View Full Version : Cleveland Name Poll
FuzzyForeigner
12 Feb 2006, 08:27 PM
what should Cleveland's name be?
DixieDean
12 Feb 2006, 08:39 PM
(Cleveland) Northcoast FC :D
metrofan89
12 Feb 2006, 08:47 PM
Why dont we wait for them to officially have a team?
DixieDean
12 Feb 2006, 09:07 PM
Why dont we wait for them to officially have a team?
Why? :confused:
Sirk
12 Feb 2006, 10:29 PM
I vote for none of the above.
I would vote for Cleveland Admirals, in honor of Admiral Oliver Hazard Perry, who won the Battle of Lake Erie in 1812.
Then again, the naval theme would fit a lot better if the stadium were by the lake instead of Summit County.
I'm not totally against naming the club something involving North Coast or Lake Erie or Forest City, but those would be a bit nationally obscure, in terms of Cleveland. (Well, maybe not Lake Erie.) But even if the club is called Cleveland, I don't think that excludes Akron or Canton, both of which readily associate themselves as part of the Cleveland sports market.
Sirk
Crew14
12 Feb 2006, 11:50 PM
Just had a crazy thought. What if the team was to be named the Cleveland Stokes.....not only will it pay homage to Stoke City representing the city way back when, it could be used to pay homage to Carl Stokes as well. Not what I'd pick but an interesting idea nonetheless.
Going with the whole Euro trend, maybe something along those lines. Rather than Standard Liege how about Standard Oil?
Sirk, I like the Admirals idea. Maybe a bit too close to the Lake County Captains though.
FuzzyForeigner
13 Feb 2006, 02:21 AM
i like "stokers" and have "stokes" as the nickname
Brownswan
13 Feb 2006, 08:37 AM
From the outside looking in, 'Stokers' would be a great nickname for a team named something else. Personally. I like the connection with Lake Erie. If Americans can learn a bit of history through our soccer teams, so much the better.
Perry's flagship at the Battle of Lake Erie was the Lawrence, but it was so severely damaged ("Don't give up the ship") that he transferred his flag to the lightly damaged Niagra, and with it lead his squadron into the English line and won the battle within 15 minutes.
Too bad the ships didn't have names more relevant to Cleveland.
suppitty
13 Feb 2006, 10:34 AM
I vote for none of the above.
I would vote for Cleveland Admirals, in honor of Admiral Oliver Hazard Perry, who won the Battle of Lake Erie in 1812.
Cleveland 1812 ;)
ACGreen
13 Feb 2006, 10:37 AM
The Steamers
Pangloss
13 Feb 2006, 11:16 AM
None of the above. Seriously, I know everyone has their own tastes but to me Stokers is embarassingly bad. "Hey the Stokers are playing tonight, you wanna go?" Uhhh, no. Cleveland FC? Yawn. There has to be better names than this out there.
Brownswan
13 Feb 2006, 01:06 PM
I would vote for Cleveland Admirals, in honor of Admiral Oliver Hazard Perry, who won the Battle of Lake Erie in 1812.
Actually, Perry was at best a Commander at the battle; Commodore Chauncey was his commanding officer, stationed at Lake Ontario. After the battle Perry was promoted to Captain. Commodore was the highest rank he held at the time of his death at sea, years later.
The Cleveland Commodores? Has a ring to it -- like a ship's bell. ;)
Sirk
13 Feb 2006, 01:21 PM
Admiral Perry isn't a distinctly Cleveland person-- I think he was based out of Erie, PA-- but he is definitely a hero all across the length of Lake Erie. From Buffalo to Toledo, there are schools, parks, monuments etc named after OHP. And since the North Coast is largely defined by the big muddy lake, I think naming the team Admirals in honor of OHP makes sense.
After defeating the British in the Battle of Lake Erie, OHP filed a dispatch back to his commander, famously advising him, "We have met the enemy, and they are ours." I think this would make for a nice banner in front of the supporters' section.
Of course, the saying has been twisted into the popular saying, "We have met the enemy, and they are us," so maybe that banner could be two-sided. If the Admirals perform terribly, the supporters could flip it around based on game conditions.
Sirk
Sirk
13 Feb 2006, 01:26 PM
Actually, Perry was at best a Commander at the battle; Commodore Chauncey was his commanding officer, stationed at Lake Ontario. After the battle Perry was promoted to Captain. Commodore was the highest rank he held at the time of his death at sea, years later.
