I know, not Seattle MLS related. But interesting non the less. We are one of six finalists for three citys. From Ives blog. I would go.
Nice find! Here's the link: http://www.soccerbyives.net/soccer_by_ives/2008/02/six-sites-vying.html Qwest would rock, for sure.
Great news. If there's any symbiosis at the high levels of USA Soccer and MLS, Seattle has to be one of the top choices. The games would increase the surge of momentum Seattle MLS already has, and really fuel excitement for the team and soccer as a whole.
we will get it besides dc we have the largest stadium on the list. relliant in houston sold out for the friendly vs mex
If that were the case (size of stadium), we would've had WCQ matches the LAST go around. Instead we got trumped by Crew Stadium, and the HDC, among others. It's going to boil down to stadium availability, and if CONCACAF will allow a WCQ on FieldTurf, or insist on grass laid down on top of the 'turf. If the latter is the case, will Qwest have the time, between other events at the stadium, to put in, and remove, the grass.
Does anyone know where CONCACAF officially stands on FieldTurf? I get mixed messages when I try to research on Google.
A large stadium isn't necessary, or necessarily desirable. In fact, it's probably undesirable: USA - El Salvador FOXBORO/BOSTON / Gillette Stadium 04 September 2004 attendance: 25266 USA - Panama WASHINGTON DC / RFK Stadium 13 October 2004 attendance: 22000 USA - Jamaica COLUMBUS / Columbus Crew Stadium 17 November 2004 attendance: 9088 Comparing these games to Mexico is way off base. First off, reports I've seen suggest that the Houston game was 90% Mexicans. Second, for whatever game y'all would be hosting, if no surprises happen, it would be against Guatemala, Trinidad and Tobago, or Cuba. Third, the games are going to be on these days: 20 August 2008 (wed) 6 September 2008 (sat) 10 September 2008 (wed) 11 October 2008 (wed) 15 October 2008 (sat) 19 November 2008 (wed) I believe I've seen somewhere which ones would be in the US, but I don't know where that info is. Upshot -- are you going to really fill a 60,000 seat stadium for a game against Trinidad on a Wednesday night? I have been supportive of y'all, and am confident that you'll sell out Qwest for your first season in MLS. And getting a qualifier will be a nice test run this fall of the soccer supporters there. Being a test run for MLS? That's a good reason. Having not had a qualifier up your direction? That's a good reason. Forcing any one of our three opponents to play in Seattle in November? That's a very good reason. But I can't believe that having a 60,000 seat stadium will have any influence on your getting a game.
Thanks for that VC. I have read though, that CONCACAF only accepts FieldTurf stadiums when there are no viable grass venues in the country. So Seattle could still be excluded based on turf. What amazes me, is that FieldTurf is actually safer than temporary sod, so I don't fully understand the rule if it were true. I had heard there was a more soccer friendly brand of FieldTurf, that QWest did not receive, since it was a fairly early install of the product. Is this true? I've lost touch with my FieldTurf knowledge, I did know a guy at the company but he has since passed away. I like FieldTurf, mainly because the company was really nice to me, when I worked with them. I got to watch the turf get laid down in QWest, and tested it shortly after it was completed. I think it is amazing stuff, I'd hate to see us excluded because of it.
Well We havent been completely exlcuded yet if we are one of the finalist. Hopefully we get a match that would be sweet and I think there will be a good sized crowd, I'll def be there with my friends that for sure.
Sprinturf has different versions of their product. The Fieldturf that is at Qwest, now, is the same design as what will replace it. There is nothing on their website that says if they've made changes/improvements, but I would assume that they have, if not with the infill, than with the fabric they use for the blades.
Qwest has laid grass down for special games before, and they would do it again for a qualifier. Each of the big name friendly matches played at Qwest have been played on grass. It was a requirement when turf was placed that First and Goal would pay the price to lay down a grass field in order to host "high profile international matches and world cup qualifiers" no worries about the turf. For crying out loud they put in grass for the DC - Real Madrid friendly with less than two weeks notice.
