Why Philadelphia Should Buy the Wizards

[Z010 Union]

ooops! piggons! :D

isn't it pigeons? :D

[Rommul]

Isn't trying for originality and "creating tradition" what landed us with names like Clash, Fusion, and Mutiny?

No clinging to the american namimg convention is what got us dumb names like

San Jose Clash

Miami Fusion

Tampa Bay Mutiny

NY/NJ Metrostars

Chicago Rhythm

There is no reason to cling to anything.

BTW Metrostars is a great name.

[Rommul]

I didn't say harken to the future: I said *look* to the present or future.
Smartass.

Well what is wrong with looking to the past as long as you get a great name out of it.

There is a point where one can take alliterative license too far.

[billf]

isn't it pigeons? :D

Okay I give up. I never wuz much fur book learnin' :D

[skyscraper]

Well what is wrong with looking to the past as long as you get a great name out of it.

There is a point where one can take alliterative license too far.
Looking to the past is, by definition, regressive.
I think the point of taking alliterative license too far would be if the name didn't make sense, and was alliterative just for the sake of being alliterative. We have an AHL hockey team called the Philadelphia Phantoms. This might be an example of that: what the hell does a Phantom have to do with hockey or Philadelphia, except that it is alliterative? But The Philadelphia Phalanx makes great sense, as it projects an image of invincibility and military discipline, perfect for a sports team. It was a formation used by Alexander the Great; Philadelphia has the same name as an ancient Greek city, so there is the historical link. It also happens to be alliterative, so that is a bonus for the marketing folks, as is the 'X' at the end.
Again, I happen to like the name, but if you don't, then that's fine. But just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it is beyond the point of "alliterative license" or anything like that. It's just a matter of opinion!

[NoodlesMacintosh]

No clinging to the american namimg convention is what got us dumb names like

San Jose Clash

Miami Fusion

Tampa Bay Mutiny

NY/NJ Metrostars

Chicago Rhythm

There is no reason to cling to anything.

BTW Metrostars is a great name.

No no no--there is no major US sports league that had such names before MLS. Singular nouns are not a traditional US thing; they are exactly what you asked for in originality.

For example, here's what the NFL has:

Animals: Bills, Dolphins, Jaguars, Colts, Bengals, Ravens (animal/Edgar Allen Poe), Chargers, Broncos, Eagles, Bears, Lions, Falcons, Panthers, Rams, Cardinals, Seahawks
Cultural/Local: Patriots, Steelers, Chiefs, Cowboys, Redskins, Giants (from the baseball team, I can only assume), Vikings, Packers, Buccaneers, Saints, 49ers
Geographical: Texans
Other: Jets, Browns (from their first coach), Raiders, Titans

What do they all have in common? They all end in 's'. As in more than one. Not a single singular noun among them.

[Rommul]

Looking to the past is, by definition, regressive.

You might have a point if I said we should name them Atoms.

I think the point of taking alliterative license too far would be if the name didn't make sense, and was alliterative just for the sake of being alliterative. We have an AHL hockey team called the Philadelphia Phantoms. This might be an example of that: what the hell does a Phantom have to do with hockey or Philadelphia, except that it is alliterative?


But The Philadelphia Phalanx makes great sense, as it projects an image of invincibility and military discipline, perfect for a sports team. It was a formation used by Alexander the Great; Philadelphia has the same name as an ancient Greek city, so there is the historical link.

So when it suits you looking to the past is fine.

Looking back 2300+ years good?

Looking back 20+ years bad?

Gotcha.

It also happens to be alliterative, so that is a bonus for the marketing folks, as is the 'X' at the end.

What is this obsession with the X?

Is it the same as the obssesion people have with using the letter Z instead of S?

The marketing folks are the ones who wanted to call a team the Chicago Rhythym. Sometimes the marketing folks need to be told to calm down


Again, I happen to like the name, but if you don't, then that's fine.

Then just say that but don't concoct all these BS excuses why it makes sense.

But just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it is beyond the point of "alliterative license" or anything like that. It's just a matter of opinion!

Yes it is a matter of opinion. But the name is just plain damn goofy and you arrived at the name for all the wrong reasons.

[Adam Zebrowski]

ok...here's my name....

Lighthouse FC....

has history in the name, and I bet there'll be a poster who gets the reference...

maybe yellowjacket FC too.....

[Rommul]

No no no--there is no major US sports league that had such names before MLS. Singular nouns are not a traditional US thing; they are exactly what you asked for in originality.

