Washington Post reports that DC is trying to get the game on the 17th. Still says Brasil or Auztralia. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55524-2002Sep9.html
Oh good, another game in Foxboro or DC. And the USSF wonders why national TV ratings don't improve...
The Midwest, save KC, has not had a USMNT game since 1994. Dallas, Phoenix and other good cities are being snubbed. After some of the fiascos in DC, September 1, 2001 being one of them, DC is not a good choice.
I would guess RFK is being considered because it is one of the few (maybe the only but my laziness keeps me from researching this) large stadiums in the country that will not be torn up by football in mid-November. Is Columbus the midwest??
Agreed that DC is not always the right choice although it is a freaking cash cow, but to correct some inaccuracies encompassed in "The Midwest, save KC, has not had a USMNT game since 1994." Dallas had a game on March 25, 1995 Columbus has had three games since CCS opened Denver had a Mexico game last year Since 1995 games have been played in: San Jose Portland San Diego Jacksonville Ft. Lauderdale Birmingham (two times) Oakland Seattle So people are considered less than some of the eastern sites but not "snubbed". While Foxboro and DC get a lot of games, they get the crowds. Sure they aren't the kinda crowds we all want, but I'm sure economics has something to do with it. And I don't see why that correlates to lower TV ratings, but far be it from facts to get in the way. All that said, DC and NE had their chances this year. Give it to someone else.
The BOB in Phoenix will not be torn up by football since it's a baseball stadium. And correct me if I'm wrong, but Arizona hasn't had a game since 92 or 93
Scheduling Man that weekend is gonna be tough with USA v Brazil in DC, the ACC tourney in Cary, and U20 qualifying in Charleston.
It seems like alot of these new baseball parks will be good option for non-baseball season friendlies, since many of them were built to acommodate American football. Seattle, Houston, Phoenix, Milwaukee etc. It seems like it would allow for a sufficiently wide field. If the game is played at the BOB, does that mean it will be the first stadium in the US to host, a bowl game (Insight.com) a college basketball game (outdoor women's game between Lady Vols and Az. St.), a World Series, and an international soccer match all in the same venue? I can't think of another.
eric, if you spend a lot of time thinking of things like this, please seek help. By the way, if the BOB hasn't hosted a monster truck rally with one of those car-crushing robots, then it really has hosted nothing worth bragging about.
Too much useless crap knocking around in my head...fits me perfectly to choose a career in sports journalism like I have! Anyway, Empenage already answered my question, and I have to agree with you...they haven't hosted Wrestlemania either...
espn's schedule has a game listed (again) for nov 17 3pm et. 11-17-2002 03:00 pm 05:00 pm 2002 USA SOCCER MEN'S USADescription : USA SOCCER
Are you kidding, or do you really think the venue drives the national TV ratings? Anyway, the US has a pretty stellar record in Foxboro, which now has a state of the art stadium.
The U.S. has never won a game at Gillette Stadium. Putting most of the games in the Quiet Place and DC snubs the rest of the country. Putting games in different places builds local interest and helps TV ratings.
The US has never played at Gillette Stadium! For the record, the US was 0-1 at CMGI, now Gillette Stadium. Prior to the May loss to Hollland, the US was undefeated in Foxboro. Either way, I doubt that a November friendly would be held in a cold-weather locale, making the choice of Phoenix more plausible. I agree with your point about building interest throughout the country, but I still fail to see how venue drives TV VIEWING ratings. People across the country who are interested in US Soccer are going to tune in regardless of venue.
You can't compare the new Foxboro with the old one. The new stadium is like a library when there's not 70,000 people crammed into it. Sorry, that place might be nice and glamerous but it's quiet as hell in there. As for D.C., I still like the notion of playing there. For anyone that's seen a game there you know the atmosphere is incredible. Who knows, maybe USMNT attendances will jump and we won't have the problems we've had at D.C. in previous years.
That's absurd. That is like the since-dispelled hypothesis that the Fleet Center was not as loud as the old Garden. Then, one of the Fleet Center's teams -- the Celtics -- finally had a good season, and you weren't hearing that anymore. When were you at Gillette to make this comment?
Oh please... I can only imagine some Seattleite spitting mad into his decaf skim latte that YET AGAIN the Jet City has been snubbed for "Back East." I bet people are rioting in the fish market. Why don't you go back to rambling about Title IX and how Gloria Steinem's lineup choices are undermining the national team? Sachin
Let's put all the games in Foxboro and DC so the rest of the country will go out to watch something else and we can have more great DC atmosphere like the Honduras game September 1, 2001. Why even think of giving a game to Dallas? It is wamer there, with a lovely old stadium and good MLS culture. Give Foxboro or DC the game of course.