Three Part Plan To Improve The US Open Cup

1- No More Bidding
2- Game of the Round on National TV
3- Permanent Home for Final (suggests Livestrong Park)

Give it a read, give us your thoughts

11 months ago Dave Clark 27 comments 1 recs |

Comments

Steve Davis had some similar ideas last year.

He was especially big on the idea of putting the final in a central location, though he suggested St. Louis as a good spot.

by The King of Norway on Jun 30, 2011 12:41 PM PDT reply actions

No stadium there though

And by all reports, Livestrong is a soccer palace

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Jun 30, 2011 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions

Not only for the obvious reasons, but also because it is, after all, the LAMAR HUNT US Open Cup. Being from KC originally I know how revered in both Missouri and Kansas the late Hunt was. He was as influential as anyone in the beginning phases of the MLS and also in the push for SSS, not to mention numerous other franchises in many different sports, including but not limited to the KC “Chefs” and Royals. I think it would be a great way to honor him as well as have the game in a consistent location.

by Zack Ryland on Jun 30, 2011 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

I like this

Put it in a non-MLS city that might rally around it as opposed to a city where it would be just another match between two teams that, in all likelihood, aren’t from there. It’s one of the reasons why Toronto couldn’t support MLS cup last season.

by Samuelson on Jun 30, 2011 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions

Toronto season ticket holders used MLS Cup as a symbol of their disgust with their own org

It wasn’t that they didn’t support the Cup, but that they wouldn’t support their Front Office

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Jun 30, 2011 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions

No.

What you’re talking about is a movement within their supporters groups, not their season ticket holders. Non-Toronto fans attending the cup complained about a lack of local visibility and marketing for the cup within Toronto.

Back to my point, a well-promoted final in a non-MLS city might draw more of an ‘event’ type of crowd than a final in a city that hosts 18-23 matches a year for a team that will likely not be in the final (think Orlando, St. Louis, or Atlanta).

That said, if USSF/SUM isn’t willing to put any muscle behind promoting the thing, having one of the finalists host it moving forward is probably the best bet from a local support point of view.

by Samuelson on Jun 30, 2011 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions

Not a fan of a permanent home for the final

The tournament’s just not popular enough at this point to justify holding it at a neutral site. If both teams are going to make a trip anyway, I’d rather have it be a 2-legged home-and-home final, with first leg decided by coin flip. Consider, for example, the hypothetical scenario where Portland and Seattle are playing in the final. Even though the tournament is likely to be held in high regard by fans of both clubs, I think at best you’d have 3-4K fans from each team travel to KC for the final, which would be a shame since you’d get 18K in Portland or 36K in Seattle (or both if you did home-and-home.) The best way to promote the tournament is to put it in front of more fans and having it at a neutral site runs counter to that goal.

I wonder how entry fees in the tournament work. It would be nice if the higher-revenue teams pitched in a little extra to help defray travel costs for lower-revenue teams. Considering that some teams wind up shelling out money on bids already, teams could overall wind up spending less money on this system and it would help lower division soccer, which is really the most important thing this tournament does.

by ubelmann on Jun 30, 2011 12:59 PM PDT reply actions 5 recs

I really like the idea of all MLS teams participating in the tournament proper

Rather than going through qualification. If nothing else, more MLS teams is going to mean more attention and probably a higher profile. NASL needs to be involved, too.

Ideally, I would say that NASL manages to come up with 8 US teams next year (probably unlikely, but a boy can dream.) So there would be 16 MLS teams, 8 NASL teams, and 32 lower teams. Split the MLS teams into a top 8 and a bottom 8 based on last season’s regular season standings.

First round: 32 lower teams play each other to reduce the field to 16.
Second round: Introduce bottom 8 MLS teams and the 8 NASL teams to face the remaining field of 16.
Third round: Second round winners play one another to reduce 16 to 8.
Fourth round: Introduce top 8 MLS teams to play remaining 8 teams.
Quarterfinals: 8 teams reduced to 4.
Semifinals: 4 reduced to 2.
Finals: 2 reduced to 1.

Another format which would be fun is to take the 16 MLS teams, 8 NASL teams, and bump the lower division teams to 40 (similar to what Jeremiah suggested.) With a 64-team field, you could split the field into regions and then have a completely random draw.

by ubelmann on Jun 30, 2011 1:20 PM PDT reply actions

Part 1...

…is why the Sounders currently have the last two cups. But you’re right that it should be eliminated.

Ultimately, there’s no money and no interest.

by Samuelson on Jun 30, 2011 1:43 PM PDT reply actions

We won the 2009 cup in DC

Nos Audietis

by sidereal on Jun 30, 2011 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions

How many other road games have the Sounders played?

by Samuelson on Jun 30, 2011 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions

At Portland in '09 and at Portland in '10

So of the 8 games in the USOC proper for 2009 and 2010, the Sounders have played 3 of 8 on the road, one less than half.

They did play both ‘09 qualification games at home, but I don’t have much sympathy for MLS teams not willing to bid for home field.

by ubelmann on Jun 30, 2011 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions

In '07 and '08 as a USL side...

…it looks like they were pretty aggressive about bidding for home field as well. In ’07, all 5 of their games were at home and in ’08 3 of 5 games were at home.

by ubelmann on Jun 30, 2011 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions

Bidding is kind of a proxy for attendance

Presumably teams that draw a lot will have more money to bid for home field. And it usually works out that way.

