I understand all of the arguments for a neutral site for MLSCup. But from what I am hearing, most of the ticket sales for this years MLSCup have occurred after the Revs made it to the final. And I understand there are a lot of ancillary events that occur around MLSCup, such as the SupportersGala, etc. But my contention is that if you gave two weeks between the semifinal game and MLSCup, and held the game at the stadium of the higher seed, you'd see awesome attendance every time. But I know what you're going to say--most MLSCups have had awesome attendance, so why do we need a non-neutral site final? Because of Columbus last year. The game, while fun, was just plain bizarro, with two west coast teams playing in the midwest, where most fans were disinterested, and large group of fans actually cheered for a team that wasn't even playing, then turned against one of the teams that was playing. My point is that with a non-neutral site, you could have the best of both worlds: a great crowd, and a passionate crowd. After all, soccer is supposed to be for the fans, right? THe fans of the better team should be rewarded with the cup, not some neutral fans.
There is a very simple reason they choose neutral sites. MLS is the primary resident in only one stadium. As such they can not control schedule on such short notice. Should the time come that MLS does have more control over the schedule of the stadiums, then I believe they will move to the model you suggested as it is more enjoyable for everyone. Andy
I've been saying for years that the final should be in the same format as the rest of the playoffs, but who am I? Besides, the stadium availability issue always shoots down my opinion on this anyway.
That makes NO sense because teams still DONT know when and if they are going to play in the playoffs. So if they can arrange for playoffs they can arrange for 1(or more) more games to be played. Im not a fan of a neautral site, even in NFL. I think the fans should have the opportunity to see their team play without having to travel to the other side of the country. Also if the teams play at home you will see a better atmosphere at games. We have been lucky to have some MLS cups at some home stadiums and I can say that they are usually the best sounding and looking ones. Then you have the ones where teams are too far from their fans like the one at the Rose Bowl, and it is totally crap. If they cant do that they need to go back to a EAst vs West game because its really retarded to have lets say SJ vs LA at NE. Or NE vs CMB at LA. It would be best if atleast one the teams was close enough to bring some fans in. Kinda like Wiz vs Fire in DC. Where the game was not too far from Chi and people can do a 14 hour drive and spend a few bucks rather than spend $400 on airfare from coast to coast.
It makes complete sense for anyone who understands that MLS wants to have the game on national TV. How many playoff games were on national TV? Now ask yourself why.... With the time buy nature of the MLS TV contract, they have to carve out tv time slots way in advance which means they need to know the general location of the game so that it can make sense from a kick off time point of view. At this point in time there is too much risk in stadium availability for what is suppose to be the crown jewel of MLS events. I hope this makes more sense to you. As I said before, MLS is aware of this and I believe they will move to the model suggested in the initial post once they can assure stadium availability for their biggest event. Andy
It is too short notice to have the game being played at a non neutral site. TV commitment, Stadium Commitment, Group Sales, etc..... I'd like to see, the team that wins the MLS Cup, get rewarded by having the next year's cup at their stadium. Give them something to shoot for the following year. And the same for the NFL. You just won the championship, the next Championship game should be right where the trophy is....
This is a bogus argument, as the following post discusses. https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=15390
The post is irrelevant because it does not discuss TV issues. Considering that about 14 people ripped your idea to shreds in that post you pointed me to, I am shocked you have the temerity to call the argument bogus when you obviously have no understanding of the TV component of the issue. Here is a hint, if you want to use a previous post to prove your point I would suggest pointing to one where you are not torn a new a-hole by a ton of different people. Your idea of MLS being a major tenant in their stadiums falls apart when you look at what was happening to the Metro's this year. Even the Revs, who hold an ok status at the Razor, had a playoff game bumped for a Spooky World event. The combination of your lack of knowledge of the TV component and your minimization of the very real problems MLS teams in having say in their post season schedule hardly puts you in any sort of position to call any one else’s argument bogus. Andy
Oy vey. They are intertwined if you (like MLS) want the championship game on TV is a specific time slot. Read my second post in this thread. Andy
Looks like it's me and Poose against Bigsoccer... I agree that MLS needs to plan way ahead of time to have the cup on tv. I'm not convinced you need boatloads of extra time to plan the ancillary events that go along with it. If that is the case, I think having a partisan final outweighs some of the fanfare of the ancillary events. I don't agree that you need a whole year to sell tickets to the final. At least one team's fans should have first dibs at seeing their team in the final. It seems like a perfect system to let the higher seeded team host. I think you'd get equal, if not better, attendance by selling tickets in two weeks to MLSCup (assuming that with a non-neutral site, you'd give two weeks--which could be easy if MLS is planning to do home and home playoffs) at the home of one of the teams in the final as you would selling tickets a whole year in advance at a neutral stadium. Plus you'd have the extra benefit of having a crazy crowd. I know people say that 9/11 had a lot to do with Columbus last year. But I submit that while all the seats might have been filled for the game, if not for 9/11, you'd still have a lame atmosphere because of the non-partisan crowd. NE is selling 5000 tix per day, because NE is in the game. Would this happen if NE wasn't in the game. I don't think so. The atmosphere is truly going to raucus. I think all of the problems with a non-neutral site could be worked out with a little negotiation and creativity on the part of MLS (I know--oxymoron!) Since it is the premiere event, I think some of MLS partners (such as NFL teams) might be willing to bend a little bit. For example, you could minimize the conflicts with NFL tenants by getting contracts, at the beginning of the season, that allow for all NFL stadia used by MLS to be free on the date slated for MLSCup. Could this be done? The only big problem would be NY/NJ, because of Giant's stadium used by two NFL teams. But if the stadium in Harrison passes and is built, then problem solved! Let's go through the teams: Chicago: Soldier Field, only one NFL tenant to work around; Columbus: owns stadium--no issues; Dallas: no NFL tenant, no issues; LA: will have own stadium, no issues; San Jose: no NFL team, no issues? Colorado: one NFL team to worry about; KC: one NFL team to worry about (but Hunt owns the team, so it could be easy to work out) DC: no NFL team, no issues; NE: one NFL tenant, but Kraft owns both teams, so it could be easy to work out) Metros: two NFL tenants--big problem, but reportedly getting a new stadium soon. So the only teams that would pose serious scheduling problems would be Colorado, and possibly Metros, until they get their own stadium.
Etienne_72772, I agree with the spirit of your post. The only real issue I have is I think you are minimizing the scheduling difficulties in the stadiums. Even Columbus, if memory serves, recently had a conflict. It is not as easy as I think we would all like it to be. Andy
Andy--I agree that there would be conflicts. Could they be worked out? I think with some effort, yes. I tend to be an optimist by nature, and think that all problems can have a positive outcome for all involved. Like I said, with a little (a lot?) of extra work from MLS, it could be done.