I assume Snyder hired a firm that has done this kind of work below and has at least some data from that past work. It probably makes sense to throw names like “Monarchs” and “Royals” into the test that you clearly aren’t going to use, but which have presumably been tested before, so that you have some kind of grounding in that broader data set. For example, if those two names came out near the top, you’d know the whole slate sucked and you need to start over, whereas without that grounding you might find yourself choosing between a few names that you thought were good, but really just sucked less than the others.Maybe it's just me, but both the Monarchs and the Royals seem to be missing the point of Washington DC.
Magic (and Wizards) sucks. Heat is kinda lame too. (Everyone knows, it’s not the heat it’s the humidity)Armada is a cool name, but it kinda feels like playing with fire. Most names of that ilk are cool (Magic, Heat, Thunder, etc.) but Armada isn't uniquely associated with DC (see: Mariners).
Belters, Brigade, and Commanders are all pretty sweet. I'm partial to Belters for the appropriate double entendre.
It should be WFT for a few more years, but Belters would be acceptable.
Which is probably why “Washington Football Team” won’t stick, but a euro variant like Washington Football Club could. Then they could be Washington FC or Wash FC for for short. Feels a little more natural in everyday conversation and coverage.I find Washington Football Team a difficult name when it comes to making shorthand references to the team. I've resorted to calling them the "local team" in several conversations, which I found incredibly awkward.
Basically follow some of the British FCs and have their official name be WFT but their nickname be the Hogs or the Skins or as I suggested above the WafflersI find Washington Football Team a difficult name when it comes to making shorthand references to the team. I've resorted to calling them the "local team" in several conversations, which I found incredibly awkward.
I tend to agree. The first US teams who used Euro style names were fairly clever (DC United, for example). But now that there are a ton of FCs it's become really bad. I think the worst is Real Salt Lake. Mind-numbingly dumb.I am clearly in the minority on this one but I hate when U.S. teams use the European style "FC" even in MLS, so I'd really hate it for an (American) football team. Just seems very artificial and inauthentic.
Washington District SoxI am clearly in the minority on this one but I hate when U.S. teams use the European style "FC" even in MLS, so I'd really hate it for an (American) football team. Just seems very artificial and inauthentic.
Washington should just pick some generic animal like virtually every other team in the NFL and be done with it.
I think this will be the winner. It sounds good, fits the moment, redresses somewhat the team’s history. I like the helmet logo that has a pilot‘s headphones on each side.Given where we are in this country, and the ease with which it can be folded into existing schemes, I will never not be 100% behind Redtails
Yes, I agree. If I recall you and I were quick to support Pigskins after it was first suggested by another member. They keep the Skins nickname and it's a natural if they ever want to revive The Hogs.I still vote Washington Pigskins. Everyone can still call them the Skins.
What do other teams do? Like, the Patriots have changed their logo...once. What else are they doing to make it new and exciting?It limits merchandising though. I mean what do you do, go with different fonts for you officially licensed merchandise every few years. .