CubsFan4Life

New name for the Minnesota Wild?

Recommended Posts

The fact remains the Dallas Stars are different from the Minnesota North Stars just like the SF Giants are different than the NY Giants. Sports franchises are unique from other business entities in this way. The location plays a key role in the identity of the team.

Except one plays football, and the other plays baseball, and one wears blue red and white, and the other is black and orange. That is one of the worst comparisons possible.
You're, apparently, somehow not aware that the San Francisco Giants were once the New York Giants. I'm pretty sure that no sane human being would have tried to compare a football and a baseball team as having the same lineage.
I am aware but to even say that is equally ridiculous, when the SF Giants still have all the history of when they were in NY to say that if the Mets decided to change their name to Giants that it would go over well is extremely naive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if the team abandons the nickname, they should also be willing to abandon the history if the nickname and former location resurface in the future.. If the team retains the nickname after the move and a new team emerges in the old location, the new team has no rights to the name or history.. It would be silly to have the Stars and North Stars in the same league, same with Lakers, Giants, etc.., but I'm perfectly fine with the Browns/Ravens situation.. In fact, I kinda prefer it that way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see this overwhelming social media evidence that fans want "North Stars" back. Most of those fans are like me - over 40 years old. An entire generation of kids has grown up knowing only the Wild.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact remains the Dallas Stars are different from the Minnesota North Stars just like the SF Giants are different than the NY Giants. Sports franchises are unique from other business entities in this way. The location plays a key role in the identity of the team.

Except one plays football, and the other plays baseball, and one wears blue red and white, and the other is black and orange. That is one of the worst comparisons possible.

You're, apparently, somehow not aware that the San Francisco Giants were once the New York Giants. I'm pretty sure that no sane human being would have tried to compare a football and a baseball team as having the same lineage.

No, the SF Giants are different from the NY Giants, just like the St. Louis Rams are different from the old LA Rams. It's the identity which changes, regardless of the nickname when sports franchises relocate. The SF announcers talking about 2010 in a broadcast last season were quite clear about why 2010 was significant, they said it was "our" championship.

While SF and Atlanta were lucky to have superstar players like Mays and Aaron from NY and Milwaukee respectively, everything did change once those team relocated. It's a new history, and folks of the new city generally could care less about what happened in the past. While the Dallas Stars have the Bill Goldsworthy jersey hanging from the rafters, it's more ceremonial than anything else. The vast majority of Dallas fans can't be expected to care about players and moments which happened in a different city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact remains the Dallas Stars are different from the Minnesota North Stars just like the SF Giants are different than the NY Giants. Sports franchises are unique from other business entities in this way. The location plays a key role in the identity of the team.

Except one plays football, and the other plays baseball, and one wears blue red and white, and the other is black and orange. That is one of the worst comparisons possible.

You're, apparently, somehow not aware that the San Francisco Giants were once the New York Giants. I'm pretty sure that no sane human being would have tried to compare a football and a baseball team as having the same lineage.

While SF and Atlanta were lucky to have superstar players like Mays and Aaron from NY and Milwaukee respectively, everything did change once those team relocated. It's a new history, and folks of the new city generally could care less about what happened in the past.
Actually, folks in the new cities couldn't care less about the past. If they could care less, it means they do care, even if only a little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact remains the Dallas Stars are different from the Minnesota North Stars just like the SF Giants are different than the NY Giants. Sports franchises are unique from other business entities in this way. The location plays a key role in the identity of the team.

Except one plays football, and the other plays baseball, and one wears blue red and white, and the other is black and orange. That is one of the worst comparisons possible.

You're, apparently, somehow not aware that the San Francisco Giants were once the New York Giants. I'm pretty sure that no sane human being would have tried to compare a football and a baseball team as having the same lineage.

No, the SF Giants are different from the NY Giants, just like the St. Louis Rams are different from the old LA Rams. It's the identity which changes, regardless of the nickname when sports franchises relocate. The SF announcers talking about 2010 in a broadcast last season were quite clear about why 2010 was significant, they said it was "our" championship.

