The Washington Football Team recently declared that they would announce their new team name on February 2, 2022. I’m not quite sure why they’re waiting for that date to be honest—maybe Dan Snyder thought it would be neat. Nevertheless, after a two-year-long endurance of being the “Football Team”, we will finally get a new name. As a Redskins fan myself, I refuse to spend any money on any product related to the WFT;
I understand this name change may have been done tongue in cheek to create a truly non-controversial name since that’s what the people who don’t watch football wanted, but the joke has gone on far too long. That said, I’m excited for something new, and here are the possible options that were floated by both President Jason Wright and Co-CEO Tanya Snyder over the past couple of months, which I will proceed to rate out of five:
Washington Admirals 2/5
Washington Armada 3/5
Washington Brigade 3/5
Washington Commanders 5/5
Washington Defenders 4/5
Washington Football Team 0/5
Washington Presidents 2/5
Washington Red Hogs 5/5
Washington Red Wolves 4/5
Washington Red Tails 4/5
When one creates a team name, my understanding is that there are unspoken but understood criteria that are mostly satisfied for success. The first is to create something relatable to your home city or state. The Pittsburgh Steelers and the Dallas Cowboys are great examples of this: Pittsburgh has a strong history of steel manufacturing and Dallas (moreso Texas in general) is known for its history of the Wild West and western movies and the like. A team name that fans can relate to in a historical and meaningful way encourages and helps bolster a fan base, as you have given them a cause they can get behind.
The second criterion is masculinity. This is the most physical team sport played in the world, so you can’t get away with anything feeble sounding like the “New Orleans Pelicans”. In any contact sport, fans and players alike want to be able to identify with their name. It feels tough and macho to be a “Raider” or a “Jaguar”, and I think there’s a sense of pride one takes in that.
Lastly, and this might be the most important criterion, is marketability. Based on the team name, your organization needs to create an exciting logo and maybe a mascot. Having a team name with which your fans can create easy and catchy chants is also important. For this reason, two-syllable people-like (e.g. Vikings) and animal names work well. We’ll call this the dog test (you don’t name your dog Cornelius - rather, you name your dog Buddy or Fido). It also helps when your name is something the casual fan can understand and relate to. Similar to the masculinity criterion, you as an organization want to create a sort of persona about the team. The Steelers were once the Steel Curtain and the Cowboys are America’s team. While your team name is not the sole determinant of brand success, it certainly encourages an image in fans' and reporters’ heads that they can take and run with. For this reason, the Browns is probably the weakest name in the NFL. I don’t believe most casual fans and probably most fans of other teams know where the name comes from, and it doesn’t seem to be a brand that a lot of fans or players want to be a part of.
All that said, I can’t get behind the “Admirals”. It’s too specific to the Navy and it’s too long of a name that doesn’t roll off of the tongue. I like the relation to the military considering our home is Maryland and the DC area, but there are better names to choose. The “Armada” is a little bit better - it would be cool to be a part of the Armada, but this too is a little bit overly specific and still doesn’t pass the dog test. I really like the “Commanders”. That’s a word we both use and hear more often than Admiral, and when I hear it I think of a strong leader heading into battle. The “Defenders” is pretty good, but it feels too, per the name, defensive. I want a team name that can play both ways.
If the team sticks with the “Football Team” after a whole month of buildup for something new, I’m switching my support to a different team—I can’t think of anything more insulting to the fans. The “Presidents” is okay, but there have been loads of both great and awful presidents. I also can’t imagine the chant: “Let’s go, Pre-si-dents”. It sounds like something someone would say who has no political opinions. While it would be amusing to see what outfits fans might wear to games, I’d steer away from anything that could get too political.
My favorite name on this list is the “Red Hogs”. The Hogs was the nickname for Washington’s offensive line from 1982 to 1992, helping them win three out of four Super Bowl appearances.
Hogs are also large, brutish creatures, and the name “Red Hogs” puts the image of a charging tusked boar in my head. It’s historical, it’s fierce and masculine, the name satisfies the dog test, and it provides great marketing and branding opportunities considering how versatile hogs, pigs, and boars are.
I’m a big fan of the name “Red Wolves” too for many of the same reasons listed above for the “Red Hogs”, but Jason Wright reported that the trademark “Wolves” and variations are used by many other teams and using the name would present a boatload of difficulties, thus it has fallen out of consideration.
The “Red Tails” would be a pretty cool name too. My understanding is that the Red Tails was the name for the Tuskegee Airmen, the first black pilots in the US Air Force, so named due to the red paint on the tails of their planes. It fits with the military theme of the general area too. The only problem I see is that it’s very specific, and it might not have the mass appeal and marketability one hopes for when branding an organization. We would essentially be the Washington Jets, just red instead of green.
Comments