Elias Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 The thirty-six-ers? Okay, so which is more stupid, Real Salt Lake or Houston 1836? Although I do like the halloween colour sceme and their logo does look half-decent. http://www.houston1836.com http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Soccer/2006/01/25/1411446-cp.html Newest team in Major League Soccer to be known as Houston 1836 HOUSTON (CP) - The new Houston entry in Major League Soccer will be known as Houston 1836. The number refers to the date the city was founded and the Battle of the Alamo. The team moved from San Jose, Calif., where it was known as the Earthquakes. There are two high-profile Canadians on the Houston team: goalkeeper Pat Onstad and attacking midfielder Dwayne DeRosario. Onstad was named goalie of the year for the second time last season in San Jose. DeRosario won goal of the year honours for the second straight year and was a finalist for the league MVP award. The new team colours are black, blue and orange. Using a number or date in a team name is not uncommon in Europe, with the likes of Germany's FC Schalke 04, 1860 Munich and Hannover 96. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Real Salt Lake is the more stupid name, by about 5 trillion light years I'd say. I don't see much wrong with 1836 (the year the city was founded) by comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Although teams with years in their names usually refer to the year the team was founded, at least 1836 has significance for the city they are representing. I do find the logo looks a bit like a NFL logo though. Real refers to a soccer team with ties to the Spanish royal family. Obviously that is a ridiculous name in a country that is a republic and not tied historically to the Spanish throne. There is no relationship whatsoever between the team or city with the Spanish throne and that is what makes this one of the most ridiculous sporting names I have ever heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 It looks like and NHL shoulder logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 quote:Although I do like the halloween colour sceme and their logo does look half-decent. Those aren't Halloween colours they are: the club's primary colors: 'Raven Black,' 'Space City Blue' and 'Wildcatter Orange.' Isn't it totally obvious, haven't you ever seen Space City Blue before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca Real Salt Lake is the more stupid name, by about 5 trillion light years I'd say. I don't see much wrong with 1836 (the year the city was founded) by comparison. Agreed. I am however more inclinded towards 1.596 x 10(to the power of 6) parsecs. I'm not nit-picking. This is just a personal preference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJT Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 I think "Real Salt Lake", "FC Dallas" and "Houston 1836" are all stupid names because it is clear that all they are trying to do is sound Euro, whether they have any significance to the respective cities or not. If it was, for example, "Houston 1836ers" then that would be different (though perhaps still stupid, for different reasons). I'll agree, though, that "Houston 1836" is the best of the lot, while "Real Salt Lake" is by far the worst. quote:Originally posted by Cheeta I am however more inclinded towards 1.596 x 10(to the power of 6) parsecs. That is actually much, much less than Gian-Luca's figure. I take it that wasn't your intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettermirror Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 fc dallas, dc united, and houston 1836 are fine names. traditional - trying to nab the euro-centric fans by going with traditional names ... same can be said for the MetroStars (since they dropped the NY/NJ thing). but big deal. i'd rather they have such names, as opposed to Tampa Bay Mutiny - gimme a break. Real Salt Lake is a wickedly-horrific name though!!!! why is this a topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 I like the Houston name and the colours. Reminds me of the BC Lions a bit, so good colour scheme, and the date at least has a meaning. It is even educational in that respect. I think Grizzly has laid out clearly how stupid Real Salt Lake is. Notice there are no such Reals in S. American as all the Spanish colonies departed under revolutionary or liberal pretexts and set up republics, such as those inspired or won by Bolivar. So no team would ever call itself royal in South America. But in the States they would? Sure, there are baseball precedents, but that had more to do with "Royals" being a name indicating class and quality. But at least Royal is English. Real Salt Lake sounds in English like it wants to contrast itself with non real (false, fake) salty lakes in the world. Or is it that the lake is really salty? If you did not know the Real Madrid reference you could easily think either. Finally, by choosing such a specific name referring ostensibly to Madrid, Salt Lake automatically becomes the enemy of guys like me who are Barça fans. Fine, if Barça buys a share in Metrostars then maybe the Real fans will react likewise. Though all of that makes no sense either, since there are about a dozen teams with Real in their name in Spain (Betis, Zaragoza, Sociedad, Espanyol, Murcia, Jaen...), many as old as RM. Is the idea to refer to them as well? Or did they maybe not take that into consideration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juaninho Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 I don't mind Houston 1836. Real Salt Lake continues to, and forever will, escape me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew W Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Let it be known that henceforth the Salt Lake MLS franchise will be known only as Fake Salt Lake. Not only is it an obvious