In 1997, I thought that was a pretty good name. I like either "Blues" or "Grey" 2019, they are stupid names.
Is that what the logo looked like? Thank god we had Peter Wilt calling the shots, because if it was someone like NRod that would have been our name.
When MLS launched I thought all the original names were awesome. I was also 11 years old at the time.
If nothing else, MLS still needs a royal blue and yellow color scheme. Hopefully one of the expansion teams go that route.
Oddly enough, the best MLS 1.0 name* still has the worst (and only original) logo. *Besides Chicago Fire, obviously. Side note: Why didn't the team or league put a trademark dispute on the TV show's title?
Nashville will be close. KC was going that route in the final years of the Wizards branding. Wish it would've stuck.
The team actually had a "See the first episode on the big screen after the game before it airs on NBC" promotion back in 2012.
Meh, if the team was named Chicago Rhythm it would’ve probably been rebranded by now, or at least the first thing that showed up when someone typed “Chicago Rhythm” into a search engine on a browser they haven’t used before. Even if the stupid TV show didn’t exist, “Chicago Fire” would probably still have to compete with the historical event and the Fire Department for SEO supremacy, and likely loses to both still. Somehow don’t think I’ve ever seen the colorized versions of the Rhythm logo. BARF.
Chicago Fire was the best (right choice) name in the league back in 1997 and it's still the best (right choice) name in the league today. As for the historical and Chicago Fire Department, I believe we embrace both of those (more before Andi took over). 1871, colors, logo, badge The franchise is named after the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, and was founded on October 8, 1997, the event's 126th anniversary. Colors of Chicago Fire Department trucks So changing it some kind of European name, FC, United, etc 1. Wouldn't help/make us better 2. Wouldn't make us more relevant What we need is an owner that cares about his team, for the last 10 years our hasn't. Hopefully with Joe coming on board that he buys out Hauptman and things will change. If it was Joe that paid/paying the $60.5 million buy out the lease (also writing checks for $200+ million buying the team), I can't see him pulling a Hauptman and not caring about his team.
I forgot how great the truck logo is too! Too bad MLS doesn't do third kits with alternate crests... Plus, the Fire name allows for a natural, kid-friendly, adorable, and fairly unique mascot. I mean, what's a frog have to do with either LA or the Galaxy? What is that sperm-looking thing in Colorado supposed to be?
Lol I know the history of the team name, again, that doesn’t help with search engine optimization or brand confusion. I’m by no means saying we should’ve gone with Rhythm, was just pointing out that it’s unique enough that it wouldn’t be confused by dopes that could be potential fans at some point. I had a co-worker ask me if I saw the dome they built by Lane Tech “for the fire department” a few years ago. That doesn’t happen with a unique name like Rhythm or a generic, traditional, non-name like FC, City, United, etc. The funny thing is, I’ve seen people compelled to explain or clarify the meaning of the team name several times here and on reddit. At a certain point, it’s kind of like the saying about telling a joke- if you have to explain it, maybe it’s not that good. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think it was the right name 20 years ago when we were playing against the Burn, Wiz, Mutiny, etc. and attempting to remake soccer in America’s image (countdown clock, shootouts, etc.). I don’t think most 18-25 year old Chicagoans today who like soccer are interested in “Americanized” names and want something “authentic” (never mind that “the Fire” is actually unique to Chicago). My advice if you love the team name is to buy up merchandise now because I don’t see this franchise taking the Fire name / identity back to Soldier Field with them.
I don’t disagree. Unfortunately I don’t think most young people feel the same way we do. Those who want “Americanized” sports names generally don’t like soccer and vice versa. To them, “Chicago FC” or “Chicago City FC” sounds imposing, real, gritty, serious, etc. (even though we’re still talking about an American sports franchise here); while “the Chicago Fire” sounds cheesy, minor league, childish, etc.
Maybe I am totally off base and don’t have a pulse on what’s “cool” among the younger generation, but that’s my take.
I don't think it's fair to lump the Chicago Fire in with the San Jose Clash or the Kansas City Wiz. I also don't think it's fair to lump something like Chicago FC in with Real Salt Lake or Sporting Kansas City. They're in a real pickle because of the search engine and brand differentiation stuff, not to mention how down in the gutter the Fire name has sunk. So long as they don't change to FC Atletico ChiTown 1837 playing in some exhausting combination of Nike-invented colors, I'm inclined to give them a break. Show me you care about the club's history, and you care about winning, and I'm happy.
Agreed- I feel like leveraging the club's distinction of being the only remaining team established in 1997, or only 'original expansion' team from 1998 would work on some level, incorporating the history of the team without conflating it with the events of 1871 or anything like that, but whatever they do is going to be tricky to pull off and won't come close to satisfying everyone, and that includes if they do nothing.