Philadelphia Spartans (Debate)

There's no doubt that the vast, vast, majority of SOBs love the game, and have no thoughts towards violence. We just want that feeling of having your own club, that local team you and 15,000 other people will go see, week in, week out, and sing your heart out for. Plenty of us follow European or MLS teams, but we'll never be fans in the same sense that a local is. We'll always be seen as interlopers, carpetbaggers, or glory hunters. I want to be able to say, "I support Philly because I'm from Philly." That's why we're so excited about the atmosphere and the lifestyle.

 

It's a good name. It has history and it sounds good. I imagine you could design a great crest from the name.

Downside is that it is used by various college and highschool teams. (San Jose, Michigan)

With that said, there are a lot of college nicknames that are used by pro leagues as well.

I think you guys have come up with better names but I like the historical tie in. Not a bad name at all.

 

just can't get into this name at all. pulling the philly to greek name thing is stretching it a bit i think.

if anything it just remnds me of college sports teams such as Mich State etc.. etc

 

Agreed.

 

There is NO stretch going from Greek to Philadelphia. Philadelphia is Greek for brotherly love (philos, "love" or "friendship", and adelphos, "brother")

 

Am I the only one that thinks of this when hearing this name?

I vote Nay.

 

This is my favorite. I am going to write this in for the voting on Monday. Especially after watching 500 last night.

 

500? What was that...the direct-to-DVD sequel?

 

Honestly, I think virtually every nickname requires "explaining". It's not really inuitive as to why to pick Union or City either without clear ties to the team or Philadephia. 2010 might be obvious as to the connection to the team, but the reason as to "why" probably won't resonate -- the only year names we have in this country refer to historically significant dates, not team foundings. Something like Alliance, while having a great backstory, wouldn't be obvious or known to the vast majority of potential fans.

A name like Spartans (or Atoms) at least has the connection of "we are bringing back the name of a former area soccer team". Now, whether that's a good connection is open to debate, it's at least a much more obvious reason than with many other possible choices.

I'm sorry, but people say this and its BS. If we wanted a unique name, we'd end up with a name like "Clash" or "Burn". Those are unique. A name like the four official choices or 2010 aren't unique -- they are simply copying traditions that are not present in American sports. But that doesn't make them unique.

Really, it's a debate over which traditions to copy. Personally, I think Spartans is great because it embrasses both American and European/International traditions. A lot of teams worldwide have names with ties to classical culture:

Spartans FC (Scotland)
Sparta Praha (Czechia)
Sparta Rotterdam (Netherlands)
Blyth Spartans AFC (England)
Hamrun Spartans FC (Malta)
Sparta Sarpsborg (Norway)
Corinthians Paulista (Brazil)
Corinthian-Casuals FC (England)
Ajax Amsterdam (Netherlands)
Ajax Kenitra (Moracco)
Aris Thessaloniki (Greece)
Aris Limassol (Cyprus)
FC Atlas (Mexico)
Heracles Almelo (Netherlands)
Hercules CF (Spain)
Spartak Moscow (Russia (and throughout Eastern Europe)) [Spartak = Spartacus]

And these are just a sample of team names -- there's plenty of others that use classical imagery on thier crests, for example.

I guess what I'm saying is that Spartans to me sounds like both a typical American name but also with a nod to the tradition and history that you often find in other foreign football clubs. I mean, heck, what is more European than a name of a group of people from Europe?

 

I can't get behind this name. An organic nickname with a very American flavor will arise within a few years if our team goes with a general official name. Spartans, Colonials, and Atoms just don't have the same ring to them as Union, imho.

 

I doubt it. At most you might get a generic nickname based on the colors (the "blue and yellows"?), but there's been no particular case of an "organic nickname" catching on for any MLS team before. Nobody calls DCU anything but DC United or United (you hear some efforts for the "black and red" or "men in back", but they never caught on). FC Dallas and Toronto FC don't have any particular nicknames -- yeah, there's "hoops" for FCD but that's was actually bequeathed from above and many of the fans don't really like it anyway.

And that's especially true if City or Union get picked given those will function perfectly well as nicknames in their own right (even if they are different from typical American names).

There's certainly nothing wrong with hoping for an organic nickname if you prefer, but I suspect you'll be disappointed -- even if a very generic name like AC Philadelphia or Philadelphia SC is chosen.

 

I doubt any "organic nickname" will arise. Sure, some will try to shove "Zolos" down our throats, but really, any such nickname is just going to come out of whatever intern the Inquirer promotes to pun happy sportswriter. So be prepared to be "Philadelphias Pro Soccer Team" for about a decade when they start to be called the "Kickers".

 

The Spartans is one of the few names we have been throwing around that has some symbolism associated with it. If we are heading in the direction of an Philly team name, at least this has some bite to it. Warriors, fighting to the last man, fighting as a unit, protecting each others back…..
What is a Zolo anyway?
Just remember.....................Any name but the Atoms!!!!!

