Minnesota North Stars Rebrand Petition

[ColeJ]

not sure how i missed this thread until today, but... 

 

thanks, guys. thanks for handling it for me. i feel like i've had this discussion more than any other discussion over the time i've been on this site.

 

for the record, i'm wearing a victory green D-Star baseball cap with a kelly green N-Star sweater as i type this... go stars (of all directions and locales).

[The Giant Pacific Octopus]

On 2016-04-21 at 0:25 AM, TRoyConcepts said:

 

 and ignored for lower-tier hockey.

 

Boy tell me about it. The Golden Gophers were far more popular than the North Stars.

Ralph Strangis. said it the best.

When you grew up in Minnesota and you were a hockey player, you had two aspirations, You want to play in the state high school tournament, which was huge, and you want to be a Gopher. Nobody ever wanted to be a North Star.

 

Tom Reid played for the the North Stars back in the 70's. By the late 80's he had opened a sports bar in Minnesota. I remember reading an interview he did back in the 90s where he talked about how no-one wanted to watch the North Stars and would ask him to change the channel to the Golden Gophers games. He was pretty shocked at how there was far more interest in Minnesota for the high school and collegiate teams than the North Stars.

And its not like the North Stars sucked. Between 1980 and 1993 they made the playoffs 11 times and went to 4 semi finals and 2 Cup finals!!

 

I'll never forget what Mike Modano said to me brother back in 1993. In 1993 Montreal was hosting the NHL All Star game. My eldest brother (who was working for Kraft and at one point even became the president for Kraft Canada before he retired a couple of years ago), got VIP treatment at the game since Kraft was a sponsor of the NHL. He got to meet Modano and told him how his kid brother (me) was a huge North Stars fan and how we were from Toronto. You know what Modano said to him? (And I'm not lying either)

Toronto huh? Wow. There's not to many North Stars fans outside of Minnesota. Come to think of it, there aren't too many North Stars fans in Minnesota either (laughs).

 

Whether people in Minnesota want to admit it, they took the North Stars for granted, didn't care about them, and then missed them when they left. You never know how much you'll miss something until its gone.

[hawk36]

I would expect if Seattle gets an NHL team, even if they aren't named the Metropolitans, they'll hang a Stanley Cup Champions banner from the Seattle Metropolitans 1920's championship in the rafters. Good for a city to be able to honor its champions or all eras.

[OnWis97]

I was a kid for the North Stars so my finger was never on the pulse.  My friends and I liked the North Stars.  So when this board starting singing in unison about how Minnesota did not support the team, I was not buying it. So I went and looked at the attendance history and, well, I was surprised it was so poor.  http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att_graph.php?tmi=6876

 

I still think some of it is hyperbole (from a Dallas Stars play-by-play guy, potentially in defense of a team moving from the State of Hockey to Texas.).  A lot of teams are not supported and it's not because of high school sports.  I don't think high school hockey had nearly the impact on the North Stars that this board thinks.  The arena location and the mediocre play were probably more important.  I'll always wonder what would have happened if they'd struck the Target Center deal with the Wolves (which fell through, so I've read, due to quibbling over revenue from advertising on the boards).

 

Note the last two years (albeit, after a surprise finals run).  Attendance was coming back.  By that point, I don't even know whether it was about support as much as it was that the Met Center, beloved as it was) was getting outdated.  Norm Green's patience for working with the taxing bodies he was trying to fleece waned in a hurry, potentially hastened by some sexual harassment issues.  He may have never intended to keep the team there from day one, anyway.  But in 1992-1993, the team was salvageable.  They had a greener pasture in Texas given the arena situation.

 

One thing that is always overstated on this board is how competitive they were.  They were just like the Wild.  They never had a true superstar (unless you count the first few years of Modano) and they were never a legit contender.  They went to two Finals on the strength of the NHL's playoff format and hockey's penchant for puckluck.  If you look at the really bad years for attendance, they coincide with some really bad years on the ice.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Minnesota_North_Stars_seasons.  

 

11 playoffs in 14 years in a 21-team league with four of five teams getting in is not that special.  They were better than mediocre fro 1980 to about 1984.  Otherwise, no NHL team in Minnesota history has been better than mediocre.  

 

If they'd moved in 1990, I'd pretty much say the fans deserved it.  But by the time they moved, the team was definitely saveable.  We had the misfortune of having an owner that probably bought the team with the intention of moving and certainly was not going to show the patience of some owners who try their best to keep a team at home.

 

Did we deserve it?  Maybe.  But it's not all about "high school hockey !!!!!!1111" and "nobody cared."

 

Yeah, we probably remember it more fondly now than reality dictates we should, but they were not the post-strike Expos.

[IceCap]

19 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

I would expect if Seattle gets an NHL team, even if they aren't named the Metropolitans, they'll hang a Stanley Cup Champions banner from the Seattle Metropolitans 1920's championship in the rafters. Good for a city to be able to honor its champions or all eras.