And it looked pretty bad if I rememeber right. I also heard some reports that there was some "slippage" as well.
FieldTurf is the industry leader, and widely regarded as the best synthetic turf on the market. That's not me talking, I did a piece on synthetic turf in 2002 and heard from a number of sources, it was widely regarded as the best. Maybe SpinTurf emerged as a new leader since 2002? That's quite possible, but if John Gilman were alive, I could email him and I guarantee you he'd email me back a dozen reasons why his product was better. I also thought FieldTurf had a variety, where the blades were a different length, making it more suitable for soccer, but that might detract from NFL games. Still, like you say, I can find no information about that on their website. What staggers me, is synthetic turf is safer for the athletes than temporary sod, it blows my mind that FIFA would want to endanger the players, over the "romanticism" of grass. I like a well-drained grass pitch over any other kind naturally, but I'd prefer FieldTurf over temporary sod. I value my own ankles too much to play on sod that has no real root structure.
Where have you read that? I'm curious. Mostly because Saprissa most certainly isn't the only viable grass venue in the country. I suppose it might be, based on stadium size, but I wouldn't know about that. I know that other stadiums besides Saprissa were used by Costa Rica 4 years ago.
I read that recently, just a few days ago, by just trying to Google the answer on FieldTurf rules. I can google again, and try to find it, if you like. If memory serves it was not a reliable source, but I could try to dig it up. I have no idea whether it was true or not, I'd hope that it wasn't, because as I said, while I prefer real grass, in the absence of grass, I much prefer FieldTurf to temporary sod.
I hope the new install of the latest generation of Fieldturf makes that statement even more appropriate. I agree with you, temporary grass is a massive waste of time and money. Unless it's for Giants Stadium or Rice Eccles. Two of the worst Fieldturf installations in history.
I love Seattle and the people and Qwest is an awesome stadium but you have to realize when it comes to WCQ that home field advantage for U.S. Soccer is given priority. Smaller venues like Crew Stadium have seen pro-U.S. crowds which is why it always gets US vs. Mexico in WCQ because the smaller venues with predominantly U.S. support give the visiting team's fans little chance of getting tickets. That's why WCQ vs. Mexico are NEVER in places like L.A., Chicago or Houston. Only the friendlies are held there. But the thing is that if Seattle does want host a WCQ, no matter the opponent, there has to be huge support for the U.S. team in a huge stadium. Attendance of 15,000 in a 60,000 seat stadium at the Gold Cup is not going to get you a WCQ.
If Mexico plays the USMNT in a qualifier here, -SEATTLE- the match will sell out as fast, or in record time for any stadium its size which USSoccer has used previously. When and if the tix go on sale you better be on the ticketmaster site ready to pounce. And thanks to all of you generous folks who use this ticketing service, part of the service fee will go into Paul Allens deep pockets, further ensuring the SeattleMLS franchise future talent infusions and a larger nest egg for our Seattle Sounders. Thanks fans
Off topic, but it would also make sense to one day host a US/Canada match here, be it Gold Cup or whatever. Seattle seems like a great place to draw a very large crowd from both sides of the border. US might quibble about losing full home advantage, but I think it would make for a great match. Also, if they ever host the Pan-Pacific here, I also think Vancouver should be invited to the tourney.
Canada don't travel in numbers enough to concern me about having WCQ here in Seattle. They might get a few more what with TFC and if Vancouver ever go MLS, but I don't see them bringing 10K or the sort of support Mexico or other Central American nations get in this country. It's a moot point anyway. USSF would never put USA-Canada WCQ in a northern border city... it'd go to Cali, Florida, or Texas.
Not going to happen this time around U.S. Soccer Selects Home Venues For Potential Semifinal Round Qualifiers For 2010 FIFA World Cup Chicago and Commerce City, Colorado, to Host World Cup Qualifiers for the First Time; RFK Stadium in Washington, D.C. Also Chosen For First Time Since 2004 http://www.ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_6422528.html