| BraveNewWorld said: Thanks for the feedback, guys! So after reading this thread and doing some of my own research I have a couple of observations... A lot of really awesome teams names (Sounders, Timbers, Dynamo) in MLS, with a lot of uninspired names (Toronto FC, NYC FC, FC Dallas) as well. The Pacific Northwest loves its soccer; Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland all seem to have great fan support. Maybe MLS should consider teams in Edmonton and Boise? MLS will soon have the most number of teams of all the top leagues around the world. |
Names of clubs fall generally into two categories.
1. American sporting name conventions (City + Nickname)
2. International sporting name conventions (City, Nicknames are organic and develop as unofficial monikers)
Tastes vary between the two, personally I have no concerns what teams are called beside my own and happy with DC United.
The Pacific Northwest does indeed love the sport, but they also have benefitted from the work that went into the first decade or so in the league. 1996 and 2006 were very different landscapes and lots of hard lessons were learned. I think many expansion era sides say mis steps and have marketed themselves far better than original ones did for the most part.
In terms of other cities MLS could expand into, there are four general criteria that are desirable.
1. Wealthy Owner
2. Stadium, or stadium plan
3. Fan interest
4. Media market
As it stands now Sacramento, San Antonio, Minneapolis, Las Vegas and Indianapolis all candidate cities going through vetting processes. Even Miami which was tentatively awarded a club for 2017 could lose that if the stadium plans continue to struggle. The idea is stability rather than chasing a fad. I have heard nothing about Boise or Edmonton, so would put them at 0% chance of happening.
Personally I think 24 sides is a good goal to hold for a while and set up roots in cities, but I get the temptation of all the funds flowing in from all the recent expansion. As long as it is done smart then league should be fine.