That's fine. So long as they don't pretend that they're actually the Seattle Metropolitans.

[hawk36]

So how would you do it (not pretend it was the same franchise) if the new NHL team is called the Seattle Metropolitans? Interesting dilemma. I get the issue with trying to claim something someone else did but it does create an interesting design problem. Honor the past but make it clear that it's not the same franchise. Nice challenge.

[OnWis97]

Easy challenge.  For one thing, the new Metropolitans will not be adding to the old Metropolitans records.  It will not be "the Metropolitans first win since 1924."  It will be their "first win."  Someone in, say 2018, will score the first goal in franchise history...that distinction does not belong to someone in 1915.  

 

If they want to hang a banner, it does not actually have to say "THIS IS NOT THE SAME FRANCHISE."  If fans don't make that distinction due to their lack of historic knowledge, so be it.  But record books and professionals that cover the team should really understand that it's a different franchise.  The Winnipeg Jets have met that challenge pretty easily. In fact effort needs to be made to fail at that challenge. The Hornets and Browns could be meeting the challenge, but the teams / leagues involved have chosen not to.  It makes me cringe every time I see the current Browns franchise given credit for championships. Or a current player on a franchise leader board with guys from the old days on a franchise that should be recognized as having moved to Baltimore.

 

Truly "splitting history" in an official, record book sort of way does not work.  But recognizing it in two different places can.

[Morgan33]

7 hours ago, ColeJ said:

not sure how i missed this thread until today, but... 

 

thanks, guys. thanks for handling it for me. i feel like i've had this discussion more than any other discussion over the time i've been on this site.

 

for the record, i'm wearing a victory green D-Star baseball cap with a kelly green N-Star sweater as i type this... go stars (of all directions and locales).

 

Now there's a winning combo.  What the Stars need now is a faxback alternate with kelly green, athletic gold and black.  For the primary crest they could use a recoloured version of their previous logo, sans text.  Not only would it be beautiful but it would permanently put in an end to this ridiculous, tired discussion.  

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

1 hour ago, hawk36 said:

So how would you do it (not pretend it was the same franchise) if the new NHL team is called the Seattle Metropolitans? Interesting dilemma. I get the issue with trying to claim something someone else did but it does create an interesting design problem. Honor the past but make it clear that it's not the same franchise. Nice challenge.

 

59 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

Easy challenge.  For one thing, the new Metropolitans will not be adding to the old Metropolitans records.  It will not be "the Metropolitans first win since 1924."  It will be their "first win."  Someone in, say 2018, will score the first goal in franchise history...that distinction does not belong to someone in 1915.  

 

If they want to hang a banner, it does not actually have to say "THIS IS NOT THE SAME FRANCHISE."  If fans don't make that distinction due to their lack of historic knowledge, so be it.  But record books and professionals that cover the team should really understand that it's a different franchise.  The Winnipeg Jets have met that challenge pretty easily. In fact effort needs to be made to fail at that challenge. The Hornets and Browns could be meeting the challenge, but the teams / leagues involved have chosen not to.  It makes me cringe every time I see the current Browns franchise given credit for championships. Or a current player on a franchise leader board with guys from the old days on a franchise that should be recognized as having moved to Baltimore.

 

Truly "splitting history" in an official, record book sort of way does not work.  But recognizing it in two different places can.

 

Right, the Winnipeg Jets did it the right way.  And there are so many other examples.  

The American League at its founding had teams called the Baltimore Orioles and the Milwaukee Brewers.  When new teams eventually adopted those names (the relocated St. Louis Browns and the relocated Seattle Pilots, respectively), there was no problem keeping same-named entities separate in the record books. When the expansion Washington Senators began play in 1961, the very same year that the original Senators moved away, no one ever thought to claim that the new team was the same entity as the one that had moved away.  And, staying with teams called "Senators", I think that the current Ottawa Senators make no claim to being the same franchise as the original Ottawa Senators.  

Furthermore, let us remember that the current Colts are an expansion team that began in 1953.  When the AAFC folded in 1950, one of the teams that joined the NFL alongside the Browns and 49ers was the Baltimore Colts. That team folded after a single season, and the new Colts began play a few years later. The record books reflect this, showing the two Baltimore Colts teams as separate.

The point is that there is an objective reality here, and acknowledging it is not difficult in the least.

As has been stated many times before, the Browns and the Hornets are doing something very, very wrong.  Notwithstanding the apologists who wish to substitute their preferences for what actually occurred in the real world, these teams are perpetrating a fraud. The Montreal Alouettes are doing something similar to what the Browns have done, thereby orphaning the Baltimore Stallions.

