There’s No Service Like Wire Service, Vol. 13

While you were taking the high road in Scotland, Phil was taking it here. BTW you didn’t see Willie because he was down in the GOM working with BP. Why? he’s a stockholder. . ..

Why didn’t the Denver expansion team use the moniker “Denver Bears”? I hate… (make that HATE HATE HATE HATE) using state names for teams. Seems like a loss all the way around.

I guess pro sports needed more purple.

UGH

Corpus Christi is going to use an I for their logo? I cant stand it when teams use a letter representing their nickname instead of their school or city. And thats coming from a Cleveland Indians fan(I curse that script I) So dumb

[quote comment=”392543″]Why didn’t the Denver expansion team use the moniker “Denver Bears”? I hate… (make that HATE HATE HATE HATE) using state names for teams. Seems like a loss all the way around.

I guess pro sports needed more purple.

UGH[/quote]

Because having the Bears and the Cubs in the same league would be almost as silly as having two teams both called the RoughRiders. It’d be like the NFL adding a team called the Tigers, or the NHL with Demons.

[quote comment=”392545″]Corpus Christi is going to use an I for their logo? I cant stand it when teams use a letter representing their nickname instead of their school or city. And thats coming from a Cleveland Indians fan(I curse that script I) So dumb[/quote]

I couldn’t agree more about the script “I.” I hate that friggin’ thing. It’s a concession to those insulted by Chief Wahoo. If you’re gonna go the PC route, just get rid of Wahoo already and try something else, don’t tiptoe around the issue with a crappy letter mark.

I didn’t figure the Babe to be a link.

[quote comment=”392547″][quote comment=”392543″]Why didn’t the Denver expansion team use the moniker “Denver Bears”? I hate… (make that HATE HATE HATE HATE) using state names for teams. Seems like a loss all the way around.

I guess pro sports needed more purple.

UGH[/quote]

Because having the Bears and the Cubs in the same league would be almost as silly as having two teams both called the RoughRiders. It’d be like the NFL adding a team called the Tigers, or the NHL with Demons.[/quote]

You and Scott are both right, I believe. Lots of issues in that mix.
“Bears” HAD been dropped in favor of “Zephyrs” for a number of years.
There also were the factors not wanting to return to a minor league name, especially one that had been jettisoned (I mean, if it were than ingrained, why did it go away?), plus not wanting a nickname that said Denver still thought of itself as a frontier/wilderness town.

As to use of state names…get over it. It’s a solid marketing position in cases where teams are rightly aware there almost certainly will never be another team in their sport in their state.

Now, California Angels and Florida Marlins, to name two…that’s either arrogant or dopey. Or both. Not too sure about “Golden State,” either. Seems like “Golden Gate” would have served the same purpose without the hint of presumptuousness.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”392543″]Why didn’t the Denver expansion team use the moniker “Denver Bears”? I hate… (make that HATE HATE HATE HATE) using state names for teams. Seems like a loss all the way around.

I guess pro sports needed more purple.

UGH[/quote]

I still can’t figure out why MLB chose to name a baseball team (Rockies) after a former NHL team.

[quote comment=”392554″]On Maris with #55:

It could have been a coach’s jersey. If the Yankees were making ones for each home run, you would think you would see a picture of him with numbers 56-61, too.[/quote]

Interesting that this would come up … reposting my comment from late last night:

Just watched 61* for the first time. Lots of interesting uniform details held within. Time for that later, but for now, I point out the base cut out near third — pointed out by Paul a few days ago. I don’t know what the final conclusion was as to the current-day purpose, but — at least according to Billy Crystal — Yankee Stadium 1961/Tiger Stadium 1999 had it, too!

link

[quote comment=”392553″][quote comment=”392547″][quote comment=”392543″]Why didn’t the Denver expansion team use the moniker “Denver Bears”? I hate… (make that HATE HATE HATE HATE) using state names for teams. Seems like a loss all the way around.

I guess pro sports needed more purple.

UGH[/quote]

Because having the Bears and the Cubs in the same league would be almost as silly as having two teams both called the RoughRiders. It’d be like the NFL adding a team called the Tigers, or the NHL with Demons.[/quote]

You and Scott are both right, I believe. Lots of issues in that mix.
“Bears” HAD been dropped in favor of “Zephyrs” for a number of years.
There also were the factors not wanting to return to a minor league name, especially one that had been jettisoned (I mean, if it were than ingrained, why did it go away?), plus not wanting a nickname that said Denver still thought of itself as a frontier/wilderness town.

As to use of state names…get over it. It’s a solid marketing position in cases where teams are rightly aware there almost certainly will never be another team in their sport in their state.

Now, California Angels and Florida Marlins, to name two…that’s either arrogant or dopey. Or both. Not too sure about “Golden State,” either. Seems like “Golden Gate” would have served the same purpose without the hint of presumptuousness.

—Ricko[/quote]

What’s dopier, though? “California Angels” or “Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim?”

As for “Florida Marlins,” when they came into being (’93), were the Rays even a glint in MLB’s eye? Perhaps the thought was “It took so dang long to get one team in Florida, it may be awhile till we get another.”

[quote comment=”392557″][quote comment=”392554″]On Maris with #55:

It could have been a coach’s jersey. If the Yankees were making ones for each home run, you would think you would see a picture of him with numbers 56-61, too.[/quote]

Interesting that this would come up … reposting my comment from late last night:

Just watched 61* for the first time. Lots of interesting uniform details held within. Time for that later, but for now, I point out the base cut out near third — pointed out by Paul a few days ago. I don’t know what the final conclusion was as to the current-day purpose, but — at least according to Billy Crystal — Yankee Stadium 1961/Tiger Stadium 1999 had it, too!

link

Maybe that photo illustrates the necessity… a wee overage so runners have a “clean” path instead of potentially getting injured by having their cleats get caught in the grass? I dunno.

[quote comment=”392559″][quote comment=”392553″][quote comment=”392547″][quote comment=”392543″]Why didn’t the Denver expansion team use the moniker “Denver Bears”? I hate… (make that HATE HATE HATE HATE) using state names for teams. Seems like a loss all the way around.

I guess pro sports needed more purple.

UGH[/quote]

Because having the Bears and the Cubs in the same league would be almost as silly as having two teams both called the RoughRiders. It’d be like the NFL adding a team called the Tigers, or the NHL with Demons.[/quote]

You and Scott are both right, I believe. Lots of issues in that mix.
“Bears” HAD been dropped in favor of “Zephyrs” for a number of years.
There also were the factors not wanting to return to a minor league name, especially one that had been jettisoned (I mean, if it were than ingrained, why did it go away?), plus not wanting a nickname that said Denver still thought of itself as a frontier/wilderness town.

As to use of state names…get over it. It’s a solid marketing position in cases where teams are rightly aware there almost certainly will never be another team in their sport in their state.

Now, California Angels and Florida Marlins, to name two…that’s either arrogant or dopey. Or both. Not too sure about “Golden State,” either. Seems like “Golden Gate” would have served the same purpose without the hint of presumptuousness.

—Ricko[/quote]

What’s dopier, though? “California Angels” or “Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim?”

As for “Florida Marlins,” when they came into being (’93), were the Rays even a glint in MLB’s eye? Perhaps the thought was “It took so dang long to get one team in Florida, it may be awhile till we get another.”[/quote]
Florida almost got two teams in ’93 as the Giants were pretty much out the door to St. Pete after the ’92 season. Of course they didn’t know that when they chose the name of the team in Miami.

“Gridiron Thrills And Basketball Tips” is so great. Sports rendered in classic comic book style can’t be beat. Reminds me of those little NHL comics found in O-Pee-Chee hockey cards from the ’70’s.

Meanwhile, I saw the Twins new road uniform in action last night. Just what I suspected: dull, generic looking. I didn’t like the pinstripes on the previous set, but now I have to admit they gave the uniform some character–or something–at least. And the script looks puny. And the red bill I could take or leave.

