What's in a name? ABCNEWS Report on Pro Team Names

Seems obvious now but I hadn't stopped to think about the way teams have been named lately. I wouldn't call the trend an complete absolute though given DC United's Screaming Eagles nickname.

 

Interesting reading.

But that is a stupid ass way to name a sports team.

And if you are hiring a marketing team to choose a team name you are trying way to hard. Its like trying to write and use a thesaurus frequently, you are going to screw it up and come off as a poser. You wanna pick a name - go to a few bars, talk with people in the city and get know the community. Picking a marketing company in New York or LA to name a team in Seattle is a waste of money.

And personally, I think the team name of the NFL, NBA and MLB by and large are superior to the "new" leagues of the WNBA, MLS and WUSA.

And they didn't use no stinking consulting company.

 

I call bull****.

 

Just not to men.

 

I think with these new names people are confusing "new" with "gimmick" which is what these new leagues all appear to be in the beginning. You'll only loose that with time.

 

There's no such thing as bad publicity.

This is a great article. Why? Because it mentions MLS more in the vein of MLB, NFL, NBA and not WNBA or that women's fast pitch softball league that they don't even properly identify. It subconsiously shows the reader that MLS is a legit league, though somewhat new.

As for the argument about team names - mostly I prefer plural names, but some singular names suck more than others. For example the Chicago Fire is a great name, whereas Dallas Burn is hokey. And Arsenal is singular, don't forget. But plural names are a lot less likely to suck. Fortunately, Chivas and Sounders are both plural

 

A woman's softball team named the Juggs? Brilliant!!! "New York/New Jersey Juggernaut" is way too long, IMO.

 

Scott Reams, a spokesman for Nike, does not believe the company named any of the soccer teams, but says it acted as a design consultant on logos and uniform color schemes — a service it also occasionally performs for college athletic departments seeking to unify designs across different sports or perhaps bolster apparel sales.

If I was from nike I would not take credit for any of the uniform designs from 1996.

 

Confusing "better" with "more."

 

I was out of the country in '96, but I just went to the soccer hall of fame this weekend with my team. I'd heartedly agree with this comment.

One of my team moms is an art teacher. I saw her gasp repeatedly. Then she asked me if they were from the 70s or early 80s. When I told her 1996, she resumed gasping.

 

and on top of that, he's lying

 

I agree but I think some (like the Fire and the Breakers) are just good names regardless. Others take time for names to change to the community. NY/NY Metrostars is a dumb name-- but the Metros sounds good. Same goes for the Revs, I think. Others just begin to "sound" less dumb with the passage of time-- I think the Crew are a good example. I particularly agree with this quote from the article:

"older leagues, on the other hand, it can be tradition that's marketed — though what's thought of as traditional today may not always have been so."

Even those old leagues you mentioned started out with names that didn't fit with tradition, though I don't know if they sounded as bad as "Juggs", even back in the day...

 

Lest we forget the minor league hockey team in Macon, GA: The Macon Whoopie.

 

I'll never forget Dan Patrick's comment regarding a "Wiz vs Burn" game and he said something like, I wonder who was in the meeting that came up with those names.

 

Didn't Patrick (or was it Olberman?) also come up with the classic "Urinary Tract Infection Cup" remark about that game?

 

Re: There's no such thing as bad publicity.

Very good point. MLS is seen somewhat on par with the Big 4 sports leagues. Which is suprising to see since it usually regarded on the same level as the AFL and WNBA.

One question though. Isn't Arsenal's name the Gunners?

 

Yeah that was it. Classic

 

Re: There's no such thing as bad publicity.

Most European club nicknames are unofficial, yet traditional, I believe.

 

The Brooklyn Superbas was a stupid name and they changed it, first to the Robins (a fairly decent name but based on their manager), and then to the Dodgers (short for Trolley Dodgers) which stuck.

Spelling "socks" with an 'x' is a very 21st century marketing thing to do, but both the Red Sox and White Sox (a take off on the name of the National League club the Chicago White Stockings) stuck.

Names with historical significance tied to the city are usually pretty good (like the Chicago Fire or Charleston Battery). The Earthquakes are a superior name to the clash due simply to the history that team name has in the community.

One has to wonder whether the Montreal Expos would be in the state they're in if they'd been the Montreal Royals (the name of their legendary minor league club) instead.

 

Don't you think that's putting a wee bit too much stock in the name?

 

Yeah, but Voros has a point, Montreal Royals is a better name than Montreal Expos. Of course, had the KC Royals not taken the Royals nickname, when the NBA Cincinnati Royals moved, they would have been the KC-Omaha Royals, and now the Sacramento Royals.

Tony

 

Oh, I'm not doubting that Montreal Royals is a better name (the city takes its name from Mount Royal, n'est-ce pas?) with tons more history. Expos comes from Expo '67, right?

I'm just saying the forces that have brought the Expos to the position they're in today are many, and some of them are very powerful. I'm just not sure I'd put the name "Expos" near the top of the culpability flow chart on that. Montrealites sure warmed to "Expos" in the early 80's when they were a very good team.

It may very well be that the big market/small market forces that have exacerbated the bad situation of many a team in the past 10 years affected Montreal more. It may have been the combination of small market team in a foreign city with a crap stadium situation that pissed off its fanbase by dumping its best players had the biggest effect, and that maybe they could have mitigated some of that with the historic name "Royals," but I'm not inclined to think it would have been the saving grace.

The name "Chicago Blackhawks" goes way the hell back, too, and their owners have certainly not been able to overcome their mismanagement just because they have an historic name.

I'm just sayin'.

 

Expos has a historical tie like the Fire and the Battery. The team was named after the World's Fair (Exposition/Expo) of 1967 - when World's Fairs meant something of intense pride to host cities (and countries). The team began to play in 1969 but was named shortly after the Expo.

 

I don't think you can draw the same line from Chicago to Fire that you can from Montreal to Expos in terms of historical relevance and association.

Having written that, I should have been more clear, Kenn's point is, as always, well thought out and well stated. To further his point, the Quakes aren't better marketed just because they have a better name and uniforms than they did in the Clash days.

An owner could call a team, oh let me pick a name at random, something crazy like, ohh, Chivas USA, and if its not run and marketed right, its not going to be a success.

Tony