For example, here's what the NFL has:

Animals: Bills, Dolphins, Jaguars, Colts, Bengals, Ravens (animal/Edgar Allen Poe), Chargers, Broncos, Eagles, Bears, Lions, Falcons, Panthers, Rams, Cardinals, Seahawks
Cultural/Local: Patriots, Steelers, Chiefs, Cowboys, Redskins, Giants (from the baseball team, I can only assume), Vikings, Packers, Buccaneers, Saints, 49ers
Geographical: Texans
Other: Jets, Browns (from their first coach), Raiders, Titans

What do they all have in common? They all end in 's'. As in more than one. Not a single singular noun among them.


Give me a friggin break.

Can the link be any more tenuous?

Thats is such hogwash.

With the exception of DC EVERY original MLS team adhered to the convention I alluded to.

[City Name] + [Nickname].

that is much more significant that whether the names are singular or not and you know it.

[NoodlesMacintosh]

Give me a friggin break.

Can the link be any more tenuous?

Thats is such hogwash.

With the exception of DC EVERY original MLS team adhered to the convention I alluded to.

[City Name] + [Nickname].

that is much more significant that whether the names are singular or not and you know it.

No, it does matter whether or not the names are singular because plural nouns are what Americans are used to. To just denounce the convention of city name + nickname is oversimplifying it. It's not that the people didn't like that style of naming but rather the names that were generated by MLS were so ludicrous as to draw stares of horror and disbelief. Saying that the name 'San Jose Clash' draws the same reaction from the casual sportsfan as 'San Jose Sharks' or even 'San Jose Cybercats' is simple falsehood. It's not the line of thought of place + noun that's dangerous, rather it's a derivation of that line of thought that'll get you into trouble. Going 'original' is very, very dangerous, and generally only works when the team has great success/favorite players that endear the team to the fans regardless of the name, such as DC United or the Utah Jazz.

Aside: To the Philly locals, how do you feel about the name of your Arena football team, the Philadelphia Soul?

[bofahey]

Sorry for coming off as a prick the other day (which I did).

I was basing my comment on attending the CW game in 2003. Based on my visuals, I would have estimated it's around 67yds wide, but if it is fact 68, I guess that could be at least tolerable, although that would easily be the narrowest field in MLS. I realize that FIFA played WWC games there, but even though this may sound sexist, I think a few yards of width is less of an issue in the women's game than in the men's. (I certainly wouldn't hold out hope for any WCQs if I were you during the Hex.)

There appeared to be some non-grass area between the end of the pitch and the seats, however, if you make that grass and try to widen it, I don't think there's room left for players to take corners.

The issue as I saw it is that the stands slope in towards the corners. In the center of the pitch, you could accomodate a wide pitch, but when you get to the football endzones, it creeps in substantially.

So for instance, the width if you have a 110 yard lenth is much smaller than if you have a 100 yard lenth.

In any event, if you guys really believe that MLS won't care about playing on a pitch that's substantially less than 70 yards wide, I wish you good luck. I don't see it happening myself (at least as a long-term answer) unless they uninstall some of the seating in the corner, but I could definitely be wrong.

[billf]

Sorry for coming off as a prick the other day (which I did).

I was basing my comment on attending the CW game in 2003. Based on my visuals, I would have estimated it's around 67yds wide, but if it is fact 68, I guess that could be at least tolerable, although that would easily be the narrowest field in MLS. I realize that FIFA played WWC games there, but even though this may sound sexist, I think a few yards of width is less of an issue in the women's game than in the men's. (I certainly wouldn't hold out hope for any WCQs if I were you during the Hex.)

There appeared to be some non-grass area between the end of the pitch and the seats, however, if you make that grass and try to widen it, I don't think there's room left for players to take corners.

The issue as I saw it is that the stands slope in towards the corners. In the center of the pitch, you could accomodate a wide pitch, but when you get to the football endzones, it creeps in substantially.

So for instance, the width if you have a 110 yard lenth is much smaller than if you have a 100 yard lenth.

In any event, if you guys really believe that MLS won't care about playing on a pitch that's substantially less than 70 yards wide, I wish you good luck. I don't see it happening myself (at least as a long-term answer) unless they uninstall some of the seating in the corner, but I could definitely be wrong.

You realize that San Jose, Metro, and KC play on fields that range between 66 and 68 yards wide right? Foxboro's field can be that narrow as well during the NFL season and as short as 105 yards. Chicago, Salt Lake and Colorado also appear to be a bit narrow. There is planty of room in the corners of LFF to accomodate a 70 yard wide field if it is absolutely required. Keep in mind that this is only six total feet, three on each side of the field. I doubt MLS or the USSF would pass up an opportunity to place a team or a game at LFF over six feet. These are professionals, they can adjust. San Joses did. It can be easily worked out as this is not as complicated as going to the moon. However, you are free to make uneducated guesses about this to your heart's desire.

