Expansion teams deserve better Names

Discussion in 'MLS: Expansion' started by futbolrey, Jan 5, 2003.

  1. futbolrey

    futbolrey New Member

    Dec 20, 2002
    Burke, Va
    Hopefully, MLS can be a little more creative when coming up with team names. I know that MLS will expand in the next year hopefully they won't come with past stupid names like Mutiny and Fusion.
     
  2. Sober Tom

    Sober Tom Member

    Sep 10, 2001
    Glassboro, South Jer
    Club:
    CA River Plate
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    prepare to get ripped newbie.....
     
  3. Sachin

    Sachin New Member

    Jan 14, 2000
    La Norte
    Club:
    DC United
    :D

    I think the problem is that they are too creative. Then again, there are far too many Panthers, Wildcats, Bulldogs, Eagles, Banana Slugs, etc. out there are already.

    I'd worry about expansion teams taking shape before I'd worry about their names.

    Sachin
     
  4. PFSIKH

    PFSIKH Member

    Nov 1, 1999
    ClarkVegas
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think they hit rock bottom with Columbus. Is there anything gayer then The Crew and their Village People logo?
     
  5. DavidP

    DavidP Member

    Mar 21, 1999
    Powder Springs, GA
    Actually, that was a pretty good post for a new person. He probably echoes the sentiments of a whole slew of people on this board, like me for example. A good many of the MLS/WUSA nicknames have been sheer crap.
     
  6. NACIONAL

    NACIONAL New Member

    Dec 31, 2001
    Medellin, Colombia


    ohhh god PLEASE listen this man...

    i don't want to hear rochester raging rhinos... please... just put the rhinos... the raging cause me explosive diarrea....


     
  7. ProfZodiac

    ProfZodiac Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jan 17, 2003
    Boston, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Explosive diarrhea? Not just diarrhea, but EXPLOSIVE diarrhea? I'd like to see Rochester's plans crash and burn. Don't like the idea of an A-League team being promoted... I like Philly and Atlanta. Atlanta's not ready, but they don't have many other sports teams there, unlike Houston, Seattle, and such. If Atlanta got a team, I think they'd succeed.

    Prof
     
  8. MLS3

    MLS3 Member

    Feb 7, 2000
    Pac NW
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Obviously you follow sports, atlanta doesn't have many sports there like seattle, houston, etc??????

    hahahah:

    MLB - Braves
    NFL - Falcons
    NBA - Hawks
    NHL - Thrashers
    WUSA - Beat

    haha, they have the 4 "BIG" sports in town, but they don't have many sports like other cities like Seattle, Houston, Atlanta HAS MORE!!!!!!!

    Think before you post...
     
  9. ProfZodiac

    ProfZodiac Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jan 17, 2003
    Boston, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Sorry 'bout that. Don't like hockey, and forgot the Hawks. Where do the Beat play? I just don't like the idea of Seattle. Maybe it's the weather, maybe it's the sheer distance from the Eastern Conference teams (and even some of the West, i.e. Dallas, Kansas City). The distance alone would create a HUGE home-field advantage for a Seattle team. San Jose and LA would the the only teams that would have a real shot at winning there, barring a really sucky expansion team. And Houston? As far as I'm concerned, the Burn need to really establish themselves first. Refresh my memory, have the Burn ever even made an MLS Cup, let alone won one? Same goes for a Rochester or other NY team. The Metros have sucked in general over the last 7 years. (Not as much as my Revs, so don't flame me there.) Until they win something, I don't like the idea of a NY team. Where WOULD I suggest? A new city, that MLS, maybe even the USMNT hasn't gone to. The Twin Cities in Minnesota, Phoenix (Southwest, doesn't have to be Phoenix), Nashville (could play in the Titans' stadium) and such. MLS needs to establish itself as a NATIONAL league before we can have cities double up.

    Prof
     
  10. RaginInferno

    RaginInferno New Member

    Nov 9, 2002
    Lockport, IL
    I dont think that we should go and give these teams crappy names but also we shouldnt start giving teams European nicknames like FC Rochester and Atlectico Atlanta. We invented the shoddy nicknames that have to do with the city or its history, (Chicago Fire: The Great Chicago Fire of 1871) and we should keep them. But dont use crappy nicknames that have nothing to do with your city (former San Jose Clash, symbol: Scorpion)
    That one still doesnt make sense!
     
  11. JCUnited

    JCUnited Member

    Oct 7, 2002
    South Bend, IN
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    I don't see what all the complaining about nicknames is for. Some are bad, but the majority are decent.
    DC United--awesome and traditional; granted they united nothing really, except good soccer and the MLS Cup from 1996-1999.
    Chicago Fire--awesome and fits in with the city history, which a nickname should do.
    New England Revolution--I might be the only one here who likes this name and badge (read many complaints about them), but the name fits well with the history of the Boston area.
    Columbus Crew--don't see the problems here. Basically the same as the NFL's Steelers. It represents a work ethic that (rightfully or wrongfully) the Midwest represents. The badge is decent. Yeah, there's a construction worker in the Village People, but only one. Do you badge haters go past construction sites and call everyone there in a hardhat "gay"?
    Colorado Rapids--Again, it goes with the territory.
    Kansas City Wizards--goes with the Wizard of Oz theme often associated with Kansas.
    San Jose Earthquakes--Won't be any good if S.J. gets hit by a major quake that kills a lot of people, but for now it fits with the Cali site.

    I don't much care for Metrostars, Galaxy, or Burn. Mutiny wasn't that great, but I really liked Fusion after getting rid of my initial trepidations. So, of the thirteen names so far (Clash sucked), I personally liked Eight of them. That's a good percentage.
     
