colortv

Should the Arizona Cardinals go back to being called Phoenix?

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Carolina works really well for the Panthers:

 

1. It reps the state, and the Raleigh metro area is almost as big as Charlotte's.

 

2. It also gives fans in South Carolina NFL representation.

 

Not that Charlotte wouldn't work either though.

 

Look at the NBA, Phoenix Suns and Charlotte Hornets. Two of the best flowing names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indianapolis Colts works because Colts is just one syllable, it's not much more of a mouthful than say Carolina Panthers. I guess it could also work for the Pacers but then you run into the problem that it would be hard to put Indianapolis in front of a jersey, while the Colts don't have that need. And basketball is such a statewide phenomenon in Indiana that it would be silly for  it to  be just Indianapolis 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few rambling things:

  1. No one has mentioned the use of "Colorado"  by three of Denver's sports teams yet, which also bugs me.  But the use of "Colorado" leads to:
  2. The "tout ensemble" reason for a particular name, in which the place name and nickname combined specify a particular thing, e.g.: Colorado Rockies, Texas Ranger(s), New Jersey Devil(s), Florida Panther(s), Buffalo Bill(s). In THAT case, I think it's okay.
  3. You think that it's a mess when there is another team in the state with a city name when there is a state name; what about the fact that there is the "Carolina Panthers" and "Carolina Hurricanes" in two DIFFERENT metro areas-- that's a mess. One is in Charlotte; one is in the Raleigh-Durham area.  Of the two, it probably works better for Raleigh-Durham than Charlotte because of that reason (actually represents more than one named city) and because the NBA CHARLOTTE Hornets preceded the CAROLINA Panthers by not quite a decade.
  4. While "Indiana Pacers" is 50 years old and thus a tradition, is the outlier, not just with Indianapolis Colts, but over the years Indianapolis Racers (WHA), Indianapolis Ice (IHL), and Indianapolis Indians (AAA baseball).  Really should've been "Indianapolis Pacers".
  5. I have a strong feeling that a lot of this regional/state place-naming is not just to "build regional interest", but to dis-associate the name from the minority-led (and/or  majority-minority population) "central city" in order to have greater appeal to white suburbanites.  Back in the 90s, I read this specifically about that being the reason for naming the baseball team the "Florida Marlins".  Even though they played in the same stadium as the Miami Dolphins, they were more worried about building their appeal to Broward and Palm Beach county residents, many of whom were white flight transplants from Miami-Dade county.
  6. Similarly, the Braves (who I became a supporter of while attending Georgia Tech and living in Atlanta) have become dead to me since moving to the Cobb County 'burbs; they may as well be called the "Georgia Braves" as far as I'm concerned.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Carolina Hurricanes" is indeed a mess of a name, but remember what a mess the entire relocation of the Whalers was. I know Karmanos came up with the name himself last-minute (I remember someone wanting "IcePigs" as a nod to Raleigh's pork industry, which I guess is described as "thriving") and may have even sketched the logo on a napkin. 

 

And yeah, both the Marlins and Panthers were very concerned with alienating themselves from Miami-Dade in favorite of Broward and Palm Beach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, B-Rich said:

A few rambling things:

  1. No one has mentioned the use of "Colorado"  by three of Denver's sports teams yet, which also bugs me.  But the use of "Colorado" leads to:
  2. The "tout ensemble" reason for a particular name, in which the place name and nickname combined specify a particular thing, e.g.: Colorado Rockies, Texas Ranger(s), New Jersey Devil(s), Florida Panther(s), Buffalo Bill(s). In THAT case, I think it's okay.
  3. You think that it's a mess when there is another team in the state with a city name when there is a state name; what about the fact that there is the "Carolina Panthers" and "Carolina Hurricanes" in two DIFFERENT metro areas-- that's a mess. One is in Charlotte; one is in the Raleigh-Durham area.  Of the two, it probably works better for Raleigh-Durham than Charlotte because of that reason (actually represents more than one named city) and because the NBA CHARLOTTE Hornets preceded the CAROLINA Panthers by not quite a decade.
  4. While "Indiana Pacers" is 50 years old and thus a tradition, is the outlier, not just with Indianapolis Colts, but over the years Indianapolis Racers (WHA), Indianapolis Ice (IHL), and Indianapolis Indians (AAA baseball).  Really should've been "Indianapolis Pacers".
  5. I have a strong feeling that a lot of this regional/state place-naming is not just to "build regional interest", but to dis-associate the name from the minority-led (and/or  majority-minority population) "central city" in order to have greater appeal to white suburbanites.  Back in the 90s, I read this specifically about that being the reason for naming the baseball team the "Florida Marlins".  Even though they played in the same stadium as the Miami Dolphins, they were more worried about building their appeal to Broward and Palm Beach county residents, many of whom were white flight transplants from Miami-Dade county.
  6. Similarly, the Braves (who I became a supporter of while attending Georgia Tech and living in Atlanta) have become dead to me since moving to the Cobb County 'burbs; they may as well be called the "Georgia Braves" as far as I'm concerned.