 

sadly this name would just remind me of the high school for which i coach. their mascot is spartans. go wyo spartans! the name would be better than atoms though...

 

Don't forget "Booters."

Or, if WIP gets to weigh in, "Pansies."

 

You know, it wasn't all that long ago (sept 2008) that it was noted that the team had registered philadelphiaspartans.com. Makes me pretty sad to think that it was a real consideration, because I think it would have done well in an actual poll.

 

Don’t get me wrong, I love the name Spartans. I have good memories of them. I even have a Spartans bumper sticker. Every team I ever coached I nicknamed the Spartans. I just fell we need to leave the past behind. Don’t talk to me about branding and name recognition. I won’t buy it. We need to honor the past with banners or something at the stadium, maybe name sections of the stadium after the past teams. This is a new beginning, we need new people to come out and support the team, we need those new people to stake a claim to the team, and I think that starts with a new name.

 

Doesn't make you right.

I mean, I hear you--but the "official" name choices are oafish, and have (rightly) been panned by everyone outside of the hardcore soccer community that makes up these boards.

We may be "Union" or "City," and that's fine--I'll still be there, and will buy a shirt. But don't dismiss the value of name recognition, just because you don't like the names available. Phil Sheridan's reference to the Atoms this week proves the value of the name...but even if you take "Atoms" out of the equation, if you have to have a nickname (instead of this "let's go with 'AC' and let the name grow organically" crap), why not go with something like "Spartans," which at least has a soccer connection, over "Commodores" or "Alliance" or something like that?

I mean, every nickname has minuses; no nickname will be perfect and satisfy everyone (not even "Athletic"). So why wouldn't you pick a name that at least has a soccer connection, like "Spartans"? Because "we need to make our own history"? Nonsense. You WILL--the MLS Spartans (or Atoms) will make their own history. You don't need to have a "unique" name to do it.

I guess what I'm saying is you can have it both ways--just like the Ottawa Senators, San Jose Earthquakes, Philadelphia Wings, Washington Nationals, etc. etc.

 

Anything but the Atoms! I have read your arguments and it doesn’t matter. There is absolutely no substance in the name. It has NO meaning. There is nothing I can relate to nor does it inspire. There is no image I can build on. I can not visualize what the name represents. There needs to be more then old memories of a failed team and failed league.

 

I don't mind a debate, but--with all due respect--you're bringing nothing to the table. "No substance to the name"? "No meaning?" This week alone proved that wrong, with Sheridan's dropping the name in a soccer article. No image? You can ignore it all you want, but the Atoms remain the image of soccer among mainstream media--failed team and league notwithstanding. Call the team "Atoms," and the general public knows there's a soccer team in town. Call them "Union," and people will thing there is strife at the Convention Center. Call them "AC," and people thing it's something about the casinos. And so on.

Love them or hate them, my arguments are based on objective facts--proven this week, as it turns out. Yours don't go beyond "I don't like the name because I can't relate to it." Fair enough. But that hardly constitutes a mandate, or a persuasive argument.

 

I don't buy it. That argument might make sense if we were going to go with some unique nickname like "Clash" or "Burn" in order to differentiate the team. But that's not what is going on. Instead, we have choices that indicate we are simply going to draw upon different histories -- ones that don't even connect to the city or its people. If "Spartans" or "Atoms" brings out (in your mind negative) connections to "failed soccer teams of the past" than "City" or "Union" simply do the same thing with "foreign" connections to teams from far away places with no relevence to Philly. So? If we wanted a real break from everything and a chance to go anew, we'd pick some lameass name like "Republic". Hell, it would be meaningless and odd, but at least it would be a totally blank slate from which to write the story of the team.

Anyway, I find your point to be kinda ironic anyway, since many people seem to want names that do have "tradition" or "connections to the sport", albeit often desiring Euro-sounding/imitating names. What I've suggested with Spartans is something that is both connected to the city's soccer history and American sports plus has a connection to Classic history and European naming conventions. It's a compromise meant to embrace different backgrounds. As for the people who want a "new team" and to "stake their claim", I don't see any reason why a repeat name limits that -- this is a team playing in a brand new soccer stadium sure to have different uniforms with different colors and a different crest. Making a connection to the past and honoring it doesn't doom a team to being unable to grow and branch out.

Also, I think as noted by the enthusiasm for Sounders in Seattle and Earthquakes in San Jose (plus the use of Timbers and Whitecaps) show that there's plenty of willingness to embrace the history of soccer in this country by fans of the sport while still looking ahead to the future.

I truly think the team is missing out here (not with Spartans specifically but with the basic concept) by not giving us a proper American name as an option. Not only do you disenfranchise some folks who will look at the choices with perplexion, but you also fail to give (much of) a voice to those who want to honor the long, illustrious past that soccer has had in our city and region.