The Cleveland Commodores? Has a ring to it -- like a ship's bell. ;)
He is always referred to as Admiral Perry nowadays. Not sure what his rank was at the time of the battle, but as you said, he did eventually make Commodore. Not sure of he got a posthumous promotion to Admiral or what, but there are many references and honors and statues, etc, that refer to him as Admiral Perry.
I don't know if his legend has increased until he just became known as an admiral, or what the deal is. Maybe it's wrong, but he is frequently referred to as Admiral Perry.
Sirk
Brownswan
13 Feb 2006, 02:41 PM
The other Perry, Matthew C., was the officer who 'opened' Japan to the US in the 1850s. He was also a Commodore, and Oliver Hazard's younger brother. Then there was Commodore Robert E. Peary, the North Pole explorer, who was promoted to Rear Admiral in 1911.
Congress did not allow a rank beyond Commodore until 1862; it was a one star rank that entitled the officer to command a squadron of vessels, and the highest in our navy.
http://www.biography.ms/Commodore_%28rank%29.html
I haven't read anything about a posthoumous promotion for either Perry, but I imagine the old salt would accept any such bestowed here. :)
Sirk
13 Feb 2006, 07:13 PM
Congress did not allow a rank beyond Commodore until 1862; it was a one star rank that entitled the officer to command a squadron of vessels, and the highest in our navy.
Hmm...I wonder if that's how his rank has morphed to Admiral in popular lore? Like I said, along the lake, you'll find many references to "Admiral" Perry, even from city governments and stuff. It's probably a combination of local legend/myth-making, and the assumption that his duties mirrored those of an admiral today. Or something.
Thanks a bunch, Brownswan....this has turned into a very educational thread.
I still like the name Cleveland Admirals anyway. It just sounds good to my ear. And it honors the spirit of OHP, and will further the propagation of the popular, misinformed inflation of his real-life rank. Hahahaha.
Sirk
Sirk
13 Feb 2006, 07:16 PM
Like I said, along the lake, you'll find many references to "Admiral" Perry, even from city governments and stuff.
I guess I should quote my own post and beat everyone else to the punch by saying that city governments also make references to MLS Commissioner "Scott" Garber.
Sirk
Kozy
13 Feb 2006, 07:23 PM
the admirals is a very good name, there should be a new poll taken, also, can we add 'crotchmonkeys ' as well, thanks. :D
Bill Archer
14 Feb 2006, 08:34 AM
I like the Admirals moniker too, although there's a big soccer club in Erie that uses it.
As for the term admiral, I believe up until early in the civil war they were referred to as "Flag Officers" - that is to say an officer of sufficient rank or at the head of a sufficientyl large command, that they were entitled to a "flagship" and thus a personal flag.
It was all tied up, I believe, in the reverence for Revolutionary heroes. It was seen as presumptuous to want as much rank as a Washington or a John Paul Jones. Similarly the US Army - whose only four star general had been Washington - reluctantly gave Scott four stars during the Mexican war, so he would outrank Taylor, but nobody else achieved that rank until 1863 when it literally took an act of Congress to give Grant a fourth.
Anyway, as for Cleveland teams, I'd really like to see them stay away from the Pseudo-Euro crap - the "Reals" and "FC" type of thing - and come up with something locally significant.
I have no idea what, but a coupe years ago someone suggested that, in homage to Drew Carey and Michael Stanley - that "Cleveland Rox" would be good.
Brownswan
14 Feb 2006, 11:27 AM
It was all tied up, I believe, in the reverence for Revolutionary heroes. It was seen as presumptuous to want as much rank as a Washington or a John Paul Jones. Similarly the US Army - whose only four star general had been Washington - reluctantly gave Scott four stars during the Mexican war, so he would outrank Taylor, but nobody else achieved that rank until 1863 when it literally took an act of Congress to give Grant a fourth.
\
Very true -- and it went further than that. There had not been a Lt. General in the US Army since the Scott-Taylor business (I believe it was the 3-star Lt. General rank that was in question), and Grant became the first since then to be so promoted after the Vicksburg and Chattenooga victories, when he was brought east to command all the armies. I believe he got his 4th star just after the war, when Sherman, Thomas, and Meade were promoted to Lt. Generals and each given a department to command. There was this mystique surrounding Washington along with the fear of an officer class and a large standing army, that kept the ranks deflated.
In the Confederacy, they did things by the book. Division commanders were at least Brigadiers if not Major Generals; corps commanders were Lt. Generals; army commanders (Lee, Johnston, Bragg, for example) were full Generals. At the end they had more Generals than units of size for them to command.
Everyone else was at least a Kentucky Colonel. ;)