Their mascot damn well better be a mustachioed William Hurt.
__________________
“The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile, but that it is indifferent. If we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death, our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.” - Stanley Kubrick
I grant you that... but let's be honest: it's a dumb name for a basketball team too. What's next, the Montreal Chilly, the Chicago Windy, the Sante Fe Dry? Modern sports names too often suck / sound like they were the brainchild of someone from MLS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HuskerTornado
Carry on then.
Let that be a lesson to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. T
Sadly not, it appears to be this ****wad. Can someone here Photoshop Mr. Hurt's feathered coif and 'stache on to this thing?
I read something about their mascot. Has to do with some type of hawk being a local predator common to that area. I think they should've chosen a sasquatch (although I think that one's already taken, you can never have too many sasquatch mascots). They weren't smart enough to figure out that if they named their team the Heat, they would have no mascot options.
Thunder - uh-oh (I find it hard to dislike the Thunder, since they have the best chance of beating the Heat)
Avalanche - more trouble (I cannot disavow rooting for the Avs in the 90s vs. Detroit)
Fire - do not like
Crew - hate
DC United - do not like
Dynamo - do not like
Galaxy - do not like
Impact - hate
Revolution - do not like
Union - do not like
Sporting - hate
I think there is enough evidence that we can submit the following theorem:
Sports teams named after abstract concepts, scientific concepts, and which do not end in s, are almost certain to be worthy of your principled hatred.
That said we have another group that ends in s but which also have no grounding in likability. Witness:
Sounders - Not terrible but not likable either.
Timbers - did someone really think this was a good idea? It's almost as bad as naming your team... after tree leaves.
Earthquakes - mmmm.... nope. But like the Avalanche, it's tolerable because it seems like a nature analogy that could in some situations apply to "what you'd do to the opposition". Joe Sakic and Peter Foresberg buried opponents in an avalanche of goals. And the guys who play from the earthquakes bring you to your knees and drop stuff on your head. Still dorktacular but I can tolerate it.
Rapids - not even as cool as earthquakes, let alone avalanche.
I don't know where we go from here but I know we can negotiate an agreement if we try. And let's be honest: at least one original six team has a really stupid name, and logo for that matter.
Shouldn't they have used a logo that looks like this?
I grant you that... but let's be honest: it's a dumb name for a basketball team too. What's next, the Montreal Chilly, the Chicago Windy, the Sante Fe Dry? Modern sports names too often suck / sound like they were the brainchild of someone from MLS.
To be fair, Heat is a noun and everything else you said is an adjective. Its just a quantitative noun that never takes on a plural form.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chancellor Vitale
Lightning - do not like
Thunder - uh-oh (I find it hard to dislike the Thunder, since they have the best chance of beating the Heat)
I think Lightning is a solid name. Definitely better than Thunder. One is an awesome discharge of electricity. The other is noise. And just because it doesn't end in an s doesn't mean it isn't still plural. Its like the Manitoba Moose. Though that one cheats and ends in an S sound already
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chancellor Vitale
Avalanche - more trouble (I cannot disavow rooting for the Avs in the 90s vs. Detroit)
I think it works with hockey because its on ice. An avalanche being a collection of snow; it makes sense that the team would come together to be one avalanche too. Avalanches would be a terrible name. Good name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chancellor Vitale
Fire - do not like
Generic, but again Fire makes sense as a collective more than fires would. Though I think Flames makes a much better team name in that case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chancellor Vitale
Crew - hate
Crap name, but not because of the lack of an S. I have no problem with a collection being used in its singular form. But its literally a synonym of the word Team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chancellor Vitale
DC United - do not like
Adjective. bad name
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chancellor Vitale
Dynamo - do not like
Singular. Bad name
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chancellor Vitale
Galaxy - do not like
Its singular, but I think it works because a galaxy is a collection of stars (and everything else) and the team is in LA. With movie stars and stuff. actually sort of clever. And Galaxy is better than Galaxies because again its a collection of things which typically works better in singular form.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chancellor Vitale
Impact - hate
Revolution - do not like
Union - do not like
These names are bad. These names with an S at the end would be just as bad or worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chancellor Vitale
Sporting - hate
adjective. bad name
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chancellor Vitale
I think there is enough evidence that we can submit the following theorem:
Sports teams named after abstract concepts, scientific concepts, and which do not end in s, are almost certain to be worthy of your principled hatred.
