A Gold Cup Fully Hosted by Us (no A)

[Shway]

3 minutes ago, ted said:

I highlighted the last line here because it is crucial to the, "no one else does it" argument. With few exceptions (China in 2004 being an example) none of these tournaments have been played in countries approaching our size. The World Cup in Russia had huge distances and had to work hard to overcome this issue.

The thing is, the issue is simple to overcome but spineless organizers give in to whiners (like me) who want the "home" team to be everywhere. The solution is simply to organize the tournament into 4 provinces (BC, AB, ON, PQ) with two stadiums/cities each:
Group stage: two stadiums (ie. Vancouver & Victoria, Edmonton & Calgary, etc)
First Knock-out: games played between adjacent groups (ie. the two above)
Quarterfinals: one in each province with half the teams travelling
Semifinals & Finals: biggest stadiums regardless of location.

And yes, this solution would mean that most of Canada would not get to attend CMNT games for the bulk of the tournament but so long as they switched to the other side for the Semis and final I'd be willing to take my lumps. Not everyone gets to attend a live match.

Maybe I’m being ignorant, but part of my suggestion to have the group stages  localized around ON & PQ is because of the massive demographics of the cities.

Reason why I didn’t suggest the western provinces. I know MTL has a lot of Haitians, I know Toronto has a lot of Jamaicans, Guyanese, Trinis.  

For example the amount of El Salvadorans I saw in Toronto when the borders were closed, I was ignorantly shocked.  So my thinking is if its “easy” to travel too, it makes it easier not only for residents to get to, but also people travelling from down south. That’s where the game packaging comes in vs doing double headers. 

I think in order for a GC to be successful in Canada it has to be regionalized. 

[Obinna]

21 minutes ago, Shway said:

Maybe I’m being ignorant, but part of my suggestion to have the group stages  localized around ON & PQ is because of the massive demographics of the cities.

Reason why I didn’t suggest the western provinces. I know MTL has a lot of Haitians, I know Toronto has a lot of Jamaicans, Guyanese, Trinis.  

For example the amount of El Salvadorans I saw in Toronto when the borders were closed, I was ignorantly shocked.  So my thinking is if its “easy” to travel too, it makes it easier not only for residents to get to, but also people travelling from down south. That’s where the game packaging comes in vs doing double headers. 

I think in order for a GC to be successful in Canada it has to be regionalized. 

I don't know how much of this comes into play in the covid government restriction reality, but the advantage of ON/PQ is the proximinty to major American population centers such as New York (20M), Boston (6M), Detroit (4M) and Chicago (9M), so the potential catchment area is massive. You could leverage Seattle (4M) and Portland (2M)  by hosting in Vancouver, but also Calgary (1M) and Edmonton (1M). Smaller scale but would work well enough. The only western population centers in Canada that would be negleted would be Winnipeg and Sask, as I doubt many people would be travlling east or west from those places.

Edited February 4, 2022 by Obinna

[MtlMario]

Not to bring politics into this but the separatists here do not like PQ (PROVINCE of Quebec) they want QC because according to them Quebec is a nation not a province. Ok back to our regularly scheduled program.😆

[Obinna]

How about this:

1 city per group, 3 groups in Canada, 1 in the USA, all knockouts in the USA. 

Montreal: Haiti, Canada, Martinique, USA

Toronto: Costa Rica, Jamaica, Suriname, Guadeloupe

Vancouver: Honduras, Panama, Grenada, Qatar

San Jose: Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, T&T

QF: LA x 2, Philidelphia x 2

SF: Phoenix, Atlanta

F: Houston

Games in Canada - 18

Games in USA - 13

As you can see, there's an attempt to keep travel and time zones as consistent as possible, with teams having roughly the same amount of travel.

[Cblake]

14 minutes ago, Obinna said:

I don't know how much of this comes into play in the covid government restriction reality, but the advantage of ON/PQ is the proximinty to major American population centers such as New York (20M), Boston (6M), Detroit (4M) and Chicago (9M), so the potential catchment area is massive. You could leverage Seattle (4M) and Portland (2M)  by hosting in Vancouver, but also Calgary (1M) and Edmonton (1M). Smaller scale but would work well enough. The only western population centers in Canada that would be negleted would be Winnipeg and Sask, as I doubt many people would be travlling east or west from those places.

With the the introduction of discount carriers now, it is pretty cheap to travel with this country. I did Toronto to Edmonton for the Mexico game for $120 return. I think if you are very strategic in where you place games, especially if you did move away from the double headers.  Would you leave Mexico out west in Vancouver/Edmonton for instance to play in the big venues? El Salvador in the east makes sense as many would travel from the DC area for these games? There is a lot to think about here and how you approach it. 

