Personally, if they’re going to put all 16 US MLS teams in the tournament proper (which I support), I think they should do it in the round of 64 not the round of 32. (And I think a fair argument could be put forward for having MLS teams play on the road until the round of 16.) Putting MLS teams earlier in the tournament gives the minnows more shots at beating the MLS teams, which gives a better chance of the round of 16 being more than just an all-MLS competition. Plus, getting MLS teams out to visit more non-MLS sides is effectively an advertisement for MLS in places that don’t have MLS sides. Sure, they’re not going to get full starting sides in those games, but teams will probably throw in a few starters to ensure they advance, which is fun for fans of the away teams. I still hate Carlos Ruiz specifically for his antics in the ’07 USOC semis at then-Qwest Field.

USOC is being “beat up” over how well Seattle has taken over the current format and made it work. And we can’t have Seattle dominating a sports event, what will all those poor people in New York and Los Angeles think.

I am guessing if the shoe were on the other foot, if New York were filling stadiums or if LA took USOC seriously, you’d see a different song being sung here. But since its us, and since we’ve pretty much cracked the code on USOC… it must be time for change right.

I guess its a compliment on how dominant Seattle became. And a mere 3 short years ago…..

And that’s not good for anyone. The Sounders have revived this tournament like an adrenaline shot to the heart—but its tenuous progress. Count me as concerned

Imagine we winning it for the 4th time in a row at Livestrong sporting park in front of whatever crowd that be and no one will ever have anything to say about the format.

My once concern is that more games for MLS teams would mean more reserve team players playing and less serious the franchise would be for the tournament and “Open cup is not importnat to us” chant will grow bigger.

Its the fan’s tickets that paid for it. We’ve seen the FO’s businesss savy and I highly doubt they were losing money on those bids. The fact that we actually have committed fans willing to show up and pack Starfire to the rafters in early rounds is what lets those bids occur. And now two Final attendance records in a row.

I think this actually is a decent way to get the games in front of the most eyeballs that avoids any attendance estimate fudging by making the teams put their money where their mouth is. More transparency would be great, but I want the games to be played in front of the fans that want it the most.

with changing the structure in this fashion, as the competition can only benefit from it in terms of reputation. You just know, however, that as soon as it happens there’s going to be a crowd of naysayers out there trying to illegitimise the validity of “pre-change” wins.

I also wouldn’t want to see the competition changing to assuage sore losers (hello Schellas!) at the expense of its own ability to survive, so in that regard it’d be interesting to see just how much the bidding process really contributes to the organization.

And Straus’ source seems to be someone not happy with USSF, so who knows whether any proposal to replace the bid system gets past Mr. Gulati. Any proposal would require USSF to come up with additional funding…do you REALLY think they’ll do that?

While the bid system actually works in favor of the popularity of the tournament, I think the idea to put all 16 of MLS’ US clubs is great, and it’s about time. In fact, add more levels to the USOC proper (to replace all of the “play-ins” required to get every level down to 8) and make it happen!

I agree that this change is definitely influenced by the Sounders taking it seriously, dominating the past three years and raising the profile of the tournament. I just hope other teams will promote the USOC when do get to host games through say a random draw
.

as the reason we can submit such stellar bids.

But all rounds except the Final are at Starfire, which never provides enough seats to meet demand. Our early round games are intentionally restricted in terms of attendance. Other clubs in other cities in other venues could draw more without too much effort, maybe, probably. OK, some cities would require significant effort.

Do “they” mean that our MLS attendance brings in so much cash that we can overbid on those early games, despite a small gate?

I’m all for a change and added transparency. I’d love to know what makes one bid more compelling than another.

Sounds like US Soccer is ready to revamp the USOC just like MLS revamped the playoffs! Can’t wait!

Had RSL beat Dallas in the Quarterfinal the Semi-Final would have been in Rio Tinto, so we don’t have the stranglehold as well as this article writes. We didn’t host the championship in 2009. And Dallas has Pizza Hut Park for a Semi-Final and we only have 4000 seat Starfire, how come they didn’t out bid us?

The bidding process was used as the only way to finance the tournament, and even though some minor league teams have to go to MLS stadiums they still get money for that. And until this year we had to go to the Minor League teams stadium, Portland because they outbid us.

In fact the bidding process actually bennefits minor league teams more then it does the MLS teams until the semi-finals. Minor league teams are guranteed to sell out or get more people then normal when the MLS team comes to town, this means they can bid a higher amount to host the match. The MLS team lets say Chivas, can’t say they could even get 2000 out for a secondary tournament against the a minor league team. Remember the Richmond Kickers beat Kansas City in their brand new stadium and was in fact the first team to ever beat Kansas City in Livestrong (I believe that was before the Sounders win.)

I don’t mind having to play the earlier rounds, but I don’t think the US Open Cup Final has reached that point where we can gurantee a huge crowd in a random draw for hometeams as say the MLS Cup Final. I always find that quoting how old the tournament is, is just clutching for reasons to convince people to accept it as more prestigous. I don’t care if other teams don’t want to take it serious, we do, so don’t be surprised when the trophies come this one. And is it really that big of a shock that the team that cares the most about the tournament won it again? Should we change the tests are administered because the student that studied the most received the best grade?

What really is fair ?

Seattle fans care the most, so they get to watch the most. That sounds fair.
USOC makes the most money having the games in Seattle, so they are in Seattle. That sounds fair.

I am being snide, but seriously, what do the people complaining want the USOC to do.
The USOC just saw 1/2 of a million dollars for the final.

There is a reason the BCS isn’t at all a national championship it is about $$$$$$.

I almost expect a similar process, but geared toward making even more money.