The problem is not the lack of an S at the end in my opinion. The problem is using singular nouns or adjectives as names. These tend to not end in an S. The lack of an S is not the fundamental problem though.
Also, there's nothing wrong with science. Lightning is a physical thing that can be measured and felt. You can even see lightning. Heat is a bit more abstract because you can't see it. The Gravity or The Inertia would be bad team names because they are concepts or quantities as opposed to actual physical things. I'd put Heat a notch above those because you can feel it at least but really its not very good.
You saved me from doing my job, so I appreciate it.
Galaxy is one of those names I'm so torn on. I don't care for the name in general, but the singular part of the name doesn't really bother me because of the sheer scope of what a Galaxy entails. On the other side I love it because of the fact that it really is a clever name. Only LA could pull off that name. On a similar note I give the Chicago Fire a pass because of the fact that, you know, the whole Great Chicago Fire thing. I hate the name Heat, both by Abbotsford and Miami. The Miami Heat get extra derision considering they entered a league that already had a team named the Suns in it for two damn decades.
Soccer team names in general I don't care for. I prefer teams to just go with the FC or whatever and have the nicknames be informal (like with Manchester United...United isn't the nickname, Red Devils is). Throw in the fact that half of these teams were named in the danger zone of awful marketing that was the mid-90s and there were a ton of awful and forced nicknames. As much as I hate Real Salt Lake Sporting Kansas City as a name, it's a million times better than Kansas City Wiz. I'd really rather the Galaxy just be formally named LAFC and have the nickname Galaxy be informal.
There are a few singular/non-S ending team names that work...I don't hate the Colorado Avalanche and I honestly like the name Tampa Bay Lightning...but when you start going into stuff like 'Wild' or 'Impact'...ugh.
Ugh.
Last edited by Big McLargehuge: 12-31-2012 at 03:08 PM.
Seriously... Ogre your comments are way more grammar than physics. I was simply putting IHWR's concept to the test. Less about plurality than most teams ending in s refer to animals or natural disasters (Penguins, Hurricanes), and so I went through the horrifying roster of MLS names and a few others as a test. MLS being the only league with a lot of non-traditional names.
(Seriously, I did not realize how bad some of those newer MLS names are -- Christ they are 100% awful. What an embarrassment to sports fans everywhere. At least Chivas named themselves after liquor. I guess the MLS marketing people felt it wasn't enough of a challenge to win over fans on account of subpar soccer alone; they wanted to go full panda and use crappy names too!)
In any case, I would like to revise my theorem thusly:
If your sports team is not named after an animal, natural disaster or lethal occurrence (lightning, avalanche), it almost certainly has a name worthy of contempt. If you're an MLS fan, the odds your team name doesn't suck are exactly 3 in 19. 3 teams named "FC + City" without stupid extra name or modifier.
Last edited by Chancellor Vitale: 12-31-2012 at 03:41 PM.
At least it's not an outright rejection and mental breakdown presser this time.
"You like to re-negotiate as you go along, don't you? OK, here's MY countah-offah. Do we HAFTA cancel the season? What if we was just to kick the evah-lovin' **** out of you... could we play hockey then?!"
Even if things aren't going well, the NHL is going to play nice through tomorrow at least. The PA's silly little vote authorizing the disclaimer of interest expires on Thursday, and the league doesn't want to give the union any motivation to dissolve before then.
I read on TSN that date is not binding / the union can still disclaim interest after, but the bigger issue there is, if they were so ready to break it up and sue because of union representation issues, why are they still negotiating right now like usual? Pretty much proves it's a gimmick, and why the NHLPA will get destroyed in court. Especially a NY court, if a judge in another circuit refuses to hear the case because of the NHL's existing suit in NY.
