Why all the hate on the San Diego Sockers, I mean it's a cheesy name of course but actually still has a lot of cache in the San Diego sports community (mostly from the indoor days but still). Not that we are ever going to get a team but I can dream. (Has any other city been listed as a potential expansion city with so little actual chance of it happening.)
Yeh it's indoor but my point was it still carries cache within San Diego if the goal is to try and make the team meaningful in the San Diego market the positive connotations (actually winning) offset the negative (winning in a sport that is a bastardization of the real thing).
Was born and raised in SD, and would follow any MLS team the got (NASL too). And I acknowledge that 'Sockers' is a horrible name, but it's our horrible name. I would be disappointed if a team came to SD and was not named the Sockers ..... or at least paid homage to them with Sockers colors or something.
its also still currently being used by a very successful lower division indoor team http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_Sockers_(2009)
I would actually prefer that if the Chivas rebranded that they went with LA Lazers. There was the indoor team owned by Jerry Buss with that name and also the outdoor Southern California Lazers were based in Torrance CA. Galaxy vs Lazers! Sounds very cool.. and futuristic!
I was a Sockers indoor fan back in the 80's. Only recently did I realize they had an outdoor team as well. I think sockers is an alright name. I think there was a Chicago Sockers somewhere in the sport. Love blue and yellow as well. It's always been a favorite color combo. SOE (Sony Online Entertainment) would be a fun sponsor to have, btw. Great logo. But that may be too close to XBOX for MLS to approve. As for Aztecs, great name, but living down here, I confuse them with the SDSU Aztecs. I keep hearing "LASC". Is that still viable?
Maccabi Los Angeles won more US Open Cups than any team not named Bethlehem Steel. There is your name for a LA team.
Interesting. I always thought 'Riverhounds' was one of the coolest names in minor league sports. As for the Wile E. Coyote crest, I think they'd be better off with this guy:
Rumored new Chivas owners might rebrand to the Aztecs. http://www.thegoatparade.com/2014/4...nounced-after-world-cup-san-cadilla-la-aztecs
NASL does own the rights, but as we all know everyone has a selling price. Can't imagine NASL would pass up money over a name.
Because the NASL intends to eventually put a team in L.A., I would expect that they will hold onto the name.
They intend on putting a team in a lot of places, lol. I'd think it would be wise of them to avoid LA in general. The market already has 4 teams and only one of them gets any kind of support. Like I said Im sure NASL has an asking price for the name. They'd be foolish not to take the money if presented it.
My impression is that at least of few of the NASL owners are toying with the idea of competing with MLS with the idea of forcing a merger down the line like the NFL/AFL merger and the NBA/ABA merger. It sounds crazy, but then there's stuff like this floating around in the media: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...the-new-york-cosmos-and-the-nasl-coexist.html "I asked Peterson if the N.A.S.L. saw itself as a competitor to M.L.S. “We don’t see ourselves competing with anyone right now,” he said. “That does us no good, and there really is no competition. We are focussed on being the best professional soccer clubs we can be in our communities. There’s nothing else for us to worry about until we are filling all of our stadiums every night and we’ve stopped expanding.” He went on, “There’s no purpose or point to worrying about what other people are doing.” Stover has a different agenda for the New York Cosmos: “We want to be in our own stadium. We want to have what we believe to be the best roster in the United States. We want to be competing in CONCACAF for a Champions League title. And we want the N.A.S.L. to be as good or better than Major League Soccer.”
For the MLS LA club with the new ownership group I would think they would not use a nostalgic club name. For a possible NASL LA club would be more likely to go that route.
It actually IS crazy. The conditions surrounding the 1966 (announcement of the) AFL-NFL merger and the ABA-NBA merger of ten years later were very different from the current (or likely near future) lamdscape. You COULD compete with the established leagues in those cases (and neither of them, at the time, were serving as many markets - and desirable ones - as MLS is today). You COULD run a "major" league on a shoestring in the 60s and early 70s. And in both cases, the competition for players created salary escalation that was injurious to both sides the longer it went on. Also, the upstart leagues in both cases had assets (markets and/or players) that the established league wanted. And the numbers (in terms of ownership ability to spend) are dwarfed by what it would cost to truly compete with MLS today, much less "force" a merger. When MLS can just put a team in Atlanta or South Florida if it wants to or convince, say, an Indianapolis or a Minnesota to join them, there is no impetus for a merger. A rare moment of lucidity for Peterson. They really do have to grow and gain relevance in their communities before anyone can think about competing with MLS. And while they can pull off the former and could, conceivably, put together a roster of very good players, they're not going to see either of the two latter things happen. And, no, you don't get direct entry to the CCL because second-tier leagues don't get direct entry except by winning the USOC or the Canadian or Carribean championships. And as long as you have second-level players playing for second-level coaches in second-level stadiums in front of second-level crowds in games called by randos on the internet and as long as you are training in city parks and trading players for hotel rooms, you're second-level. No matter how much posturing the prawns try to do.