[quote comment=”392559″][quote comment=”392553″][quote comment=”392547″][quote comment=”392543″]Why didn’t the Denver expansion team use the moniker “Denver Bears”? I hate… (make that HATE HATE HATE HATE) using state names for teams. Seems like a loss all the way around.

I guess pro sports needed more purple.

UGH[/quote]

Because having the Bears and the Cubs in the same league would be almost as silly as having two teams both called the RoughRiders. It’d be like the NFL adding a team called the Tigers, or the NHL with Demons.[/quote]

You and Scott are both right, I believe. Lots of issues in that mix.
“Bears” HAD been dropped in favor of “Zephyrs” for a number of years.
There also were the factors not wanting to return to a minor league name, especially one that had been jettisoned (I mean, if it were than ingrained, why did it go away?), plus not wanting a nickname that said Denver still thought of itself as a frontier/wilderness town.

As to use of state names…get over it. It’s a solid marketing position in cases where teams are rightly aware there almost certainly will never be another team in their sport in their state.

Now, California Angels and Florida Marlins, to name two…that’s either arrogant or dopey. Or both. Not too sure about “Golden State,” either. Seems like “Golden Gate” would have served the same purpose without the hint of presumptuousness.

—Ricko[/quote]

What’s dopier, though? “California Angels” or “Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim?”

As for “Florida Marlins,” when they came into being (’93), were the Rays even a glint in MLB’s eye? Perhaps the thought was “It took so dang long to get one team in Florida, it may be awhile till we get another.”[/quote]

Yeah, but that’s a rationalization. All they had to do was look at the other major pro sports to realize Florida had a number of markets capable of MLB status. That’s not the case in Minnesota or Colorado, or example. Never has been, probably never will be.

And California Angels is the dumber of the two. With so many other MLB teams in the state, and one just up the road, that’s really arrogant. Or it indicates they can’t read a map.

“LA Angels of Anaheim” isn’t dumb per se because it’s accurate. What it is, is too long, too contrived and, in its way, too arrogant. Yes, you must now say our full name all the time. Oh, right, like a pedigree sheepdog named “Dame Duchess of Shropshire Farm in Devonshire” isn’t going to get called just “Duchess” most of the time.

—Ricko

something went horribly wrong with the YouTube link… ;)

Here it is:

link

[quote comment=”392547″][quote comment=”392543″]Why didn’t the Denver expansion team use the moniker “Denver Bears”? I hate… (make that HATE HATE HATE HATE) using state names for teams. Seems like a loss all the way around.

I guess pro sports needed more purple.

UGH[/quote]

Because having the Bears and the Cubs in the same league would be almost as silly as having two teams both called the RoughRiders. It’d be like the NFL adding a team called the Tigers, or the NHL with Demons.[/quote]

Because CFL knowledge is so wide-spread, there were never two teams called the RoughRiders.

Once team has always been named as the Roughriders. The other former team was named as the Rough Riders. The Saskatchewan Roughriders were formed in 1910, while the Ottawa Rough Riders were formed in 1876, and named as the Rough Riders in 1898.

I’m quite certain that neither team felt it was necessary to piss all over its history by changing its team name.

Keep up the great work, though, Jeff. Swell job!

[quote comment=”392542″]The Pirates (the entire team) have went high-cuffed for at least the past two nights now. Paul should be pleased.[/quote]

According to the FSN broadcast, this was Bobby Crosby’s idea to promote team unity.

A number of the guys are also growing moustaches. Didn’t catch whose idea that was.

[quote comment=”392567″]
“LA Angels of Anaheim” isn’t dumb per se because it’s accurate. What it is, is too long, too contrived and, in its way, too arrogant. Yes, you must now say our full name all the time. Oh, right, like a pedigree sheepdog named “Dame Duchess of Shropshire Farm in Devonshire” isn’t going to get called just “Duchess” most of the time.[/quote]

Ricko, I don’t think you’re being quite fair. Arte Moreno wanted the (wholly accurate) name “Los Angeles Angels”, because using that name instead of “Anaheim” meant a significant increase in what he could command for his television rights.

The name they use now was a compromise name, the best they could do within the confines of their agreement with the city. Far from insisting “you must now say our full name all the time”, they’re counting on it being shortened to “Los Angeles Angels.”

Heck, the Angels themselves don’t even use their full name – they link whenever possible to avoid using it.

[quote comment=”392574″][quote comment=”392559″]As for “Florida Marlins,” when they came into being (’93), were the Rays even a glint in MLB’s eye? Perhaps the thought was “It took so dang long to get one team in Florida, it may be awhile till we get another.”[/quote]

Looking up articles on when the Denver Bears changed to Zephyrs, it apparently happened with new owners coming to town with the intent of bringing major league baseball to Denver. In one of the articles circa 1985, it mentions that Denver would almost certainly be one of the next two expansion cities, with others in consideration Tampa Bay, Miami, Indianapolis, Buffalo and Vancouver. So it seems that it was just a matter of time before Florida was going to have multiple MLB teams.[/quote]

I do recall talk of my Indians trying to relocate to the Tampa.St. Pete area in the ’80s and of course there was the aforementioned possibility of the Giants moving there. I wonder if it was thought of as an either/or deal with Miami or Tampa/St. Pete when the Marlins were conceived… or maybe MLB really is that dumb.

[quote comment=”392575″]Heck, the Angels themselves don’t even use their full name – they link whenever possible to avoid using it.[/quote]

That’s frickin’ hilarious! Now is that only because there isn’t enough room on that particular shirt or have you seen more examples?

It reminds me of my employer. We merged with another company back in the early 80s and the company president refuses to drop the other company’s name from the official phone greeting and the sign out front because it’s the better recognized of the two to other local businesses.

[quote comment=”392572″]I may be the only one who cares, but Albany gets/keeps/re-acquires an AHL team!!

link

Had Lamiorello been smarter, his AHL team would have never played in Lowell. There are reasons why the Lowell Lock Monsters never succeeded at the box office.

I guess Lou just didn’t see the writing on the wall.

I have a couple of Florida Marlins rationalizations:

1. Being a mobile offshore fish, the marlin cannot be terrestrially located and thus club management threw their hands up & named the team after the entire peninsula. A dolphin is different. You can put a dolphin in an above-ground pool and it frolics & appears to be happy. The mighty marlin, however, needs the open sea. Therefore Miami Marlin is faintly absurd.

2. There was a single-A club for years (’60s and again ’80s) in the Florida State League called the Miami Marlins and perhaps the new team wanted to avoid the association. (This type of problem didn’t deter the Milwaukee Brewers, but that’s their separate story).

As far as I know, Wayne Huizenga & Co. have never used one of these rationalizations but perhaps they should have. Anyway, the team will be switching over to “Miami Marlins,” of course, and not a minute too soon.

[quote comment=”392576″][quote comment=”392567″]
“LA Angels of Anaheim” isn’t dumb per se because it’s accurate. What it is, is too long, too contrived and, in its way, too arrogant.

—Ricko[/quote]

Hence making it dumb. :-) It’s like saying the “Detroit Pistons of Auburn Hills,” or the “Chicago Cubs of Wrigleyville” or the “New York Giants of East Rutherford, New Jersey.”[/quote]
except the Cubs are actually in Chicago.

[quote comment=”392576″][quote comment=”392567″]
“LA Angels of Anaheim” isn’t dumb per se because it’s accurate. What it is, is too long, too contrived and, in its way, too arrogant.

—Ricko[/quote]

Hence making it dumb. :-) It’s like saying the “Detroit Pistons of Auburn Hills,” or the “Chicago Cubs of Wrigleyville” or the “New York Giants of East Rutherford, New Jersey.”[/quote]

Hey, (laughing) you gave me too choices, Basically said California Angels was the dumber of the two. Didn’t say one was dumb and the other wasn’t. Said LA Angels of Angels wasn’t dumb “per se”…but should have said was dumb in its effect.

And, yeah, I know they’re counting on the “of Anaheim” being dropped in common use. Again, was talking about how it played.

