That says less about the names than it says about you. The "Silverbacks" name has little to no appeal or value outside of the already existing fanbase. That's not really debatable. In its short existence, the team with that name has gone out of business (temporarily) and then had its controlling interest taken over to keep the same thing from happening again. As far as Chiefs go, if you can't "see" the problem with the name, you're deluded. The fact that the team owners are even considering the change in an era when other athletic teams are being boycotted and barred entry into conferences and tournaments for having similar names is mind boggling.
I had no intention of wading into this since I'm not from Atlanta, but this sentence says it all. I haven't followed this topic outside this thread; are we sure the team owners are behind this - or is this one of those lame BS rumors/ideas. If it is the owners........."mind boggling" is the expression.
Oh no. It's an official contest that's being promoted by the FO. Presumably they'll go with the fans' decision. Here's the link. (hoping for a write-in campaign, hoping for a write-in campaign, hoping for a write-in campaign)
REALLY? There actually have been protests over the Braves' name, but, like I said, there's history and inertia there (just like with Washington Redskins). The point is, that name has been attached to that team for a hundred years. If you try to establish a name with that imagery today, you are going to have issues. THAT'S what I couldn't believe you couldn't grasp. It's the difference between a name that has a century of tradition/establishment behind it and one that (though it was used for a brief period 35 years ago) would be essentially "new." You'd be naive to think it wouldn't raise protests, and not just in Atlanta.
Have you ever heard of Willie B? Really? Do you have any idea what the ******** you're talking about? Because, like I've always said, the very best judge of whether or not something is offensive is a white male of European descent.
The question is whether or not anyone outside of Atlanta or BigSoccer would notice if the Silverbacks changed their name even if was to something offensive. It's not like soccer & especially lower division soccer is really on anyones radar.
Except some people in this country just like to rail against stuff, even if it doesn't directly affect them. They see a cause (well-intentioned or not) and get in on it.
That is absolutely not the question. We are talking about a decision to change the name of a brand. More than a brand, a team which people have an emotional and financial investment in (regardless of how few). You don't make a decision that important, that dire, based on the fact that nobody might notice. As you say, it's not like lower level soccer is on anybody's radar. So why would you do something that might undermine your credibility with the few people whose radar you are on, and why would you do it in a way that would open you up to negative criticism from the people you are hoping to reach?
I don't believe fans in GA would differentiate based on the age of the club. Most everyone I've spoken to in the Deep South thinks nickname controversies are distractions and nothing more. I'm not saying that's right. I'm saying that's how people think down here. If fans locally were to reject a team called the Chiefs it would be for reasons other than their name. You can always find some people who'd be exceptions but broadly speaking that's what the South is. It's Anti-PC land.
Minor league baseballl: Syracuse Chiefs Indianapolis Indians Peoria Chiefs Spokane Indians 5 Braves teams Where are the protests?
The contest is not just between the two names. There is an option to write in another team name. I am sure that a third option will be the winner.
All established names of long-standing in their markets. And Syracuse uses train imagery, not Indian imagery. This is my point. Show me someone who has started a team or gone to a nickname and identity using Indian imagery recently. Show me that. The Indianapolis Indians are over 100 frigging years old. I mean...do we really want a list to go with your list of the colleges and high schools that have backed away from such imagery? I mean, we can do that. If you want. Soon as you show me another list of colleges and high schools that have said, "You know what? Bulldogs ain't making it for me. Let's go with Indians."
Plenty of Indian nicknames with longstanding tradition have been removed over the years. I don't know where you get the idea that time alone is what keeps a nickname in place. It seems to me that it's always been about the political dynamics of the specific club or institution in question. You seem to be overgeneralizing.
I....said that. I'm asking you to show me someone who's changed to such a nickname. Just a coincidence, then, that the enduring ones have been around for a long time and that nobody has recently established such a nickname. What is the number one reason they don't change the name Washington Redskins tomorrow, do you think? Oh, really? I'M overgeneralizing?
That is not pertinent to the question of whether the Chiefs name would harm the club. There doesn't need to be precedent. The fans don't care. You're suggesting fans are wedded to all things old but would scream injustice if it were new. I think that's bull. I think they just don't give a shit, period.
As was George Preston Marshall. And it's not like Edward Bennett Williams or Jack Kent Cooke changed it, either. Snyder's personal failings are a reason, but not the one often cited. That would be "tradition," which is code for "it's been so long and we're used to the name, and Indians don't buy tickets or vote, so why appease them?"
I went with the Chiefs. I would like to do what the Sounders did and tack on an "SC" or "FC" at the end, so we'd be Atlanta Chiefs FC/SC. The reason I went that way was due to the Chiefs history and brand. The Kaizer Chiefs of South Africa were named after the Atlanta Chiefs because their owner liked the logo so much. It's not PC and based off of some comments, really offensive to some. If the organization were smart, they'd find a way to associate it with police/fire/military chiefs instead to avoid any blowback. This team has been on a PR roller coaster all year.
Kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it? Without the logo what is the point of bringing back the Chiefs?
Could still do something cool with a few adjustments. Say what you want, but this vote has already served its purpose. It got us talking about the Silverbacks. This thread is 4 pages in. It's been an up and down summer for the Silverbacks with the US Open Cup fiasco and the Wynalda hiring. Good or bad, the organization has raised it's profile within the US soccer community and within the city of Atlanta this season. Play on the field has been bad mostly, but we're still 2nd in the league in attendance. I think this is Wynalda's idea and the organization went ahead with it so that they can continue the PR momentum. All they want is eyeballs.
A question for Mr. Warmth (and this is an honest question, I'm not trying to ruffle feathers). If the logo and name are used, but the team refrains from any hokie mascots or things of that nature would it still be something that is taken as an insult? The reason that I ask is that from my perspective I wouldn't see that as being racist, and certianly better than a team like Notre Dame's "The Fighting Irish." I guess what I am getting at is the question "is there a way that it can be done without insult?" Or is the use of any Native American imagery whatsoever out?