Nos Audietis

by sidereal on Jun 30, 2011 1:52 PM PDT reply actions

No, MLS teams won't outsell D2 or D3 teams when matched up

Kitsap would have sold thousands more than Seattle
Rochester v Chicago, etc.

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Jun 30, 2011 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions

Their stadium

holds only 5K so at best they could have sold a few hunded more than Starfire holds. I am guessing that while it would be a road game the sounders still would have been the team with more support even if held there.

Scoreboards, not billboards.
Regular season, not pre-season.

by lysander on Jun 30, 2011 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions

True

but look at USL Sounders v MLS in 07 and 08 to see how people will turnout for D2/D3 games v MLS

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Jun 30, 2011 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions

The Wembley of the US.

I posted this in the main article, but I thought the discussion seems more lively here.

I know it is a little harder in the US just because of pure geographical size, but I do like the idea of a national stadium. A place where cup finals, major national team games and playoffs are played. A place with a rich sense of history, not just for one team, but for the entirety of the sport in the nation. I grew up in Pasadena, so I am quite partial to the Rose Bowl, but this is the closest I can think of to that idea of Wembley. The small open cup final attendance might at first make the stadium seem cavernous, but the area has a large "neutral" audience that enjoys soccer, it is a locale with lots of entertainment options to build a vacation around the game, and as the idea of a soccer mecca grows, so too will the attendance.

by AdmiralAwesome on Jun 30, 2011 3:31 PM PDT reply actions

The Rose Bowl would never be a home game for the USMNT

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Jun 30, 2011 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions

The only chance the US has of playing a true home game is playing it in Canada

Nos Audietis

by sidereal on Jul 1, 2011 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions

I think I prefer limiting MLS teams in the tournament proper

because the more MLS teams are in it, the less the chance of a cinderella run, which to me, is part of the charm. The qualification process involves every team indirectly and gives exposure to teams that take it seriously.

by Threeball on Jun 30, 2011 4:06 PM PDT reply actions

Depends on the number of teams in the tournament and how you seed it

If it was a 64-team tournament with 16 MLS teams and you seeded it at random, then some MLS teams will face each other in the early rounds anyway, and you’d definitely get underdogs advancing through the tournament, especially since MLS sides are going to generally try to field the bare minimum team that will advance them to the next round.

The way it is now is about as stacked against Cinderella runs as possible, with every team required to face an MLS side in the third round and MLS teams able to buy home-field advantage for themselves. Also, the way it is now, MLS fans have little incentive to follow the first and second rounds of the tournament. If they have to start from the beginning with everyone else, then you start to learn more about other teams, and more importantly, you hopefully get MLS teams dropping into locations where there isn’t an MLS franchise, getting people in the doors the same way that the Sounders use the friendlies to get people in the doors. Having MLS teams play in non-MLS towns would be a great way both to get more of a national audience interested in MLS and to get an idea of where it might be good to expand next.

If you compared a 64-team USOC against a 64-team NCAA basketball tournament, the odds of a deep run by an underdog would be at least as large, if not larger, especially if you seeded the tournament randomly.

by ubelmann on Jun 30, 2011 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions

A Bracket with either 48 or 64 teams

would enable betting, which would be great for interest.

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Jun 30, 2011 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions

So Just to Add My $.02

1- Have a 48 team team single elimination bracket with MLS teams seeded in the 2nd round all 16 teams. Which will look like this. When we add 17+ USA teams in MLS have the bottom teams qualify. So 5 wins and you are they champion, so you are only adding 1 more game than the current format for MLS teams.

2- Locations have to be drawn at each round in the bracket. All gate revenue will be split 50-50. This will give teams incentive of promote games when they host. This will also help small teams cover travel costs to large teams. Seed East teams on one side of the bracket and West teams on the other side of the bracket and only draw East v East and West v West.

3- TV. Have a least one game a round televised on some form of national TV. Call it US Open Cup Game of the Week and treat it as a Flex Schedule so the broadcasting partner gets to choose which game it wants to air. Give this revenue to USSF to motivate them to highlight these games. Have it on ESPN, FSC, Galavision, GOLTV, Telefutera, whatever will allow them to maximize the eyes glued to the TV set.

4- Permanent Home. I think this is where you think outside the box. How about Chicago? How about Wrigley Field?

Can you imagine a better setting to host a 97yo competition? It’s centrally located and Chicago has shown to show up for big games in the past. What about MLB playoffs you ask. You can always move the date back to play after they are eliminated or for a deep run just have the game at Toyota Park.

What do you guys think?

by Colin Johnson on Jul 1, 2011 4:08 AM PDT reply actions

Can I imagine a better place?

Yes, one that’s designed for soccer. I agree with most your thoughts, since they are very similar to mine, but really don’t like the idea of hosting teh game anywhere that’s not built for soccer

Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter

by Jeremiah Oshan on Jul 1, 2011 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

Understandable

I just love Wrigley for the feel. Been twice and both times left with positive experiences, albeit they were cub games. I wish we had a site that had history and was soccer specific. I wouldn’t be opposed to rotating the final at neutral sites either.

by Colin Johnson on Jul 1, 2011 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions