I HATE SOME OF THE MLS TEAM NAMES LIKE THE BURN,REVOLUTION,CREW,GALAXY,AND FIRE I THINK REALLY CORNY AND TEAM LOGOS ARE CRAP! LIKE THE COLUMBUS CREW TEAM LOGO ECSPECIALLY.
To try and keep it at a serious discussion, I think the Revolution and Crew are fine since they're history related. Other than that, screw you.
real question, how is the crew history related? i mean that in total seriousness. and the fire should be on that list
I think all team names take getting used to, when I first starting following the league I thought the Crew, Galaxy, and MetroStars were some of the worst I'd ever heard of but after a while they kind of grow on you. The Crew have even sort of become my second favorite team because of their name and uniforms. My only real problem is with these two: 1.) MetroStars. Please pick a home city a give up the life of wandering vagabonds. 2.) DC United. If you are not THE United, then as far as I know you have no actual team name. Hell even MANU has a nickname, so please pick one. Eagles, or Screaming Eagles would be fine. DC United Screaming Eagles, I like that a lot.
Honestly, the first poster isn't far off here. Team names and logos don't matter much if you're already a soccer fan and you have a local team to support. But for people who may have just a passing interest in soccer, a team name or logo has a pretty big effect on how whether or not they like the team and choose to support it. A few of my friends have slightly more than a passing interest in soccer, and lame team names are one of the biggest reasons they never really accepted the MLS. It's hard to take some of them seriously. The Burn? MetroStars? Wizards? Crew? Galaxy? The MLS sure tried hard to come up with original names for teams... And though some of the names are original, almost all, for lack of a better word, suck. Which teams seem to work? D.C. United does, and it wouldn't be a bad model for the rest of the league to follow. Yeah they borrowed a little from England, but both the name and logo are respectable, traditional, and downright cool. New England Revolution is also decent. Didn't like it much at first, but it does fit into the whole "New England" theme. It's better than Chowderheads. Chicago Fire has grown on me a bit. The name isn't the greatest, but combined with the logo it works. Which teams are just horrible? K.C. Wizards. Team name? Silly fantasy stuff. Logo? Silly rainbow stuff. It's just childish. It perpetuates the sterotype that soccer is for kids and chicks. You're not gonna win over any new fans. How 'bout K.C. Outlaws instead? You can play cowboys and indians with the K.C. Chiefs. N.Y./N.J. MetroStars. If anyone can tell me what a Metro-Star is, I'll buy you a taco. The name is just absurd and inaccessable to people. You hear it and and say "what?" instead of "hmm, cool". Again, an uphill battle to attract new fans. L.A. Galaxy... It's not horrible, but it's really close. It was a bad name for a car, and it's just too "non-traditional" for a sports team. L.A. Matadors would have made me happy. Dallas Burn. We already have the Fire. There are lots of stuff in Texas you could use to name a team. Dallas Marshalls maybe? Dallas Stallions? Columbus Crew... I actually could live with the name, but the logo... correct me if I'm wrong... but is it "dudes with hard hats ready to hang some drywall"? I don't know. You've got great soccer colors. Black and Yellow. Having a decent logo that didn't evoke some "Village People" nightmare would make this an attractive team to get behind. No pun intended. Who's left... San Jose Earthquakes... Kinda childish, but I can't think of anything better. Colorado Rapids... Totally childish... I don't know. Colorado Wolfpack? There's gotta be something better. Lots of stuff to work with. San Diego Chivas? Houston Chivas? Don't think it's even up for negotiation. San Diego Armada was a name I saw floating around on these boards, and I must say, I thought it was awesome. Cleveland? No idea... Dude. Can't believe I typed all this crap. I'm goin to bed, and I'm dreaming of a MLS with respectable names and logos that don't cater to children and what some ad exec thinks will "capture the gen-x market".
All sports have their share of bad nicknames. Burn, Fire, and Crew are no worse than Packers, Brewers, Red Wings and Magic. It just takes a while for them to become excepted by the masses, and when that happens changing them would be treated with the same revulsion as pissing on a flag. Just give the names time. A side note. While "I" have grown to except the name Galaxy, I still hesitate a bit when I mention it around my friends. But again 20 years and general public acceptance will change all that.
