kw11333 Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Basically, since the Rams are forced to wear their old city's colours, let's take a look at other times the branding of a team has stayed the same upon relocation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Cesarano Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 A team's logo and colours staying the same upon relocation is the norm. The idea that the new city is getting a real team with a history (as opposed to a cheesy expansion team) is part of the allure. Examples are the Dodgers, Giants, Braves in baseball and the Raiders and Cardinals in football. We even sometimes see this in smaller sports, where the prestige of landing an existing team is not nearly as great as it is in the bigger leagues. We've had the Firebirds (Albany to Indiana) and the Gladiators (New Jersey to Las Vegas to Cleveland) in Arena Football, and the Titans (New York to Orlando) and the Stealth (San Jose to Washington (state) to Vancouver) in indoor lacrosse. Though in these cases, the retention of the uniform might just have been the less expensive option. (The exception might be the Firebirds. The Albany Firebirds were a prestige team in the little world of Arena Football. So the retention of that identity might have had a little bit in common withe the retentions in the bigger sports.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sykotyk Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 It's basically up to the owner. Years ago, there wasn't much thought in changing the name when a team moved. Though, many teams took on names formerly used within a city. Sometime staking up a name of a team in a city still playing in another sport (Giants, Cardinals, Yankees, Pirates, etc). I don't think anyone in San Francisco really cared whether they were getting the Giants or an expansion team (if they even knew what 'expansion' meant back then). They just wanted a major league team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk36 Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 The Rams are unique (I believe) in that they were 1. A long time team in the city they relocated back to 2. They had changed their logo, colors and uniforms after leaving LA The only other similar instance of a team going back to a long time home is the Raiders but their look never changed while they were in a different city. Design Hovie Studios Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeerGuyJordan Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Let's not forget that, back then, it was at the owner's discretion. These days, the League has a lot of control. If LA hadn't already had the Rams name, the league may have required them to leave the identity behind in St. Louis. Rebranding as a part of relocation is more the norm, these days. Thunder Bay Lynx - International Hockey Association (2 seasons, 2017-18, 2019-20, 2018 Xtreme Cup Champions) | Houston Armadillos - Major League Hockey (2 seasons, 2016-18) | Minnesota Muskies - North American Basketball Association (1 season, 2017-2018) | Louisville Thoroughbreds - United League of Baseball (1 season, 2017, 2017 United Cup Champions) | Las Vegas Thunderbirds - International Basketball League (1 season, 2016-17, 2017 Champions) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk36 Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 15 minutes ago, BeerGuyJordan said: Let's not forget that, back then, it was at the owner's discretion. These days, the League has a lot of control. Which drives me crazy. The NFL owners ARE the league yet they continue to let the commish push them around and tell them what to do. Wish they would realize that he works for them. Design Hovie Studios Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayMac Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Oh well, at least the LA Rams will be royal and athletic gold when I play Madden on the Sega Genesis! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiwi_canadian Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Well when the Flames moved from Atlanta to Calgary, the name and colours stayed the same. The logo had to change of course, but everything else stayed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cajunaggie08 Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 The NBA rarely has had teams change identities when they move. The Sonics to Thunder might be the only recent case where a team changed its identity solely from relocating. The older examples would be the Buffalo Braves becoming the San Diego Clippers and the the Rochester Royals becoming the Kansas City Kings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSU151 Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 20 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said: A team's logo and colours staying the same upon relocation is the norm. The idea that the new city is getting a real team with a history (as opposed to a cheesy expansion team) is part of the allure. Examples are the Dodgers, Giants, Braves in baseball and the Raiders and Cardinals in football. I don't think you could say it was the norm. It's about a 50/50 split with baseball teams. In hockey, rebranding is almost a given upon relocation. Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest23 Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 1 hour ago, WSU151 said: I don't think you could say it was the norm. It's about a 50/50 split with baseball teams. In hockey, rebranding is almost a given upon relocation. I would say its the default to remain the same unless the team pulls a modell and burns a local fanbase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 modern-era baseball relocations: Boston Braves --> Milwaukee Braves St. Louis Browns --> Baltimore Orioles Philadelphia Athletics --> Kansas City Athletics Brooklyn Dodgers --> Los Angeles Dodgers New York Giants --> San Francisco Giants Washington Senators --> Minnesota Twins Milwaukee Braves --> Atlanta Braves Kansas City Athletics --> Oakland Athletics Seattle Pilots --> Milwaukee Brewers Washington Senators II --> Texas Rangers Montreal Expos --> Washington Nationals First of all, 11 relocations in over a century is pretty stable. It's 6 to 5 in favor of keeping, so indeed as close as you're gonna get to 50/50, but of the five renamed teams, only two were charter teams, and "Senators" is a tough nickname to make portable, even in a world with Los Angeles Lakers. The Pilots only played one season, so that was an easy mulligan to take. