The case for Salt Lake

If Seattle is going to enter the league with a rival already lined up, we can think of no better choice than Real Salt Lake.

There's a couple reasons. One, obviously, is their silly name. The Sonics and the Utah Jazz have a pretty good rivalry (when the Sonics are competitive) in the NBA. And RSL are possibly the closest team to Seattle (San Jose might be closer), which makes sense geographically. But the biggest reason? They cost us Seattle fans 4 years of MLS.

In 2004, as many may recall, Seattle was a leading candidate to score an expansion team. Don Garber, MLS commissioner went so far as to say that our bid "absolutely has an inside track." But then the Salt Lake City bid kind of came out of nowhere, throwing cash all over the place and stealing our MLS franchise away from us. Surely this is legitimate reason to consider them our rivals.

And seriously, who picks Salt Lake City over Seattle for a sports franchise? That's like, to conjure up a hypothetical example, moving a team from Seattle to, say, Oklahoma City.


chad said...

i particularly like the part where you assume salt lake isn't a decent town...2 million people might disagree...not to mention all our season ticket holders. like america somehow owes you franchises...wait aren't the sonic's moving?

Anonymous said...

RSL fans would have to actually care about the Seattle franchise before any sort of a rivalry could exist. I don't believe we do. Perhaps SJ would be a better "choice".

bob said...

Hmmm. You have some pretty valid reasons for a rivalry. Especially the one about RSL having a supid name. If that was the basis for rivalries, MLS would have huge rivals all over the place! IMO there are only a few really substantial names in MLS. And I can't wait to see what Seattle comes up with! There may be no history behind the name of Real Salt Lake, but you can't deny that after 3 poor seasons, it actually fits the team pretty good. Bad name = bad team. And this is coming from an RSL fan! I also have to agree with "anonymous who said, "RSL fans would have to actually care about the Seattle franchise". I hate to break it to ya, but I could care less about Seattle. We do welcome your one-sided rivalry though!

Ness said...

RSL is in the building! The rivalry is on! Fan the flames of hatred!

So as not to let chad's slanderous remarks go unchallenged, I'll say that I honestly like SLC as a city, Mormons notwithstanding. However, as a media market for sports, SLC (and OKC for that matter) can't compare to Seattle.

f4denz said...

First, there is no such thing as a done deal, so quit crying that MLS chose SLC over Seattle. Heck Seattle is having trouble keeping professional teams, so why would new teams want to come to town?

Real is a traditional soccer name, unlike Quakes, Red Bulls, or other MLS names. Can we just name the Seattle franchise the "microbucks" after the only two good things to come out of the dreadful rain soaked, traffic jammed, overpriced, self absorbed city that Seattle is? Yes as a former resident I can say that and mean it. I will take the uber clean Salt Lake Valley over the dingy, damp Puget Sound.

That being said, where can I get one of those kick ass 360 jerseys, sure to make the "microbucks" a marketing machine, oh wait how could they not be?

Can't wait for kick off 2009, welcome to the league.

Anonymous said...

Why are all you douchebags on this blog in the first place? Go back to wearing ankle length skirts at Brigham Young University where you belong.

And LOL at your lame attempt to defend the name "Real Salt Lake."

I could be amused all day by watching people like you make the sad case for euro-football-names for those which are actually original.