colortv

NFL to Los Angeles Rebranding

Recommended Posts

If LA had gotten an expansion franchise, sure. But they're not - they'll have one or more of these three teams instead. And whichever those are, the current names will come with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, "generic" wasn't quite the word I was searching for. Maybe "amorphous". Texans is a boring name, and a presumptuous one given that they're virtually guaranteed to always be the second-most-popular team in the state, but I really meant something towards reviving a dormant name.

The last two names are both retreads from earlier NFL teams, both abandoned. So "Bulldogs" would fit that pattern.

Texans is a terrible name, especially since there were several better options on the table. I'd feel silly if I was an out of stater wearing a shirt that just looked like it was in support of some other state's residents. Even assuming everyone knew it was just a football team and not literally Texans, it's silly to think I'm supporting players who (many, at least) aren't Texans and will never be Texans but are called Texans.

Yes, I know Tony Romo isn't literally a cowboy, and Sam Bradford isn't a bird (despite the similarities between his brain and a bird's) but something like "Texans" isn't clearly just a silly mascot / nickname.

The name represents the people.

I really don't get the "silly" and "terrible" comments, but then again, I'm not surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was my thought. The last two names were resurrecting old NFL identities, the Bulldogs ought to be next.

If there was going to be a team in London - which there won't because the Earth is round - Bulldogs would be a glorious fit.

I still can't believe there isn't a single American pro sports franchise that uses some kind of a dog as it's mascot (Browns don't count. I'm talking naming). Dogs are easily the most popular pet in America (if not around the world), yet with all the sweetness and loyalty, they can still be made to be pretty damn aggressive. How has this been overlooked? A dog mascot could work for just about ANY team in any location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was my thought. The last two names were resurrecting old NFL identities, the Bulldogs ought to be next.

If there was going to be a team in London - which there won't because the Earth is round - Bulldogs would be a glorious fit.

I still can't believe there isn't a single American pro sports franchise that uses some kind of a dog as it's mascot (Browns don't count. I'm talking naming). Dogs are easily the most popular pet in America (if not around the world), yet with all the sweetness and loyalty, they can still be made to be pretty damn aggressive. How has this been overlooked? A dog mascot could work for just about ANY team in any location.

Baltimore Bulldogs would've been a nice name. Also an additional shot at Cleveland after they left ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still can't believe there isn't a single American pro sports franchise that uses some kind of a dog as it's mascot (Browns don't count. I'm talking naming). Dogs are easily the most popular pet in America (if not around the world), yet with all the sweetness and loyalty, they can still be made to be pretty damn aggressive. How has this been overlooked? A dog mascot could work for just about ANY team in any location.

Too easy to call them bitches would be the only reason I can come up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was my thought. The last two names were resurrecting old NFL identities, the Bulldogs ought to be next.

If there was going to be a team in London - which there won't because the Earth is round - Bulldogs would be a glorious fit.

I still can't believe there isn't a single American pro sports franchise that uses some kind of a dog as it's mascot (Browns don't count. I'm talking naming). Dogs are easily the most popular pet in America (if not around the world), yet with all the sweetness and loyalty, they can still be made to be pretty damn aggressive. How has this been overlooked? A dog mascot could work for just about ANY team in any location.

e2sx1hitcl3lno2v6v2k6ipwj.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He should have said "Big 4". There are minor league teams named after dogs as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too easy to call them bitches would be the only reason I can come up with.

If silly and vaguely-misogynistic insults were really worth considering, no teams would be named after big cats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was my thought. The last two names were resurrecting old NFL identities, the Bulldogs ought to be next.

If there was going to be a team in London - which there won't because the Earth is round - Bulldogs would be a glorious fit.

I still can't believe there isn't a single American pro sports franchise that uses some kind of a dog as it's mascot (Browns don't count. I'm talking naming). Dogs are easily the most popular pet in America (if not around the world), yet with all the sweetness and loyalty, they can still be made to be pretty damn aggressive. How has this been overlooked? A dog mascot could work for just about ANY team in any location.

Well its not as though there are team's named after house cats either? There are teams named after Big Cats (lions, tigers, panthers, jaguars etc) and plus there are a few teams named after "Big" Dogs (Timberwolves, Coyotes)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All for the LA Rottweilers. Would instantly be my favorite team in sports. Ever.

If you couldn't tell by my avatar...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Texans as a football nickname and I like their logo a lot but I wouldn't have minded Cleveland-dealing the Houston Oilers, an identity I miss more and more as the Titans continue to unravel.