 

Interesting points.  Comments on a few:

  1. -
  2. I go back and forth on this.  Ultimately I drift away from using sate names to make these happen.  Oh, and Buffalo Bills is just terrible.  They pre-date my birth, but I think I'd have vomited upon hearing the name for the new team in Buffalo.
  3. I had never thought about the fact that two "Carolina's" exist in different cities.  Probably creates confusion from those who's early learning of US geography comes from sports (guilty).  But while I hate naming a team after a state when the same league is in that state I kinda consider these two teams totally unrelated and one does not need to consider the other.  But if they did, I could counter-argue that the Panthers should get the "Carolina" name since Charlotte is so close to South Carolina.  But your point makes sense, too.
  4. Agreed...especially since the Indy 500 is more about the city than the state.
  5. I've thought this and chalked it up to my own cynicism.  I don't know the dynamics in the Miami area or most other areas.  It's not the case in Minnesota.  But it's worth noting that two teams have changed from Phoenix to Arizona.  I think (am I right) that the Coyotes did it when they moved from Phoenix to Glendale...as an aside, I don't like it when teams change their name because they move from city to suburb or vice versa.  Anyway, I suppose I could see teams shying away from using the big bad city, as many people have negative associations with them.  I doubt too many Miami residents shied away from the Florida Marlins. 
  6. Interesting.  I hate that they moved there. I went to a game there in May and liked it more than I thought I would.  But I was a tourist with a rental car.  I hate that they've shut off virtually all transit access and made driving essentially a must.  If the Twins had done that, I'd still be a fan, but I'd get to fewer games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Buffalo Bills" might be the worst name ever. They use a buffalo for their logo and probably think they're paying tribute to history, but they named themselves after a guy who needlessly slaughtered thousands of the animals. Awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Name them something like the Southwest Cardinals. That way it covers NM, Utah, Arizona and even San Diego fans who are bitter after the Chargers left. Covers the whole region...I know this sounds dumb but It could work! After all it is just the city name. Its not like a team name that could really hold you back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours 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.

 

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.

Phoenix Diamondbacks sounds really good though, much better than Arizona Diamondbacks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Diamondbacks" is a mouthful, but from what I remember when it was announced was a cutesy way of getting baseball terminology involved (baseball diamond)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2017 at 8:35 PM, the admiral said:

 

Disagree, certainly in the case of "Arizona Diamondbacks," which rolls off the tongue like a drunk rolls down stairs.

Yes it does, but that is completely because of "Diamondbacks" being an awkward, clunky name regardless of the city name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally hate state names, with the exception of Minnesota, given the longstanding Minneapolis/St. Paul rivalry.

 

I'll give New Jersey a pass as well, since Newark in its own right is nowhere big enough to sustain a major league team. Perhaps more importantly, barely anyone from outside of Newark identifies with the city - anyone in North Jersey probably considers themselves from the NYC suburbs, not the "Newark suburbs" (a term I have heard exactly zero times in my lifetime, FWIW). Newark is just some other city nearby with a super annoying airport to anyone from Montclair and South Orange.

 

You might be able to give the Carolina Hurricanes a pass on that one as well, since they're obviously trying to capture the Charlotte metro area in addition to the Research Triangle. People in Charlotte aren't going to identify one bit with a Raleigh team, and it's questionable whether folks in Durham or Chapel Hill would either. They'll obviously identify with a "Carolina" team though. Not that that's helped the Hurricanes one bit... ;) (Though I will say, most people from outside of the Carolinas have no freaking clue that the Hurricanes play in Raleigh - tons of people assume they play in Charlotte. So in that sense, their branding is a complete failure.)

 

I can't stand how the Arizona teams tend to carry the name "Arizona" rather than "Phoenix." The overwhelming majority of the state lives in the Phoenix metropolitan area - they likely identify with Phoenix! Just as folks from Chicagoland identify with Chicago, people from NoVa identify with DC, people from Greater Boston identify with Boston, etc. It doesn't make a difference to anyone outside of Arizona whether you're from Glendale or Tempe or whatever tract of desert they recently decided to build sprawl upon - if you're from metro Phoenix, you're from "in" or "outside Phoenix." 

 

I suppose it's a matter of what people in the metropolitan area identify with, or how they'd indicate where they live to outsiders. In most cases, people from a metropolitan area identify fairly well with its main city. I have no doubt that Phoenix (and Denver) fall right in line with that trend.

 

And as for the Diamondbacks' name - absolutely nothing flows well with Diamondbacks. It's a terrible name, regardless of whether it's paired with "Arizona" (creating the biggest mouthful in sports) or "Phoenix" (where the two "x" sounds at the end of the names conflict). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fine with teams using the state instead of the city if they're the only team in that particular state and particular sport. In this case, the Cardinals are the only NFL team in Arizona, so I'm fine with them being the "Arizona Cardinals." This is also why I liked that the Coyotes also swapped out Phoenix for Arizona.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CFL Lions play in Vancouver, Canada's third largest market but their regional identity is the British Columbia(BC) Lions instead of the Vancouver Lions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, smzimbabwe said:

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.

 

Even sillier still, the Cardinals have never technically played in the city of Phoenix. They're in Glendale now, and Sun Devils Stadium, where they used to play, is in Tempe, Arizona. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer teams not change names without relocating to another market.  These names should last forever.  The Cardinals and Yotes started as Phoenix and I wish they'd have kept it.  Same with the Marlins, even though Miami Marlins is a better name. I'd rather a franchise just have one name, barring a move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My rule of thumb generally is if the team is the lone major city represented in that state, then they should be given the option to use the state's name.  

 

That said, the Coyotes should be from Phoenix, the Cardinals can be from either, and the Diamondbacks name should stay, if anything else because it's unique and weird.  Inevitably they'd be dubbed the Wildcats or some generic bullcrap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Something I'm surprised hasn't happened yet is the Arizona Cardinals recoloring their logo to fit the indigenous species of desert cardinal that actually resides in their area of the country (especially considering modern football's love of GFGS). That update seems like a branding lay-up. 

 

IMG_8301.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now