Stupid WC Bid City choices

I'm pissed about the list of 18 cities that the WC Bid Committee chose to include in it's bid for 2018 or 2022.

See the list here

http://www.gousabid.com/blog/entry/18-c ... n=20100112

Here are my main complaints:
1) Cleveland, Chicago, & Detroit were among the last cities eliminated. One of them should have been included, preferrably Chicago which is a truly awesome city.
2)You dont need both DC and Baltimore. Eliminate one and choose some non upper easst coast locale.
3)San Diego, boy do they struggle to describe their soccer legacy. It's beach soccer I think. I imagine Phoenix's legacy is even more lame.
4) Too many hot cities for a summer evernt - Atlanta, Houston, Tampa, Miami, Dallas and Pheonix. Someone is going to die. I wouldnt have any of those cities as hosts. Let them host all the MLS cups

 

I agree with Mo that the Northern midwest just got shat upon in the process but I am stoked to see both Indy and Nashville on the venue list. Two locations within a three hour drive is my best ever scenario for seeing matches. The only way it could get any better for me is if St. Louis made the list too.

 

No Chicago is the biggest shocker to me, otherwise I don't mind the list.

 

Looks like your typical "east coast bias" to me but otherwise the only surprise is Indy in, Chicago out. Nashville has been gaining momentum, especially with their last qualifying showing. I suspect this comes down to stadiums more than anything though. You've got fancy new digs in most of those locations (not sure about KC and SD).

 

That is a shocker. What up with no Chi-Town?

 

No San Francisco is another surprise. If you were looking for a global microcosm in one city and its surrounding suburbs, no place else compares.

 

Re: RE: Stupid WC Bid City choices

WB- No surprise here. We don't have a suitable venue.
The Stick is an armpit with a small field & almost zero transit and Stanford is great but too small now... :?

 

Why wasn't the bay area not included? They have a damn good transportation system which has to be considered when talking about host cities. Plus, SF is a beautiful city. Makes no sense.


I like the Miami pick. While it might be hot, the fans are going to have a fun time on south beach. Might have to ore order some plane tickets and plan a vacation.

 

I am also surprised that Chicago was left off

 

No Chicago and no SF/OAK are a surprise too, but more so with Chicago because, as my esteemed neighbor pointed out, the stadia around here isn't top class. Candlestick is _ _ _ _ and some genius designed it with TWO primary areas of ingress and egress (excluding the water option, if you so have the means...). Berkeley's Memorial Stadium isn't easily accessible for anybody but campus residents. The Coliseum could work b/c of accessibility, but it's probably 'too small.' Stanford has accommodated large events in the past and would be the only real option, but it's also too small and old.

Still, no Chicago? Considering the city's American-awesomeness and incumbent political might, I find it hard to believe it was dropped. Soldier Field is rather new and has handled matches in the past - I guess the criteria is 75K+ capacity these days?

All things considered, is any U.S. city that remains going to do anything but showcase and promote a top notch event? No chance; we'll go all out. So, as long as the U.S. gets the bid, I don't really care where it's held.

COYW

 

I'm also baffled that Chicago didn't make the cut. I can't wrap my head around that.

I didn't think St. Louis had a real shot at it. The dome here in St. Louis is nothing special. I'm shocked KC is on the list considering the Wizards have trouble filling seats in a minor league baseball stadium.

If for some reason we do get the world cup at least I'll have a few places within a few hours drive.

 

Sounds like Mayor Daley didn't do a lot to help out Chicago.

http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2010/01/1 ... gle+Reader

 

It's not an East Coast bias, it's a case of "we don't want to force the fans to have to fly everywhere". There is a good rail link between the East Coast cities and all have at least decent public transportation. It would be possible for fans to fly into one of the cities and never have to rent a car or fly while attending games in all of them.

Chicago didn't make the cut partially because their stadium is too small. Soldier Field only holds 61000 while the smallest of those selected holds 69000 (and that may be replaced or upgraded by 2022). There are no plans to upgrade or replace Soldier Field.

As for the hot venues, many of them have retractable roofs, climate control, and other amenities to keep them suitable for World Cup play.

Honestly, Chicago has no one to blame but themselves for their exclusion.

 

The US Soccer Federation is headquartered in Chicago. You'd think that alone would make it a lock. As for the size of Soldier Field, I'm not sure why that would be a deciding factor. I don't have time to google it now, but I'm sure many of the WC matches in South Africa and back in 2006 in Germany were/will be in stadia with capacities of less than 60K. TV rights generate the majority of the revenue...selling an extra 20K tickets would not greatly impact the bottom line of a World Cup.

I'm disappointed. Chicago is a $25 train ride away, and I love visiting there. Took my sons for a "soccer weekend" two summers ago...saw a Fire game at Toyota Park on a Saturday night, and then on Sunday afternoon went to a friendly between Barcelona and Chivas in Soldier Field. Had a blast, and it was just an MLS game and friendly...can't imagine how great a WC match would be.

 

The US Soccer Federation is headquartered in Chicago. You'd think that alone would make it a lock. As for the size of Soldier Field, I'm not sure why that would be a deciding factor. I don't have time to google it now, but I'm sure many of the WC matches in South Africa and back in 2006 in Germany were/will be in stadia with capacities of less than 60K. TV rights generate the majority of the revenue...selling an extra 20K tickets would not greatly impact the bottom line of a World Cup.

I'm disappointed. Chicago is a $25 train ride away, and I love visiting there. Took my sons for a "soccer weekend" two summers ago...saw a Fire game at Toyota Park on a Saturday night, and then on Sunday afternoon went to a friendly between Barcelona and Chivas in Soldier Field. Had a blast, and it was just an MLS game and friendly...can't imagine how great a WC match would be.

 

As the '94 WC showed, these matches will be sellouts no matter if the community supports soccer or not. Americans love big events and having a state of the art facility/and or a large seating capacity is more important than having a MLS team.

If Stanford hadn't re-done their stadium to reduce it from 80k to 50k I'm sure they would have gotten the nod ahead of an aging Jack Murphy in San Diego (it will always be the Murph to me, not whatever corporate name it goes by now).

Phoenix is an engineering marvel, with a grass field that is taken care of on a daily basis outside the stadium and brought indoors (the entire field, not sections at a time) for events on a giant conveyor. Add to the fact (like Houston) that it will be 72 degrees for all games makes it an obvious choice.

Soldier field is another state of the art facility, but since they wanted to keep the historic columns and re-build on the same site the seating capacity is the ultimate downfall (I agree w/JP that this should not be the deciding factor). No offense to Nashville or Kansas City, but it's a shame for visiting fans not to get a chance to be staying in one of, if not the greatest city in America.

Miami in the summer? 95 degrees with 90% humidity? brutal.

 

Seating DOES matter. One of the reasons the '94 world cup still stands as the most financially successful (to FIFA) of all time is due to the seating capacity. We don't have tradition to draw on, we can't draw upon quick and easy access to other core nations - THE draw for the USA is that we can put more butts in seats than everyone else. The top three reasons for FIFA to pick the USA are Money, $$$, and Donero.

 

'dinero'

Still, the site cities beggar belief. Are they just trying to attract 'Mad Dogs and Englishmen'?
{That's a subtle referential statement.}