US Open Cup home purchases devalue cup magic - but no more than ever

If you were to ask me today how crow tastes, I'd be a little wary of answering, as I discovered it last night. Before today, I'd probably have said something rather nonsensical: "It tastes a bit like satisfaction and a lot like defeat." You know, some nondescript. Today, though? It doesn't really taste like anything. Surprise, surprise.

Why might I have the taste of crow in my mouth? Well, I tweeted the following out:

You know, it's really hard to praise the US Open Cup for "the magic of the cup" when you can buy your home match after the draw.

— Matt Montgomery (@TheCrossbarRSL) May 23, 2012

The club announced shortly after that, why, we've just done the same thing and bought Minnesota's hosting rights from them (if that is indeed the right terminology to use). Before that, the side was set to travel to that city with some lakes around it, but afterward, why, we get to see our side play at home. Not only does it increase our chances of winning (though I don't suspect they were particularly bad), it gives our fans a chance to see more of the squad in a meaningful match.

Now, here's where the crow comes in. (Caw! Oh, I slay me.) Despite my complaint about others doing this same thing — Seattle, Portland (sort of) the two culprits — I can't help but smile that we've done it too. Sure, there's that "even footing" thing, and there's the "it's in the rules" thing, but the thing for me? That "I want to watch another home match" thing.

Here's the thing: I like home matches. I like home matches quite a lot, even. I'm not the only one. No, by far am I not the only one. I think we all love them more than we perhaps should for being rational animals, though that's not me complaining about it — not by a long shot. Home matches mean a lot to the supporters, a lot to the players, and a lot to everyone running the club. The money's not brilliant for this sort of match, sure, but there's more than finances to be considered.

But back to that crow. I maintain what I said before we knew: This sort of thing dilutes the magic of the cup. You know, that much-vaunted (and much used-in-commercials) "magic of the cup" you hear about when people start talking about things like the FA Cup. You know, where the giants can be slain by the Davidian (not of the Branch variety, mind) clubs (not that they usually do, of course, but that's a different story). That magic. I love that magic. Even when I'd rather the bigger club win, I love the magic — the tension, the impetus, the drive. You don't get those so readily when you can buy out the home match.

Still, there's a cup to be won, and if we've got the chance to do something like this, we really should be taking it. There's nothing immoral or unethical about it, particularly — it's just that, in a way, I'd rather it wasn't a possibility. But you know what else I'd rather? I'd rather every team in the US Open Cup had suitable facilities for a match against a top-division side. I wish the quality of lower league sides were such that things like relegation and promote weren't just the subject of vast conspiracy theories (not conspiracies, mind) and griping about how the U.S. isn't conforming (where's the value in that, anyway?) I wish every club could afford to pay top players what they deserve to be paid. But you know? Those things aren't yet possible.

I'd love the magic of the cup to be something that draws more than a scant few thousand fans to watch their club play. You will recall that last year, some of our fellow MLS sides drew tiny crowds. You'll also recall that a certain New York Red Bulls basically surrendered their position in the cup — Hans Backe still rightly draws criticism for his handling of the cup last year. Those things, to my mind, devalued the cup more than any home  arrangement can.

Right, 'til tomorrow, when I'll take on the injury mini-crisis that's struck our club and break out what that could mean for some of our less-used players.