As to the reasons behind it, they are no doubt valid (TV market, etc). But, again, there’s also the issue of how something plays. And the way it plays is that they knew “LA” was the better label but couldn’t take back the status Disney had accorded Anaheim…lest they really piss off Anaheim.

And, to tell you the truth, given human nature, that’s most likely the truth of it.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”392585″]It’s like saying the “Detroit Pistons of Auburn Hills,” or the “Chicago Cubs of Wrigleyville” or the “New York Giants of East Rutherford, New Jersey.”[/quote]
except the Cubs are actually in Chicago.[/quote]

Ah, but what in which neighborhood are they located? It’s just to point out the utter ridiculousness of the LAAofA name.

Pirates sock watch: 2 and 0 with full team high socks. Lets hope its not a ‘good luck’ thing. Email them and tell them to make the ‘baseball’ look permanate.

[quote comment=”392584″][quote comment=”392579″][quote comment=”392575″]Heck, the Angels themselves don’t even use their full name – they link whenever possible to avoid using it.[/quote]

That’s frickin’ hilarious! Now is that only because there isn’t enough room on that particular shirt or have you seen more examples?
[/quote]

There are link (link with link of the link link).

The Angels don’t even have a “Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim” wordmark in their link.[/quote]

Wow… I’d never noticed that before. Thanks for the education! I went to Wiki and found this:

“The team usually refers to itself simply as the Angels or Angels Baseball in its home media market, and almost all news reporters, especially those in Southern California, simply refer to the team as the Angels. The avoidance of the words “Los Angeles in Southern California is extensive. The words “Los Angeles” and “LAA” do not appear on the stadium or on the Angels’ uniforms. Local media, such as the Los Angeles Times, never use either term.”

The New York Yankees of the Bronx

The New York Mets of Flushing

The New York Islanders of Uniondale

The Tampa Bay Rays of St.Petersburgh

The New Jersey Devils of Newark

The NY/NJ Jets Giants Nets of East Rutherford

The New England Patriots of Foxboro

The Buffalo Bills of Orchard Park

I am sure there are many more and all sound ust as ridicuous as Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim!!

I’m 99% sure the Marlins will become the MIAMI marlins when they move into their new stadium…

which will correct a stupid state name

(sorry, I won’t “get over it…” that’s what these boards are for, to biotch our stupid pet peeves, see 80,000 articles about socks and face mask colors!)

it will also honor a minor league name of the past

link

link

<>

HALF of the teams in the College Softball World Series wear real stirrups and sanitaries. Washington, Arizona, Florida and UCLA. Too bad LSU and Memphis didn’t get in.
Although I think Washington sometimes wears a solid sock.

[quote comment=”392594″]one could have made a case the team might better have been called the “twin cities _____” rather than the minnesota twins[/quote]

I guess “Minnesota Twins” just rolls off the tongue better.

It’s funny that the Twins feature so prominently a logo representative of the name “Twin Cities” even though they only hail from there and it’s in no way a part of the team name. It’d be like the Reds sporting a “QC” (Queen City) logo on their cap.

[quote comment=”392601″][quote comment=”392594″]one could have made a case the team might better have been called the “twin cities _____” rather than the minnesota twins[/quote]

I guess “Minnesota Twins” just rolls off the tongue better.

It’s funny that the Twins feature so prominently a logo representative of the name “Twin Cities” even though they only hail from there and it’s in no way a part of the team name. It’d be like the Reds sporting a “QC” (Queen City) logo on their cap.[/quote]

Minneapolis Twins would be best

[quote comment=”392603″][quote comment=”392601″][quote comment=”392594″]one could have made a case the team might better have been called the “twin cities _____” rather than the minnesota twins[/quote]

I guess “Minnesota Twins” just rolls off the tongue better.

It’s funny that the Twins feature so prominently a logo representative of the name “Twin Cities” even though they only hail from there and it’s in no way a part of the team name. It’d be like the Reds sporting a “QC” (Queen City) logo on their cap.[/quote]

Minneapolis Twins would be best[/quote]

Sounds good, but that’d get the fists shaking amongst the St. Paul-ians. St. Paul-ites? St. Paul-anders? Ricko! Need help on this one.

[quote comment=”392602″]except the Cubs are actually in Chicago.

Ah, but what in which neighborhood are they located?

Lakeview. “Wrigleyville” is an artificial creation of recent vintage.[/quote]

Dammit, you’re right. I stand corrected, and I actually lived in Lakeview for a time. I think my roommate and I were the only straight guys on our block.

Would have made for a great ’80s sitcom. Two heterosexual suburban Cleveland guys move to Chicago and unwittingly land smack-dab in the heart of “Boytown.” Three’s Company-style misunderstandings follow and hilarity ensues!

[quote comment=”392603″][quote comment=”392601″][quote comment=”392594″]one could have made a case the team might better have been called the “twin cities _____” rather than the minnesota twins[/quote]

I guess “Minnesota Twins” just rolls off the tongue better.

It’s funny that the Twins feature so prominently a logo representative of the name “Twin Cities” even though they only hail from there and it’s in no way a part of the team name. It’d be like the Reds sporting a “QC” (Queen City) logo on their cap.[/quote]

Minneapolis Twins would be best[/quote]
On another front, ‘Indiana Colts’ sounds much better to me than Indianapolis. Obviously, Baltimore Colts sounds best, but hey.

See if we can get our minds around this.

The Twins’ “TC” is letters, yes, but it’s function is as a graphic.

Upon seeing “Minnesota Twins” and not being versed in American geography or cities, etc., one might ask, “Why ‘twins’? What’s ‘twinsish” about Minnesota?”

Ah, I see, they have two cities known as “Twin Cities”?

Hence, the TC’s function is to explain the nickname.
It certainly isn’t the team name, no “Twin Cities” in there. So, if it isn’t the geographic locator, then it’s about the nickname, right?

The Minnesota “twins” are two cities, known as the “Twin Cities” and symbolized by an entwined “TC.”

Make sense?

—Ricko

[quote comment=”392547″][quote comment=”392543″]Why didn’t the Denver expansion team use the moniker “Denver Bears”? I hate… (make that HATE HATE HATE HATE) using state names for teams. Seems like a loss all the way around.

I guess pro sports needed more purple.

UGH[/quote]
Agree with Tommy!

Back in 90-91 when all this was getting going, only the family that owned the AAA team had any connection with Zephyrs. There were all sorts of folks saying that Bears would lead to confusion not just with the Cubs, but with the Chicago Bears. Quite a few folks (even Woody Paige much earlier in his senile dementia) suggested Grizzlies, but the owners contended that was too similar to Bears or Cubs, especially for international markets. Early lead owner Mickey Monus made it clear on many occasions that he favored something connected with “purple mountain majesty”, so the deal was done. If ever I can afford to buy the team, the name will become Denver Grizzlies and the colors will become green and silver.

Because having the Bears and the Cubs in the same league would be almost as silly as having two teams both called the RoughRiders. It’d be like the NFL adding a team called the Tigers, or the NHL with Demons.[/quote]

I guess the whole “state” thing carries more weight in other places than it does for me. I live in Philadelphia, in the city. I grocery shop in New Jersey. The state border (besides the bridge toll) means very little around here.

If any of our teams played in New Jersey (which the Sixers threatened a while back) I can say with 99% certainty they would still be “Philadelphia”.

I have ZERO problem with the New York Jets and Giants playing in New Jersey, I bet they are as close to Times Square as The Mets/Yankees, but you would know better than me on that.

The Cincinnati airport is in Kentucky, right?

Maybe for me, as a city resident, it’s about the city, not the region, or the state… the city is why there IS a region, not the other way around.

In my opinion, honor the history and diversity of that city in the team name. Don’t reward some exurb with empty lots and deep pockets for luring urban flight in the 60s…

:end soapbox:

[quote comment=”392611″]See if we can get our minds around this.

The Twins’ “TC” is letters, yes, but it’s function is as a graphic.

