Should the Arizona Cardinals go back to being called Phoenix?

[Lights Out]

No, but they should go back to these end zones:

 

[Sport]

I think Arizona Cardinals sounds better than Phoenix Cardinals. 

 

You know who we should be talking about? The Colts. They should be the Indiana Colts like the Pacers are the Indiana Pacers. Indianapolis is a mouthful. Minnesota Vikings/Wild/Twins/Timberwolves sounds better than Minneapolis Vikings/Wild/Twins/Timberwolves.

[Hoops McCann]

On a related note, I'm surprised we haven't seen more teams adopt Acronym versions of regions/cities, like DC United. I would expect a rebranded MPLS Wild or ATL Hawks or DC Nationals to take hold at some point

[AgentColon2]

That would only work with D.C. Area or Los Angeles IMO. MPLS and ATL is an awful suggestion.

 

Tennessee Titans sounds better than Nashville Titans.

Carolina Panthers sounds better than Charlotte Panthers.

Florida Panthers sounds better than Miami Panthers.

 

So for the most part I think teams are making the right choice.

 

[BrianLion]

Good regional/state designations: 

New England - reps entire multi-state region even though Boston prob only city big enough to have team. 

Minnesota - less wordy than the city name

Indiana - see above

Arizona -  mostly indifferent about it, think it looks better than Phoeniix though

Tampa Bay -  includes both cities on the Bay, and the region

Carolina - Works for the Panthers. They play in Charlotte close to SC border. more inclusive and SC never getting a team anyway. It's still a little odd for the Hurricanes. 

Tennessee - prob wouldve been "Nashville" if not for playing in Memphis to start but works with alliterative nickname. 

 

Bad regional/state designations:

Golden State - a bit much in that it gives the team almost a college feel, and the fact that there are 3 other teams in California in the NBA.  

Florida - yes I know the Florida Panther is a species, but the name just sounds wrong when you have another team in state and you started out in Miami. 

Texas - see above

Colorado - just seems random. You're all in Denver. Go with it.  

New Jersey - couldn't be New York, and no one wants to call themselves "Newark" so they didnt have much choice, but half the state hates them and roots for their rivals on the other side of the river. 

[kimball]

1 hour ago, Hoops McCann said:

On a related note, I'm surprised we haven't seen more teams adopt Acronym versions of regions/cities, like DC United. I would expect a rebranded MPLS Wild or ATL Hawks or DC Nationals to take hold at some point

 

Well, in MLS you do have the LA Galaxy and DC United. And, the NBA has the LA Clippers. But, I'm with you, I'm surprised we haven't seen more acronym region monikers. 

[OnWis97]

On 9/28/2017 at 8:58 AM, BrianLion said:

Good regional/state designations: 

New England - reps entire multi-state region even though Boston prob only city big enough to have team. 

Minnesota - less wordy than the city name

Indiana - see above

Arizona -  mostly indifferent about it, think it looks better than Phoeniix though

Tampa Bay -  includes both cities on the Bay, and the region

Carolina - play in Charlotte close to SC border. more inclusive and SC never getting a team anyway. 

Tennessee - prob wouldve been "Nashville" if not for playing in Memphis to start but works with alliterative nickname. 

 

Bad regional/state designations:

Golden State - a bit much in that it gives the team almost a college feel, and the fact that there are 3 other teams in California in the NBA.  

Florida - yes I know the Florida Panther is a species, but the name just sounds wrong when you have another team in state and you started out in Miami. 

New Jersey - couldn't be New York, and no one wants to call themselves "Newark" so they didnt have much choice, but half the state hates them and roots for their rivals on the other side of the river. 

I'd add Texas.  The Rangers are in the same position as the Panthers...obviously, the State name is necessary to get the full affect.  However, it's off-putting to me to see a team named after a state that already has a team.  When the Florida Marlins started, there were no Rays, so that was less egregious.  (I'm still glad they changed, though)

 

I don't like the attempt to try to "claim" an area and that's what it seems like they are doing with the New England Patriots (and other like Carolina).  Connecticut has a lot of Giants fans.  I don't know whether we can quantify how successful the strategy is at getting people from there to gravitate toward the Pats, but I suspect that's why they did it. Hell, despite the obvious rationale for the Texas Rangers and Florida panthers, I still wonder whether they went that route in part hoping to get interest from the "in-between" parts of their respective states.

