Match Thread: Voyageurs Cup - Quarter-Final - Pacific v York United - May 24, 2022

[narduch]

So York are the only CPL team to make the semis

[ted]

14 hours ago, narduch said:

So York are the only CPL team to make the semis

MLS supporters will claim the natural order has been restored. LOL

[narduch]

1 minute ago, ted said:

MLS supporters will claim the natural order has been restored. LOL

All it took was Vancouver to get their shit together 

[Watchmen]

21 minutes ago, ted said:

MLS supporters will claim the natural order has been restored. LOL

Well, it's more that the sample size has started to grow. Two of the better CPL teams got to play one of the worst and disorganized MLS teams twice early. And that team is still disorganized, but has now won twice against the CPL.  It's like the Whitecaps and Impact in USL doing well against TFC - the top of CPL and bottom of MLS might be closer but the league average is still some distance apart.

[Kingston]

On 5/25/2022 at 5:41 PM, Lurker said:

1. Play a single match in the lower leagues home stadium.  These generate higher attendance/revenue,

That's not what the data from this tournament support.  When D3 teams host CPL teams the attendance, while high by D3 standards, is lower than CPL attendances.  When MLS teams host CPL teams the attendance, while low by MLS standards, is higher than CPL attendances.  If you want to maximize attendance/revenue, you should actually host in the higher league's home stadium.

Edited May 30, 2022 by Kingston

[Unnamed Trialist]

1 hour ago, Kingston said:

That's not what the data from this tournament support.  When D3 teams host CPL teams the attendance, while high by D3 standards, is lower than CPL attendances.  When MLS teams host CPL teams the attendance, while low by MLS standards, is higher than CPL attendances.  If you want to maximize attendance/revenue, you should actually host in the higher league's home stadium.

Boy did you ever skew that. 

Apart from being wrong, because the weakest crowd imaginable in a big stadium is basically pointless, even if it is bigger than the rival's best attendance.

We are clearly talking about maximising revenue and attendance for the lower division team; the policy would be proactive and massively help grow the game by letting all rivals see MLS teams in early rounds.

If they want to do a pure draw come semis, that would seem fine. And a home and away final, also fine with it.

[Kingston]

1 hour ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Boy did you ever skew that. 

Apart from being wrong, because the weakest crowd imaginable in a big stadium is basically pointless, even if it is bigger than the rival's best attendance.

The initial statement I quoted stated that playing in the stadium of the lower league's team would "generate higher attendance/revenue".  I merely pointed out that the data show that the opposite is actually true - playing in the stadium of the higher league's team results in larger crowds and therefore presumably higher revenue.  

I'm not skewing anything or suggesting there wouldn't be other advantages to going with the lower league's stadium.  There certainly are other advantages.  Numerical facts are still numerical facts, however.

[Unnamed Trialist]

57 minutes ago, Kingston said:

The initial statement I quoted stated that playing in the stadium of the lower league's team would "generate higher attendance/revenue".  I merely pointed out that the data show that the opposite is actually true - playing in the stadium of the higher league's team results in larger crowds and therefore presumably higher revenue.  

I'm not skewing anything or suggesting there wouldn't be other advantages to going with the lower league's stadium.  There certainly are other advantages.  Numerical facts are still numerical facts, however.

Not if the cost of opening a large stadium and its services to a small crowd is taken into account. 

Not if a more modest team spends a massively higher % of its budget to travel with minimal compensation. 

Not if a smaller team can charge significantly more for a ticket precisely if they are hosting a MLS side, countering the mere numerical argument. 

Not if viewing audiences are much less interested in seeing empty seats and the bigger side with a home advantage. As are advertisers less interested in Goliath smashes David narratives. 

Not if the rule makes it look like the CSA is protecting the MLS teams and thus altering the integrity of the competition. 

Numerical facts aren't if you don't want to analyse them. 

[Kingston]

42 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Not if the cost of opening a large stadium and its services to a small crowd is taken into account. 

I don't think any of us know what those are so they are hard to discuss.  But I doubt, say, 10 000 at BMO is any worse that, say, 3000 at IG Field.

46 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Not if a more modest team spends a massively higher % of its budget to travel with minimal compensation. 

I've often wondered if/how the CSA organizes revenue sharing for this tournament now that the games are single elimination.  I haven't been able to find anything on it.  Do you happen to have any information on that?

As for a small team struggling with travel - yes, long ago (on other boards) many of us discussed how this would be an obstacle to expanding the tournament, especially for D3 teams.  

Having the smaller team host would therefore be a big benefit for the smaller team - it still doesn't mean that that maximizes attendance and revenue for the tournament.

50 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Not if a smaller team can charge significantly more for a ticket precisely if they are hosting a MLS side, countering the mere numerical argument. 

I haven't checked all the ticket prices.  The ones I have, however, still show the MLS ticket prices as higher than the other teams.

51 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Not if viewing audiences are much less interested in seeing empty seats and the bigger side with a home advantage. As are advertisers less interested in Goliath smashes David narratives. 

You raise some good, additional points in favour of the smaller team hosting.  But I didn't say anything about viewership or advertizers, just that the larger teams have bigger crowds.

53 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Not if the rule makes it look like the CSA is protecting the MLS teams and thus altering the integrity of the competition. 

How is a random draw to decide the home team protecting anyone?  It is literally the most even handed way to arrange a single game knock out short of a neutral venue.

The proposal to favour the smaller teams with home dates would alter the integrity of the competition, not flipping coins to decide the hosts.  Now maybe you want to do that, which is a valid opinion.  And you've advanced some reasons as to why the CSA might want to.  But maybe giving fans of all teams an even chance at a home game is also a valid approach.

1 hour ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Numerical facts aren't if you don't want to analyse them. 

I'm happy to analyze any numerical facts you want to raise.  That's part of what these boards are for, after all.  The single numerical fact I raised - without any value judgement attached - was that larger teams have proven to draw bigger crowds and therefore presumably produce more revenue.  I'm not sure why that has apparently upset you.