[bofahey]

You realize that San Jose, Metro, and KC play on fields that range between 66 and 68 yards wide right? Foxboro's field can be that narrow as well during the NFL season and as short as 105 yards. Chicago, Salt Lake and Colorado also appear to be a bit narrow. There is planty of room in the corners of LFF to accomodate a 70 yard wide field if it is absolutely required. Keep in mind that this is only six total feet, three on each side of the field. I doubt MLS or the USSF would pass up an opportunity to place a team or a game at LFF over six feet. These are professionals, they can adjust. San Joses did. It can be easily worked out as this is not as complicated as going to the moon. However, you are free to make uneducated guesses about this to your heart's desire.
San Jose is 70x110 after they widened it about 5 years ago.
Gillette is 75x115.
Giants Stadium is 71x116.
I've seen KC listed as 69x110 and 70x110 at different times, so I'm guessing it's a few feet short of 70.
Colorado is 75 yards wide; I can't remember the exact length.
Columbus is 75x115.
DC is 72x110.
LA is 75 wide and can go up to 80.
SL hasn't played yet, but their SSS will be 70+.
I believe Frisco and Bridgeview are both planned at 75.

In 1996, MLS probably wouldn't have cared about this. In 2004, it's a different story. Thinking that your facility is almost as good as Arrowhead and Spartan Stadium is not going to get you anywhere. MLS would like to be playing on pitches that are comfortably over the 70x110 FIFA international minimum, not ones that can't even meet that threshold.

[NoodlesMacintosh]

We have an AHL hockey team called the Philadelphia Phantoms. This might be an example of that: what the hell does a Phantom have to do with hockey or Philadelphia, except that it is alliterative?

I don't know, but they have a nifty logo (http://logoshak.com/~asgsport/images/Philadelphia_Phantoms.gif).

[Looper121]

No no no--there is no major US sports league that had such names before MLS. Singular nouns are not a traditional US thing; they are exactly what you asked for in originality.

For example, here's what the NFL has:

Animals: Bills, Dolphins, Jaguars, Colts, Bengals, Ravens (animal/Edgar Allen Poe), Chargers, Broncos, Eagles, Bears, Lions, Falcons, Panthers, Rams, Cardinals, Seahawks
Cultural/Local: Patriots, Steelers, Chiefs, Cowboys, Redskins, Giants (from the baseball team, I can only assume), Vikings, Packers, Buccaneers, Saints, 49ers
Geographical: Texans
Other: Jets, Browns (from their first coach), Raiders, Titans

What do they all have in common? They all end in 's'. As in more than one. Not a single singular noun among them.


A "Bill" is an animal? That's funny. I thought he was a man. :D


Although, our logo is a BUFFALO. ;)

[NoodlesMacintosh]

A "Bill" is an animal? That's funny. I thought he was a man. :D


Although, our logo is a BUFFALO. ;)

How did you guys get the nickname 'Bills', anyway?

[Looper121]

Well, the reason I guess, was just that they thought it was funny to name the team after Buffalo Bill...

http://www.bbhc.org/index_flash.cfm

http://www.rootsweb.com/~nephotos/Hinman/bbcody.jpg

[DaMunk]

ok...here's my name....

Lighthouse FC....

has history in the name, and I bet there'll be a poster who gets the reference...

maybe yellowjacket FC too.....


I'm sure Lighthouse SC would have objections.

[skyscraper]

You might have a point if I said we should name them Atoms.






So when it suits you looking to the past is fine.

Looking back 2300+ years good?

Looking back 20+ years bad?

Gotcha.



What is this obsession with the X?

Is it the same as the obssesion people have with using the letter Z instead of S?

The marketing folks are the ones who wanted to call a team the Chicago Rhythym. Sometimes the marketing folks need to be told to calm down




Then just say that but don't concoct all these BS excuses why it makes sense.



Yes it is a matter of opinion. But the name is just plain damn goofy and you arrived at the name for all the wrong reasons.

It is you who is concocting all the BS excuses why it doesn't make sense. What the hell is "alliterative license"? That's the most BS thing I ever heard, and I minored in English in college. At least I have a line of reasoning, even if you don't agree with the conclusion. Your line of "reasoning" for your suggestion of "Philadelphia Atomic" was that it was different. Well it's not all that different from Atoms, is it? You changed the word form from a noun to an adjective. Real original.

[skyscraper]

your[/I] Arena football team, the Philadelphia Soul?

I think the Soul is a stupid name. It was supposed to remind people of the Philadelphia music sound of the 1960s and 70s, but what that has to do with football is beyond me. I know that Jon Bon Jovi is the owner, and he can call the team whatever he wants, but that's my 2 cents.