MLS Expansion - The Seattle naming conspiracy

I normally try to shy away from conspiracy theories when it comes to soccer, however I think this idea might have merit, so hang with me.

Last week saw the three 'focus group' names leaked to the local Seattle paper. Sure enough, a majority of Seattle fans were upset because none of the names were the Seattle Sounders.

In response to this negative reaction, MLS Commish Don Garber insists that although he respects the value and history of the 30-year-old Sounder name, the league is looking for a name that will still be meaningful '20 years from now or 50 years from now.'

I noticed two things about this statement. First, it doesn't make sense. How can a name with a 30-year track record be thrown overboard for a name that has been 'focus group' tested for only a couple months? Second, why is it that the commish is making this statement and not the ownership group? When the name controversy raged in Houston a few years back, it was Houston President Oliver Luck that faced the press, not Garber.

Anyway, we move forward to the actual voting. After making such a big deal about Seattle FC, Seattle Republic and Seattle Alliance being the best names ever they do something very interesting with the ballot and allow people to write-in a name. Since they already allowed people to submit names months ago, why allow this second round of 'write-in' ideas?

Perhaps this is the reason:

Fans will be allowed one vote per unique email address. MLS Seattle season ticket holders will be given the privilege of receiving the same number of votes as deposits purchased.

And this brings me to the conspiracy. Could it be that the Seattle group decided to manufacture a bit of controversy to increase their email and season ticket lists?

If Sounders had been one of the three 'approved' choices, no one would have paid much attention as it would be a forgone conclusion that it would win, but since it was not there, people got angry and tuned in. This added attention is all but assured to increase the vote (ie submitting email addresses) because no one seems very interested in the three official choices. Also note how you can buy additional votes with a season ticket deposit.

Which brings us to the announcement of the name on 7 April. Since none of the Seattle ownership group have dissed the 'Sounders' title, they will have no need to back pedal as they say 'Due to an overwhelming show of support by the soccer fans of Seattle, we are pleased to announce the Seattle Sounders as our 'new' name.'

In the end, the fans feel they have won a victory by getting the name they've wanted all along while the owners come out looking good for actually listening to the fans, plus they will have all those email addresses for future marketing purposes.

So is this off the wall or might I be on to something? I will be the first to admit that I have no real proof of this, but something does seem off.

MLS Expansion - Seattle names down to three, Sounders not an option - Poll

The future MLS team based in Seattle is very close to announcing a name, but first they want a vote. Starting next Thursday, March 27, through March 31, the team will allow fans to vote on the team’s name.

As far as the names from which voters will be selecting, "(t)he three naming options will be announced Tuesday, March 25, and were chosen through fan focus groups, internal committees and fan suggestions, but will not include Sounders."

So no, no to Sounders, but what are the other choices? Obviously nothing official as yet, but the Seattle Times has them pegged as Seattle FC, Seattle Alliance and Seattle Republic.

Although I have a feeling Seattle FC will win, I really hope it does not. Between Dallas and Toronto, the league has enough FC's in it, especially for Major League Soccer.

As far as Alliance or Republic, it's like Star Wars all over again. Damn that Rebel Alliance and their desire for a New Republic.

Anyway, I like Republic, because it relates to the historical idea of a separate Northwest state such as Cascadia. A nice tie in to local history, even if it is only subtle, is always a good thing. The downside, fans would probably be called Republicans and that might not go down so well in Seattle.

Alliance is better then FC, but I'm not really sure what they are aligning.

In the end, it will probably end up Seattle FC with some sort of nickname like the 'greens' or 'emeralds of the pitch.'

So what is your choice?