play on words but it also aptly describes the intent of naming the team ReAL. Houston 1836 is just fine. It seems US and MLS teams (and by extension Canada) are damned it they do, damned if they don't. People want traditional sounding names then slam them for Euro-pandering or being cheap knockoffs, but if they adopt traditional-style North American nicknames they are hammered for not choosing traditional "soccer-style" names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 I'm glad the internet wasn't around when the name "Impact" was announced. Names become something with time (and wins ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Sigma Colombia - Real Cartagena Bolivia - Real Potosi Pretty good, I am surprised. I would imagine that whoever founded them got inspired by Real Madrid on those though. Especially odd in Bolivia though. Another possible reason would be that some Spanish ex-pats who were monarchists (or just nostalgic) were involved in setting up those clubs. Indeed, I think that maybe the team in Cartagena, Spain is called Real, it is the site of an important navy base and the region has a classic "royal" side that was in top flight for years, Real Murcia. Still, interesting exceptions. Odd too, when you think of it, how Royals has disappeared from the Canadian sport scene. And we have no team named after the Governor Generals. So how about MLS Toronto Governor Generals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Dude, the Ottawa GeeGees! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonovision Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S. Pretty good, I am surprised. I would imagine that whoever founded them got inspired by Real Madrid on those though. Especially odd in Bolivia though. Another possible reason would be that some Spanish ex-pats who were monarchists (or just nostalgic) were involved in setting up those clubs. Indeed, I think that maybe the team in Cartagena, Spain is called Real, it is the site of an important navy base and the region has a classic "royal" side that was in top flight for years, Real Murcia. Still, interesting exceptions. Odd too, when you think of it, how Royals has disappeared from the Canadian sport scene. And we have no team named after the Governor Generals. So how about MLS Toronto Governor Generals? I believe the correct pluralization of Governor General is not Governor Generals but Governors General. I can imagine the knuckle-dragging sports highlight show gang having real trouble with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 quote:Originally posted by jonovision I believe the correct pluralization of Governor General is not Governor Generals but Governors General. I can imagine the knuckle-dragging sports highlight show gang having real trouble with that. The real question is grammatical: what is the noun and what is the adjective. The adjective cannot be pluralized. But I am not sure that the formula is reversed by some strange and ancient legal formula. What would you ask? How many Governors General has Canada had, or how many Governor Generals? I think the latter but I am not sure, like making a list of Attorney Generals or Solicitor Generals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I don't have too much of a hang up on names generally. Traditional euro names are not a necessity as we are not in Europe and having our culture, language and traditions reflected in our sports teams makes much more sense. Sometimes we screw it up - the Toronto Raptors, for example, is a stupid name simply becasue of its context and that it is essentially a pop culture phenomenon that looses its relevance th efurther we get away from Jurasic Park. But the Toronto Falcon's, essentially the same sort of name would have been fine as far as I am concerned - and yes I do know the modern use of the word is in relationship to birds of prey. Toronto Lynx, Vancouver Whitecaps and Montreal Impact are all decent names. Whitecaps particularly relevant and a name that has smoe tradition of its own. Toronto City or Toronto FC will annoy me. I'd prefer "Black Squirrels" to either of those I also dislike cartoony logos generally. It doesn't have to be a sheild, as many on this board seem to insit, but please, not something that belongs on a Saturday morning cartoon. Given that there is some tradition in North America of using years or date specific events: Vancouver 86ers, SF 49'ers, Montreal Expos, Ottawa 67's I have no issues with Houston 1836 although 36ers would be more in keeping with the North American tradition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loud Mouth Soup Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Why is it, when names like this come up, are we immediately accused of Euro-snobbery? Europe does not have a monopoly on names that aren't like your typical North American sports name. Please move away from the Euro comments. It's a footy-snobbery thing, if it's snobbery at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealGooner Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Gordon Toronto City or Toronto FC will annoy me. I'd prefer "Black Squirrels" to either of those Toronto City was a club that was around in the 1960s. It has historical weight to it in Toronto. Why does that annoy you? ps, I think Houston 1836, FC Dallas and DC United are all great names, but that Salt Lake business will take some getting used to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 quote:Originally posted by RealGooner Toronto City was a club that was around in the 1960s. It has historical weight to it in Toronto. Why does that annoy you? ps, I think Houston 1836, FC Dallas and DC United are all great names, but that Salt Lake business will take some getting used to. Was it a big name? Does it really have historical significance? Or was it just a name of a club that existed once? Not being a smart