Discussion in 'D.C. United' started by Red&Black, Sep 8, 2002.
Does our deplorable finish mean that once again we will not be in the US Open Cup?
How the MLS teams fit into this tournament changes from year to year, but if it's the same as this year then we'd have the first 8 games of the season to qualify.
Hell, the way we've been playing I don't think we'd qualify for the Braddock Rd. youth tournament.
OK 8 games to qualify, I once knew that and somehow over time it became last year's first 8 in the league series...
So supposing we make it, what round will Rochester or some other A-League team knock us out?
It's tough being a United fan these days I must say.
... darkest ... dawn.
United will return to glory. Our defense already has.
There is exactly one thing about the Open Cup, winning it. Otherwise it is horribly scheduled during the season causing nightmares like Dallas faced this season unless your team resides in New York or LA, and United--thankfully--does not.
My impression was that the 8 games thing was just for this season. I thought (I could easily be wrong about this) that from now on it would be based on the previous year's record.
If New York doesn't finish in the top 8 this season you can be sure that the rules will be adjusted to allow them a chance next season.
Does it give you some thrill to post moronic drivel that is based on no facts at all, just hunches that are seemingly always wrong? Do you like being to made to look like a total imbecile in front of your peers? I hope so, because here we go:
The Metros had a Sunday night-Wednesday night-Saturday afternoon week a few years back, with league and cup matches, which also included significant travel. Two weeks earlier, they played three matches in seven days.
But even better, in 1997, they played Dallas on a Tuesday in NYC in the cup, then flew to LA and played Thursday in the league, at San Jose Saturday afternoon, and at the Meadowlands on the next Tuesday evening. Four matches, eight days, including a three-in-five like Dallas' stretch.
(By the way, Dallas won the cup semifinal-- and went on to win the damn thing.)
Like in 1996, when the Metros weren't allowed into the cup (despite applying), while DC was?
At least when the Metros were forced to qualify by regular season results over the first several games-- in 1999-- they got it done.
So let's see your rebuttal. I expect to be waiting a long time.
Find legitimate things to say to insult the Metros-- like "you haven't won a tournament, or even been in a championship game." The claim that there's a conspiracy to help this team makes you look like a drooling idiot.
Perhaps it is a bit of a troll on Haig's part. But only a bit.
I don't know anything about the fixture congestion business. Isn't it possible to negotiate times for these matches to be played? IIRC One match recently was played several weeks after all the others - I don't remember now who it was between. How did that come about?
As for insuring that NY and LA are in the Open Cup ... Seriously, if NY and LA finished bottom of the table one year don't you think that MLS might just modify the Open Cup qualification procedures to at least give them a chance of qualifying? I do. Do I have any solid reason for saying this ... It's nothing but conjecture based on past perception of MLS activity. Perhaps others would perceive things differently if - say - they supported NY or LA. But I don't and that's how I see things.
One last thing ... I'd rather be a drooling idiot than one who responds to a drooling idiot's posts.
I'll plead guilty to adopting a harsh tone, but what's his name Tron deserved a sound mocking for making up accusations of conspiracy and cheating with zero basis in fact. And I stuck right to the topic.
The LA-Dallas game was played weeks after the other quarterfinals, as a matter of fact. I'm not sure why it was postponed, but MLS does make a list of open dates available, and the USSF schedules the matches in that window.
The real culprit here is the ESPN television schedule, which is why Dallas had to play on a Thursday night at home, instead of a Saturday. By postponing the LA-Dallas quarterfinal, the game was pushed back into the college football season. Bad deal for Dallas. But it happens-- pretty much every year, at least one team has a fixture congestion nightmare (DC had weeks in a row of matches every three or four days a few years ago). It sucks, and it should be ironed out, but there's no conspiracy.
No, I don't. The Metros were in the EXACT SAME POSITION IN 1999 AS DC WERE THIS YEAR-- having to win some regular season matches to qualify for the US Open Cup. If the Metros hadn't picked up a couple early wins in that awful season, a different team would have qualified for the cup. There's the evidence that contradicts your hunch.
If you're alleging that the Metros would have been simply placed in the cup ahead of Colorado or Miami or whoever, even had they fared more poorly in the qualifying matches-- that's absurd, and far exceeds anything that you would have any grounds to suspect. I'd go so far as to call it delusional.
As for "past perception" of MLS activity-- you see what you want to see. For the first several years of the league, MLS had an awful habit of bending rules for teams that needed them bent. And sometimes, there just weren't rules. DC benefited sometimes from MLS largesse, too, having been allowed to ditch Suarez for Moreno. Getting Olsen for free. DC had, and has, as much or more help from salary cap "exemptions" as anyone else. And the Metros were gutted by the salary cap, too.