IIRC, that couldn't happen because unlike Art Modell & his Browns, Oilers owner Bud Adams kept the brand/identity held hostage. Not certain why the NFL couldn't intervene like they did with Cleveland.

That explains why till this day, Houston Oilers memorabilia is displayed in Nashville, not Houston.

As for the Texans name - it's meh (kinda Montreal Canadiens sans the history) but that logo is one of the all-time best in football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bulldogs was used for a historical franchise in the same state as the Browns, the Canton Bulldogs. I think it is a good name.

Seems like a poor match for the city of Los Angeles tbh... if it ends up being the Chargers, I don't see how whitewashing a semi-local team's identity would make sense... there's already so much value in the Chargers brand, why change it to something clunky like "Bulldogs" to appease the small cross-section of fans who would "get it?"

None of the three teams would change its name.

Agreed. All of the names have been around too long to warrant a change.

I'm usually one totally against a team moving and keeping their name. That being said, since the Raiders, Rams, and Chargers have all been Los Angeles in their past, I'd say they are the exception to my normally hard line rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a good reason to support Kroenke's move - he wants to pay for his own darn stadium, not expecting the taxpayers to foot the bill.

No the taxpayers just have to foot the bill (likely out of the general fund) for all of the required infrastructure build out, city services, and forego any tax collection tied to nfl activities. One write up put the amount around $100M which is significant for a city the size of Inglewood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Infrastructure improvements are a legitimate governmental function, offset by the taxes they do collect on increased spending in the area. It's not in any way equivalent to the direct welfare of stadium payments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If generic names like "Titans" and "Texans" can be resurrected, I think "Bulldogs" would do just fine.

... how is "Texans" generic, if I may ask?

It's like naming a Kansas teams "Kansans". Nevermind the fact that there was also 2 other Texans franchise, one which is in the same league as the current.

That still doesn't tell me how it's "generic". There's only one Texas. There's only one Kansas. There's only one California... it's unique because you can only use it in one place.

Actually, it can be . . . and has been . . . used in three places in five leagues.*

Dallas -- NFL, AFL, Arena

Houston -- WFL, NFL

San Antonio -- CFL

It could also be used in Austin, El Paso, Lubbock, Waco . . .

* -- Just counting football. I'm not sure if it has been used for anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the private real estate development model typically puts the burden of infrastructure build out on the developer as they will be the primary beneficiary of the improvements. A stadium is not a school or park where the public has chosen to bear the cost. This model has changed slightly recently which is breaking municipal budgets as local governments have been lured into giving tax breaks for development which seldom produces positive returns.

The whole "offset" notion has been continually disproven through numerous studies that show that the tax receipts never justify the cost and in this sense nearly 100% of the nfl related economic activity will be tax exempt. (not to mention the city having to take ownership of the stadium so stan pays $0 taxes). Inglewood will have to come up with $100 million to subsidize the nfl plain and simple. That money will likely be taken from other city services so the real "offset" is taking money from actual hard working taxpayers and giving it to a billionaire.

It will be nice when people finally wise up to the scam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But isn't that better than $250M, or $500M, or a billion?

Baby steps, my friends. Any step in the right direction is a good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rams would be the only ones who feel right back in LA.

Chargers long ago abandoned the market and are truly a SD franchise. The Raiders stay there was pretty brief all things considered, and was mostly just an extortion tactic used against Oakland. .

Plus, who the hell wants to "award" Spanos or Davis with that market? I know Kroenke is definitely no choir boy, but in this case he's definitely the least of 3 evils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If LA had gotten an expansion franchise, sure. But they're not - they'll have one or more of these three teams instead. And whichever those are, the current names will come with them.

Raiders or Rams would definitely be welcomed back, but if the Chargers go, as I said before, they should leave the name, colors and history in San Diego and change to this:

5625.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bulldogs was used for a historical franchise in the same state as the Browns, the Canton Bulldogs. I think it is a good name.

Seems like a poor match for the city of Los Angeles tbh... if it ends up being the Chargers, I don't see how whitewashing a semi-local team's identity would make sense... there's already so much value in the Chargers brand, why change it to something clunky like "Bulldogs" to appease the small cross-section of fans who would "get it?"

None of the three teams would change its name.

Agreed. All of the names have been around too long to warrant a change.

Agreed. But, I think the LA Bulldogs sounds like a solid name, FWIW.

I wouldn't put it past the NFL if they decided to keep that name for the London team.

Something with Pit Bulls work be cool. LA Pits.... could work with La Brea too. Speaking of La Brea, to bad the San Jose Sabercats are around... That would be tops IMO; LA Sabercats, Sabers, Tarcats (my Logolympiad wordmark).

Share this post


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