Comments on: Denver and DSG Park as U.S. World Cup qualifier site; anyone got a problem with that?

By: tylerbetts

tylerbetts — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:56:58 +0000

I care a lot more about what the manager and the players say about playing a big time National Team game at Sporting Park than I care about the history of where we played our qualifiers in the past. If the National Team stopped raving about the edge they get in Columbus from the fans, I’d be heart broken, but I’d stop advocating to have it as a permahost. Creating a home field advantage is much, much more important than history.

By: wfjackson3

wfjackson3 — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:38:42 +0000

Well considering our stadium has only been open for 18 months, that is true. But its viability before the current cycle isn’t really the point. Eventually we will have hosted a big game. Still, the USMNT players and coaches raved about the facility and atmosphere at the game here.

The thing that I don’t understand about this decision is the weather component. I think Denver would be best suited to a summer or late fall game as it is much cooler than other options. Still, I don’t know anything about their stadium or gameday atmosphere. Is it any good?

By: pensfan603

pensfan603 — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:28:32 +0000

THis is the stadium i thought gave them the most home field advantage. Climate wise no other team is ready for this especially with the high altitude, plus you can help build the US Soccer Market by playing here. I think for those two reasons its good to pick.
On a side Note when the Us lose in Jamaica they complained, but did not blame the lose on the amount of marijuana being smoked at the stadium saying it hurt there playing ability, with marijuana being legalized in Colorado maybe they wont have that problem when they go down to Jamaica as they will already be use to it.

By: drewvt6

drewvt6 — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 05:30:57 +0000

Think back to BIG USA games. Now look at the following list, which one does not fit?
New England, Columbus, DC, KC

…if you guessed, KC you’d be right. Up till this cycle it was never worth considering a qualifier in KC.

By: charliej11

charliej11 — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 02:27:36 +0000

SEAAAAAAaaaaattle !

Glad Denver got this one. Denver is the biggest home field advantage (outside of Seattle)….if you are acclimated.

By: Steve Davis

Steve Davis — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 23:35:12 +0000

Well, I meant that within the context of the considerations listed above. So, yes, a venue such as KC is “weighted,” so to speak, in the balance.

By: tylerbetts

tylerbetts — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 22:10:33 +0000

You had me until the last line. No community should feel any more entitlted to a match?

I almost agree with that. Except … there are some communities that have already started to become part of the American “big match” environment. Those communities are entitled to a match in every cycle. Basically, for now, that’s Columbus and Kansas City. Not because I say so. Not even because history says so. But because the players and the manager says so.

Beyond that, yes. US Soccer should spread games around. Put them in parts of the country that have a thriving MLS team. Put them in parts of the country that have a thriving soccer culture but no MLS team. And not just friendlies and B-list Gold Cups. Put qualifiers everywhere that you want to grow the game in America. As long as there’s an airport, fans like me will show up and give you a home field advantage.