Had a total boob like Sunil not demanding the right to sign-off on deals the Stillitano team worked on, the Metros probably wouldn't have needed continuous reworking for four years. But it's really hard to yell about how unfair league manoevres are, when the league manoevres had no real negative result for DC (you could say Sanneh/salary cap/Williams, but those things were pretty much equitable in their enforcement. DC fans remember them selectively because it happened to THEM).
I just didn't want yet another ridiculous made-up "fact" to be added to the litany of perceived grievances against MLS and the Metros. It sucks to support a crappy team, but crappy teams are crap because their management makes consistently stupid decisions-- NOT because of a conspiracy. So I figured I'd nip this one in the bud, not with manicure scissors but a wheat thresher.
Well just to keep with your theme of wanting only reasonable facts, I'll have to ask you to reconsider the Wheat Thresher. I'll just point out that a Wheat Thresher wouldn't be much good replacing scissors, a Wheat Thresher thrashes wheat, but only after it is first cut then placed into the thresher.
First a fact, since that seems to be the theme that everyone is going with here. Olsen was assigned as a P-40 player, back when they were assigned. Every other team in the league had been assigned a P-40 player at that point. I believe but won't state as fact that some might have had 2 P-40's. United was due a P-40 allocation under the system at that time.
Now my problem with the US Open Cup has always been that teams at the top levels have had to qualify. When was the last time you heard about Man U, QPR or Barnsley have to qualify for the FA Cup? When was the last time Ajax had to qualify for their form of the FA Cup? How about Rapid Vienna, Dynamo Keiv, Ipswich Town, Barry Town, Boavista? I could keep going but everyone gets the point. It just shows where Dr. Bob and the USSF continue to lag behind the world and hold back the sport in this country. It should be changed to the US Invitaion Only Cup. Every MLS side from the Metrostars to DC United should gain entry. As it stands right now I could be playing in it with my local amatuer side when a team full of players better than my teammates and me never even gets a chance.
At the time, this was recognized as the manipulation of the process that it actually was. Olsen was signed in the off-season, and by all accounts should have been in the draft, but Olsen had specified that he would only go to DC, and accordingly DC turned down chances at the likes of Scott Vermillion.
Players weren't supposed to be able to name their teams. MLS allowed Olsen to do that. And then, of course, DC acquired several more P-40 players ahead of their place on the mythical "schedule."
He circumvented the draft. It was legitimate only because it actually happened, but because any rules were followed. This coheres quite well with my point that rules have always been bent, for DC as much as for anyone else.
I agree. My only point is that when this happened before, not a peep came from any DC fans. And it in no way affects the legitimacy of the cup itself-- this way at least affords the opportunity for any MLS team to play for the cup, unlike in 1996.
I like the US Open Cup. It's one of the few things that can somewhat be what real competitive soccer should be. I don't think they should give anyone a bye for any round. Let the Galaxy play the champions of the Orange County Adult Soccer League.
Failing that they should come up with some rules and stick to 'em.
In general I agree with you but wanted to make a few points.
-Even if United passed on Vermillon the first time they were still the only side without a P-40, so they were due. The only one gripping about it were LA and NY who did not understand how MLS would not simply continue to feed them talent.
-I will give you that Olsen did get to name his destination. The counter to that is how many others have as well since or even to that point?
-I have to disagree only because to exclude high profile clubs does give it the perception that it is not as legit to the rest of the world. To me the exlcusion is only based on laziness of the administrators running it. Trying to figure out how to add what is it two more teams.
Am I the only MLS fan who thinks of the USOC as a complete and total waste of time?
And Haig is absolutely right - there is no pro-LA or pro-NY conspiracy in the league. If anything, one could argue that United has had more than its fair share of rule-bending breaks, like Olsen's and Albright's entry into the league (I go to DCU or I don't go to the MLS), bogus salary caps for Etcheverry, Moreno and Pope, etc.
We've sucked for the last three years. It's not because the league was out to get us. It's because of a lot of stupid mistakes by Payne, Rongen, Arena (remember Tom Presthus over Scott Garlick?), Hudson, and others.
I've just got to jump in here on this Olsen discussion.
1. Olsen was supposed to go into the draft? Don't think so. Hd didn't circumvent the draft b/c underclassmen didn't go into the draft unless they filed specifically to be allowed to do so. P-40 players weren't drafted. In fact, even after Olsen, it took a couple of years before P-40 players went into the draft. At the time of Olsen going pro, P-40 players were assigned to teams. Exactly what happened to Jamar Beasley for instance--he wasn't drafted but assigned. The reason why Olsen is relevant is, up to that point, P-40 players had no impact. You signed 'em and hoped that in 3 years maybe you'd have something. Olsen contributed right away (which surprised everyone, Arena included). So the league at that point said "gee, we've got to do something about this" and changed the rules.