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobster Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 NBA moves - Tri-Cities Hawks --> Milwaukee Hawks Milwaukee Hawks --> St. Louis Hawks Fort Wayne Pistons --> Detroit Pistons Minneapolis Lakers --> Los Angeles Lakers Philadelphia Warriors --> San Francisco Warriors Chicago Zephyrs --> Baltimore Bullets Syracuse Nationals --> Philadelphia 76ers St. Louis Hawks --> Atlanta Hawks San Diego Rockets --> Houston Rockets Cincinnati Royals --> Kansas City-Omaha Kings Baltimore Bullets --> Washington Bullets New York Nets --> New Jersey Nets Buffalo Braves --> San Diego Clippers New Orleans Jazz --> Utah Jazz San Diego Clippers --> Los Angeles Clippers Kansas City Kings --> Sacramento Kings Vancouver Grizzlies --> Memphis Grizzlies Charlotte Hornets --> New Orleans Hornets Seattle SuperSonics --> Oklahoma Thunder New Jersey Nets --> Brooklyn Nets Only 5 of 21 changed their name (and only 1 of the last 7). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickAZ Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 Every situation is unique, but I think many times it would have made sense to leave the name with the city and fanbase. The Browns are the perfect example of this. I know the Rams were originally in Cleveland and the Cardinals (football) from Chicago, but both of these teams should have left their names with LA and St Louis and become a new team. Practically nobody is alive that remembers the Chicago Cardinals or Cleveland Rams. Back when the Baltimore Colts moved they should have left the Colts name in Baltimore. Obviously too late now. It's interesting that the Houston Texans didn't take the Oilers name. It made no sense to have the Los Angeles Lakers or Utah Jazz, but again too late now. I had heard that when the Vancouver Grizzlies were thinking of moving to New Orleans there was a good chance that these teams were going to swap names. However the Raiders seem fine as the Oakland, Los Angeles, or even Las Vegas Raiders. I know Oakland fans would differ on this, but there are more Raider fans in Southern California than Northern California. And I also don't see another team moving to the Bay Area if the Raiders would move. On the Dodgers and Giants, the NY market still had a team with the more popular Yankees. When the Mets became the new expansion team in NY, they did take the colors from both teams that left with royal blue and orange. By the way, they located where the NY City Parks Commissioner Robert Moses, who dominated city planning, wanted the Dodgers to locate and he single-handedly blocked the Dodgers from moving to a new location in Brooklyn. This Brooklyn site is now where the Nets play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echo Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 NHL franchises have almost always rebranded when they've moved. 1920 Quebec Bulldogs > Hamilton Tigers 1930 Pittsburgh Pirates > Philadelphia Quakers 1934 Ottawa Senators > St. Louis Eagles 1976 California Golden Seals > Cleveland Barons 1976 Kansas City Scouts > Colorado Rockies 1980 Atlanta Flames > Calgary Flames 1982 Colorado Rockies > New Jersey Devils 1993 Minnesota North Stars > Dallas Stars 1995 Quebec Nordiques > Colorado Avalanche 1996 Winnipeg Jets > Phoenix Coyotes 1997 Hartford Whalers > Carolina Hurricanes 2011 Atlanta Thrashers > Winnipeg Jets Out of 12 franchise relocations only 2 have kept the same name, and Minnesota to Dallas only half counts, since they obviously had to drop the "North" from North Stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grillbrosdesign Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 I prefer complete rebrands. Usually, team names have a tie to the area, when they move it makes the name pointless. The Jazz in Utah, Lakers in LA, Grizzlies in Memphis, Hornets in NO, Oilers in Tennessee... Those are all silly and literally make zero sense. Start fresh. It's a new team, a new franchise. The owners should take advantage and make it something the locals can have some tie to and pride in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan33 Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 And yet, people still think the Wild should adopt the North Stars identity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2001mark Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 For a team like the Stars, I always thought they did it to let Dallas know their new team was in fact an established franchise not looking for expansion type handouts. SF Giants were in early talks to relocate to Toronto decades ago. I'm fairly certain they would've remained the Giants & not become some newfound branded franchise. @2001mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VancouverFan69 Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 If an established team were moving to my home city, I would much prefer a new brand from scratch than stealing another city's long-time brand that was beloved in that former city. The Atlanta Flames/Calgary Flames is my one exception. Red is a Calgary colour and "Flames" relates to Alberta's oil industry. As a bonus, with Calgary being awarded the '88 Winter Olympics, there's a connection to the Olympic Flame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grillbrosdesign Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 10 hours ago, VancouverFan69 said: The Atlanta Flames/Calgary Flames is my one exception. Red is a Calgary colour and "Flames" relates to Alberta's oil industry. As a bonus, with Calgary being awarded the '88 Winter Olympics, there's a connection to the Olympic Flame. It worked well for the Dallas Stars too. Texas being the 'star' state. If it works, then keep it (your example, Dallas Stars), but I think that's the exception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.