Upon seeing “Minnesota Twins” and not being versed in American geography or cities, etc., one might ask, “Why ‘twins’? What’s ‘twinsish” about Minnesota?”

Ah, I see, they have two cities known as “Twin Cities”?

Hence, the TC’s function is to explain the nickname.
It certainly isn’t the team name, no “Twin Cities” in there. So, if it isn’t the geographic locator, then it’s about the nickname, right?

The Minnesota “twins” are two cities, known as the “Twin Cities” and symbolized by an entwined “TC.”

Make sense?

—Ricko[/quote]

Totally. And I LOVE that logo. Glad it’s back… particularly on the white chevron(?).

I remember as a kid when there was no internet or Uni-Watch to help with such matters, I had no idea what the hell the TC meant. Had never heard the term “Twin Cities” before, so it obviously had no cache with me. It made about as much sense as when the A’s brought back the elephant. But isn’t that kinda thing cool as hell? I wish there were lots more of it these days.

Stuby said…

“On another front, ‘Indiana Colts’ sounds much better to me than Indianapolis.”

There is almost no way that statement can be challenged.
The sound of it, saying it, IS incredibly superior to what they chose.
As to marketing, it probably made little difference.

But I suppose they might have thought it necessary to distinguish themselves from Indiana University, possibly rightly so. That’s about the only reason I can see to have chosen to use “Indianapolis”.

Although, personally, I always thought thing’s would’ve been better if they’d changed to “Indiana Troopers” or something and left the “Colts” name and colors in Baltimore.

Man, when I get to the King there are gonna be some changes ’round here. :)

—Ricko

State names suck. Miami is a BIG city and ‘Miami Marlins’ employs alliteration. At least ‘Twin City Twins’ would make some sense.

I dunno, I rather like “Indianapolis Colts.” There’s something about the blunt team name following a long city name. The rhythm works well, like a perfect tennis serve – long looping buildup culminating in a sharp hit.

[quote comment=”392616″]The OPaCY name was a compromise between those that wanted to call the new stadium Oriole Park (after an old stadium in Baltimore) and those that wanted Camden Yards (after the rail yards where the stadium is located) If anyone ever talks about where the birds play (which doesn’t happen much after 12+ years of losing) usually just call it Camden Yards or the park.

Compromise has ruined team and stadium naming.[/quote]

And again, I may find myself in the minority, but I think this compromise name, far from being diminished, is the best of both worlds. It retains some of the historical significance, while being its own entity. And it has a built-in diminutive for ease of use.

[quote comment=”392622″][quote comment=”392621″]State names suck. Miami is a BIG city and ‘Miami Marlins’ employs alliteration. At least ‘Twin City Twins’ would make some sense.[/quote]

awesome post

save the state names for college![/quote]

Alliteration sucks more (or rather it’s so outrageously overdone it’s absolutely annoying). I’ll take state names instead.

How about the Southern California Angels? Sounds better than what they have now.

[quote comment=”392570″][quote comment=”392566″]C’mon, Ricko… you know the answer… MLB shows us time and again that they just don’t “Get It.”[/quote]
It’s not just MLB. Sports teams have traditionally been terrible keepers of their own æsthetic heritage.

Even my beloved Packers, who so carefully guard their history in all other respects, get careless with their own uniform history. Or the people who make such decisions don’t consult the staff members who do know better.[/quote]

Which reinforces the reason people get paid to do research, solely research, as a job. It’s a job that requires knowledge, skill and passion, just like any other.

[quote comment=”392621″]State names suck. Miami is a BIG city and ‘Miami Marlins’ employs alliteration. At least ‘Twin City Twins’ would make some sense.[/quote]

But Miami’s market is a pisspot full of people who would no way, no how, say they live in Miami.

Dolphins were the first pro franchise, it worked for them. Heat doesn’t have to fill as large a venue. Panthers quickly understood their reach had to extend beyond Miami proper. So did the Marlins. But the presence of the Rays doesn’t mean the Marlins have to shrink their focus back to just Miami. Or that it would be a good move.

Besides “Tampa Bay” is an area, not a city.
“South Florida” would be exactly the same thing, a response in kind.

And, actually, there’s more sense of “South Florida” and use of the term among the populace than there is of “Tampa Bay.” Ask most anyone from Tampa or St. Pete. If they use, or hear, “Tampa Bay” it’s almost always in reference to the Bucs or Rays.

In West Palm and Boca and Lauderdale, TV weather talking heads say, “It’s going to be another beautiful day in South Florida…”

I’m not saying “Miami Marlins” doesn’t sound great and isn’t a wonderful harking back to minor league clubs. But it might not be the best marketing choice. Whatever they do, though, there main concern is to re-energize the hell out of the brand, that’s for sure.

Not once did I ever overhear anyone in a mall or a bar or even at a softball game talking bout the “Marlins’ game last night.” Franchise seemed incredibly invisible. We had DirectTV (to get NFL Sunday ticket) and couldn’t get the Marlin games on TV. Most universally ignored MLB franchise, in what should be it’s market area, I’ve ever seen.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”392608″]
Please, someone from Florida (but not from Miami) please explain how common, and how universal, the sense of “South Florida” has become in that part of the state.
—Ricko[/quote]
That would be me, and you’re absolutely right. At the same time, though, if you live in Nowheresville, Suburbia wouldn’t you prefer to associate yourself with a big exciting city? Real estate sellers, retirees, and even your average resident would not hesitate to say “I’m a South Floridian,” but if we’re talking sports fans that might be different, given the major sport tradition of “city – nickname.” (tommyd is saying the same thing in a different way). Nevertheless, there is a precedent for the “South Florida” moniker – the South Florida Sun of the United Soccer League back in 1985.

[quote comment=”392619″]Stuby said…

“On another front, ‘Indiana Colts’ sounds much better to me than Indianapolis.”

There is almost no way that statement can be challenged.
The sound of it, saying it, IS incredibly superior to what they chose.
As to marketing, it probably made little difference.

But I suppose they might have thought it necessary to distinguish themselves from Indiana University, possibly rightly so. That’s about the only reason I can see to have chosen to use “Indianapolis”.

Although, personally, I always thought thing’s would’ve been better if they’d changed to “Indiana Troopers” or something and left the “Colts” name and colors in Baltimore.

Man, when I get to the King there are gonna be some changes ’round here. :)

—Ricko[/quote]

How about the Indianapolis Ignition? LOL

Generally speaking, it’s best for a team to rename itself when moving to another city, because the past accomplishments in the old city have nothing to do with the new location. The great players, moments, and achievements of the old Baltimore Colts are irrelevant to the fans in Indiana. Likewise it’s great there is a Braves Museum at Turner Field, but everything that happened in Boston and Milwaukee under the Braves nickname has nothing to do with the city of Atlanta. The identity and history of sports franchises are exclusively linked to their home cities.

Am I crazy, or is Earl Weaver’s cap drawn onto his head in that picture of him managing the Denver Bears?

I grew up in Union City NJ. Very few people would know where that is..but I could see the Empire State building from my bedroom window, so we are basically from NY. I now live in a small town ( Mooresville NC ) that probably only Nascar fans and Lowes Employees would be familiar with, so I live “near” Charlotte.

So I do believe that regions are more accurate that where city or state lines lie. However why not just call them the Los Angeles Angels!!!