 

A lot of what "sounds better" is probably a function of what they're used to.  For example, I think Indianapolis Colts sounds better than Indiana Colts, while Indiana Pacers sounds better than Indianapolis Pacers.  I'm sure reality has influenced me.  (Ironically, it's probably the Pacers that should have the city name, given that it's a reference to the Indy 500...which is not really a statewide "thing.")

 

Anyway, using the above format, I'll go with Reasonable/Tolerable and Bad.  (Reasonable/tolerable, because I still prefer city names).

 

 Reasonable/Tolerable regional/state designations: 

• New Jersey - They identify as being the suburan NYC team...it probably is a bit off-putting to southern NJ residents that identify with Philly. "New Jersey" is probably a better representation of their fanbase than any city.  I guess "Northern New Jersey" might be most accurate, but thank goodness they didn't go for that.
• Indiana - I prefer Indianapolis but it's one of those "one metro" states, so it makes some sense to be "Indiana's Team".
• Arizona and Colorado - See Indiana.  Michigan could probably get away with this as well, but their teams are far too established for any to consider a change.
• Minnesota - See IN/AZ/CO.  They also have the added complexity of having two sizeable cities right next to each other (with the smaller one having a bit of an inferiority complex).  I don't think it's an issue of how long "Minneapolis" is..."Minneapolis Lakers" was fine.  Going with "Twin Cities" would have been another option and I'm glad they did not.  One could argue that they did not have to do this...three of the four DFW teams are called "Dallas."
• Tampa Bay - I begrudgingly put this on the list because Tampa/St. Pete has a similar problem to Minneapolis/St. Paul.  And they probably should not go with "Florida" given the other teams in the state.  So I get why they did it.  This is also a case of "sounds better"..."Tampa Bay" sounds better than "Tampa" for all of these teams.  But is that just what we're used to?

 

Bad regional/state designations:

• Golden State - This is the worst one.  They are not only named after a state that has three other teams, but they use a nickname; a nickname that makes them sound like a college team.  We even say "golden STATE" even though when referening a state nickname we say "GOLDEN state."  I acknowledge that they are in a difficult situation where their choices are San Francisco (they play in Oakland), Oakland (they used to be San Francisco), or something like "Bay Area."  I wish they'd just stuck with San Francisco but maybe some of you NoCal folks know how off-putting that would be when playing in Oakland.  
• Florida - There's another team in the state.
• Texas - See Florida
• Carolina - There's not really a place called "Carolina."  It's probably to have South Carolina be firmly "Panthers Country."  I don't like it; too informal.
• New England.  Also too informal. There's a region called "New England" but not a "place."  I know Foxboro is a haul from Boston, but that's still the metro they are in. 

So I generally prefer cities, but can deal with some states.  I think "non-places" bug me the most.  I gave Tampa Bay a pass because they were between a rock and a hard place...but did not do so for Golden State because that's just too awful.  Texas could be Dallas (like their other teams), Florida Could be Miami.  Carolina could be Charlotte.  New England could be (and was) Boston.  

 

EDIT: I anticipate a couple of people disputing whether Carolina, Tampa Bay, or New England are "places."  I'm not denying any cultural harmony in those "places."  I used to live in New England, which has a different "feel" than other parts of the country.  I mean "place" in a very literal, US Censusy way.

[BeerGuyJordan]

2 hours ago, McCarthy said:

You know who we should be talking about? The Colts. They should be the Indiana Colts like the Pacers are the Indiana Pacers. Indianapolis is a mouthful.

As long as they avoid what their ECHL team did and make the official name Indy, that is one of the few team names that actually bugs me, along with Golden State Warriors, the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, Agua Caliente Clippers of Ontario, and Raptors 905.