[Cblake]

2 minutes ago, Obinna said:

How about this:

1 city per group, 3 groups in Canada, 1 in the USA, all knockouts in the USA. 

Montreal: Haiti, Canada, Martinique, USA

Toronto: Costa Rica, Jamaica, Suriname, Guadeloupe

Vancouver: Honduras, Panama, Grenada, Qatar

San Jose: Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, T&T

QF: LA x 2, Philidelphia x 2

SF: Phoenix, Atlanta

F: Houston

Games in Canada - 18

Games in USA - 13

As you can see, there's an attempt to keep travel and time zones as consistent as possible, with teams having roughly the same amount of travel.

I think the format really depends on the group make up. I also like the areas in the US where you have the two stadium options because you can decide on venue based on demand. For instances you could play in the Bay Area using both the 49ers and Quakes stadiums. I am just not sure about moving away from double headers as there would be added costs of having a venue for a game that might draw at all?

[Obinna]

3 minutes ago, Cblake said:

With the the introduction of discount carriers now, it is pretty cheap to travel with this country. I did Toronto to Edmonton for the Mexico game for $120 return. I think if you are very strategic in where you place games, especially if you did move away from the double headers.  Would you leave Mexico out west in Vancouver/Edmonton for instance to play in the big venues? El Salvador in the east makes sense as many would travel from the DC area for these games? There is a lot to think about here and how you approach it. 

With that post I was specifically thinking about how many Americans will cross the border given the restrictions, but that aside yes travel within Canada for those allowed to go on a plane is very cheap, which is a plus for sure. 

As for El Salvador, yes the DMV is a very good location for them, but their diaspora population is so large now that it doesn't really matter. It's like Mexico, sure the best place for them is LA, just as DC would probably be for the Salvadorians, but you can basically put Mexico anywhere in the USA and draw well. EL Salvador is probably in that category now. 

[Obinna]

2 minutes ago, Cblake said:

I think the format really depends on the group make up. I also like the areas in the US where you have the two stadium options because you can decide on venue based on demand. For instances you could play in the Bay Area using both the 49ers and Quakes stadiums. I am just not sure about moving away from double headers as there would be added costs of having a venue for a game that might draw at all?

Agreed. I don't think they move away from double headers. I guess with my suggestion you could still do that, although I am unsure they'd have one city per group, it may be 3 in that case:

Montreal/Ottawa/Toronto

Detroit/Chicago/Indianapolis

Vancouver/Seattle/Portland

Sacremento/San Fransico/La

Then I would change the LA QF location to Las Vegas.

[Cblake]

Just now, Obinna said:

With that post I was specifically thinking about how many Americans will cross the border given the restrictions, but that aside yes travel within Canada for those allowed to go on a plane is very cheap, which is a plus for sure. 

As for El Salvador, yes the DMV is a very good location for them, but their diaspora population is so large now that it doesn't really matter. It's like Mexico, sure the best place for them is LA, just as DC would probably be for the Salvadorians, but you can basically put Mexico anywhere in the USA and draw well. EL Salvador is probably in that category now. 

Yes absolutely , an El Salvador match in Toronto or any where, especially in the east with a wide open border will draw many in from the US. I think I would be in favour of some easy travel rather than leaving a group in one place. Some of it in my eyes would be if Canada and the US were in the same group, that would play a part in deciding where to place games.

[ted]

1 hour ago, Shway said:

I think in order for a GC to be successful in Canada it has to be regionalized. 

We agree on that which is why my suggestion is regionalized.

[Kingston]

4 hours ago, Metro said:

Regarding the US, what I have always wondered is why haven't players or coaches said to the USSF, "hey guys, maybe the reason we struggle in away WC qualifiers is due to the lack of playing in hostile environments in other occasions like the Gold Cup."  I think have heard only Kristian Jack raise this question and NO American pundit.

Because they want to win, I guess.  Over the past decade or so the US appears to be a co-equal leader in CONCACAF with Mexico.  The US is good by CONCACAF standards but if they didn't get to play most of the important games at home, I think Mexico would have much better record in things like the Gold Cup and Nations League.

 

4 hours ago, Metro said:

And its not like all of the group stage doubleheaders are sell outs in the US.  Would CONCACAF really take a major hit if it was held in Canada?

No, it wouldn't.  And while the money needs to be there to support the tournament, it shouldn't just be about the most money.  Canada (or Mexico) would easily generate enough to make it worth while.

