Wherein I fix the U.S. Open Cup. You’re welcome.

You almost assuredly did … if you like the soccer and you live in the Seattle. Or in the Columbus.

Otherwise … probably not so much.

So we arrive at the annual question that buzzes around and annoys the U.S. Open Cup: why can’t the little guy ever get the girl? Why can’t this little gem of a soccer tournament elbow its way into the national sports conversation?

It’s a nice little tournament, right? Shouldn’t it get just a little more love from fans and media? Or is this just where the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup is destined to fall in the national awareness?

Here are five ways, in no particular order, I’d suggest to amplify awareness. (FYI: before we get started, please understand that these will all be reasonable suggestions, none along the thoughtless, breathless oft-repeated lines of “market the tournament better!” That’s a little like discussing how to improve a soccer team and beginning with the unimaginative suggestion of “win more games!”)

Get a corporate sponsor: U.S. Soccer is set up as a support vehicle for the game. It’s not really set up to be a marketing machine. That’s not a criticism. I’m set up to be a writer; I’m not set up to be an attorney, so if you don’t want me representing you in court, I won’t take offense.

But major corporations devote many a cubicle to marketing and PR types, and they rely significantly on partners to help “tell their story.” So, would the 3M Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup really be so distasteful? Not for me. How about the Aetna Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup? Such a corporate partnership would bring new audiences into awareness and add ideas on how to spread the word in general.

(Four more, after the break ...)

Better yet: How about, after the earliest rounds, just play home-and-away series? Yes, more matches would increase the summer match congestion. But that’s just part of the deal, and that’s why rosters are expanding next year for MLS clubs.

More matches equals more exposure. Of course, it also adds to operating expenses, so this might be a loss leader. It might not make sense in the long run, but it might be worth a try.

If home-and-away isn’t possible, how about this: Most MLS sides are introduced into the competition in the Round 16. This year, all eight matches in that round featured MLS sides against sides from U.S. Soccer’s lower tiers. Six of those contests were held in MLS cities. And the results? MLS sides went 5-1.

Upsets drive this tournament. So why not just give the lower tier teams the edge? Give them right to host the game. If the MLS side can manage a draw, they go back to big stadium inside the mean ol’ big city and get the opportunity to show the minnow a proper ass whuppin. Or not. But why not give the lower tier sides a more sporting chance? You know, give the wild game a hunting rifle and make it more of a fair fight!

Increase prize money: This one comes closest to the simple-solution syndrome: “Show me the simplest solution to a complex problem and I’ll show you the wrong solution.”

But in this case, I’d defend this suggestion as just part of the solution. And I think it might resonate.

The prize money this year is $100,000 for the winners and $50,000 for the runner-up. By adding something to the pot, teams might take the competition more seriously. (And too many MLS sides still don’t take it seriously … or at the least, they don’t prioritize it.) If the players have a big financial incentive, they’ll encourage their clubs to take the darn thing seriously.

How much would it take? Perhaps $250,000 for the winner. Even if the club takes half, that’s 4-large for each player on a 30-man roster. Not bad. How about this … Can U.S. Soccer and a corporate sponsor (probably through an insurance underwriter) create a bonus for the “Double?” That is, another $500,000 for the club that wins the MLS Cup and the U.S. Open Cup? Now that’s incentive.

Establish a permanent home for the final: The model here is the way the NCAA baseball championship has developed a relationship with Omaha, Neb. NCAA baseball is huge there. Yes, it would take a few years to cultivate this relationship, but once it took you might really have something special.

If the venue were, say, St. Louis – given the development of a proper stadium – you would have teams talking annually about “getting to St. Louis.” It would also deny a home-field advantage in the final like we have tonight in Seattle. If the tournament really is going to be taken seriously, you can’t have a final at a home ground – especially one chosen not on competitive merit, but in a secretive bid process. That just screams “small time.”