As someone who makes trips to France more often than most people. I can say the difference between flying from JFK to CDG and from SFO to CDG is minimal. You adjust your departure times accordingly and sleep half the time anyway. It really doesn't matter in my opinion if they're flying to the East Coast or here out West. And since we're on the subject of where we'd like to see a WCQ. I'd like to see a match at SBC Park in San Francisco.
I on the other hand am the total opposite in my experience in flying to London from the States. In my travels I can not stand when I have to fly London to O'Hare instead of London to Boston - the extra time in the air seems to have a big impact, especailly since that is usually the return trip after having only flew over the pond a few days earlier. The trips I make RT from Boston leave me with far less jet lag than those from and to Chicago. I think this is a consideration too becasue the Euro based players are usually leaving right after the weekend qualifiers to return to their clubs to at least practice the next day. It is not as if our players in Europe are locks with their respective clubs, so anything that can help these players - even if it is just an elimination of a few hours on a plane, it is infact a big deal in my eyes. I know that the last thing I want to do when I get off any flight that crosses the Atlantic is to go for a run, not to mention a demanding training session.
In that time period, are you running for 90 minutes on Wednesday and Saturday with another flight from the US to San Salvador in between? Plus daily training sessions? My entire point about travel is that the decision of where to play qualifiers includes many variables. If the USSF decides to mionimize the travels of the players by one hour each trip when they have to come overseason four times between August and November, I completely understand. I wish more games were in other places, but I understand if that was one of the things that swung the pendulum in favor of DC, Foxboro and Cbus. Still, it's not the locations that cause any problems. It's the ticketing process, a point which so many people willingly ignore, some of them intentionally to further their own agenda.
I am on the wagon here with that comment. The locations are just the easy solution because it seems no one is willing to devise a means of dealing with the ticketing issue and providing some means to restrict the trade for home qualifiers. I have been talking with others and the following are the most legitimate solutions I have heard to deal with the ticketing: --Sell them only through the local ticket office w/o Ticketmaster or other quick means of sale an option, and no on-site sales before the day of the match (and definitely no cash transactions). --Use a point system similar to college athletics to reward past purchases and eliminate (to an extent) the ability to buy tickets for only one opponent's matches. --Group sales only to recognized organizations. --Season tickets through the USSF (they did something similar with batching the Grenada/Jamaica tix and the Honduras/El Salvador tix). --Allocating a limited number of tix for the away federation and requiring away support to go through that federation for seats rather than the local ticket office. It all comes down to finding a way to maintain home-field advantage. Locations are a start, but ultimately the ticket process will work much better.
Yes, the South like Atlanta or Birmingham, possibly St. Louis because it is pretty humid there too. But none of this will ever happen.
Nah, the weather in Hawaii is too nice. If you want to make the Canadians suffer, have the game in Birmingham, Alabama. Or Houston. Hot AND humid.
Well, the venues have been set, so no use griping about it now. I do think Chicago, Kansas City, and Denver should be considered in the future--particularly for matches with regards to off-season European soccer and the NFL. I mention Denver because of the altitude advantage, although that cuts both ways, I suppose. Bruce Arena and other national coaches before him have said the U.S. is one of the few soccer countries in the world that do not enjoy the benefits of a "home-field" advantage. I think it's something we just have to get used to and deal with. Mexico is one of those teams that travel well. It makes no difference if you play the Tri-Colore in El Paso or Buffalo. I think a SE site outside of Florida would be a nice place to play. It would enhance the opportunity of fans there to see our national team play, even if it were just a friendly. Earlier poster said there were no venues in South Carolina. What about Bryce-Williams or Clemson Memorial? They're huge! But, are they wide enough?
This lack of an overwhelming home crowd could never happen in a real soccer country like Portugal..........
go to http://www.worldstadiums.com Citadel's place (in convenient Charleston) looks to be barely wide enough, with about 21,000 seats. Clemson's place is way too narrow. USC's place looks like it could fit a pitch, but the actual pitch now is way too narrow.
Scheduling Not to change the subject about venues, but hasn't anyone noticed the scheduling and order of opponents is a deviation from the last semi-final round? Had the scheduling held true to form, it would have been: away vs. Jamaica home vs. ES away vs. Panama home vs. Jamaica away vs. El Salvador home vs. Panama Instead, the schedule is: away vs. Jamaica home vs. ES away vs. Panama away vs. El Salvador home vs. Panama home vs. Jamaica Essentially, the home match with Jamaica is Matchday 6 instead of four. Anybody know why? It's not like Jack & Chuck can make more money this way...
There are a number of issues relating to venue choice for WC Qualifiers. FIFA has requirements like no astroturf, minimum widths etc. Not all venues (San Jose, the stadium in Montana) meet those requirements although friendlies could be played at those locations. Virtually all NFL teams have it written into their stadium leases that they have sole control over who else has use of their facility during their season. Since the Kraft family ownes Foxboro and I believe the Hunts own Arrowhead in KC, those are options although they have NFL tenants. The Metros use Giants Stadium during the fall, but FIFA wouldn't allow the game to be played with all those football markings in evidence. Most colleges will not allow their stadiums (Birmingham, Stanford) to be used during the football season as well. When you narrow the choices you end up with RFK, Foxboro, Rose Bowl, Columbus & Home Depot and you divide it up from there. After the football season is over there are more choices.
well, it's been interesting reading this thread. as a long-time fan of the MNT, it's beyond frustrating to watch year after year and see a nearly non-existent home field advantage (fan wise). i definitely think spreading the venues around the country is a good start. but we also need US Soccer to make a shift in promoting the team. change the budget -- market the team more. market the excitement of international competition. make the tickets cheaper or at least give people more of an incentive to come out and support their country and their team. i'm tired of hearing all these sports broadcasters on tv and radio rag on soccer, call the sport boring, stereotype the sport as a 0-0 snorefest, and NEVER see US Soccer answer back with any type of hype or marketing about our team. marketing works. and us soccer needs a serious facelift (not to mention a better "team song" than that joke we have now... "goal, goal, goal for the red white and blue" that sounds like it was recorded by some kid on his casio keyboard???). all of that to say, Dallas(my home town) is getting a new stadium for the Burn next year. it looks like it's going to be awesome. my wife and i are planning on getting season tickets for the first time. i'm hoping we can get some MNT friendlies and one day WCQs here from time to time. When the US played Mexico at the Cotton Bowl earlier this year, there was almost NO promotion of the game AT ALL. fortunately, despite 80%+ of the fans pulling for our bitter rivals, we put one on the board in the 93rd minute and gave the "home team" and it's fans the thrill of a lifetime. enough with rfk and foxboro. home-field advantage needs to be a reality. it's SHAMEFUL when TINY countries like Jamaica, Panama, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, etc. can even split the stadium with our fans 50/50. and honestly, 50% is usually a very high percentage for US fans. i believe with some more money diverted to marketing the team, those stadiums would teem with fans that would make our team and nation proud. obviously marketing is only PART of a larger solution, but without it -- i don't think the MNT will capture the minds of casual soccer fans around the nation. if people can watch baseball, golf, and tennis in droves on tv and in person -- certainly there is enough room for soccer, especially on the international level. anyway... just some thoughts. i reserve the right to be wrong.