matches be in the Eastern cities? Or will the two Western cities have a group? A mountain city would have been cool (Denver? Salt Lake?) but maybe a stadium wasn't available.
Home Depot only holds 27,000. If the USA makes the final, having the game there would be absurd. I wonder if it's being picked on the undisclosed back-up theory that if the USA makes the final, the Rose Bowl instead would host. Otherwise, I'm concerned about designating a 27,000 seat stadium as the finals site sending an awful message that will regrettably be reinforced in the public's mind - that WWC '03 will be a lesser event than '99. That is contrary to the mindset that should underlie marketing efforts - that this tournament can and will succeed in a big way.
Maybe if it sells out quickly they'll move it, who knows. They're scared to hold it at the Rose Bowl...either that or they're just being realistic. I dunno what to think.
Two things: 1) I'd expect Carson's capacity to be more like 30K for the WWC. 2) If the US makes it, having the game at a small stadium a) means they can charge higher ticket prices and b) means that all the people who have to stay home will watch on TV, thus increasing the ratings. I think this may be a blessing in disguise especially with regard to TV ratings.
I see what you're saying, but I really hope that the TV ratings aren't so poor that the extra 20-50,000 or however many it is who can't get tickets will make a huge difference.
This article from teh Washington Post said that 40 cities were interested in hosting games .... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51814-2003Jun12.html Vegas woulda been FUN!!
Transcript from today's conference call --- http://www.ussoccer.com/news/fullstory.sps?iNewsid=37339&itype=113&iCategoryID=0 Guess you better buy your tix as soon as they come out! What is are "TV seat kills"?
I believe those are seats that are lost due to TV needs. Blocked site lines, equipment needs, access, and other things all can take seats away from the available pool. It is quite rare for anyone to mention the seats that are lost because of TV. At some basketball and hocky stadiums the loss can be several hundered seats when a full camera set is used. Of course modern stadiums are supposed to be built with this in mind and the loss should be minimal. The old Boston Garden lost over 2000 seats to TV when the modern production of basketball began.
Very absurd. Why use big stadiums, RFK, Gillette, and Lincoln for the early rounds and then the smallest stadiums for the semis and the final? I'm thinking, if the USA makes the final, it will be their smallest crowd of the tournament.
Giants Stadium won't reprise 1999 Cup role, by Mark Zeigler http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/fri/sports/news_1s13soccer.html
From the story: Not amused was George Zoffinger, head of the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority, which had lobbied hard for the opener. "I am frustrated, disappointed and very angry," Zoffinger told The Associated Press. "To have the Women's World Cup with the premier venue in the Northeast not involved is a travesty." _____________________________ The premier venue in the Northeast? Let's see ... $20 parking, bad hot dogs, broken bathroom doors, narrow pitch, barren and narrow concrete walkways, no public transportation. And it's in DA JOISEY SWAMPS. No wonder the Power went to Lon Gisland. Sheesh. And get Jim Fassel to stop whining.
Out of 40 sites that expressed intrest the only six that were picked are all in the northeast and west coast? What happened to anything in the middle of the whole country?!? For example, what was wrong with Birmingham? It was a great stadium for the WNT last month and it would have given some variety to the locations.
I'm hardpressed to call Cowlumbus "northeast". I think that the organizers were looking to keep travel time (and costs) down for the teams. One of the few complaints about WWC'99 was the distance and multiple time zones that some teams encountered. Besides, our football ain't the right shape for 'bama at that time of year.
I agree there's a bit of the ole boy network in play here, as DC and Boston are primary venues for the mens and womens sides. Columbus was the sight of the USA-Mexico COLD WAR... Between Boston and DC, just take the train... The interesting question is how many show up foir a NON-USA doubleheader... the China-Norway semi in Foxboro had around 25,000 or so... A successful WC would be averaging 20,000 per match for NON-USA double header... I would imagine China, Norway, Brazil, Germany would be appearing in any doubleheader. So there's a quality name team... and Canada should get quite a few fans coming too... I do wonder how many euro fans will travel... China had a lot of stadium support, just based on Chinese here on visas
Living in Iowa, Columbus is 660 miles due east. And about 840 north and a little east of Tallahasse, Florida. It seems northeast to us out here. It's also in the Eastern time zone. With kids in school, and in the middle of fall soccer season, and during MLS play, it will be hard to justify driving or flying for a full day to get to a game.
This will be tough for me. I am in the process of moving to Chicago, and with a pregnant wife, Cowlumbus is our only possibility (and even that is a haul). When are dates coming out?