Half the country down, half to go...
With the announcement of a May 23 friendly in Tennessee, the Volunteer state becomes the 25th out of 50 to host an official US national team match.
I find it interesting that a state of Ohio's population didn't host a game until Crew Stadium was built. Also, why did Georgia get a game so early? You'll notice that the last six states are all red states (aka Republican) who voted for Bush in the previous two elections.
Out of the 25 states on the list, only four don't rank in the top 25 population wise (Oregon-28, Connecticut-29, Utah-34, New Mexico-36). Tennessee was the second highest without a game until last week's announcement. The most populous state that hasn't hosted a game is Indiana, followed by Minnesota, Louisiana, and Kentucky. The following states are the ones who haven't hosted a game with population rank.
It will probably be a long time before we can cross off some of these states. But for others, it should happen in the next ten or twenty years. The quality of stadiums is an important factor as well as population. None of the states remaining have an MLS team, so future expansion to one of them would probably lead to a USA game. Minnesota and Oklahoma could fit that description.
Hawaii should get a game eventually. The DC-LA friendly there got a decent number of fans IIRC, and it would be a nice post-MLS season friendly (probably against Japan). As the southern states start to get more into soccer, they could come into play because they have the population and infrastructure.
The New England states are screwed because Foxborough gets all the games, so ME/NH/RI/VT all get left out.
I would love to see a game in Alaska just to screw the opposition in World Cup qualifying, but we're actually getting to the point where we're too good to have to worry about it.