[quote comment=”392633″]Generally speaking, it’s best for a team to rename itself when moving to another city[/quote]

so…all those baseball teams that relocated in the 50’s should have just renamed themselves?

i think it depends on the team (generally speaking, to use your term)…can’t see how the dodgers or giants (with dodgers nickname especially non-germane) would have done any better…did “orioles” just work for baltimore when the browns moved? absolutely…

should the milwaukee braves have become the “brewers” instead? like the orioles, there was a “major” (and minor) league precedent for the change

what about athletics? did the KC athletics fare any worse when they left philly? should they have been renamed?

did LA Lakers (nice alliteration, but there’s only one lake in LA, right)…the LA (trolley) dodgers or LA rams need to have new names?

interesting question…frankly, i like it when the franchise name moves with the team, but i can see the city who “lost” that team being upset

does EVERY team that plays baseball in washington have to be called the “nationals” or “senators”? no, but the two times teams have moved from washington, they dumped that monicker…

in baseball, anyway, it seems roughly equal for teams who kept their franchise name upon moving versus adopted a new name (old/new: browns/orioles, senators/twins, pilots/brewers, senators/rangers, expos/nationals); as kept the old name (a’s, braves, giants, dodgers)

/doing that from memory, forgive me if i left a team out

[quote comment=”392619″]Stuby said…

“On another front, ‘Indiana Colts’ sounds much better to me than Indianapolis.”

There is almost no way that statement can be challenged.
The sound of it, saying it, IS incredibly superior to what they chose.
As to marketing, it probably made little difference.

But I suppose they might have thought it necessary to distinguish themselves from Indiana University, possibly rightly so. That’s about the only reason I can see to have chosen to use “Indianapolis”.

Although, personally, I always thought thing’s would’ve been better if they’d changed to “Indiana Troopers” or something and left the “Colts” name and colors in Baltimore.

Man, when I get to the King there are gonna be some changes ’round here. :)

—Ricko[/quote]

Lemme guess, yer gonna give the ‘Hornets’ name back to Charlotte, give ‘Grizzlies’ to Utah and call the Memphis team the ‘Blues’ to create a natural rivalry with the ‘Jazz,’ which you’ll give back to New Orleans.

All kidding aside, I do love ‘Utah Grizzlies’ and (especially) ‘Memphis Blues.’

[quote comment=”392635″]Am I crazy, or is Earl Weaver’s cap drawn onto his head in that picture of him managing the Denver Bears?[/quote]
link, probably because in the orginal photo the navy cap was blending in with the background. It must’ve looked like the top of his head was chopped off, so they lightened the cap.

Airbrushing, for the young’uns, is what we used to call Photoshop. Except we did it with our hands. ;)

[quote comment=”392629″]
Not once did I ever overhear anyone in a mall or a bar or even at a softball game talking bout the “Marlins’ game last night.” Franchise seemed incredibly invisible. We had DirectTV (to get NFL Sunday ticket) and couldn’t get the Marlin games on TV. Most universally ignored MLB franchise, in what should be it’s market area, I’ve ever seen.[/quote]

I’d put it second, behind the Rays. At least Marlins fans have the whole “they dismantled my team” excuse, lame though it may be. Tampa Bay area fans don’t even have that.

The best team in baseball, and young enough to challenge for that title for years to come. They win a pennant, and still nobody comes to the games. If the Yankees and Red Sox didn’t artifically inflate the Rays’ numbers, they’d be even more pathetic.

[quote comment=”392643″][quote comment=”392635″]Am I crazy, or is Earl Weaver’s cap drawn onto his head in that picture of him managing the Denver Bears?[/quote]
link, probably because in the orginal photo the navy cap was blending in with the background. It must’ve looked like the top of his head was chopped off, so they lightened the cap.

Airbrushing, for the young’uns, is what we used to call Photoshop. Except we did it with our hands. ;)[/quote]

I always thought Earl Weaver was born looking 55.

[quote comment=”392616″]The OPaCY name was a compromise between those that wanted to call the new stadium Oriole Park (after an old stadium in Baltimore) and those that wanted Camden Yards (after the rail yards where the stadium is located) If anyone ever talks about where the birds play (which doesn’t happen much after 12+ years of losing) usually just call it Camden Yards or the park.

Compromise has ruined team and stadium naming.[/quote]
I think we can agree that OP@CY is a much better name than “Your-Company-Here presents OP@CY”

[quote comment=”392643″][quote comment=”392635″]Am I crazy, or is Earl Weaver’s cap drawn onto his head in that picture of him managing the Denver Bears?[/quote]
link, probably because in the orginal photo the navy cap was blending in with the background. It must’ve looked like the top of his head was chopped off, so they lightened the cap.

Airbrushing, for the young’uns, is what we used to call Photoshop. Except we did it with our hands. ;)[/quote]

Oh, I know a couple guys who still love to do it with their hands…

link

[quote comment=”392649″]I think we can agree that OP@CY is a much better name than “Your-Company-Here presents OP@CY”[/quote]

Agreed. OPaCY should never, ever, under any circumstances be changed. Not all corporate named stadiums sound terrible, though. “Jacobs Field” always had an old-school feel to me. “Great American Ballpark” captures the old-timey-ness the Reds embrace. Even “Tropicana Field” isn’t half bad… at least it’s a tropical locale and there’s orange groves in the general vicinity. It almost sounds like a night-club. “Target Field” isn’t too bad. At least Target doesn’t sound as corporate-contrived like Comerica or PacBell.

As an aside, am I the only one who, upon hearing the name “Comerica Park” thinks of “Kra-merica Industries” and a giant ball full of oil?

[quote comment=”392638″]New England Patriots?[/quote]
They were almost the Bay State Patriots (the BS Patriots) when they left Boston for Foxborough. Hence the change to New England because let’s face it, the Massachusetts Patriots just doesn’t have a ring to it. As an aside, Foxborough is closer to Providence than Boston.

[quote comment=”392654″]If you are a die hard fan of a team that moves to another city, do you automatically stop being a fan?

I mean recent moves. I can understand Dodger and Giant fans in the 50s where you could not attend any games or watch / listen to games anymore.

I mean more like Carinals move to Arizona, Rams move to St.Louis…how does that work with the fans. You can still watch all the games….I know its a little differet, but conversely, I have been living in North Carolina for a while, but I will be Yankees, Giants, Nets, Devils fan for life. Couldn\’t care less for local teams and would not be caught dead wearing a Panthers, Bobcats, Hurricanes jersey.

Again I understand its different, but do you stop being a fan ( wearing jerseys ) when the teams move?[/quote]

Never had that experience, would imagine it would be bittersweet when that team would go on and win a title in that new city.

I feel like people in Minnesota have more of a regional identity. I live in the TC’s, but I think of myself as being from MN more than Saint Paul.

I think a lot of places (east coast especially) you ID with your city more than the state or region. DC and Baltimore are right next to each other but I would never link the two together.

Same thing with Philly, I don’t think of PA when I think of the city.

So, no I don’t have any problem with a regional name if the team represents the region.

[quote comment=”392657″][quote comment=”392654″]Again I understand its different, but do you stop being a fan ( wearing jerseys ) when the teams move?[/quote]

Never had that experience, would imagine it would be bittersweet when that team would go on and win a title in that new city.[/quote]

I’d say less sweet and more bitter. MUCH more bitter. The Ravens winning the SB in 2000 made 20+ years of watching the Browns get sooooo close to come away with nothing, not even a lousy AFC Championship, that much more bitter.

What about when a team moves in closer to where you live? Will you all of a sudden see a bunch of life long Knick fans from Brooklyn wearing Nets Jerseys in a few years when they move to the new arena there?

[quote comment=”392640″]”Generally speaking, it’s best for a team to rename itself when moving to another city, because the past accomplishments in the old city have nothing to do with the new location.”

Well, they are businesses, and their history and “ownership” of that history does go with them. What are they supposed to do, just turn it all loose into the public domain? Bundle it at the Public Library and mark it, “To be opened by the next NFL franchise in town and used if they choose to do so”?

I WISH there’s a way the Colts’ name and history could have stayed in Baltimore. But, hey, the Browns thing is a HUGE anomaly and we very likely should expect never to see such a thing again.

So, the history may not mean much to folks in the new town, but it does to the business, the corporation, the franchise…and it IS theirs, legally and otherwise.

List more than three truly long-standing, once-successful teams that HAVE changed their nickname after a move (the Winnipeg Jets, Quebec Nordiques, Denver Rockies and, possibly, Hartford Whalers were pretty much neither). Twins and Rangers the exception rather than the rule.