ass, I've just never heard of them. I far prefer Blizzard from a historical and cultural perspective, and I think names that resonate with Canadians are the way we should go. I don't think that "FC" "United" or "City" do that, even if some ex-pats ran a club side at one point. I would hope, for example, that any pro (PDL, USL or whatever) club in Saskatoon would not call itself Hollandia, even though that is a name with a long established and well regarded tradition here. We always seem to be so embarrassed that we don't compare to other soccer nations. Oh, we want to sing, we want to chant and we lament that Canadians are not "real" fans because we don't. I don't buy it. I don't buy that Liverpool fans are any more passionate than Montreal Canadien fans because the former sing "You'll never walk alone". I say embrace our canadianess instead of running away with it. Vive le Blizzard! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealGooner Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Gordon I think names that resonate with Canadians are the way we should go I don't think that "FC" "United" or "City" do that Well in Toronto there are huge populations of Canadians recently immigrated from Europe,Latin America, Asia etc (including myself) for whom FC Porto and Manchester City are names that resonate more than Anaheim Mighty Ducks. This is a team being marketed to Torontonians remember. quote:We always seem to be so embarrassed that we don't compare to other soccer nations. I say embrace our canadianess instead of running away with it. Vive le Blizzard! Fair enough but 'Canadianness' is not set in stone anymore Gordon. Certainly in Toronto, Canadianness has a much heavier European/ethnic flavour than can be observed in other places in Canada, and you must take that into your consideration. Again, this MLS team is aimed at the Toronto market, and for that reason it may go about its business in a different way than a team in your city would. I wouldn't expect to see a team in Saskatoon called Atletico Saskatoon, as it wouldn't resonate with residents. However a team called FC Toronto would not be innappropriate in this heavily ethnic city, as many residents grew up with soccer teams with names like that. One size does not fit all with respect to Canadian culture. Canadians share basic values and a sense of national pride, but tastes can and do vary regionally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 quote:Originally posted by RealGooner Well in Toronto there are huge populations of Canadians recently immigrated from Europe,Latin America, Asia etc (including myself) for whom FC Porto and Manchester City are names that resonate more than Anaheim Mighty Ducks. This is a team being marketed to Torontonians remember. Well that is all fair enough, but gets into what resonates with the Euros might not resonate with the africans etc. etc. Isn't on eof our complaints that these fans don't leave their old allegiances behind and support Canadian soccer? quote:Originally posted by RealGooner Fair enough but 'Canadianness' is not set in stone anymore Gordon. Certainly in Toronto, Canadianness has a much heavier European/ethnic flavour than can be observed in other places in Canada, and you must take that into your consideration. Again, this MLS team is aimed at the Toronto market, and for that reason it may go about its business in a different way than a team in your city would. I wouldn't expect to see a team in Saskatoon called Atletico Saskatoon, as it wouldn't resonate with residents. However a team called FC Toronto would not be innappropriate in this heavily ethnic city, as many residents grew up with soccer teams with names like that. One size does not fit all with respect to Canadian culture. Canadians share basic values and a sense of national pride, but tastes can and do vary regionally. That is an interesting take, and far beyond the scope of a simple soccer discussion. I don't agree, but then we digress far out of the realm of a team name and into national identity. Therefore we'll leave it at an agreement to disagree, although I do agree wuth you that national identity and culture is not a static entity. But I do ask that your remember your Canadian history and which part of the country first had to deal with a huge ethnically diverse immigration wave and the rather successful way we have blended "canadianness" and multiculturalism. So we may have an idea or experience or two that is not entirely irrelevant to modern day Toronto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJT Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Andrew W It seems US and MLS teams (and by extension Canada) are damned it they do, damned if they don't. People want traditional sounding names then slam them for Euro-pandering or being cheap knockoffs, but if they adopt traditional-style North American nicknames they are hammered for not choosing traditional "soccer-style" names. That is true to an extent, but there is a happy medium. For example, use "SC" instead of "FC". As if "FC" isn't bad enough, in the case of "FC Dallas" the "F" actually stands for "Futbol". And the same applies to traditional-style North American nicknames. There is a huge difference between "Xtreme" and "Whitecaps". I agree with what Gordon has been posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zacRWE Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 RSL is horrible, nuff said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealGooner Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 quote:Originally posted by DJT And the same applies to traditional-style North American nicknames. There is a huge difference between "Xtreme" and "Whitecaps". People in Toronto still haven't figured out the difference between Maple Leafs and Maple Leaves for that matter [)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.