MLS Cup: Neutral vs. Home field

Would you want to see MLS Cup played at Arrowhead stadium where 15,000 people would show up for $5 tickets? That would be a pretty embarassing final to show on ABC.

 

MLS uses the final for all front office people to get together to share ideas and for sponsors. You cannot get together all the hotel rooms in one hotel and other travel arrangements for that many people on one week's notice. Also since some teams are still in NFL stadiums and you don't know who will be in final until the week before you cannot guarentee the date and time required by ABC, so we will not see the final in the home field of the team with the best record. Lets stop this discussion right now. No matter how much the fans want it, it's not going to happen.

 

the game should be in DC.
of course thats a dream,
but it would rule

 

1) There's no reason why MLS can't have the majority of sponsor schmoozing at the All-Star game. The championship series sites for baseball, basketball, and hockey are all determined on very short notice and those sports seem to be doing quite well, labor disputes aside.

2) By 2007, only the MetroStars will have the potential NFL conflict problem you mention (KC and NE should not be a concern since their owners also control the sceduling at their stadiums). Should the MetroStars make the MLS Cup by some miracle, then the Cup could be played at the home of the Western Conference champion.

 

All those other sports have a 4 out of 7 series of games not a one game final like the NFL and MLS.They are trying to make it like the superbowl whether we like it or not. A championship game is more attractive to sponsors than an all star game. Also since it is the end of season for the front offices they are free to come rather than in the middle of the season. Also except for a couple teams it isn't easy to sell 25,000 tickets in one week.It is just not going to happen so shut up about it. Why doesn't someone start another thread about why the MLS doesn't have promotion and relegation. It's not going to happen, shut up about it.

 

Cities should have to bid for it just like they do for the Super Bowl. That would assure that the best site is selected. The free market will always tell the truth.

 

Nice way to add to the discussion.

 

I still say play at a Neutral site, but have a third place match before the final. This would give fans of the 4 teams in the semi-finals several weeks notice to buy plane tickets, hotel rooms, etc. It would also raise the chance of a home field team, upping the attendance. Make the day an even bigger event.

 

Whats to discuss, he is right. Go ahead if you want but it is just gonna be a pipe dream fantasy thread. Neutral site single game final has been the way for 9 years it is practicaly the only stable part of our play-off structure...but hell lets f with it just so one teams fans won't have to travel. Why anyone would argue for a home field Cup final or a home and home series is beyond me.

Fanaddict is on point..it aint gonna happen.

 

i think for now this format seems to be working MLS Cups have had great crowds with the neutral stadium format... But then you have the flip side like 1997 when RFK was the announcd months in advance for MLS Cup 97 and At The end DC United were going to win in front of their home crowd.. The stadium was rocking a wonderful cup final in the rain and really impresive when you watched it on TV you could feel the energy... I would rather see the Cup Final at the home of the higher seeded team but due to the NFL gridlock at the stadiums I say leave it as it is for now and when every one has their own stadium we can rework it...

 

For the most part, the crowds at neutral sites have been solid.

But don't forget that MLS Cup 2001 had quite a lackluster atmosphere -- SJ vs. LA in front of a quiet, non sell-out Columbus crowd.

And I wouldn't be at all surprised if the same lack of atmosphere characterizes MLS Cup 2005 in Frisco next year.

 

oh my god, how many times does it have to be said about the MLS Cup 2001 final?...it was after sept 11 fellas, people didn't want to travel, thats the only reason anything was lackluster...

and yes, it will ALWAYS be a neutral site championship game so close this thread...

 

I agree that there should be a bidding process. I disagree that the free market will always tell the truth...

(and as we all know ...or should know...MLS isn't exactly the epitome of free markets...come to think of it, does any sport in the U.S.?!?!?)

 

Columbus had a crowd of 20,883 in their playoff game vs SJ on Sept 22, 2001, so I'd say you're significantly overestimating the Sept 11th effect.

If anything, a bigger factor was that SJ and LA didn't qualify for the championship match until 4 days before it was held. That hurt the Crew in promo-ing the teams facing off in the Cup, and obviously diminished the number of Quake and Galaxy fans who were able to attend the match.

 

i'm not really overestimating anything...20K for a HOME match in columbus, think about what i said, sept 11 didn't make people not want to come to games it made them not want to TRAVEL half way across the country...and yes the playoff system that year had it set up bad so i'll agree knowing your in the final only a couple days before it is makes it hard for fans to get there...but i think you are really underestimating the effect sept. 11 had on the atmospher for that entire match..

 

That wouldn't have mattered so much if there were a third place game as well as the final.

 

Are the Chiefs playing at home this weekend? The Bears? The Revs?

That's one big reason this can't happen.

 

I doubt very many of those people flew to the match.

EDIT: Someone already hit this.

 

Excellent point. I think that with the soccer specific stadiums, MLS Cup should be held at the stadiums being built, and not at NFL stadiums, would make for bad tv.

And once MLS has finished expanding, nearly all the teams have sss, with exceptions to NE, KC, and SJ, all have issues facing sss, not as much for SJ though.

Then homefield for MLS Cup should be handed out.

 

That's not a bad idea. They should get rid of the All-Star game and have the third place match televised on ABC the day before to promote the final.

 

I'm sure MLS is way ahead of anyone who posts here about ideas. If they thought that one would work, we'd have seen it happen already.

At this point, MLS needs some certainty in where it stages a championship, and it needs that game to look like people care about it. Foxboro works if the Revs make it, otherwise, you've got to hold in the HDC or some smaller soccer stadium.

 

Nobody cares about 3rd place games. Even in the world cup you see thousands upon thousands of empty seats. Very few fans would travel accross the country to see their team play for third place.

 

I disagree. The game would have to be the same day, same location as the final. A double header. You buy a ticket weeks in advance knowing your team will play that day.