Hard to do. Meaning it probably really isn’t the best move. Or they’d do it.

Continuity matters, even if it involves uprooted franchises.

—Ricko[/quote]

Understand your point of nickname continuity from the ownership perspective, but I think the rewards outweigh the drawbacks. There’s no doubt in my mind teams like the NBA Lakers and MLB Dodgers would have been just as successful on the field with new nicknames.

If anything, a new identity and nickname would help establish a team in a new city. If the Rams had become the Archers upon moving to St. Louis, that would have been a smart move. Likewise, when St. Louis lost the Cards to Arizona, that team would have wise to call themselves the Scorpions.

In this era of marketing and merchandise sales, it’s just smart business. Good to see we’re not talking about the Washington Expos right now.

[quote comment=”392665″]

In this era of marketing and merchandise sales, it’s just smart business. Good to see we’re not talking about the Washington Expos right now.[/quote]

Yeah, imagine how bad their attendance would be then….

[quote comment=”392666″]link of the Babe is interesting, like Paul said, because of the socks. “Dressed to the Nines” shows link. Solid blue stirrup with white sanitaries. What color would the lower part of the stirrup be? Anyone?[/quote]

despite the license plate reading 1922, looks like those are the 1921 rups…maybe a spring training photo?

I know this would have been hard for folks in Ohio, but I think Baltimore Browns kind of had a nice ring to it! Utah Jazz and Memphis Grizzlies not so much…..

[quote comment=”392652″][quote comment=”392590″][quote comment=”392583″]I have a couple of Florida Marlins rationalizations:

1. Being a mobile offshore fish, the marlin cannot be terrestrially located and thus club management threw their hands up & named the team after the entire peninsula. A dolphin is different. You can put a dolphin in an above-ground pool and it frolics & appears to be happy. The mighty marlin, however, needs the open sea. Therefore Miami Marlin is faintly absurd.

2. There was a single-A club for years (’60s and again ’80s) in the Florida State League called the Miami Marlins and perhaps the new team wanted to avoid the association. (This type of problem didn’t deter the Milwaukee Brewers, but that’s their separate story).

As far as I know, Wayne Huizenga & Co. have never used one of these rationalizations but perhaps they should have. Anyway, the team will be switching over to “Miami Marlins,” of course, and not a minute too soon.[/quote]

Having spent several winters in Boca Raton, and a number of summer visits, too, my advertising/pr/marketing gut instinct tells me the best name they could have chosen…and still could/should chose…would be “South Florida Marlins.” That’s actually their market, and that’s how the market thinks of itself. The stadium is within a few good teeshots of Fort Lauderdale, and I guarantee you folks in Lauderdale do not say they live in Miami…but they DO live in “South Florida.”

I’d be interested to see if any Florida advertising marketing types have the same take on it.

—Ricko[/quote]

The University of South Florida is located in Tampa, isn’t it?

Might be hard for Tampa fans to accept a Miami team named “South Florida”.

Just a thought.[/quote]

All about vantage point and history. USF was so-named to clearly identify it was well south of U of Florida and Florida State. The southern portion of state’s own school.

These days Tampa is not part of, and does not think of itself as part of, the “South Florida” we’re discussing here, as it is used in the vernacular. We’re talking about (help me out here, Giancarlo and others) the Atlantic side from about West Palm Beach south through, what, the Keys?

As to “South” in the name, that would be a quirk of the self-naming of the area. Just happens to include a directional. Actually is no different than things like Gulf Coast or Bay Area and such…in that sense.

As to what Tampa “would accept”…South Florida’s a helluva lot better than “Florida”, which is what they’re living with now.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”392673″]As to what Tampa “would accept”…South Florida’s a helluva lot better than “Florida”, which is what they’re living with now.

—Ricko[/quote]

I think it’s much easier for Tampa to accept “Florida” now that they have the Rays… even though they have to deal with those ugly-ass powder blues (leading the AL East helps soften the blow on those deals).

My first thought was that maybe the Mets would have been even more strongly embraced had they been given the chance to be the Dodgers or the Giants, but then again, as their identity was intended to be a meld of the two, would using one of the old names actually have alienated half of their early fan base?

Secondly … Phil – One of your questions was invalid. The KC Athletics could never have left the name behind in this alternate universe. They would have had a different name after moving from Philadelphia!

The University of South Florida is located in Tampa, isn’t it?

Might be hard for Tampa fans to accept a Miami team named “South Florida”.

Just a thought.[/quote]

All about vantage point and history. USF was so-named to clearly identify it was well south of U of Florida and Florida State. The southern portion of state’s own school.

These days Tampa is not part of, and does not think of itself as part of, the “South Florida” we’re discussing here, as it is used in the vernacular. We’re talking about (help me out here, Giancarlo and others) the Atlantic side from about West Palm Beach south through, what, the Keys?

As to “South” in the name, that would be a quirk of the self-naming of the area. Just happens to include a directional. Actually is no different than things like Gulf Coast or Bay Area and such…in that sense.

As to what Tampa “would accept”…South Florida’s a helluva lot better than “Florida”, which is what they’re living with now.

—Ricko[/quote]

Don’t get me wrong, I knew where you were coming from. “Accept” was not exactly the word I was looking for. I was trying to convey that perhaps “South Florida” is a bit ambiguous, considering that the term is used to describe the Miami/Lauderdale area as well as the whole southern half the state, in seperate instances. Tampa does not exactly give me a “South Florida” vibe, but apparently it worked for somebody.

[quote comment=”392670″][quote comment=”392654″]If you are a die hard fan of a team that moves to another city, do you automatically stop being a fan?

I mean recent moves. I can understand Dodger and Giant fans in the 50s where you could not attend any games or watch / listen to games anymore.

I mean more like Carinals move to Arizona, Rams move to St.Louis…how does that work with the fans. You can still watch all the games….I know its a little differet, but conversely, I have been living in North Carolina for a while, but I will be Yankees, Giants, Nets, Devils fan for life. Couldn\’t care less for local teams and would not be caught dead wearing a Panthers, Bobcats, Hurricanes jersey.

Again I understand its different, but do you stop being a fan ( wearing jerseys ) when the teams move?[/quote]

Depends on the circumstances. For me, if you don’t live near your favorite team and they move it shouldn’t make much difference. I liked the Philly/Baltimore Stars and the Boston/New Orleans/Portland Breakers of the USFL. I liked the Expos as well, and when they moved to DC they actually shot up my list to #2.

On the other hand, when The Cleveland Cavaliers of Richfield moved back to Cleveland, it took five years for me to even go to a game. They also dropped a couple of notches on my list of favorites.

If you’re geographically close, in most cases it would be hard to keep rooting…unless the reason you liked them was for a certain player, or even the uniform, instead of geography.

Also depends on the reason for the move. If the team honestly couldn’t survive without moving, that could be forgiven.[/quote]

Good example with the USFL Breakers, I should have slightly amended my original post. Those teams who move in a short period of time with no tradition, probably should keep the nickname to the new city. A perfect example of this would be the NHL Flames, who did zero in Atlanta, but have built their own tradition in Calgary.

[quote comment=”392677″]Secondly … Phil – One of your questions was invalid. The KC Athletics could never have left the name behind in this alternate universe. They would have had a different name after moving from Philadelphia![/quote]

was talking about their move from philly to KC…not from KC to oak

sorry if that wasn’t clear

point was…would the KC athletics have been better off if they had be renamed the fountains (hmmmm…probably not)…or the “cowchips”…or even the “royals”?

in that case, i don’t think leaving the athletics name with philly and changing it upon their arrival in KC made much of a difference, but it did keep the franchise bloodline alive

“There’s no doubt in my mind teams like the NBA Lakers and MLB Dodgers would have been just as successful on the field with new nicknames.”

Okay, then why bother with the name change? Why throw out the history if you gain nothing by doing it?

You’d have seen no advantage in keeping L.A. fired up over, “The DODGERS are ours now!!!”?

Expos and Lakers not even close to parallel in nature, other than the names not fitting in the new towns.

