The only thing surprising is that JRI acted like MLS did this in the first post...or is that surprising?
Dr. (hmm...wonder if you are tenured?) You are wrong. If you argument was right, it would be applied in the real-word economics of business (which is not). There is a lot of dead-wood tenured professors at universities pulling big packages and contributing little/living on past glory. You are "projecting" that costs would actually go up? What the hell have they been doing all these years ANYWAY? Univ. costs increased have outstripped inflation for many years, and it is in part due to a lack of financial accountability in the system. Having sat thru more than a few univ. admin meetings in my life (a previous life, thank goodness), the entire process/power that professors yield (and, of course, the tenured professors count signficantly) is way too large....deans scared to death of them....imagine, a CEO who's scared to death of their employees...wonder how effective that guy/girl's is going to lead/manage...it winds up being one big political battle to get ANYTHING done, and the least accountable/more powerful per role/responsibilities are tenured profs. Anything to protect their little niche. I was witness to MANY programs/projects that spent public funds (unnecessary) that were green lighted, just because certain professors had tenure/power, and a dean had to OK certain projects to keep his job...there was no relationship between benefit/economic benefit and cost outlay. None. Pure power plays. As to the lady, and her comments about MLS. Who the hell makes up the teams playing in the final? MLS has no culpability or power in this decision. Lets get real....
Just an idea. Tenure helps educational institutions compete with "real-word economics of business" businesses because real-world businesses can pay even more for specialists. Now, there isn't much call for English or history professors in the real world, but do you really want universities competing for engineers, doctors and lawyers? No, you don't. Universities can't pay as much. They can, however, give stability-- and that's how they compete.
There are compromise solutions out there that can limit the bad effects/consequences of tenure, while offering stability......you do overestimate, however, the losses that would occur....most PhD professor types love that lifestyle, and if you keep many of the other current attributes, you would keep them too (long ago, they made/make that decision for financial reasons)....the pressure to publish (alone) is probably as big/bigger factor than anything we've mentioned...but we digress, and I no longer have interest in cluttering thread with this...
then by all means, go back to the usual cluttering. BTW, what was the attendance last year at the final? Oh that's right. It was 6k. What about the year before? Oh that's right-- 4k (on a Saturday, in a major market). So what exactly was a surprise about this year?
You are correct, sir! And one other tidbit was that the Revs front office had more than 15,000 tickets sold for the last home game vs the Mutts that was never played due to 9/11. I was told they would have honored those tickets if the Open Cup Final was in Foxboro. Instead, they played in Fullerton in front of Brian Dunseth's family and 4,100 of their closest friends. Major market on a Saturday afternoon indeed, but apparently the Galaxy didn't do a whole lot to promote this game to their fan base either. Tom
Nothing except those 4-8K people would have been sitting with a bunch of people who likely did not care about the game. Yes, the USSF blew this by not promoting it or finding a more appropriate venue in the NY/NJ area. But they would have blown it by making the game second choice in a doubleheader. Considering that Soccer America reported that the friendly game time could not be changed due to TV restrictions, it's pretty hard to argue that the Cup final was the first priority for anyone in Chicago. They blew this long before they decided to give the game to Giants Stadium.
If you think "business" is the "real" world then you have such a commonplace, boring mind that nothing can be done for you. You have my pity. And I don't have tenure by the way, and never have. And back on topic. The Metros did better in terms of attendance than the last two MLS teams who hosted the tournament. They had to deal with the fact that it was Wednesday, the fact that the weather was terrible (in a way that was going to make it hard for pretty soccer to be played) and there was this little matter of the ALCS, too. Cut them some slack.
Paulson- they blew it....in that they had an OPTION to play it at a venue with a huge crowd that would have a certain level of interest....folks here griping about the lack of interest from Mexican fans...what kind of interest does 5k show? Also, with 2 years of poor crowds, don't you think they'd learn? This was not avoidable? If you think this is clutter, then you are bias. This is a situation that should be fixed, and merits quite a bit of attention, I think. Finally, apparently the good Doctor can not read and understand that "real-world" economics of business means that in business the fundamental laws of economics work better/more efficient than in any quasi-government supported organization...that's all that was meant (and is a valid point)....it was not a commentary on what is really important in life/or what we should value as citizens. The good Doctor obviously took things WAY OUT of context
Uh yeah. That's really got nothing to do with my post-- my point was that the open cup final hasn't been a good draw for a number of teams over the past few years. Fuming about incompetance now is a bit silly-- this is the hand we've been dealt. The Open Cup just ain't prominent. As for the TV time and priorities, well that's the whole question, isn't it? Is the Open Cup final better served by being in a town that has shown it cares about the tournament or is it better off being exposed to a new town and a TV audience? If you wanted the largest number of interested spectators, I think Chicago would've been the better choice, regardless of whether the game was "first priority" or not. I think it's an open question of whether that's the right way to allocate the cup final though.
Shut up, if you want 42k Mexicans chanting "Meeeheeekooooo meeeheeekoooo" the whole open cup through, and not giving a crap about it. Thats a good idea. 50k for the double header eh? Well, that means that about 7,000 would have shown up just for the cup final. Thats a whole lot better than those who showed up in the meadowlands. Sure the stadium would have looked nice and full, but our players would have been getting pissed on the entire time. The main problem with the poor attendance at the open cup final was the fact that the yankees were playing right across the river. You're the moron.