[Kingston]

1 hour ago, MtlMario said:

Not to bring politics into this but the separatists here do not like PQ 

So you're saying we should use PQ whenever possible?  Got it.

[TGAA_Star]

3 hours ago, Obinna said:

How about this:

1 city per group, 3 groups in Canada, 1 in the USA, all knockouts in the USA. 

Montreal: Haiti, Canada, Martinique, USA

Toronto: Costa Rica, Jamaica, Suriname, Guadeloupe

Vancouver: Honduras, Panama, Grenada, Qatar

San Jose: Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, T&T

QF: LA x 2, Philidelphia x 2

SF: Phoenix, Atlanta

F: Houston

Games in Canada - 18

Games in USA - 13

As you can see, there's an attempt to keep travel and time zones as consistent as possible, with teams having roughly the same amount of travel.

This is a perfect balance 

[Shway]

3 hours ago, Obinna said:

How about this:

1 city per group, 3 groups in Canada, 1 in the USA, all knockouts in the USA. 

Montreal: Haiti, Canada, Martinique, USA

Toronto: Costa Rica, Jamaica, Suriname, Guadeloupe

Vancouver: Honduras, Panama, Grenada, Qatar

San Jose: Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, T&T

QF: LA x 2, Philidelphia x 2

SF: Phoenix, Atlanta

F: Houston

Games in Canada - 18

Games in USA - 13

As you can see, there's an attempt to keep travel and time zones as consistent as possible, with teams having roughly the same amount of travel.

Vancouver would have low attendance’s. Would have to do triple headers based on the teams and the demographics of Vancouver. 

[Califax]

I feel the artificial turf might be the big sticking point.  (sorry if it's been mentioned before.) That and the money that Mexico generates. 

If we bribe the region, I think we have good shot. 

 

But I agree, we should at least make them say no. 

[VinceA]

I asked Victor this directly a few years ago. Never gonna happen.

[ted]

22 minutes ago, Shway said:

Vancouver would have low attendance’s. Would have to do triple headers based on the teams and the demographics of Vancouver. 

WTF do you get that? 

And here I thought you were being honest and rational but all along you are just prejudiced against BC/Vancouver? 

[Cblake]

A couple years ago they split the semi-final and started to host them separately  because the US and Mexico were on separate sides of the bracket and it was decided that more money would be made. Mexico greats the big crowds. As some have said maybe hosting a group would be something to strive for.  You could also try and include a QF in such an endeavour. 

[Cblake]

5 minutes ago, ted said:

WTF do you get that? 

And here I thought you were being honest and rational but all along you are just prejudiced against BC/Vancouver? 

I do not think it something directed at Vancouver, its just that would anyone really go to a Panama Granada match, but I think it would be an issue anywhere. 

[ted]

5 minutes ago, Cblake said:

I do not think it something directed at Vancouver...

WTF are you talking about?!?

He literally wrote, "Vancouver would have low attendance’s. Would have to do triple headers based on the teams and the demographics of Vancouver. "

How is that NOT directed at Vancouver?!?!

[Obinna]

40 minutes ago, Shway said:

Vancouver would have low attendance’s. Would have to do triple headers based on the teams and the demographics of Vancouver. 

Yeah I do think Vancouver was the weak link for that exercise.

First of all, I wanted to keep the groups the same as the actual GC in 2021. I could have tailored them to make it most ideal, but I felt that working with what was available would be more realistic.

Secondly, I debated swapping the San Jose group with the Vancouver group because first of all, I think Mexicans, Salvadorians and possibly even Guatemalans would make the trip north from Seattle and Portland, maybe even California. That would leave the Panama, Honduras group to San Jose, which would probably show better than in Vancouver, but then you're not really maximizing the potential of Northern California if you don't play Mexico and El Salvador there. 

That said, I do think Vancouver would have enough demographic pull with Seattle, Portland, Calgary and Edmonton (combined 9M) within travel distance, plus Vancouver and surrounding areas is close to 3M people, but you're right it would have to have the right teams. You're probably not going to travel from any of those cities if you're a neutral and none of those cities have large Panamanian, Honduran, Qatari, or Trini populations.

Like I said in the above though, put Mexico and El Salvador in Vancouver and you likely get travelling Mexicans and Salvadorians, even from as far away as Calgary and Edmonton, and for sure from Seattle and Portland, border restrictions not withstanding. 

Edited February 4, 2022 by Obinna

[Shway]

1 hour ago, Cblake said:

I do not think it something directed at Vancouver, its just that would anyone really go to a Panama Granada match, but I think it would be an issue anywhere. 

