clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Question of the Week: Which Name Should USL Reno Go With?

New, 10 comments

In the first QOTW of the year, the ICS staff put our noses where they don't belong and give our opinions on what the Reno USL team should be called.

Photo Credit: Flickr user Michael Ocampo under Creative Commons license
Even though the 2016 preseason has just begun, we at ICS are already looking forward to the 2017 season and the introduction of a Reno USL team to the league. As the closest team to the Republic by far, the two teams will likely be seeing a lot of each other that year.

With that promise of repeated meetings in 2017 and a game against Real Monarchs in Reno itself this season, we have taken an interest in the outcome of the Name the Team Contest that the currently unnamed team is running.

So what better topic to break in our first 2016 Question of the Week than by voting on the name of a potential rival team? We asked members of our staff what they thought of the options in Reno's Name the Team Contest.

After reading our answers, vote in our poll and leave your response in the comments below.

Josh Beeman (@josh_beeman)
Until yesterday's announcement of San Antonio FC, which fell upon USL Twitter with a dull and uninspired thud, I actually didn't mind the thought of Reno going with the Place FC strategy. Now I'm just hoping for something creative out of Reno, which means Reno United is definitely a no-go.

That leaves Reno 1868, which is not particularly great from my perspective, but it's unique among USL teams. So that is a plus, I suppose.

All that being said, I'm really looking forward to none of this making any difference and the club being called Reno 1868 United FC.
Evan Eyster (@IronPonyChef)
It's far easier to say what I don't want on this as opposed to what I do want. What I do not want to see is another "United" team. We already have Arizona United in the same conference. While the potential "R-U" chants (R-U-Serious, etc) would be entertaining, we don't need two teams named United.

I side with (and voted for) Reno FC out of the remaining names. Adding in the "1868" feels like the team is trying too hard to include a typical European twist to the name, and adding the word for the sake of a word makes me not like it as much. Keep it simple. I like Reno FC.
Jeff Shunta (@JTShunta)
Out of all 3 choices I feel that 1868 is the most unique. In a league (and world, especially within youth competitive soccer) full of "FCs" or "Uniteds," the addition of 1868 separates it from the generic. I do agree with Evan that the 1868 makes it seem like the club wishes it were in Europe a little too fervently, but given the other two options I vote 1868.
George Shiel (@GeorgeMShiel)
First off, I'm not a big fan of these names. Even with my very limited knowledge of Reno (I've only visited once), I feel that these names don't capture the essence of the city. My decision is based by a process of elimination.

Reno FC: Boring. It's like they forgot to erase the place holder in a soccer naming template.

Reno United: Also boring. What are they uniting? The State of Nevada? If that is the case I want a write in ballot. How about Silver State FC?

Reno 1868: Original to the USL, but do the residents of Reno really care about the year of the city's founding? Be bold and go for the year the club will begin play, Reno 2017. Yeah it's cheesy now, but in 30 years it'll be pretty bad-ass.

Despite all my rambling, I choose Reno 1868. Yeah, the name feels like a desperate attempt to be European, but at least it isn't boring.
Now that we've had our say, let us hear what you think in the poll and in the comments.