Jump to content

Teams that have kept colors/names upon relocation


kw11333

Recommended Posts

I always thought this was a slap in the face to the fans of the original teams fan base.

The Colts and Raiders jerseys and logos are no different upon their relocation.

My big questions are:

Are the brands (logo's, colours, etc) bigger than the city they play in?

What are your thoughts as a fan of this?

and,

What are prime examples of this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I never had a problem with it. At the end of the day the names/logos belong to the team, not the city. So if the team moves they should get to keep their identity if they want to. Fans are just along for the ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's tackle these one by one. First off, the brand indeed is bigger than the city the team plays in. I look at it almost like any other business. A business can move its headquarters from one city to another but its brand and identity should not change just because they moved. Likewise, if I were to move from my city to another I'm not going to change who I am or what I'm all about. Sure, some teams may want to kick off their move with a rebranding and there are other cases where the team name may not fit the city but I don't think any team should be forced to rebrand after a move.

Am I a fan of it? For the most part I don't mind just as long as the team name is generic enough to not be an odd fit with its new city. Names like Colts, Raiders, Athletics, Hornets and Rams are names that could work anywhere. Supersonics, Browns and North Stars would have worked in their new cities also. I don't care if the team keeps its colors either; color schemes can work for any team in any location as well.

I wouldn't be a fan of it if the team name has a distinct tie-in to another city. For instance, the franchise now known as the Winnipeg Jets couldn't have taken the name "Thrashers" to Winnipeg because the brown thrasher is Georgia's state bird. Unless there is a history of prominent jazz musicians being from there I don't know about I'm not fond of Utah's NBA team being named the Jazz.

Finally, a few examples. Here are a few more to add to the list:

Warriors

Rams

Lakers (kept blue and white from Minneapolis to Los Angeles)

Braves (each time they moved)

A's (took red white and blue from Philadelphia to Kansas City, and green and gold from Kansas City to Oakland)

Chiefs (they took the colors with them from Dallas to Kansas City at least)

Hornets (they kept the teal and purple, but just added yellow with it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always believed that if a team moves, then they should change their name and the existing name, logos, etc should be placed in the Hall of Fame for no one else to use.

Take the Browns as a perfect example. For example, that POS Modell moved the Browns to Baltimore and left the team name, logos and history in Cleveland, however, if you are a true Browns fan, then you know that this current version of the Browns are not the Browns, maybe the Barons, or the Suckers, but not the Browns.

Now look at the Tennessee TItans, sure they used to be known as the Oilers. Who? The Houston Oilers became the Tennessee TItans due to fans in Nashville wanting a new name for their new team. Adams announced in 1998, that the name change would coincide with the new stadium opening and the team would retain some of their heritage, including team records, and there there would be a Hall of Fame honoring the greatest players from both areas. So in 1999, a name was chosen that reflected power, strength, leadership and heroic qualities that also happened to coincide the Nashville's nickname, "The Athens of the South," and the Titans were born.

Now if the Modell had done what Adams had done he would have changed the name to the Ravens and keep both teams record intact in the Hall of Fame and then allowed the new Cleveland team to start off with a fresh name and not be pressured to live up to past expectations. If we now look that the Houston Texans, we see a team that sports a 10 year anniversary patch on their jersey, a team that did not have to live up to prior expectations because they were a "new" team. They didn't have the record books, the blown AFC championship game (cough, Bills) in their rearview mirror. No, they have what ever replacement team needs, a fresh start.

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things I love about sports is the history. And for that reason I prefer it if a team keeps its name. I prefer the Colts, Rams, Cardinals (whatever history they have) having a basic, obvious, lineage. I know that if you are in Indianapolis, you don't thump your chest about Baltimore successes, or vice versa, but as someone who likes the history, I am glad we still have the Colts. We've been debating this some in the Hornets/Pelicans thread and I don't want to rehash my thoughts on the Cleavland Deal, etc., so I'll leave it at "keep the names with the franchise" in MOST circumstances.

I am kind of with the poster that said to do this with generic names like Rams and Colts. But I am actually OK with moves like Lakers and Jazz.

A lot of this impacts me as a Minnesota fan. I could care less about the Lakers, who moved well before I was born. But I am glad the Dallas Stars had some continuity in their move. Obviously they needed to drop the "North", but the rest of the identity remained with what the North Stars had at the end of their time (though only for two years). There is a connection with "my" team's history. They retired Neal Broten's number based on the time he spent with Minnesota; would they have done that if they'd changed their name completely? I believe they also have maintained the numbers retired before the move (Bill Goldsworthy and Bill Masterton, the only player to die in an on-ice incident).

I think most people's reaction to the "Senators" becoming the "Twins" (including mine) is "well yeah, 'Minnesota Senators' would be bad." But if they'd kept the name, we'd be used to it. There would be the comments like with the LA Lakers, and Utah Jazz, but so be it. And while the Sens were usually terrible in DC, there would perhaps at least be a team/franchise to honor him (though he did not have a number to retire). EDIT: I just realized I forgot to say who I meant by "him": Walter Johnson.