A) Lakers a helluva lot more storied name and more marketable commodity than Expos.

B) You’re saying the landscape for pro sports is the same now as it was 50 years ago, that TV/media exposure then was as extensive as it it now. Just not so. Shit, fifty years ago probably no one in L.A. could name one of the Minneapolis players but, “Damn, now we got the frickin’ LAKERS, too!!!”. That’s not worth milking?

You have to market whatever equity you have. If you don’t, you’re gonna spend a whole lotta money telling people the “Oh, no, the “LaBrea Sabretooths” are the “Lakers”.

Better to spend the money on other things and promote the “Lakers”.

C) A lot of the appeal back then was then was the self-satisfaction of West Coasters in knowing they’d taken something away from the East Coast. You change nicknames and a lot of that goes away instantly.

Just saying, analyze things in the context of their time.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”392684″]
So wether a team moves in our out, how do you change who you root for?

If you live in LA and you remained a Rams or even Raider fan, and LA gets a team, do you know go out and buy new Jerseys? Did all of the life long Oiler fans in Houston all of sudden become Texan fans?[/quote]

When the Browns moved, I didn’t choose a new team, just stopped watching the NFL.

Since the Browns’ return, I can only watch Browns’ games. The rest of the NFL basically died for me when the Browns left. That includes playoffs/Super Bowl. I can’t explain that, it just happened.

Had the expansion Cleveland team been given a new nickname, I probably wouldn’t have been interested.

That being said, Cleveland was/is a unique case for this scenario.

[quote comment=”392633″]Likewise it’s great there is a Braves Museum at Turner Field, but everything that happened in Boston and Milwaukee under the Braves nickname has nothing to do with the city of Atlanta. The identity and history of sports franchises are exclusively linked to their home cities.[/quote]

Better that the Atlanta Braves honor the Boston history of the franchise than that history just be ignored entirely, which it likely would be at Fenway Park.

[quote comment=”392687″]
Since the Browns’ return, I can only watch Browns’ games. The rest of the NFL basically died for me when the Browns left. That includes playoffs/Super Bowl. I can’t explain that, it just happened.[/quote]

Wow. Funny you say that. I had the exact same thing happen to me. I never missed a Browns game either on TV or in person between 1979 and 1995. I would get really upset if I missed even one play no matter how bad the team was that particular season. I would sit around all day Sunday watching football no matter who was playing. Now, if I miss a game, it’s no big deal. I don’t have much interest in the rest of the league other than the occasional MNF game or the playoffs, and even those just aren’t the same. Even the rivalry with the Steelers isn’t the same. Maybe it’s because the Browns have been lousy, but I don’t think so. Art Modell nearly killed the love of pro football in me and it hasn’t come back yet.

If this is a common sentiment among fans of teams that have left, particularly in cities where the following was/is rabid in nature, Roger Goodell could learn a thing or two from disenfranchised fans. If the Bills end up leaving Buffalo, so too could a lot of NFL support in western New York. He could end up with a situation like they have in Tampa with the Rays where there’s a quality product but not many butts in the seats (sound like L.A.?)

[quote comment=”392637″]If you are a die hard fan of a team that moves to another city, do you automatically stop being a fan?[/quote]
Ricardo,

To take your point one step further — you would never consider yourself a UCHS Soaring Eagle, would you?

/one of my old roommates was a Hiller

[quote comment=”392689″][quote comment=”392633″]Likewise it’s great there is a Braves Museum at Turner Field, but everything that happened in Boston and Milwaukee under the Braves nickname has nothing to do with the city of Atlanta. The identity and history of sports franchises are exclusively linked to their home cities.[/quote]

Better that the Atlanta Braves honor the Boston history of the franchise than that history just be ignored entirely, which it likely would be at Fenway Park.[/quote]

Agreed, it would be sad if the Braves ignored the 1914 club or the 1957 team. However, the Atlanta Braves were born in 1966, so the people of Atlanta have their own history to claim, including their 1995 world title. The exploits of Warren Spahn have nothing to do with Atlanta, only the uniform was similar.

[quote comment=”392686″]re; Breakers, etc. “Those teams who move in a short period of time with no tradition, probably should keep the nickname to the new city.”

Actually, those are the teams that maybe SHOULD change, especially if nickname makes no sense in the new town.

They have no equity to lose, and likely no real image they bring with them to promote.

New Orleans wasn’t all giddy about the getting the fabled Breakers. Neither was Portland. By the time they got to Oregon they were two-time losers. That reputation would be better buried.

—Ricko[/quote]

No doubt, the Breakers were a vagabond franchise, but the geographic locations of New Orleans and Portland made the nickname suitable.

[quote comment=”392673″]
These days Tampa is not part of, and does not think of itself as part of, the “South Florida” we’re discussing here, as it is used in the vernacular. We’re talking about (help me out here, Giancarlo and others) the Atlantic side from about West Palm Beach south through, what, the Keys?
—Ricko[/quote]
That’s about it, with the Keys being optional. To be strict & precise, from the town of Jupiter in the north to the town of Florida City in the south, which means the three Atlantic coast counties of Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade. Some folks from the Keys think that they live in a separate country (as in nation) called the Conch Republic.
link

[quote comment=”392700″]Weirdest thing is, there are far more Steelers fans in Northeast Ohio than I care to count, but I’ve yet to see a single Browns fan in the Pittsburgh metro area. Sort of makes me ill.[/quote]

My guess is because a.) the Browns moved and folks found a good team/franchise to latch onto, or b.) the jobs dried up in Pittsburgh and they all relocated to Northeast Ohio. You’re right… there seems to be more Steeler pride in NEO than Browns’.

Can you tell I have absolutely nothing to do at work today?

[quote comment=”392696″]I could be wrong here, but I would imagine that even when a cross-town rival wins it all, a positive impact is felt throughout the city.[/quote]

2009 world series was hard to take, for a mets fan…effin yankees and the phils?

there may have been a “positive” impact if only because a least one team from new york surpassed philly…but it wasn’t a city wide celebration either

Staring at my Coke can … something’s different … took me a minute …

The only place where the word “Classic” shows up is a little tiny logo about a centemeter across next to the bad code.

Quiet un-branding, anyone?

[quote comment=”392708″][quote comment=”392705″]
2009 world series was hard to take, for a mets fan…effin yankees and the phils?

there may have been a “positive” impact if only because a least one team from new york surpassed philly…but it wasn’t a city wide celebration either[/quote]

But here’s the other kick to the head for small market baseball teams… any time the Indians get a quality player, we know we only have him for a few years till his contract is up. Most legitimate stars in Cleveland in the last 15 years have gotten out — or would have if not for being traded — the minute they were able. Manny Ramirez, Jim Thome, C.C. Sabathia, and Cliff Lee (2 500 hr guys and 2 Cy Young winners) all quickly come to mind. That just doesn’t happen on a regular basis in New York.[/quote]

that’s cuz the mets and yankees don’t draft those kind of players

the mets pick them up when they’re overpriced and past their prime, or trade 7 prospects and a can of shoe polish for them…

the yanks just wait till there’s an opening

[quote comment=”392693″][quote comment=”392637″]If you are a die hard fan of a team that moves to another city, do you automatically stop being a fan?[/quote]
Ricardo,

To take your point one step further — you would never consider yourself a UCHS Soaring Eagle, would you?

/one of my old roommates was a Hiller[/quote]

HA HA SOARING EAGLES!! Will always be a Bulldog…it’s a shame we don’t get beat the Hillers every Thanksgiving anymore.

But to link the point, even though I stopped following Union City Sports a long time ago, these new Soaring Eagles mean absolutely nothing to me.

Shouldn’t it be the Miami Marlin. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad they added the improper “s”.

[quote comment=”392702″][quote comment=”392698″]When the Sonics moved to OKC I was glad they changed the name and I dont really watch the NBA. That’s not my team anymore. If another teams starts up in Seattle, they’re my team.[/quote]

Did the NBA leave the name/history/colors with Seattle since they didn’t take ’em to OKC or are Seattle fans S.O.L.?[/quote]

I believe so, yes. The Sonics world title will always belong to Seattle.