"Its the hand we've been dealt" KP, my goodness....2-3 million Californian just got Davis recalled, and Ah-nold elected, and you are laying down and wimpy on this issue ("oh well, guess ain't nothing we can do") Use the power of the net man.....since when have the clowns at USSF (and whoever is OK with this at MLS) been so freakin' powerful? I'm doing my service by not letting the travesty continue (opening this thread)...some else (anyone) has my support in drilling those guys but good...
(Poor attendence) nope, the greater fact is you can't market a "championship" with practically no advance sale, no marketing/ad build-up and MID-WEEK for goodness sake.... Man, folks here love to have it both ways....most the time, the argument goes, "baseball crowd are not our supporters anyway"...and now, when convenient for argument purposes, suddently the baseball game has a n overrriding material impact.. Anyone who prefer a 5k crowd over 50k+ has my sympathy...my deepest sympathy...
With no TV. Even Fox Sports World games are watched by more than the potential 50k that would've watched in Soldier Field. Finally, apparently the good Doctor can not read and understand that "real-world" economics of business means that in business the fundamental laws of economics work better/more efficient than in any quasi-government supported organization... And this is related to USSF how?
Wimpy? Obviously, you didn't understand. "It's the hand we've been dealt. The OPen Cup just ain't prominent." This means I think the problem is bigger than a few idiots at the USSF. They're not that powerful-- exactly my point-- so your rant is out of proportion to their mistakes. doing my service by not letting the travesty continue (opening this thread)...some else (anyone) has my support in drilling those guys but good... OK. What they should do: (1) Plenty of lead time between the final and semis. (2) A weekend game. But even with all that, I think you'd still end up with a "travesty". Does this mean I think nothing can be done about it? No, not at all. It means I think the solutions are longer-term and for that reason, I don't think your shrill, almost hysterical tone is helpful.
(TV...vs 50k) You are not accurate. The game coulda been shown/negotiated for tape delay. Are you telling me that showing the final live with 5k in audience is a better presentation then tape-delay with 50k+. If you can't put a good foot forward, for goodness sake, don't broadcast it to the world. How many folks you think got turned on to soccer watching canaverous Meadowlands and the non-event atmosphere that was? That musta looked REAL GOOD with huge gaps of empty seats in view at all times... Fox's soccer ratings are miniscule...showing it tape delay would have had very little impact, and even if they did (somehow) i'd argue that the better product presentation MORE than justifies the decision... I thought it was clear that this phase of soccer/MLS timeline is as much about credibility and product (presentation) as anything else....5k for a final is just unacceptable unless there is a hurricane
I've said it before and I will say it again. No Final should be playen on a field with football lines. There should have been atleast an attempt to present the game with respect and class (no the removal of "NFL" out of the center circle does not count as an attempt). Last night's "GOOD GAME" was marred with a crap presentation. You want respect in the future with these events. Present them with respect now! Their should be people accountable for this disaster, and I dont think Nick S. is 100% to blame. The USSF is to blame. Why should anyone respect this tournament if the one's running it don't.
YOu are talking like it would have been 50,000 supportive or at least neutral fans. Get your head out of your rectum sir. If there would have been a crowd of 50,000 90% of them would have been extremley hostile. It just doesn't make sense to have 43,000 el tri fans pissing on the most important event in American professional soccer. Admittedly, 5,000 at giants stadium isn't that great either, but it's better than your alternative. Now if the match had been played at a neutral venue, or even naperville. Maybe. But temporary new aztecha in chicago? yeah right.
Someone who knows what he's talking about said there would have been 55k, guaranteed, for a doubleheader, regardless of the competition. I have zero issue with the USSF making this as a competitive balance decision. But that played no part in the process. It was strictly business and as a business decision this was moronic.
And what basis do you have where you're absolutely convinced that'd have been the case? As was pointed out earlier, we've done a Mexico DH with a Fire game before. It was a roaring success on all counts. The whole crowd wasn't there for either game, but those who stayed were genuinely interested.
You're the one suffering from Cranial-rectal inversion on this one. As I said on the first page... Too bad for you that probably wouldn't have happened that way. In 2000 the Fire and KC opened for Mexico/Ireland. The fans weren't as into the prelim as they were the international match, but they weren't disengaged either, and created a lively atmosphere for the Fire's come from behind victory. And what the hell, as far as the decision to play the game in NY and not NSF... ... by giving the final to Metros, the Fire were granted the opportunity to be the first MLS team to win the cup on the opponent's field. Now the conspiracy theorists can't say, "yeah, you won three cups, but only because the USSF which is located in Chicago gave you the homefield advantage every time." But like Hala said... Fox Sports World isn't big enough to call the shots on these things, so this wasn't the most brilliant idea the USSF ever had.
Are you telling me that there not any Mexico fans that are also Chicago Fire fans? Are you telling me that you can't be a fan of both?
Do you think a lot of the supposed 'hostile fans' would have shown up till the Mexico game anyway? I mean, come on. I'm not usually in direct agreement with jri, but if you look at this as strictly business do you: A) Show one of your showcase games to a already-primed crowd of 50,000+ soccer fans or B) Hold your showcase game in front of a few hundred local diehards, friends and family, and 30+ nutcases who made the trip from Chicago (oh, and 75,000 seats) on national cable television. Oh, and charge 25 bucks a seat Now if the choice is actually C) Hold the match at a neutral site or a smaller venue in NJ to satisfy competitive balance and ensure a good stage for the final while making it accessible to national cable television I'm all for it. But between A and B it's got to be A.
Pretty much the entire first row would take issue with that. Being a fan of a US club is not exclusive of being a fan of the Mexican national team or a Mexican club. It may not be overwhelmigly common, but it happens a lot more than many give credit for.