While SF and Atlanta were lucky to have superstar players like Mays and Aaron from NY and Milwaukee respectively, everything did change once those team relocated. It's a new history, and folks of the new city generally could care less about what happened in the past. While the Dallas Stars have the Bill Goldsworthy jersey hanging from the rafters, it's more ceremonial than anything else. The vast majority of Dallas fans can't be expected to care about players and moments which happened in a different city.

so explain the Oakland/LA/Oakland Raiders then. when the owner, players, and nickname (not always the case) are all the same, its the same team, its not a new franchise by any standard ever created before. are the current Winnipeg Jets the same team as the one from the 80's that went on hiatus for over a decade and the very next year another team starts in Arizona called the Coyotes, and the year before the Jets came back a team in Atlanta decided to stop playing. No that is not how it works, maybe the NBA created a standard of thinking something similar to this with the Hornets situation but even then any fan with half a brain knows that the current hornets are the old bobcats and the current pelicans use to be the original hornets team that moved from charlotte.

You won't see a LA Lakers fan not count the championships the team won while in Minnesota, so your theory is deeply deeply flawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teams don't just change their names on a lark, it takes something big. At minimum, it would take years of terrible play and falling attendance, and there would be a better chance of changing the jerseys, logo, and color scheme than it would to change the team name.

After all, name changes are expensive. Every sign, every letterhead, every business card and billboard, PLUS tons of advertising the name change to keep the city informed and following.

Why would they bother?

This thread is completely useless bickering AT BEST.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The moving with the team name fiasco always drives me nuts. That's why I'm all in favor of more teams without nicknames, just their city. That way if a team moves it would be highly unlikely for that team to keep the name.

For me it's simple. What a team did while in a city stays with that city. I know many don't agree but that's just the way I see it. The city/region is the one constant to that history. Owners sell, players move on, coaches and staff come and go... but the city where the history happens is still there.

5NyqB1DS_400x400.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be so boring if all 30 teams did that. I'd be fine with one or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really think about it, the Stars (for the Texas state flag and/or the Rangers) and the North Stars (for the celestial star) are two completely different things. I understand why the NHL wouldn't allow it but in my mind having both in one league is completely acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really think about it, the Stars (for the Texas state flag and/or the Rangers) and the North Stars (for the celestial star) are two completely different things. I understand why the NHL wouldn't allow it but in my mind having both in one league is completely acceptable.

And that's the problem. Most people would not really think about it and they'd figure the two teams are connected or one was named after the other.

We do have the Red Sox and White Sox, but that's sorta quirky/fun deadball era history. In this day and age of marketing, it's probably not going to happen.

I am not even really entirely disagreeing with you. It could be done and it would not ruin the league or either franchise. But I do think that the different meanings of the two "stars" would definitely be lost on most fans. And, while the Dallas name can certainly be "shifted" (if it has not already been) to that more "Texas State Flag" angle, history would show that the name is derivative of the very name the Minnesota franchise would be adopting. Further, I don't think there is any point in going to the "North Stars" name without going to green and yellow (and the N-Star logo). So both teams would be using green. Dallas's use of black would probably keep the North Stars with their pre-black color scheme, which would be nice.

As a Minnesota fan old enough to have driven to games during the last couple of years of the team's existence, part of me wants this...but if I were a neutral fan with fond memories of the good ol' days that included the North Stars, I'd definitely say "they're in the past and it kinda has to be that way."

If the fanbase was struggling to embrace the team (at the risk of repeating myself on the Bobcats/Hornets example) maybe it would be worth it for the league but a change to "North Stars" would not increase fan interest, which is already so high. It would be a merchandise sales spike but that's about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really think about it, the Stars (for the Texas state flag and/or the Rangers) and the North Stars (for the celestial star) are two completely different things. I understand why the NHL wouldn't allow it but in my mind having both in one league is completely acceptable.

<Insert joke about Roughriders and Rough Riders here.>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was shocked the Dallas Stars didn't change colors with their rebrand. This would be my perfect world solution.

Stars.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.