[kimball]

3 hours ago, McCarthy said:

You know who we should be talking about? The Colts. They should be the Indiana Colts like the Pacers are the Indiana Pacers. Indianapolis is a mouthful.

 

I don't know? I think Indianapolis sounds better pared with the Colts. Indiana Colts sounds and looks off.

[bobt]

Since Phoenix is a mythical bird, it always seemed ridiculous to name a pro football team after 2 different birds.

 

[Mingjai]

4 hours ago, McCarthy said:

I think Arizona Cardinals sounds better than Phoenix Cardinals. 

 

You know who we should be talking about? The Colts. They should be the Indiana Colts like the Pacers are the Indiana Pacers. Indianapolis is a mouthful. Minnesota Vikings/Wild/Twins/Timberwolves sounds better than Minneapolis Vikings/Wild/Twins/Timberwolves.

 

It would be the St. Paul Wild, but the point about the -polis city names is still valid.

 

4 hours ago, Hoops McCann said:

On a related note, I'm surprised we haven't seen more teams adopt Acronym versions of regions/cities, like DC United. I would expect a rebranded MPLS Wild or ATL Hawks or DC Nationals to take hold at some point

 

STP Wild. And that's even worse than MPLS Wild or MN Wild.

[Lenny Dykstra]

I prefer Phoenix to Arizona personally for the Cardinals. 

[smzimbabwe]

I still wish they had renamed the team the Arizona Phoenix. It's just silly enough sounding that I like it. The Arizona Phoenix play in Phoenix, Arizona. Something about that just tickles my fancy.

[chakfu]

Who cares -

 

Just kidding! Obviously we all care about this sort of thing and that's why we're on this website.  I think I like Phoenix better.   When they moved my dad said they should call them the Phoenix Phoenixes and it would be mispronounced and evolve into Penises.   Weird comment to make to a kid.

[-Akronite-]

I think Arizona Diamondbacks is a great name with a good flow. It's long, but it'd be exponentially worse in the clunk department as the Phoenix Diamondbacks or Phoenix Snakes or what have you. Phoenix Rattlers? Eh.

 

Generally I've come to prefer naming based on cities because that's your home base essentially. Minnesota makes it work but otherwise, just use Denver for crying out loud. If you're using the state name to pull off a nickname, that's an issue to me. You can re-brand a team to a different nickname, but the identity should be tied to the area IMO. Once a team moves it's not the same.

[Ben in LA]

1 hour ago, Mingjai said:

 

It would be the St. Paul Wild, but the point about the -polis city names is still valid.

 

 

STP Wild. And that's even worse than MPLS Wild or MN Wild.

Think of the sponsorship possibilities...or would that make Edmonton kinda angry?

[~Bear]

4 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

Carolina - There's not really a place called "Carolina."  It's probably to have South Carolina be firmly "Panthers Country."  I don't like it; too informal.

If you want to get historical, Carolina was once its own colony before it split into North and South (the original charter was all the land from North and South Carolina to the Pacific; of course this was later overturned). 

 

Also, from being from North Carolina's little sister, I like the name Carolina. Both are culturally and geographically similar and Charlotte is very close to the border and Greenville, SC, one of South Carolina's larger cities. 

[Danny the Sheeb]

As a born and raised AZ Cardinals fan, I say no.  Phoenix Cardinals sounds strange, but if they had kept it, I would probably find "Arizona Cardinals" foreign.

 

Also, @bobt has a point.

 

7 hours ago, Lights Out said:

No, but they should go back to these end zones:

 

Lol, I hadn't even known those existed!

[Fox]

I love the New England Patriots name as well as Golden State Warriors, mostly because they are so unique. I hope they never change.

[4_tattoos]

52 minutes ago, -Akronite- said:

I think Arizona Diamondbacks is a great name with a good flow. It's long, but it'd be exponentially worse in the clunk department as the Phoenix Diamondbacks or Phoenix Snakes or what have you. Phoenix Rattlers? Eh.

Phoenix/Arizona Vipers?