You're right. Eventually all these names will "catch on" and be accepted by the public. Well... all except the MetroStars. It's right up there with the Cyber Rays in terms of absurdity. *Tangent Alert* (I could have understood it if they were called the Metropolitians, and went by Metros... Much like the Knickerbockers are known as the Knicks.) Back to the point... What you said is valid, but at the same time, it applies differently with soccer in the U.S. Let me explain. When a basketball, baseball, or football expansion team is announced, it's going to be popular regardless of the team name. These sports are popular and franchises will be popular as long as they win. They have fanbases that aren't going anywhere. The name doesn't matter upon inception. People support the team. Eventually, yeah... These names become widely accepted, but the teams are supported in the meantime. With soccer, there's a problem. The sport itself just isn't popular in the U.S., so immediately, these teams are trying to bring new fans to the sport. The existing fanbase just isn't there, waiting to support whatever team appears in their town. Even winning won't ensure a spreading fanbase (hi, San Jose). Instead, you need to create this attractive image for the team. At the very least, you need an image that isn't a turn-off or an embarrassment. I feel like I'm being more long winded than I need to be. The point is that while these names will catch on eventually, they sure aren't doing much to spread the popularity of the sport in the mean time. If the MLS is going to be around in 20 years, it needs fans right now. And I'm sure there'd be quite a few more fans if the MLS packaged it's product more attractively when it named the franchises.
HUH? No one I ever talk to has a problem with MetroStars. Metro = Metropolitan(aka a large city area) Stars = Stars I guess since we live in a city and everything is Metro this and Metro that(like Metro Diner, Metro Card, Cafe Metro, yada yada yada). We get it. And they cant call themselves Metropolitans because THE METS already own that name. Well whatever, no matter what name you pick a section of fans isnt gunna like it so it really doesnt matter what the hell you name it. And as for city I dont hear people complain about teams like Arsenal or the other 100 other teams that dont use their city. And yeah this is the USA, but dont you see the uniqueness this presents? I mean we are talking about 1 team not the whole league doing this, personally I think its kinda cool and people might also see it that way. Some may not, but like with everything theres always going to be a group that bitches about things.
MetroStars is my favorite MLS team name. At least it's kind of creative and it is not a natural disaster. I also like the fact that a city name is not attached. Kind of evokes associations with clubs like Corinthians and Boca Juniors - you know where they're from but you rarely hear the city name mentioned. DC United is okay. When the league started I thought it was a complete wannabe name, but I've gotten used to it. Columbus Crew - embarrasingly bad name. But not as embarrassing as the logo. Revolution - meh. Chicago Fire - What's with the whole natural disaster theme? Who TF decided it was a good idea to name a soccer club after a natural disaster? I just don't get it. It is embarrassing having to explain MLS to people and then mention team names like Chicago Fire. Dallas Burn - Absolutely horrible. It's as if the people who came up with these names got sloshed and had a laugh trying to see who could come up with the worst name. Kansas City Wizards - Much better than Wiz. L.A. Galaxy - meh. Could be worse. Again, though, what's with the singular noun/concept/natural disaster motif? SJ Earthquakes - Another natural disaster theme, another name that is very difficult to defend when explaining the league to people. Well at least it's plural. Colorado Rapids - One of the better names in the league, but that's not saying much. And just for shites and giggles: Miami Fusion - Horrible name, but the logo and colors were kind of cool. Tampa Bay Mutiny - Horrible name, but the logo and colors were kind of cool. Oh yeah, MUCH better name than Rowdies.
If you East Coasters "get" the whole Metro thing, I guess it's a good name then. Over here on the west coast, that name just baffles me. But like I said, if it works locally, good stuff. I'm gonna keep hating it though. And I never said anything was wrong with the Metros not being attached to a city. In fact, I actually like it that way. The California Angels were much cooler than the new Anaheim Angels. Oh, and the Fusion and the Mutiny were both horrible names as well. If Florida ever gets a team again, I hope they do better. Miami Mangroves? Wait. That's worse.
First, The Great Chicago Fire wasn't a "natural" disaster, since it wasn't started by lightning or anything like that. Second, in the popular history of the city, it's commonly accepted as paving the way to a miraculous rebirth from the ashes, and consequently is not, in the long run, a disaster. And it beats the hell out of the choice that Nike marketing geniuses wanted to inflict on the team: the Chicago Rhythm.
Then call em the Metro Stars and everyone will be happy. This would be no worse than the Golden State Warriors, and I mean every one knows what the Golden State refers to. You beat me to it. Arsenal got that name because they once played in or near an arsenal. Their nickname is the Gunners, so in the end it's not so different. Most English teams have the region they play in incorporated in their name somehow, and they have a nickname. Some of which are more horrible than the worst AYSO names to come out of anyone's nightmares. Ipswich Town Tractor Boys? The Cottagers? But in the end the only difference between our names and English team names is that we make the nickname official.
