Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Soccer Board' started by Poe Dameron, Dec 25, 2016.
None of the host cities are going to be using MLS stadiums so they aren't getting like free upgrades or anything. Stupid conspiracy.
And even if they were, the stadiums would need to be upped to 40k capacity. And lower division clubs can't fill those and can't afford to maintain them. It'd be monumentally stupid.
So you think the only infrastructure benefits are stadium related? You guys are really naive.
Honestly, this is exactly what is wrong with US Soccer. Obviously, you guys are peasants, but people in power have the same opinions. As long as it benefits me, who cares about the growth of the sport nationwide. SUM thanks you.
what city are you upset was left out?
That's definitely not what I said at all.
Youre doing a lot of whining about other cities instead of just explaining why you think Gary or Indianapolis should be one of the 10 host cities
The decision isnt even close to being finalized yet. Would wait before melting down.
Well, Atlanta will be.
A lot of these votes are just embarrassing. Is there a similar list for the Qatar World Cup?
Nope. No transparency for that vote.
GARY IS A HOTBED OF SOCCER TALENT JUST WAITING TO BE TAPPED
Mainly large Midwestern cities not even making the second cut. It's a little ridiculous. But oh well.
like who? Indy? Cleveland?
you really think MLS is the reason they were cut?
What other midwestern cities are large outside Chicago that pulled out? Detroit is the largest with the busiest airport and do you really think a dome in Det should get a game?
yea, I'm not sure where his gripe is. Chicago and Minny pulled out voluntarily. Indy and Cleveland didn't even make the first cut. Detroit is really the only city that meets his criteria and are we really upset Detroit isn't getting games?
Detroit was a host in 1994. Ppl had to expect there would be some new cities given a chance to host next time around. (Ignoring the merits of Detroit as a host city compared to the alternatives)
The head of the Indy bid claimed that the main reason they weren't picked was because they didn't have an MLS team
Minneapolis pulled out too. This won't be a popular take with you, but yes Ford Field is a more attractive venue than an outdoor venue in central florida for games in June and July, in my opinion.
Right, why didn't Indy, Cleveland make the first cut? Indy is a world class sports host and there is reason they will be the first northern host of the CFP. Why Cincinnati over Cleveland? But yes, I think the biggest dropped ball was Detroit, considering the cultural mix of the area.
Every city that hosted in 1994 has made the cut for 2026, except for Chicago and Detroit.
Also we can't pretend that our midsize cities can't host large events, especially in light of where world cup games have taken place in certain cities in Brazil and Russia. It's a ridiculous take. Even our midsize cities have accommodations and transportation networks that can handle it and would be better than somewhere like Foxborough. But, we must throw Bob Kraft his bone, right?
I'm perfectly fine with giving other cities a chance, but the common theme amongst the new cities is transparent, and it's MLS. It's been true for too long now that U.S. Soccer is picking winners and losers, to the detriment of the game everywhere that isn't an MLS city.
Indy has 22k hotel rooms in the entire county and its airport doesn't rank in the top 45 in the country for passengers and has very little international flights. They can't handle it.
Weird how this list here is basically the host list
Almost like hosting international sporting events is a whole different ballgame (I'm so sorry) than domestic sporting events with very different logistical needs.
There are cities in South Africa and Brazil that were able to host the world cup that don't hold a candle to what mid sized US cities have in terms of infrastructure/facilities/hotels/ect. Shit a city in Qatar is going to host games and it doesn't even exist yet. There's a big difference between saying a mid sized US city can't handle hosting a world cup game vs saying it wouldn't be one of the best choices. Pretty much any city with an NFL team could host a world cup game just as good or better then some of the cities in South Africa or Brazil.
This is true, but why should lesser options be selected? People get pissed at the corruption and bullshit of FIFA, yet want them to act in a manner that is consistent with what many bitch about (i.e. choosing lesser areas to host)?
your argument is retarded. if Indy can host a Super Bowl, it can host a few group games. there is constant turnover for the world cup, it's not like people are staying for a week. Indy's airport is also busier than at least one of the candidate cities and has more hotel rooms. But it's biggest asset is that it is centrally located and driveable from other metropolitan areas (chicago, detroit, louisville, cincinnati, cleveland, columbus, etc.) Regardless, your airport argument is trash, considering Detroit didn't make the list and Nashville, Cincinnati, and Kansas City did. and why not Charlotte over Nashville, if that were the case?
That being said, Cincinnati should be picked. It would be an excellent host city.
