Does the Gold Cup need to represent something very different for the United States to finally shed the shackles of mediocrity?

A tournament which is supposed to present the best of the region as a winner has costly attributes at stake. There is pride to consider when attempting to conquer your area of the world, which consequently turns into a chance to compete in the Confederations Cup. Both are potentially overrated rewards if the main objective is to evolve the national soccer product, using the World Cup as the ultimate ruler.

Constantly slamming your head against pride in a tournament which has only been won by one other nation, once, besides the United States and Mexico is shallow justification for inefficiency. The goal is to beat Mexico and win the tournament, and the two are often synonymous, anyway.

By this we are measuring ourselves in our ability to get to the Gold Cup final and to beat Mexico, and therefore are using the CONCACAF field and Mexican national team as our measuring sticks. These very comparisons are the handcuffs with which we bind our expectations.

Although CONCACAF is improving its international impact, it is obvious that the expectations of the United States have outgrown the region’s and we need to act as such.

The options of competitions based on geography and international soccer schedules are limited. We compete in the Gold Cup because of our location and that is our burden to treat as we wish. We must utilize it differently than other nations whose aspirations are similar, but competitions – UEFA European Cup and Copa America – are stiffer.

Pride must be the element at risk if the United States is to compete at the highest level, and it might be the hardest to qualify and minimize. If we can’t change our competitive situation, then we must adapt the significance we place on tournaments based on the competitive situation.

The recent United States managers who have coached in the Gold Cup have displayed two distinct tendencies when approaching the tournament pre and post World Cup. Bruce Arena and Bob Bradley both used pre World Cup-Gold Cup tournaments as an opportunity to bloody fresh faces, test shapes and foster chemistry amongst a very small contingent of their known commodities. Their post World Cup-Gold Cup tournaments have been used to either redeem poor World Cup showings, to satisfy the public with a facade of success, or as an attempt to guarantee more silverware. In both of these feeble attempts at evolution, the rosters and starting teams offered often had many players who had just featured in the World Cup the previous year within the very same formations.

Maybe the Gold Cup should be a tournament of introductions and mass experimentation, no matter the relation to the World Cup. Winning the Gold Cup lulls the public into a trance of stability and progress; the same public that calls for the manager’s job if he doesn’t bring back the ‘Gold Cup’ to the United States.

Tinker Jurgen. Tinker with all of your might in search of progress. Allow for young expression in the face of hostile, foreign opposition and let the identity of the United States soccer grow. The public that demand this trophy or your head smells of the rot that remains from old Confederations Cup victories and Bruce Arena’s bellybutton lint.