Yes, if it were up to me, we'd have the Baltimore Browns, New Orleans Hornets, Winnipeg Thrashers, Phoenix Jets, etc., and am glad to have the Indianapolis Colts, St. Louis Rams, etc. The more that franchise history can be maintained and recognized, the better, in my opinion.

Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse."

 

BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD

POTD (Shared)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to the Houston/Tennessee Oilers/Titans, if you're going to change, you should change immediately upon relocation. My opinion anyway.

Or you can wait eleven years, right, New Orleans?

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought this was a slap in the face to the fans of the original teams fan base.

I'll add that I don't agree with this. But I can only speak for myself...I was crushed when the North Stars moved. But as I said, I am glad they did not become the Dallas Armadillos, change their colors to purple and silver and ditch their entire history. Some fans may feel otherwise, but I would not be stunned if many old Colts fans drift toward being glad "their" part of franchise history is more memorable by the fact that the uniforms/name are still the same.

Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse."

 

BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD

POTD (Shared)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought this was a slap in the face to the fans of the original teams fan base.

The Colts and Raiders jerseys and logos are no different upon their relocation.

My big questions are:

Are the brands (logo's, colours, etc) bigger than the city they play in?

What are your thoughts as a fan of this?

and,

What are prime examples of this?

Do the Raiders really count? I mean they only moved within the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is only one team that has moved and kept their original name that I feel comfortable about and they the Raiders. Whether it is Oakland or L.A., the Raiders name just fits. Then I look at the rest of the teams that did not change their name there is one that absolutely drives me nuts and that is the Utah Jazz. Of all teams to relocate, the Jazz name simply does not fit in the Utah landscape.

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is only one team that has moved and kept their original name that I feel comfortable about and they the Raiders. Whether it is Oakland or L.A., the Raiders name just fits. Then I look at the rest of the teams that did not change their name there is one that absolutely drives me nuts and that is the Utah Jazz. Of all teams to relocate, the Jazz name simply does not fit in the Utah landscape.

What about the Rockets? They moved from Denver to Houston and the name probably makes even more sense in their new state.

You could also sorta make the argument for North Stars.. they dropped the North and the name works perfectly in Texas.

One thing I liked about the Angels changing their location name even if not their location to Los Angeles is that the Angels name make much more sense with that city

goforbroke_zpsb07ade0a.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is only one team that has moved and kept their original name that I feel comfortable about and they the Raiders. Whether it is Oakland or L.A., the Raiders name just fits. Then I look at the rest of the teams that did not change their name there is one that absolutely drives me nuts and that is the Utah Jazz. Of all teams to relocate, the Jazz name simply does not fit in the Utah landscape.

What about the Rockets? They moved from Denver to Houston and the name probably makes even more sense in their new state.

You could also sorta make the argument for North Stars.. they dropped the North and the name works perfectly in Texas.

One thing I liked about the Angels changing their location name even if not their location to Los Angeles is that the Angels name make much more sense with that city

The Rockets name does make more sense in Houston than in Denver, but I was not thinking about the NBA when I wrote my initial post because of not being a big fan of the league. As far as the Dallas Stars dropping the "North" that works as well. But when you think of teams like the original Winnipeg Jets and their new name of the Phoenix Coyotes it makes more sense to be called the Coyotes in Phoenix than the Jets.

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is only one team that has moved and kept their original name that I feel comfortable about and they the Raiders. Whether it is Oakland or L.A., the Raiders name just fits. Then I look at the rest of the teams that did not change their name there is one that absolutely drives me nuts and that is the Utah Jazz. Of all teams to relocate, the Jazz name simply does not fit in the Utah landscape.

What about the Rockets? They moved from Denver to Houston and the name probably makes even more sense in their new state.

You could also sorta make the argument for North Stars.. they dropped the North and the name works perfectly in Texas.

One thing I liked about the Angels changing their location name even if not their location to Los Angeles is that the Angels name make much more sense with that city

The Rockets name does make more sense in Houston than in Denver, but I was not thinking about the NBA when I wrote my initial post because of not being a big fan of the league. As far as the Dallas Stars dropping the "North" that works as well. But when you think of teams like the original Winnipeg Jets and their new name of the Phoenix Coyotes it makes more sense to be called the Coyotes in Phoenix than the Jets.

Well yeah it definitly does. And ideally you'd like when teams move to take that into consideration IF the name makes sense in the new town. At this point the Lakers and Jazz aren't changing.. but if lets say the Coyotes move to Quebec you'd think they would change that name. However, if the name is pretty generic like Colts or Giants and it COULD make sense in the new town, then I think its up to the owners to decide wheather they want to keep the identity or create a new one.