Lets calm down on calling Indy a world class sports host. You guys were smart and built a stadium with a roof, that's why you got a superbowl. Detroit and Minneapolis have hosted them as well and they've also hosted final fours just like Indy. All the other midwest cities were stupid and built outdoor stadiums that can't be used for much else besides football games. If Cincy, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Chicago Green Bay or KC had outdoor stadiums they would have hosted a super bowl at some point as well.
who says they are lesser? Orlando is an abomination of a city. There are cities that weren't picked that have a track record of being excellent sporting event hosts, in favor of cities that have a direct relationship with MLS or a region in which MLS has a team.
Yeah I'm not agreeing with Thoros's argument, just saying having been to Recife and Natal in Brazil those cities infrastructure don't hold a candle to most places in the US. I don't have any problem with the final list of potential host cities for this world cup but I do think one middle of the country city should get picked. It would be a dick move to a lot of the population if every host city was either on the coast or in the south.
I mean it is objectively a fantastic sports city and has an excellent track record and they were smart, yes. But I'm not making the case for Indy, because I think Detroit would be a better host for this sort of thing.
If you didn't live in close proximity to Indy, would you be making this argument?
it's a shame the two best candidates pulled out.
i spend more time in Detroit, Grand Rapids, and Chicago then I do in Indy, but yes I would make the same argument. They shouldn't neglect the cities that have excellent track records of hosting sporting events in an underserved region of the country. Hell they could have had the games in Ann Arbor, they wouldn't have needed to use Ford Field.
If it wasnt a joint bid then of course the midwest would get group games. Have to think KC lands one. Chicago and Minny shouldnt have pulled out though. I also agree Charlotte should have been an option, but that's purely for selfish reasons.
it's not really fair to say they shouldn't have pulled out when we don't know why they did, but whatever. And yes, Charlotte is an excellent host of sporting events and should have been chosen over Nashville.
I think part of the issue is that the US side of the bid used cities that have hosted an international game either in qualifiers or a friendly.
Columbus would have been an excellent host, playing at the horseshoe. I wonder why they weren't asked to bid.
Minny and Chicago pulled out because they could not agree to FIFA's terms. same with Vancouver.
Bringing up Chicago, ad nauseam is pointless. They removed themselves. I hate that decision. But talking about it is futile.
There is a difference between "can" host large events =/= best-stuied to host large events. North America has many attractive host city options (more than Brazil and Russia you cited), some better than others.
I would wait to complain about Kraft if/when his venue is selected again, as it was in 1994. It is not a lock.
Your argument would carry more weight if you were pounding pavement for places other than "Midwest". Where are you for Philadelphia, Boise, Fargo, Denver, Nashville, Honolulu, New Orleans, or Anchorage? What about the I-90/I-70 corridor derives such arrogance that it deserves an exemption over a better-suited host city? Were you this upset that the PNW, Rocky Mountains, Great Plains, and Southeast were all left off the table in 1994 (while the Midwest got 2 host cities). There are a lot of parts of the USA, more than just Ohio/Indiana/Michigan. Someone is bound to get left out when only 10 cities can host; which is what happened in 1994.
and apparently Phoenix. I assume it's as draconian as the NFL's terms
OSU making their stadium available for something like this would not be a simple process.
I thought Phoenix failed to make the cut.
I was 3 in 1994, but I bet I was pissed. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan isn't exactly a small part of the country (and it's also the best part of the country during the summer). And my argument would include places like Charlotte and Phoenix who are excellent hosts and yet, no dice.
you are being extremely closed-minded in your argument.
not really, for that time of year. I've worked on similar large event deals before for a large university
well i think they did, but they claim they withdrew
my argument is that excellent host cities are being left out in favor of cities and regions with relationships with MLS. that's my argument. how is that close-minded?
because you are ignoring the fact that the cities chosen are also very good host cities and arguably better than those left out.
all large universities are not the same.
College football stadiums won't work for FIFA as they require actual seats in their stadiums and not benches. Why the coliseum was allowed I don't know but it seems like everyone assumes the new LA NFL stadium will be the actual host and not the coliseum. Maybe they had to include the coliseum since the NFL stadium doesn't exist yet.
I went to the 2010 Final Four. Flew into Dayton, stayed in Carmel. Heard downtown Indianapolis is really nice and walkable, though.
i'm not saying they aren't good host cities, i'm saying that they favored because of their relationship with MLS and I think that's wrong.
Large events at stadiums don't tend to differ that much in terms. Maybe you know better about Ohio State than I do. But the Horseshoe already serves alcohol (which is usually the biggest headache)
I see no reason why KC should be picked. They ranked by far the worst of all the US cities in the FIFA report.
is the rose bowl still part bench?
It’s the Rose Bowl, not the Coliseum; the Rose Bowl has seat backs for about 2/3 of the stadium
I think you've cooked up a conspiracy in your head and are now doing the mental gymnastics required to explain it.
and Ohio Stadium wouldn't work as explained above.