Doubt it would happen for similar reasons to the Angels. The "larger" your name, the more you can (theoretically) appeal to a wider audience. Something like the Queens Mets would pigeon-hole them. Of course, didn't stop the Dodgers or the Nets.When the Brooklyn National League team was founded, Brooklyn was a separate city. Now it is a section of New York City. Something like "Flushing Mets" would be terrible. Neither Brooklyn nor any other section of any city (such as Hollywood, for example) should be the locality name of a major-league team.I never thought that a major-league team would take a name of a section of a city nowadays; but the Nets proved me wrong. I believe that this was a mistake, as it limits their appeal in their home market. And that name really annoys me as a New Yorker. Even though I was born in Brooklyn and have lived for nearly 30 years a few blocks from the Brooklyn/Queens border, my attachment is to New York City, not to any borough. So, in order to root for that team, I have to overlook the name -- and also the bland uniforms, of course. Ironically, I was less uncomfortable with the name "New Jersey Nets" than I am with the current name. (Though the old name is not without problems, as mentioned below.) I also like the Nets' New Jersey uniforms a lot more than the current uni. So that team's move into my city has actually reduced my emotional connection with it. State names as locality names are a different issue. When the state has only one major metropolitan area, the use of a state name is tolerable, as the teams really do represent the whole state. This accounts for Minnesota, Arizona, and Colorado. Still, the city names Minneapolis (sorry, St. Paul, but Minneapolis is the recognisable one), Phoenix, and Denver would be preferable in those cases. Note that the Thunder choose not the state name but the city name, despite the fact that they play in the state's only really large city, and that they are the state's only NBA team. All other uses of a state name are problematic. For New Jersey, its biggest cities are suburbs of New York; and the names of the teams located there should reflect that. Likewise, the name of any major-league team that might play Camden should reflect the fact that that city is a Philadelphia suburb. For the states with multiple big cities, the use of the state name is very unfortunate, and really should be avoided. The change from "Florida Marlins" to "Miami Marlins" is to be applauded for this reason. I get that "Texas Rangers" was already a phrase long before the baseball team existed. But this does not make it an appropriate name for a team located in one city in a huge state. And alliteration doesn't justify "Tennesse Titans"; they should be the "Nashville somethings". Similarly, while "California Angels" is the name that we grew up with, and which therefore sounds "right", that name is untenable in such a big state with many diverse cities. So it seems clear to me that "Los Angeles Angels" is the only appropriate name.Great take. I agree about most of this, except for the Titans. They had to do so because of the stadium deal they made with the state of TN for additional funding. The two conditions that were made were that they would use the name "Tennessee" and they would allow Tennessee State Univ. to play their home games there.