[quote comment=”392716″]OK, this might be a reach, but stay with me. I think the moving/naming discussion regarding the Giants and Dodgers and Phil’s comments on NY championships are not mutually exclusive.

As a Mets fan, and a sociology/history buff I’ve often thought about this. My NY bias may be showing but I think that the Yankees/Giants/Dodgers/Mets is a completely different animal than any of the other city/name discussions because of the extreme ties of NY baseball to local identity in the 1950s.

All three teams experienced amazing runs of success during a timeframe when New York became the face of the most powerful nation in the world. NY could have been considered the world’s capital (economically and culturally) and baseball was definitely (and always has been) NY’s game.

The teams most certainly had their own separate identities as did the neighborhoods they played in, and their respective fans. Also, it’s not like the Dodgers or Giants left after falling by the wayside, there were 8 pennants and 2 championships between them in the decade before the move. (Plus the Yankees success.)

So when the teams went West, there was already a strong winning brand associated with the teams so why change it? Taking the Stars or Seals identities would have kept LA and SF tied to their pre-50s “minor league” identity. The emergence of the Mets could not challenge this (or the Yankees), and they didn’t really try. Their identity was as the link of the league, as well as the successor of the National League Baseball tradition, not as a replacement.

Add the generational and geographical turnover of the country as a whole and you get identities which moved West with the teams and an identity born to go with the times.

Did that make any sense or was I just rambling?[/quote]

Well said, I would agree that a certain percentage of Dodger/Giants fans would end up in California after the relocation, and continue their support. Interesting to note the Dodgers have been far more successful in LA than Brooklyn, and the Giants far less successful in San Fran than NY. Amazingly, the Giants haven’t won a single world title in all that time, despite having the likes of Mays and Bonds wearing San Francisco uniforms.

Still, I think the best plan would have been to change those nicknames, put them out to pasture. The LA Stars and San Francisco Seals would have sounded just fine, and given those teams a brand new identity. I agree with your perception of those nicknames, but we must remember to California baseball fans of that era, the PCL was very close to MLB in terms of talent and competition. There were even some PCL players making more money than their MLB counterparts.

I think some of the New York transplants in California may have resisted the name change, but the overwhelming rest of the population would have been satisfied.

[quote comment=”392716″]OK, this might be a reach, but stay with me. I think the moving/naming discussion regarding the Giants and Dodgers and Phil’s comments on NY championships are not mutually exclusive.

As a Mets fan, and a sociology/history buff I’ve often thought about this. My NY bias may be showing but I think that the Yankees/Giants/Dodgers/Mets is a completely different animal than any of the other city/name discussions because of the extreme ties of NY baseball to local identity in the 1950s.

All three teams experienced amazing runs of success during a timeframe when New York became the face of the most powerful nation in the world. NY could have been considered the world’s capital (economically and culturally) and baseball was definitely (and always has been) NY’s game.

The teams most certainly had their own separate identities as did the neighborhoods they played in, and their respective fans. Also, it’s not like the Dodgers or Giants left after falling by the wayside, there were 8 pennants and 2 championships between them in the decade before the move. (Plus the Yankees success.)

So when the teams went West, there was already a strong winning brand associated with the teams so why change it? Taking the Stars or Seals identities would have kept LA and SF tied to their pre-50s “minor league” identity. The emergence of the Mets could not challenge this (or the Yankees), and they didn’t really try. Their identity was as the link of the league, as well as the successor of the National League Baseball tradition, not as a replacement.

Add the generational and geographical turnover of the country as a whole and you get identities which moved West with the teams and an identity born to go with the times.

Did that make any sense or was I just rambling?[/quote]
Sorry, but check your history. Baseball has not always been NY’s game.

[quote comment=”392547″][quote comment=”392543″]Why didn’t the Denver expansion team use the moniker “Denver Bears”? I hate… (make that HATE HATE HATE HATE) using state names for teams. Seems like a loss all the way around.

I guess pro sports needed more purple.

UGH[/quote]

Because having the Bears and the Cubs in the same league would be almost as silly as having two teams both called the RoughRiders. It’d be like the NFL adding a team called the Tigers, or the NHL with Demons.[/quote]

Or the NFL adding teams called the Jaguars and Panthers at the same time. I still have to think carefully when remembering which is which.

[quote comment=”392720″][quote comment=”392719″] Baseball has not always been NY’s game.[/quote]

i don’t think he was implying exclusive to new york…but in terms of the number one sport in ny?

absolutely[/quote]
Phil, get where you are coming from.

the facts support me as well

jim joyce is don denkinger’s nephew, right?

[quote comment=”392724″][quote comment=”392720″][quote comment=”392719″] Baseball has not always been NY’s game.[/quote]

i don’t think he was implying exclusive to new york…but in terms of the number one sport in ny?

absolutely[/quote]

Yes, my intention. But since it’s been mentioned, the facts as well (despite my NY bias).

Alexander Cartwright’s rules for what has become the modern game were written in NY for the first official baseball club, the Knickerbockers. In the infancy of the game they were known as the “Manhattan” rules, as opposed to the “Massachusetts” rules. The first officially recorded game was 2 New York teams playing at Elysian Fields in Hoboken, 1845.

I know about ‘base ball’ being played in England (recently mentioned by Paul in the cricket/baseball exhibit video), and ‘town ball’, and the link. But the game played today evolved from NY base ball.[/quote]
Ben, think it through buddy. Look at all the angles.

BTW: link on 1755 reference to base ball in England.

[quote comment=”392595″]The New York Yankees of the Bronx

The New York Mets of Flushing

The New York Islanders of Uniondale

The Tampa Bay Rays of St.Petersburgh

The New Jersey Devils of Newark

The NY/NJ Jets Giants Nets of East Rutherford

The New England Patriots of Foxboro

The Buffalo Bills of Orchard Park

I am sure there are many more and all sound ust as ridicuous as Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim!![/quote]

The Boston/New York Yankees of Dallas

The Dallas Texans of Baltimore

The Baltimore Colts of Indianapolis

and

The Original Cleveland Browns of Baltimore

[quote comment=”392734″][quote comment=”392727″]jim joyce is don denkinger’s nephew, right?[/quote]

Got home only recently. Just saw the replay.
Unbelievably bad call.[/quote]

No kidding. You would think, given the circumstances, the ump would have taken a moment or two, then make the call to be sure he had it right. He looked like he was in a hurry to make a dramatic call, instead of the right call.

and fuck…mets blow another santana gem…a walk-off granny by a-gone

shockingly, he didn’t jump on home plate

On a positive note, isn’t it nice to see the white hats gone.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”392626″][quote comment=”392595″]The New York Yankees of the Bronx

The New York Mets of Flushing

The New York Islanders of Uniondale

The Tampa Bay Rays of St.Petersburgh

The New Jersey Devils of Newark

The NY/NJ Jets Giants Nets of East Rutherford

The New England Patriots of Foxboro

The Buffalo Bills of Orchard Park

I am sure there are many more and all sound ust as ridicuous as Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim!![/quote]

The Dallas Cowboys of Arlington.[/quote]

I can promise you that last one won’t happen.

[quote comment=”392739″]On a positive note, isn’t it nice to see the white hats gone.[/quote]

i believe that’s what jim leyland said to jim joyce immediately after the game

[quote comment=”392686″]re; Breakers, etc. “Those teams who move in a short period of time with no tradition, probably should keep the nickname to the new city.”

Actually, those are the teams that maybe SHOULD change, especially if nickname makes no sense in the new town.

They have no equity to lose, and likely no real image they bring with them to promote.

New Orleans wasn’t all giddy about the getting the fabled Breakers. Neither was Portland. By the time they got to Oregon they were two-time losers. That reputation would be better buried.

—Ricko[/quote]

Ah, but those unis. All time classics.