@ted

My whole point was made on the basis of demographics. If you think the argument is the same for Toronto vs Vancouver, I implore you to educate me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Metro_Vancouver
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Montreal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Toronto

I think Panama vs Grenada at smaller venue in Toronto would draw a lot better than it would in Vancouver. 

I don't doubt Vancouver would do very well for Canada, USA, and Mexico....outside of them not likely. And thats solely based on the demographics discussion. 

I don't know if you were at the games in Toronto for the El Salvador game or the others...but I know we wouldn't have seen the amount of local visitors supporting  El Salvadorans at BC Place. 

For me it's about the overall optics, it wasn't meant to downplay the beautiful city of Vancouver, or their ability to support Canada...just my idea on the overall feasibility, and it being possible based on utilizing the most populous and most diverse provinces in the country.  

 

 

Edited February 4, 2022 by Shway

[Shway]

46 minutes ago, Obinna said:

Yeah I do think Vancouver was the weak link for that exercise.

First of all, I wanted to keep the groups the same as the actual GC in 2021. I could have tailored them to make it most ideal, but I felt that working with what was available would be more realistic.

Secondly, I debated swapping the San Jose group with the Vancouver group because first of all, I think Mexicans, Salvadorians and possibly even Guatemalans would make the trip north from Seattle and Portland, maybe even California. That would leave the Panama, Honduras group to San Jose, which would probably show better than in Vancouver, but then you're not really maximizing the potential of Northern California if you don't play Mexico and El Salvador there. 

That said, I do think Vancouver would have enough demographic pull with Seattle, Portland, Calgary and Edmonton (combined 9M) within travel distance, plus Vancouver and surrounding areas is close to 3M people, but you're right it would have to have the right teams. You're probably not going to travel from any of those cities if you're a neutral and none of those cities have large Panamanian, Honduran, Qatari, or Trini populations.

Like I said in the above though, put Mexico and El Salvador in Vancouver and you likely get travelling Mexicans and Salvadorians, even from as far away as Calgary and Edmonton, and for sure from Seattle and Portland, border restrictions not withstanding. 

Demographic doesn't solely mean the amount of people. But who and where those people have migrated from. 

Demographic speaks to diversity. 
 

[Obinna]

36 minutes ago, Shway said:

Demographic doesn't solely mean the amount of people. But who and where those people have migrated from. 

Demographic speaks to diversity. 
 

Of course, and I understand this. That's why I mentioned that Vancouver would be challenging with a group of Honduras, Panama, Granada and Qatar:

1 hour ago, Obinna said:

Yeah I do think Vancouver was the weak link for that exercise.

That said, I do think Vancouver would have enough demographic pull with Seattle, Portland, Calgary and Edmonton (combined 9M) within travel distance, plus Vancouver and surrounding areas is close to 3M people, but you're right it would have to have the right teams. You're probably not going to travel from any of those cities if you're a neutral and none of those cities have large Panamanian, Honduran, Qatari, or Trini populations.

 

 

37 minutes ago, Shway said:

I think Panama vs Grenada at smaller venue in Toronto would draw a lot better than it would in Vancouver. 

I don't doubt Vancouver would do very well for Canada, USA, and Mexico....outside of them not likely. And thats solely based on the demographics discussion. 

1. I agree, Toronto would indeed to better.

2. For sure Vancouver would do well for Canada, USA and Mexico.

3. I'd like to think we all want to ease up on hand-picking teams to play in certain cities based on demographics, because that's what makes this tournament micky mouse. There is a financial reality to consider, so it'll have to be done to a certain extent. You'd want to maximize profits by putting teams like Haiti in NYC (or Montreal), or Jamaica in Toronto, for example. That said, I don't think it's realistic to theorize an idealistic group of Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala for Los Angeles, because that's basically just fantasy, know what I am saying?

4. If we want any games on the west coast of Canada (or arguably even in the PNW at large), we'll have to admit the demographics are not ideal. I am not sure this means Vancouver couldn't host and do a good job, but it would arguably require the right balance of teams.  

5. I do think balancing things out geographically is important, that's why I suggested 2 groups in the east (MTL/TOR) and 2 groups in the west (VAN/SJ). This makes the travel less difficult and you avoid crossing time zones. 

Edited February 5, 2022 by Obinna

[CanadianSoccerFan]

1 hour ago, VinceA said:

I asked Victor this directly a few years ago. Never gonna happen.

True story

Relevant part is at 32:50.  

Pretty clear we will host a group and/or some games but it will not be the whole tournament.