It's time to do away with blind bidding and MLS qualification, as well as making more games available to more people and giving the final a permanent home.
Aug 31, 2011 - It's that time of year again when pundits like me starting explaining to everyone how the U.S. Open Cup is a great tournament but needs some serious fixing. Well, until USSF actually gets the message and goes about fixing it, we're going to continue to write about it. Hope you don't mind.
The simplest and most straight-forward part of the process that needs to happen is for USSF to get rid of the ridiculous bidding process that allows certain teams to play virtually every match at home. The fact that a team like DC United can host 11 straight home games is an absolute competitive atrocity. There seems to be little reason behind the bidding process other than it allows USSF to ensure a little extra money ends up in their pockets.
What's involved in the bidding process you ask? Well, at the start of the tournament each team is given a multi-page document that lays out the basics such as stadium size and jersey colors. Along with that is a bid form that includes information like expected attendance, whether or not the game will be on radio or televised and, most controversially, how much money the team is willing to guarantee the federation. This is where all kinds of potential shenanigans can happen.
SB Nation has learned the bids for third-round games are often at least in the tens of thousands of dollars, and bids in the later rounds can be substantially more. The kicker? Even MLS teams don't know how much the other teams are bidding and never learn. For teams that actually want to win the tournament -- and more and more teams seem to be figuring out that at the very least this is the path of least resistance to the CONCACAF Champions League -- there are really no limits to how much they might be willing to spend.
Take the Seattle Sounders, for instance. Although they've gone on the road at least once each of the past two years, they will host their third round and quarterfinal matches this season. Unlike many teams, they have the ability to host at two different facilities and can cater their bid accordingly. If they believe their semifinal opponent -- say Real Salt Lake -- might put in a strong bid and would potentially be a solid draw, they can offer to open up CenturyLink Field the way they did for last year's Open Cup final. Almost no team in the league can compete with that bid, as the Sounders would be able to guarantee a much larger crowd than virtually any other team.
It should go without saying that this offers some pretty significant advantages. While I don't blame any team for trying to get whatever competitive advantage they can, USSF should not be encouraging that kind of behavior the way the current system does.
A more reasonable way to determine which team hosts would be to have a simple draw. Lots of leagues use draws to determine hosts, so this should be nothing new. If a team ends up winning 11 straight draw, great. But it's better than having it determined by which team was willing to pay more. It should go without saying that these draws should be public to guard against accusations of malfeasance. The one catch should be this: There should be a minimum stadium standard and teams should be allowed to decline the right to host.
What differentiates the Open Cup from virtually every other tournament in the United States is that it's one of the only places where you can see teams from different levels compete for a common prize. Even in college sports where teams from different divisions play one another, it's never for the same championship.
The USSF should embrace this unique feature by expanding the tournament in order to allow all 16 U.S.-based MLS teams automatic entry. That this already doesn't happen is, perhaps, the hardest aspect of the tournament to understand. As it currently stands, the tournament consists of 40 teams -- eight from MLS and 32 from various other leagues. Rather than eliminating spots that currently go to these lower leagues, simply add eight spots in the tournament.
As it is now, the first round would continue to consist of the 32 lower-division teams playing against one another. Those 16 winners would then be placed into one of eight roughly geographic regions (to limit travel), along with the 16 MLS teams. Each of regions would consist of two MLS teams and two lower-division teams. The matchups would then be determined by lottery.
The obvious upside to this is more games featuring minnows and sharks, and thus more opportunities to see things like the Richmond Kickers upsetting the Columbus Crew. While there was a time in the not-so-distant past that MLS teams wanted to limit this kind of potential embarrassment, it's time we move beyond that. So a lower-division team goes on a Cinderella run ala the 1999 Rochester Rhinos and wins the whole thing. Would any serious observers really believe that makes MLS look worse? Detractors of the league already have their reasons.
Considering some MLS teams already play as many as three extra games just to qualify for the tournament, there should be almost no effect on fixture congestion, as this only adds one match to each team's schedule.
Currently, the only match that's guaranteed to be on TV -- even locally -- is the final. For MLS or USSF to demand that every match be televised is probably unrealistic. But there's no reason that as part of the national team TV package that USSF couldn't require the network to host a Game of the Round. Even if it's relegated to a channel like Fox Soccer or ESPNU, it would be a huge improvement over the current situation.
Similarly, there doesn't seem to be a good reason why MLS doesn't make all Open Cup webcasts available through MLSSoccer.com. The league's site currently takes an oddly hands-off approach to the tournament, not even listing the schedule on its front page, while making room for the Gold Cup and, more oddly, the Nutrilite Canadian Championship.
Last year, when the Sounders hosted the final, we saw how great the atmosphere could be. As much as I'd like to see every final be played in Seattle, though, I realize that it's neither practical nor fair to give the Open Cup final a permanent home in one of the country's most remote locations.
The Open Cup final deserves a permanent home, but it should be someplace reasonably accessible to every team in the country. It should also be a state-of-the-art facility, and an ownership interested in growing the game. You probably know where I'm going with this...
Make Livestrong Sporting Park the permanent host of the Open Cup final. Like the people of Omaha, Neb. have embraced the College World Series, I have no doubt that local will flock to this annual game to see our national soccer championship played in the proper venue. Maybe make it part of a larger celebration of soccer. Do the Hall of Fame induction ceremony at the same time. Have the respective academy teams face off. Blow it out.
Each one of these suggestions, I feel are relatively simple and should come at a minimal cost. Taken individually, I think each one has the potential to inject new life into a tournament that truly deserves it.