I'm a lifetime Angel's fan so excuse my need to comment on this. The team was originally an expansion franchise that was awarded to Los Angeles, and started life as the LA Angels and for a while shared a stadium with the Dodgers. To make a long story short the city of Anaheim payed to build them a stadium of their own but wanted the team to change it's name to the Anaheim Angels. "California" was the compromise since the team didn't want to give up it's LA roots. California is still a name that represents a region, and isn't much different than any other in US sports. A more "soccer" name for the team might have been Orange County BC "Angels"
Oh come on... Can anyone who chooses not to support a soccer team because the name isn't cool be taken seriously? In 20 years, all the MLS names will be so revered that fans would riot if someone tried to change them. Part of the nature of being a fan is that you buy into the symbols of the team. Why do you think the gridiron team in Washington still wants to be called the Redskins even though most people realize it's racist? At least MLS has some variety in the uniforms. If I see one more team with red and white striped jerseys and blue pants, I think I'm gonna puke.
Well, Los Angeles Angels had some history to it: the LA team in the old Pacific Coast League was the Los Angeles Angels. And, I don't care how long they last, the Dallas Burn is the stupidest name in the history of sports. I swear that MLS is just keeping so as to allow Crew to not look so bad. I don't mind Fire so much any more, and the league had the good sense to do away with Clash, Wiz and Mutiny. The rest aren't bad, IMHO.
everything would be great if we could just fix the logo and get 'good' nicknames for the teams... something like the Red Sox... or the Yankees... or something really cool like the Super Sonics... good lord this newbie is an exceptional idiot... "look i clicked on the post button and now i have one more than before!" simply stunning...
Arsenal used to be called Dial Square (very briefly) after the name of the workshops at the royal arsenal munitions factory in Woolwich, where the founders of the club were employed. Over a few years the names changed to Royal Arsenal, then Woolwich Arsenal, before the club (at that time a mediocre club) moved to heavily populated north London. The Woolwich part was then dropped as it was no longer relevant. "Tractor Boys" isn't an official nickname, but more an ironically proud twist to various tractor related insults sung at them by fans of big city teams (East Anglia being a rather rural area). Cardiff City have done a similar thing and will sing "1-0, to the sheep shaggers" if they go in front. The nicknames of clubs tend to be official. The Gunners certainly is. The difference is that it is a nickname, rather than being part of the club name. Despite the comment made earlier on, there is no club called "Manchester City Citizens".
I have to say that Michael Lamb's idea to nickname the "Burn" the "Diablos" was the best idea about changing an MLS nickname that I've ever heard. Regardless, the "Burn" and its logo need to go. The rest of the names are at least tolerable but many of them require serious logo changes. As for the Earthquakes, for those that don't know, the name harkens back to the old NASL days and the first San Jose franchise. It at least gives the team a sense of continuity and wouldn't make us seem all that stupid if we put "Est. 1974" or something like that on our crest. Either way, the name has grown on me and so has the logo. My only problem with our logo is the redundant "Earthquakes" written across the bottom. My suggestion? "We Believe"
For the people who are complaining about the Metros not having a city or state in their name, just look at the Revs. New England isn't a state or city. Get over it already. MetroStars - I have to admit, when I first heard the name I thought it sucked. I got used to it and wouldn't want the name changed. With the exception of one NY sports reporter (the stars?), everyone refers to them as the Metros anyway. I'm glad they changed the crest last year. That blazing M was pretty silly. Columbus Crew - Another name I got used to. I don't think that I can ever get used to the yellow unis or the Village People crest. New England Revolution - Not too bad. They're owned by the same people who own the Patriots, and it's fitting for the New England area. Chicago Fire - I have no problem with the name "Chicago Fire", but when people refer to them as "The Fire" then it sounds silly. Dallas Burn - same as above. Kansas City Wizards - Much better than the Wiz. Is Kansas City known for their magicians? L.A. Galaxy - A name I never got used to. No reason. San Jose Earthquakes - Much better than the Clash. Colorado Rapids - They stole this name from an old NHL team. I guess Rockies is used way too much in Colorado sports San Diego Chivas? - meh Cleveland? - I really want them to be called Cleveland Rocks! With the excalmation point in the name. DC United - sucks and will always suck. I'm just glad that no one in MLS is using names like Strikers, Kickers or Sockers. Thankfully Disney doesn't own a team, it'll be named after a movie! Air Bud?