2. And while Olsen truly had a couple of great years for United, he's also had 2 years of taking up salary cap room with no production. I don't mean poor production, I mean the guy hasn't even been on the field.
3. As for getting to name where he went, wasn't that basically what Ramos and Meola did when they were allocated? DC wasn't Harkes' first choice.
4. Besides, I can't believe a Metros fan crying foul over circumventing the draft. Why was it everyone passed on Faria? Or more accurately, we should ask, why would such a good player stink so badly in the combines and tryouts? What several people speculated (and Jeff Bradley actually wrote in one of his columns) is that Faria wanted to be selected by the Metros and deliberately tanked his game so he'd fall in the draft. Of course, only the Metros brainstrust and Faria know for sure...
5. NY/NJ and LA have received some favors from the league. Let's be brutally honest here--it is bad for MLS to have crappy teams in those 2 cities. Those 2 cities should be drawing huge crowds (and certainly have the capability to do so). If either team were to have folded, I think the league goes away--MLS can't survive with teams in Rochester, Tulsa, Columbus but not the two big coastal cities. Doesn't mean I have to like it but that is the reality of a struggling league in a growth mode. But this problem (of some favoritism) is compounded by the league's secrecy and the everchanging rules and policies. I still haven't heard an explanation for how Adin Brown ended up in NE after he wasn't selected in the dispersal draft.
1. Thanks to the 4-H member who set me straight about wheat harvesting implements.
2. Re Mike's point: I think there's not so much a pro-NY or LA conspiracy as a pro-crap conspiracy, to promote quicker parity in a league with no free agency, strict salary caps, and small rosters. The league tilts the machinery sometimes, but at some point, everyone benefits. (It has happened, though less frequently or obviously, in other, richer professional sports leagues, too.) To make a fuss about very selective instances of chicanery-- to claim that it brings the whole competition into disrepute-- is to fail to understand the problems of a league in its early and painful development. It's not a fix, and to the extent that some things smell funny, you're better off either ditching MLS or ignoring the problems (while wishing for better days).
3. Joe-- Olsen signed a few weeks before the draft. He was assigned to DC with maybe five or six weeks until the draft. Clearly, he was naming his club. It stank, as did allowing DC to defer swapping Lassiter to Miami until after the 1998 season-- as did a LOT of things. My only point was that rules are skirted in MLS for lots of teams, more often for the worse than for the better, but for every one, and really, it's time that the persecution-syndrome DC fans finally hang it up for good.
I hate it when Haig is reasonable.
Yeah. DC got favors. And so has NY/NJ and LA and so on. Sometimes the rule-bending works out for the team and sometimes it doesn't. Some teams get more favors than others. There are teams like Dallas that might be able to make the claim that they don't get this kind of assistance. I don't feel that DC really belongs in this group.
We didn't get screwed by league conspiracies. We got screwed by bad injuries, bad player moves, the salary cap, and the Smoking Dutchman.
If we blame our poor seasons on league handouts to everybody else, then we have to explain our good seasons as the results if league rule-bending in our favor. I don't want to do that. And I believe that good seasons will return.
No doubt that United has gotten favors. My problem is if you were to make a list of questionable transactions I think we would find an interesting trend. I think you would find that there are three distinct groups. A group of LA and NY far and away with more "help". Followed by United, New England, Chicago, Columbus, San Jose and maybe Colorado getting some "help". Then you have Miami, Tampa Bay, Kansas City and Dallas getting little "help", with Dallas pulling up the rear. Now if someone would like I can try to research this but I'm pretty confident of what we would find.
Do. I can already point out an instance where you're wrong-- the most naked giveaway of any player in league history occured when Doug Logan reassigned Valderrama to the Fusion by fiat-- no compensation, no nothing.
Tampa Bay and Miami got the ultimate screwing from the league, but things weren't so bad for them before.
I think you would find, in any case, that such "favors" had the point of promoting parity, tending far towards bad teams then good ones, and not any single team over time.
I'm all for your attempt to prove your heirarchy of league largesse. It's a lot more welcome then the incessant accusations that force anyone saying that the Metros and LA aren't league "pets" and DC doesn't always get the shaft to prove a negative-- to prove that there's no conspiracy.
For the moderators: I'm sorry it's getting off topic-- feel free to retitle the thread or whatever. To keep it on topic, I do hope DC get into next years open cup. Another game towards the Liberty Cup.
Is OK ... And it's the Atlantic Cup and I didn't think that USOC matches counted unlike with the Brimstone Cup. Though they should.
I would imagine that the Open Cup, which falsely bills itself as a knockout competition, will once again qualify teams on a non-knockout basis by record and point standings.
I have given up on their farce of a Cup. I don't mind losing and crashing out of a competition (even to Charleston Battery), even if it is an MLS game which is also an Open Cup qualifier. But, to be eliminated without a direct competition is not right.