16 comments
Jeremiah Oshan:
U.S. Open Cup Needs A Facelift - Here's How
16
Jun 30
2
Aug 31
Comments
I like
While I can get on board with all the other suggestions, I think the permanent location is premature. The response in KC to their wonderful facility has been great, but I don’t think there’s many places in the center of the country that will turn out as neutrals and make for a proper atmosphere that would interest TV cameras and give the Cup its proper recognition.
I like the idea of it happening eventually, but might take a while.
by Derek Young on Jun 30, 2011 3:08 PM EDT reply actions
Suggestion
I would also suggest that the first round of games with MLS teams should automatically be played at the lower league team’s home stadium like the do in the German Cup.
1. It would provide a nice payday for the lower league clubs who desperately need it, promoting grassroots soccer.
2. It would presumably promote the MLS team to another market that isn’t too far from them as generally the teams are drawn to geographically similar opponents, I.E. you have FC Dallas playing in Austin/San Antonio/Louisana etc…
3. It would just be a lot of fun to force the MLS teams who can afford to travel to have to play at the lower league sides.
www.bigdsoccer.com
-SB Nation Dallas/Ft. Worth-
-FC Dallas-
by Daniel Robertson on Jun 30, 2011 3:11 PM EDT reply actions
Sounders-Kitsap
I thought that would have been brilliant if we’d done that for the Seattle/Kitsap match. The West Sound gets a big soccer event, the Sounders have the potential to attract some new fans and so does the PDL side. Wins all around, unless of course the Sounders lose. :)
by Derek Young on Jun 30, 2011 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Personally
I traveled to Charleston for the FCD vs Charleston USOC match in 2008 and it was a fantastic time.
Seems way better for Dallas to travel to Orlando and spread their brand, sell merchandise etc…in front of a bumper crowd than to host them at PHP in front of 2,000 people.
www.bigdsoccer.com
-SB Nation Dallas/Ft. Worth-
-FC Dallas-
by Daniel Robertson on Jun 30, 2011 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Rave Green Ferry Ride
I was hoping for that too and to have the Rave Green marching through Bremerton on their way to the match would have been brilliant.
Is it wrong to stand for 90 minutes in your living room during away games?
by v_twinsam on Aug 31, 2011 6:43 PM EDT via iPhone app up reply actions
Brilliant idea
Like Joshua’s, simple, elegant, almost no cost. Love it.
by Threeball on Jun 30, 2011 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Also
Would there be anything wrong with including college soccer sides, other than it not being aligned with their usual schedule? It would be another fun aspect, adding in amateur teams like these. UW versus Kitsap versus Sounders etc.
by Agent_J on Jun 30, 2011 4:32 PM EDT reply actions
Couple problems
1. there’s no shortage of amateur teams in the tournametn
2. dates don’t coincide with college season
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jun 30, 2011 8:33 PM EDT up reply actions
College teams
could probably enter regional tournaments to decide amateur sides.
The players might have to get together to do it on their own.
by Cornchops on Jul 1, 2011 12:03 AM EDT up reply actions
The Wembley of the US.
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 6:26 PM EDT reply actions
Other problem
Rose Bowl is hardly centrally located and there’s no reason to believe SoCal fans would turn out as neutrals.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jun 30, 2011 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Rose Bowl does seem like a natural choice
or RFK if they ever get a modernization or whole new stadium. But LSP is central and beautiful.
by Threeball on Jun 30, 2011 6:58 PM EDT reply actions
I agree
Livestrong makes a good choice for the final. I’ve thought for years they should renovate RFK to make it as soccer friendly as possible, and make it our “national stadium”. It could host US Open Cup semis and final, the MLS Cup final, CONCACAF final (which really should be a neutral site one off and not a home and home [and could rotate between RFK and Mexico City])
I can’t figure out if TV is unrealistic or now. Fox Soccer hasn’t exactly gone bonkers for MLS matches, but it does send crews out to cover USL and WPL matches. I don’t get their business model at all.
Didn’t know about this bidding process. That has to go.
LAG Confidential / SBNLA / Pop Bunker
by Josie Becker on Jun 30, 2011 7:27 PM EDT reply actions
usl and wpl pay for the broadcasts, i believe
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jun 30, 2011 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with all the ideas
except the final stadium one….I just dont see how with a country the size of a continent we can have one stadium for our national team. I also like the idea of the final being at the home of one team, how this would be decided I dont know, but I enjoyed watching it in seattle last year, and hope to again this year. Also the Rose bowl doesnt give us a “home advantage” for our national team, we saw that this year, and LSP isnt big enough for national team games
A sky of blue, a sea of green...(or claret)
by kelliott1527 on Jul 2, 2011 1:51 PM EDT reply actions
MLS and USSF coverage
It frustrates me to no end that the cup barely ever gets mentioned. National blogs like Ives and people on SB nation have been talking about it for a few years, but it doesn’t get televised. I think a 98 year old competition deserves a little bit better.
I live in Rochester and I was an eight year old kid with season tickets when the Rhinos went on their rampage to the trophy in ‘99. I think we take the cup as serious as any club in America (we just have different resources than Seattle). All the home games this past season in USL Pro were on radio and local television broadcasts. There is absolutely no reason why cup matches can’t be, as well. USL provided most teams and NASL provided all teams (i think, maybe) with the technology to stream webcasts of their games. Again, this is a basic service that is just being ignored.
In the past few years, we’ve definitely seen MLS teams take the cup more seriously (except for the NY Red Bulls; what a joke). This is a promising trend, but let’s pick up the pace. I watched the Sounders webcast of the game in Tukwila against Dallas, that match was a great showcase of American soccer and should no doubt have been broadcast on national television.
by coys_from_wny on Sep 2, 2011 12:38 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed