WEEKLY WHINE

61*

We here at GoobNet would like to retract last week’s Weekly Whine. We have deleted it and replaced it with a substitute Whine.

If you view it now, you may notice that it appears very similar to the old one. In fact it is, because it is completely identical.

You see, last week we ranked the 61 American stadiums that have expressed interest in being host venues for the 2018 or 2022 Men’s World Cups, which the United States is bidding to host. But for some reason, many of you disagreed with some or all of the rankings. It is difficult to comprehend how anyone could find fault with our wise counsel, but nonetheless, we have decided to open up the GoobNet Mailbox and provide a forum for all of you who actually thought that you had interesting and valuable insights. Just remember not to get any of the mail on your hands. If you do, notify us immediately so that we can quarantine you and run away before you realise what is going on.

How can you possibly rank Camp Randall Stadium 46th? What does the Edward Jones Dome or Invesco Field have that the Badgers’ stadium doesn’t?

– John Walker Marksworth
Madison, WI

Well, Invesco Field has real grass, and the Edward Jones Dome has enough room for a football pitch. Furthermore, both the Denver and St Louis metropolitan areas have stuff to do.

Why would you possibly rank the Rose Bowl 18th and the LA Coliseum 32nd? The Rose Bowl hosted the championship game of the World Cup in 1994, and it and the Coliseum both regularly host UCLA and USC games that have more people than a World Cup game.

– Brian Rouge
Century City, CA, USA

Los Angeles is undoubtedly an excellent place to host Men’s World Cup matches, or any sort of international event. It does have one major problem in that both of the large stadiums in the LA metropolitan area are old and not up to present day standards. For instance, both are configured as bowls, which means that those at the top can see nothing whatsoever. The first seventeen venues in our rankings all have deck configurations instead.

Do you have some kind of problem with Indianapolis? Lucas Oil Stadium, with its retractable roof, retractable window, and large capacity, is obviously a great place for a World Cup game. We’ll show you. We’ll host an awesome World Cup game, and you’ll regret everything you said about us.

– Jack M Peck
Clermont, IN

Really? Everything that we said about Indianapolis thus far amounts to “20”. If you would like us to say something you think that we should regret, here it is: Lucas Oil Stadium has an unsuitable artificial surface that is not large enough to fit a football pitch. Therefore, if it was to host a Men’s World Cup match, the pitch would have to be replaced, and some of the seats would have to be removed. We ask you: Why should a venue that requires these changes be selected when most of the venues that we ranked ahead of it, such as University of Phoenix Stadium, can be used without any change?

I have difficulty understanding your rankings of the proposed hosts for the 2018 or 2022 World Cup in the US. The three stadiums with capacities of 100,000 or more rank no higher than 27th. Why would you not want the largest stadiums possible for the World Cup?

– Kyla Mabrinski
Columbus, OH, USA

In the case of Ohio Stadium and Neyland Stadium, it’s because they are situated in small metropolitan areas that are obviously not up to the challenge of flying in one hundred thousand international guests, putting them up in hotels, transporting them to the stadium on match day, and flying them back out the day after the match. In the case of Michigan Stadium, it’s because of two previously mentioned problems: it is in the bowl configuration, and it does not have enough room for a football pitch.

Oakland Coliseum is last in your rankings? Really? What is wrong with you?

– Al Fontaine
Daly City, CA, USA

Perhaps you should ask what is wrong with Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum. If you are having difficulty coming up with some ideas, here are some. The fact that it is also a baseball stadium means that the A’s will have to go on a long road trip during the tournament. Whilst they are away, the pitch, especially the infield, will have to be resurfaced. The seats will have to be rearranged to the Raiders’ configuration, and even then they still won’t be suitable for a football match, as many of the seats are simply pointing in the wrong direction. It is, after all, the only current MLB stadium other than the Metrodome and Dolphin Stadium on the list, and those are in rectangular configurations that are more suitable for football.

Why would you rank RFK Stadium second last? It is, after all, the home of DC United, and it has been a venue for the Men’s and Women’s World Cups. Its soccer pedigree is unchallenged.

– Ron Barbry
Alexandria, VA, USA

Its pedigree is unchallenged, yes. But its present is totally challenged. RFK suffers from one of the same problems as Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, in that many of the seats are pointing in the wrong direction. In our judgment, that was the largest negative that a stadium could have, even worse than not having enough room for a football pitch. Seats can always be removed, after all, but they can not be twisted around.

I noted that you tended to rank stadiums in smaller cities lower. What was the reason for this?

– Tanya Schaumbert
Provo, UT, USA

You will note that we took into account the surrounding metropolitan market. We did so by envisioning the following scenario: On the day of the draw for the 2018 Men’s World Cup, when a given team discovers its group opponents and the venues of those matches, will the players and supporters be saying, “Awesome! We’re going to Fayetteville, AR!”, or will they be saying, “We’re going to Fayetteville, AR? Where the fuck is that?”?

What do you have against Fayetteville, Arkansas? We look forward to welcoming the world. International visitors should be excited to visit our area and its attractions, such as Beaver Lake and the Wal-Mart Visitor Center.

– Boyd Unsumore
Fayetteville, AR, USA

Of course they should.