A Better Bid Process: The Bid-Weighted Lottery

Would a weighted lottery like the NBA's
be more fair in determining whether a
team is home or on the road

Note: This is a re-post from about a year ago from my old (now lesser used) personal blog and is an edited version of a piece that focused on the processes behind Open Cup and league playoff (removed) host bidding... 

There is often a lot of hullabaloo over the bidding process for US Open Cup matches. Publicly, the controversy over the decisions in awarding these events and the accompanying home field advantage has traditionally been hot for the US Open Cup fixtures as witnessed by the drama and mudslinging between DC United and the Seattle Sounders [in 2009] prior to the tournament final.

The current policies utilized by US Soccer create a very subjective process that in no way resembles the concept of fair play. Around the world draws are used to determine match hosts in tournament competitions, but the realities of the American soccer business make that impractical.

However, that does not mean lotteries, seeding and financial factors cannot be brought together.

A better concept to consider is that a weighted lottery process for determining match hosts should be adopted. As will be detailed below, this new idea would allow for both the important financial health of the tournament events to remain a top concern while also creating not only some randomness to the selections, but more importantly, fairness to an extremely subjective bidding process.

Having worked for United Soccer Leagues for over 10 years and another three years with a USL Premier Development League team, I am fully aware of the difficulties involved in selecting a ‘winning’ bid and the positive and negative feelings associated with being on the team’s end of those decisions. It is not in the least bit fun. In regards to league playoff host selections, sometimes I was involved in the evaluation process of the bids; sometimes I wasn’t. The one thing I can honestly say is that more often than not, there is no clear right choice and not everybody involved was in agreement. And I couldn’t even hazard a guess at how many angry phone calls from team executives I overheard as they berated the league directors after being notified of the decision. And if the allegedly aggrieved team had a poor experience on or off the field, you were assured of a second salvo. Believe me, being in the governing organization’s position is a no-win scenario.

This biggest problem with the bidding process is that often times bids are very close to one another and you are literally splitting hairs on which is better on paper or making prognostications on which team will fulfill their proposal better. In the US Open Cup, US Soccer has to weigh the bottom line versus a perceived value in a lower division team playing host to a match. The financials tend to typically win out as the tournament is costly and the effort to minimize the event's financial losses are the overriding concern. The more you can reduce the costs of travel and collect revenue from the host, the further the designated travel pool will extend. In an ideal world, you would like the top seed to host, but you can’t ignore the bottom line. If a team is in a hard-to-reach location you are out of luck or need to show plenty of green to counter the travel scenarios.

In the US Open Cup, the debate has no more public of a symbol than DC United. The 2009 decision surrounding the host of the tournament Final, which ultimately featured the Seattle Sounders and DC United was the impetus that brought an issue long debated behind the scenes to the forefront. United has been the center of a lot of the controversy in recent years as they have not traveled since losing in Harrisburg in 2007, receiving hosting honors against clubs very capable of being the home side such as Seattle, Charleston, Harrisburg, Ocean City, Richmond, and Rochester.

After discussing above the current process and the controversy, the following is about the solution.

Here it is, acquire 10 balls for a draw. Then for each hosting scenario - determined by geography as it is now, - weight the bids on a ratio of 1-10 between the two clubs, so long as both put forth the minimum hosting requirements. If the two bids are extremely competitive, then they both get five balls in the pot for the draw. If one meets the minimum and the other bid is far superior, then give the better bid nine balls in the pot.

For the US Open Cup, this creates at least an opportunity for the smaller clubs with fewer resources the opportunity to be able to host the contest, even if it is just 10 percent.

More importantly, it takes the narrow subjective decisions out of the equation as the bids that are comparable will now have fair chance at being drawn instead of being selected based on some singular criteria in the bid. It also evens the playing field in situations where the bid evaluators are trying to weigh cash guarantees versus potential gate revenue or ‘trade-out’ values such as hotels, meals and travel provisions provided, a scenario that has allegedly fallen in favor of the guarantees more often than not.

The process will never be completely transparent as bid details are not going to be released publicly, but in the end, if a team’s ball is or isn’t drawn, at least there was some fate involved and not some random decision made by an individual (or small group) who has not seen a single minute of their season or ever visited their office/stadium.

The detractors, mostly those at the governing organizations, will say this creates a situation in which the financial health of the competition is put at jeopardy. I would counter that it would do the opposite.

Clubs will no longer be able to ‘allegedly’ use backroom influence to sway decisions and would have to put forth maximum bids. MLS clubs desperate not to travel will have to increase their bids to ensure a greater disparity from the counterpart’s bid in order to receive more balls in the draw. A lower division club, who previously expected not to win a bid against a higher level opponent under the current format will now be more inclined to increase their bids to improve their odds in the draw. In the end, the water level on the bids will rise.

Now, I realize comparing bids in a four-team situation is a lot of work, and the crazy scenarios listed out each week when the US Open Cup host scenarios are announced are a testament to that. But, if the competition’s governing body so chooses, they can increase the ball number, to say 20, and just select one ‘winner’ out of an entire foursome based on the bids and continue selecting to determine the order per the match scenarios.

And as far as the media are concerned, the weighted lottery is actually not a new concept. The NBA draft order for the first three selections has utilized a weighted lottery since 1990 and is a separate annually televised event held approximately a month before the draft itself.

A nice bonus is that the draw itself can now be turned into a media event with the lottery actually  shown live or on delay via video... something done with many of the top tournaments around the world such as FIFA World Cups, UEFA Championship, UEFA Champions League, England's FA Cup and the CONCACAF Champions League. 

-