Fair enough. I have not slogged through every post on this thread. From those I read it seemed you felt otherwise.
That is probolly unrealistic in the near future. To many teams in the west and not enough in the east. On the Cleveland thread, they also post about spreading the footprint. You have Chivas USA going to SD. But I do like how Sounders FC sounds I agree. Rochester has a good "A" league team but Rochester area is small and such. Not to mention.. Rochester Raging Rhinos does not sound like something that is going to make people tune in Damn... This league lacks Soccer names thats for sure. Revolution, Galaxy, Crew, Burn, Metrostars, Fire etc... I think the only Soccer name in the League is DC United. Fusion FC was decent... Hoewever, I still like Sounders FC out of all the names I have heard.. even though they would probolly end up being Seattle Sounders, which.... is not as appealing.
I used to think that way a lot too. While I do think a lot of the names are goofy (particularly the Crew the Revolution), I've also come to realize that Americans just do things different. While I like a lot of the "traditional" sounding names of European clubs, I realize the US is still trying to make the sport take deeper roots here. Calling something a "football club" is going to be alien to a lot of people, and so would "SC" for that matter. We will feel more comfortable with our names in 20 years time when the Fire and the Galaxy are blasting Euro & South American clubs in international competitions.
"Seattle Sounders" means professional soccer in the Puget Sound region. What makes a name a soccer name? Arbitrarily putting a couple of letters before or after a name? "Fusion" isn't much better than "Burn" or "Galaxy", but put "FC" behind it and it's okay? Maybe if you're naming a U-15 team...you can't swing a shingaurd in suburban America without hitting a youth soccer team with a name along the lines of "FC Strike Force". In grade school, I played on a teeball team called "Lifttrucks Unlimited", but that doesn't mean that would be a good name for the Montreal Expos when they move to Puerto Rico. I agree that "Dallas Burn" and "Los Angeles Galaxy" aren't the best soccer names (and judging by their records this year, they weren't that great of teams either, but that's beside the point), but "Chicago Fire" is in a different class all together. As is "Seattle Sounders". Both names have a specific connection to their respective cities, which affords much more class than the arbitrary addition of a few letters.
The Seattle Sounders are the most storied professional soccer franchise in the history of the United States. Established in 1974. Click these links to see more about the Sounders 20+ seasons... http://SounderCentral.com/OriginalSounders.htm http://SounderCentral.com/museum/A-LeagueSounders.htm
*eurosnob alert* especially @ the Rochester comment...seems they are doing fine without being "Club Rochester FC United" Gimme a break.... They may drop the "raging", but cmon.... Sure, there are a couple names that could use a change still (Burn specifically - renamed to Dragons?), but getting rid of the Clash and Wiz was imperative as they were the major horrible names....most of them are decent now.....every team doesn't need a FC, SC, AC, or United to sound "cool". Get real.... hell, the Fire is probably the best out of the MLS names, and I'm not even particularly a fan of them.... As for the Sounders, personally I like the fact of a team representing the city they are from/playing in. Seattle Sounders works for me. What's the purpose in dropping the Seattle? None. lmao....
Safeco Field Approaching the M's owners and investigating the opportunities available with a MLS team playing at Safeco is imperative. Would the groundkeepers be happy? Of course not. I do think that the added number of games added to the Safeco schedule (concessions, parking, added job hours for employees) may be interesting. My feeling from touring both stadiums (Safeco and The Hawk) is that they are in a bidding war and constant battle with each other regarding who will host big events (WWE, Concerts, etc.) Safeco has a certain inherent site beauty cache that The Hawk can't match. (The Hawk can feel like an overblown Memorial stadium at times - especially in the corridors.) The soccer that has been played at Safeco has been well received - and I didn't mind the sightlines. As long as they keep the field in the center of the property like they have lately - and not drag it to one side or the other - ala Georgia State Seattle Bowl in 2001. Then we can discuss Baseball fieldlines! I hate that damn fair/foul pole getting in the way of my crowd shots!!! Corner kicks from the mound! I think a Paul Allen ownership scenario is the most likely - and the fact that The Hawk was sold to the public as the future site of soccer in Seattle means mucho. I just don't think completely disregarding playing at Safeco (temporarily or not) should be the rule.
Things that will we'll see long before an MLS team ever plays at Safeco Field: *World Peace *Flying Pigs *Worms with ears *McCauly Caulkin wins 17 Oscars *Hell Freezes Over
Actually, I've seen a soccer game at Safeco, and it was pretty nice. Besides, Hell Already Froze Over, if you ask the Eagles. ;-) People seem to forget that the NASL Sounders regularly outdrew the Mariners in attendance in the incredibly crappy Kingdome, so I don't give a damn about anyone's arguments for SSS in Seattle. No soccer fan likes gridiron lines. No isht, Sherlock. But stadia can (and sometimes probably should) be built for more than one purpose. And there simply isn't anywhere in Seattle to build a SSS. Fort Dent isn't Seattle. I myself find Tukwila and Redmond offensive, and would be hard-pressed not to puke in such a locale.