In my opinion, the Cleveland Browns/Baltimore Ravens situation should be the case for ALL teams that move IF they change their identiy. You change you name, you are a new team with new stats and history. So for example the New York Giants and San Fransisco Giants share a history. But the Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals should not. Now, in the Browns case the issue where the expansion Browns sort of took over the history of the old Browns is a little weird but it doesn't bother me too much.

goforbroke_zpsb07ade0a.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is only one team that has moved and kept their original name that I feel comfortable about and they the Raiders. Whether it is Oakland or L.A., the Raiders name just fits. Then I look at the rest of the teams that did not change their name there is one that absolutely drives me nuts and that is the Utah Jazz. Of all teams to relocate, the Jazz name simply does not fit in the Utah landscape.

What about the Rockets? They moved from Denver to Houston and the name probably makes even more sense in their new state.

They moved from San Diego. The Denver Rockets rebranded to the Denver Nuggets. Interestingly the San Diego moniker was a tribute to the rocketry industry that was located in the area at the time.

On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said:
You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now.
On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said:
Today, we are all otaku.

"The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert

POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010

The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is only one team that has moved and kept their original name that I feel comfortable about and they the Raiders. Whether it is Oakland or L.A., the Raiders name just fits. Then I look at the rest of the teams that did not change their name there is one that absolutely drives me nuts and that is the Utah Jazz. Of all teams to relocate, the Jazz name simply does not fit in the Utah landscape.

What about the Rockets? They moved from Denver to Houston and the name probably makes even more sense in their new state.

You could also sorta make the argument for North Stars.. they dropped the North and the name works perfectly in Texas.

One thing I liked about the Angels changing their location name even if not their location to Los Angeles is that the Angels name make much more sense with that city

The Rockets didn't move from Denver, they moved from San Diego. The Denver Rockets of the ABA (so named for owner Bill Ringsby's trucks) changed their name to Nuggets after Ringsby sold them and when a move to the NBA (where the Houston Rockets already played) seemed imminent. They played a few seasons in the ABA as the Nuggets.

The NBA franchsie now known as the Houston Rockets started in San Diego and were named due to the development of many rockets and missiles in the area thanks to general Dynamics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is only one team that has moved and kept their original name that I feel comfortable about and they the Raiders. Whether it is Oakland or L.A., the Raiders name just fits. Then I look at the rest of the teams that did not change their name there is one that absolutely drives me nuts and that is the Utah Jazz. Of all teams to relocate, the Jazz name simply does not fit in the Utah landscape.

What about the Rockets? They moved from Denver to Houston and the name probably makes even more sense in their new state.

You could also sorta make the argument for North Stars.. they dropped the North and the name works perfectly in Texas.

One thing I liked about the Angels changing their location name even if not their location to Los Angeles is that the Angels name make much more sense with that city

The Rockets name does make more sense in Houston than in Denver, but I was not thinking about the NBA when I wrote my initial post because of not being a big fan of the league. As far as the Dallas Stars dropping the "North" that works as well. But when you think of teams like the original Winnipeg Jets and their new name of the Phoenix Coyotes it makes more sense to be called the Coyotes in Phoenix than the Jets.

Well yeah it definitly does. And ideally you'd like when teams move to take that into consideration IF the name makes sense in the new town. At this point the Lakers and Jazz aren't changing.. but if lets say the Coyotes move to Quebec you'd think they would change that name. However, if the name is pretty generic like Colts or Giants and it COULD make sense in the new town, then I think its up to the owners to decide wheather they want to keep the identity or create a new one.

In my opinion, the Cleveland Browns/Baltimore Ravens situation should be the case for ALL teams that move IF they change their identiy. You change you name, you are a new team with new stats and history. So for example the New York Giants and San Fransisco Giants share a history. But the Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals should not. Now, in the Browns case the issue where the expansion Browns sort of took over the history of the old Browns is a little weird but it doesn't bother me too much.

Why should these two teams not share a history? I argue that they should since you can't have the current team without acknowledging the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Denver Rockets did not move to Houston. They were an ABA team that became the Denver Nuggets. The San Diego Rockets -- so named because the Atlas rocket was made there -- moved to Houston. The SD Rockets were green and gold.

It doesn't strike me as a slap in the face to keep the old franchise name when a team moves. But often, the team name is so associated with a feature of the city that moving it elsewhere renders its identity silly (Oilers in Tenesssee, Jazz in Utah, although I'm sure they listen to Jazz there).

It's fine to call the Colts the Colts in Baltimore or Indianapolis BUT, I would mark the change with a change in colors, even a slight one like the adding of a color, or a change in the uniform or logo to designate the change and give the new city something to make the team its own.

FsQiF2W.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is only one team that has moved and kept their original name that I feel comfortable about and they the Raiders. Whether it is Oakland or L.A., the Raiders name just fits. Then I look at the rest of the teams that did not change their name there is one that absolutely drives me nuts and that is the Utah Jazz. Of all teams to relocate, the Jazz name simply does not fit in the Utah landscape.

What about the Rockets? They moved from Denver to Houston and the name probably makes even more sense in their new state.

You could also sorta make the argument for North Stars.. they dropped the North and the name works perfectly in Texas.

One thing I liked about the Angels changing their location name even if not their location to Los Angeles is that the Angels name make much more sense with that city

The current Houston Rockets never played in Denver ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.