Does New York City FC need a nickname?

Ever since New York City FC was officially unveiled as Major League Soccer's twentieth team last year, people have referred to the club as "NYCFC".

It has the virtue of being an acronym...but that's about it. Let's face it: "NYCFC" is a mouthful to say over and over. Apparently, I'm not the only one:

I've fallen into the habit of referring to the club as simply "New York City". It's snappy, and reflective of the club's ownership by the City Football Group. I think we can do better, though; I suppose that we could simply refer to the team as "City", but to me, that just feels derivative.

Surely, in New York City, we can do better. The thing about nicknames is that they have to be organic; you can't simply give yourself a nickname. It has to be bestowed upon you, and it has to reflect an inherent quality that's readily apparent to people.

• When I posed the question over Twitter, I got the following responses:
• "NYC, New Yorkers, and Blues" (from @a_andersonreyes)
• "Gothamites and Gotham" (@D_RoyJenkins)
• "Dodgers. Rankle the boroughs and piss off/initiate a rivalry with LA in one swoop." (@Beau1u)
• "Times Square Blues, Bronx Blues" (@PatrickSKVM)

These are all solid -- but let's open it up. What do you think? Do these nicknames sound good to you, or is your reaction "Meh"? Leave a comment, or hit us up on Twitter.