  12. USRufnex

    USRufnex Red Card

    Tulsa Athletic / Sheffield United
    United States
    Jul 15, 2000
    Tulsa, OK
    Club:
    --other--
     
  13. Dr. Wankler

    Dr. Wankler Member+

    May 2, 2001
    The Electric City
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    You forgot about the Hawks? So have most of the people living in Atlanta.
     
  14. RaginInferno

    RaginInferno New Member

    Nov 9, 2002
    Lockport, IL
    Just to finish up on JCUnited's post

    Galaxy- Hollywood all the famous movie stars(that how i see it anyway
    Burn- I guess just cause its hot there
    Metrostars- what can i say the marketing morons are retards
     
  15. Sachin

    Sachin New Member

    Jan 14, 2000
    La Norte
    Club:
    DC United
    Or you could point out the fact that the original owners of the Metrostars (Kluge and Subotnick) also owned Metromedia Corp. It's really no different than naming a German soccer team Bayer Levekusen or a Dutch team PSV Eindhoven.

    Sachin
     
  16. SankaCofie

    SankaCofie Member

    Aug 8, 2000
    Skorgolia
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    Ecuador
    doesn't atlanta already have a team? the silverbacks? why are you against promoting rochester but for killing another team by giving them major league competition?
     
  17. ProfZodiac

    ProfZodiac Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jan 17, 2003
    Boston, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I thought the Silverbacks were D3... Oh well. I don't remember who said it, but Atlanta experiencing a huge popuation explosion right now. So is Detroit. That's the main reason I want to give them teams. Large markets, pre-built stadiums (unless we get a really rich investor), the interest is there. To even out the conferences, (I'd put both Detroit and Atlanta in the East), I'd give teams to Phoenix and possibly Seattle. And tell me, whoever flamed me, how the weather can effect the Supersonics? When I said weather, I meant the constant rain. I don't know of many players who PREFER playing in the rain. And it would be the most isolated franchise. And when I said "doubling up", I meant by state, not necessarily by market. Sure, b*tch and moan about how I'm being hypocritical when both LA and SJ are succeeding, but in few other cases will two teams in the same state have that kind of distance between them. 4 hours, am I right? I'm not sure, but I don't think Dallas is THAT far from Houston. Miami certainly wasn't that far from Tampa. How far is Detroit from Chicago? From the Twin Cities?

    Prof
     
  18. Defender

    Defender Member

    Joe's Plumbing 86ers
    Feb 16, 2001
    San Francisco CA
    Club:
    Atlanta Silverbacks
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Who prefers to play in a hot, humid Boston atmosphere in August? Or the freezing cold that the MLS Cup 2002 televised?

    Who wants to play in the smog of LA?

    Who wants to play in the heat of Dallas during the summer?

    Columbus in the winter?

    ---

    The Mariners are able to play 80 something games in Seattle. The Seattle market can't play 15 MLS games? I remember watching the US thrash Honduras 4-0 last (May?) year before the World Cup at SafeCo field in beautiful weather.
     
  19. StingRay37

    StingRay37 Member

    Dec 4, 2000
    North Carolina
    I love playing in the rain it is way more fun.
     
  20. Soccer-Six-Shooter

    Soccer-Six-Shooter New Member

    Jan 17, 2002
    Arlington, VA
    You're nuts, the Mutiny and Fusion were the BEST names IMO. DCU sucks, Earthquakes suck, Galaxy suck, Metrostars suck too. Those nicknames are a joke anad I agree they need to change. The other names IN MLS are O.K. The new teams coming up in 2004 will probably be Rochester and Oklahoma. Rochester could drop raging and be alright with Rochester Rhinos. And I like Oklahoma Octane for the other.
     
  21. rymannryan

    rymannryan New Member

    Aug 27, 2002
    N.N., Virginia
     
  22. RaginInferno

    RaginInferno New Member

    Nov 9, 2002
    Lockport, IL
    I like the idea of reviving nicknames from former NASL teams.

    Seattle Sounders
    Tulsa Roughnecks
    Atlanta Chiefs
    Houston Stars
     
  23. Tato

    Tato New Member

    Jan 23, 2003
    Seattle
    I like the idea of reviving nicknames from former NASL teams.

    Seattle Sounders
    Tulsa Roughnecks
    Atlanta Chiefs
    Houston Stars

    ___________________________________________

    I'm with you on the NASL revival names. Although I think Houston and Atlanta sould use some updating.

    Atlanta: let's avoid the whole Native American Tribal nickname/mascot issue.

    Houston: "Stars" (which I don't even remember) is pretty unoriginal nowadays.

    As to the "BIG" homefield advantage from playing "way up" in the northwest, Seattle would have to travel just as far to play on the East Coast. Also...they don't drive in a friggin' team bus from NY or DC all the way to Seattle...they fly. It's not like they play every night...
     
  24. soccerfan

    soccerfan BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 13, 1999
    New Jersey
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    When you see a team name and start scratching your head wonderiing, asking yourself, is this a baseball team, must be an arena sport, or damn what do they play?.. name the sport, lol ....you see there is your problem. I know most of you like this, but I wish they would keep it to the point. Lets say Tulsa Futbal Club, nicknamed the roughnecks by their fans, or just plain Oklahoma City, nicknamed the bulldogs if you want. But why does the nickname have to be included in the team name, lets keep it simple and to the point, let's get serious and not your typical stupid names.
    Let's try to look respectable in the eyes of the footbal world, in all honesty the World is watching closer this league then those living here.
     
  25. Zenitfan

    Zenitfan Member

    May 31, 2001
    Dayton, OH
    Oh no, not this again.
     

Share This Page