The situation in soccer is a little different, because the leagues themselves have come and gone even as a few notable teams have endured.  The current New York Cosmos in the current NASL claim the history of the original Cosmos.  This is defensible because the original Cosmos actually continued after the demise of the original NASL, playing friendlies and also playing indoors in the MISL.  After the team stopped playing, the entity continued to be owned by someone; and that ownership eventually sold the team to the owners who gained entry into the current NASL.  Indoor soccer teams the San Diego Sockers, the Milwaukee Wave, and the Baltimore Blast have similar histories of continuous ownerships across mulitiple leagues.

But when it comes to a single league with multiple teams of the same name, reflecting the actual history of these separate teams is easy to do, and is what was done in every case until the Browns set their terrible precedent.
 

[OnWis97]

9 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Right, the Winnipeg Jets did it the right way.  And there are so many other examples.  
 

I think the Jets are the only, or at least best, example of a team that we could have feared would do it wrong, though.  Post-Cleveland Deal.  Taking on the same name.  Inheriting a franchise that won't be that well-remembered.  The moment the NO Hornets announced they were going to change the name, I feared the NBA would white-out history (people on this board thought I was crazy).  And they did.  I feared the same with the Jets.  And they did not.  

 

 

9 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The American League at its founding had teams called the Baltimore Orioles and the Milwaukee Brewers.  When new teams eventually adopted those names (the relocated St. Louis Browns and the relocated Seattle Pilots, respectively), there was no problem keeping same-named entities separate in the record books. When the expansion Washington Senators began play in 1961, the very same year that the original Senators moved away, no one ever thought to claim that the new team was the same entity as the one that had moved away.  And, staying with teams called "Senators", I think that the current Ottawa Senators make no claim to being the same franchise as the original Ottawa Senators.  
 

The 1961 Washington MLB situation was even, um, "cleaner," than the Browns situation.  But imagine if they had.  Then ten years later, the Senators would have packed up for Texas bringing 1901-1960 history with them.  How stupid would it be for that history, which includes Harmon Killebrew's first couple of years, to be attached to the Rangers right now instead of the Twins?

 

Either that or the current Nats would be connected to 1901-1970 (or whatever it was).  And the Expos would be defunct.  Hey, everybody wins.

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, hawk36 said:

So how would you do it (not pretend it was the same franchise) if the new NHL team is called the Seattle Metropolitans? Interesting dilemma. I get the issue with trying to claim something someone else did but it does create an interesting design problem. Honor the past but make it clear that it's not the same franchise. Nice challenge.

The current Winnipeg Jets manage just fine. They don't claim the previous Jets' history and records. Those are (rightfully) in Arizona with the Coyotes.

That doesn't stop the current Jets from honouring the previous team though. 

[The_Admiral]

15 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

Their goalies should only use brown pads.

 

Honestly, wouldn't be against this at all.

[ColeJ]

i honestly believe that if the dallas stars knew minnesota fans were going to rabidly demand the north stars identity back, they never would have allowed them to wear the n-star in the alumni game.

 

stars fans were NOT happy about it... but the team was willing to let minnesota celebrate its own history. even the parts that belong to the stars franchise.

 

stars were cool and let the wild borrow it, as a gesture of good will. now it seems as though minnesota doesn't want to share. they just want to take it and make us re-brand for their convenience... which is honestly unfair.

 

since we're all sharing anecdotes about the relocation, i'll tell you how i remember it.

i was 9 years old, and my family had just moved to texas (after previous stays in my parents' homestate of alabama, my birthplace of massachusetts, and upstate new york).

i wasn't a sports fan, but knew about the crimson tide, dallas cowboys, and red sox/yankees rivalry. i was vaguely aware hockey existed (even though my parents claim i watched the bruins a lot as an infant, but i don't recall it). next thing i know, my family was getting really excited that a hockey team had come to texas, since they'd grown accustomed to the sports in our time in the northeast (plus my dad had spent time living in brooklyn, detroit, and flames-era atlanta).

 

no one acted like dallas had been awarded an expansion team. this wasn't a "oh wow, HOCKEY is coming to dallas."

 

it was a very distinct "the NORTH STARS are moving to DALLAS!" everyone talked as if the north stars were some legitimately prized hockey commodity. its hard to equate it to terms that could be understood by people that didn't share my experience, but imagine living in san antonio and everyone saying "the KNICKS/RAIDERS/CUBS are moving to san antonio!" not a team that was known as a power house, but a team that already had such name recognition that no one was like "the minnesota hockey team is coming." minnesota wasn't needed. the NORTH STARS were coming. that's a big steal.

 

and i remember people asking if lone stars was going to be the name. i even remember looking up the NHL in an encyclopedia at the library when i was in elementary school and seeing them list us as the dallas lone stars, and wondering if that was actually our OFFICIAL name (turns out it was just printed at an awkward moment.)

 

from the earliest moments of my stars fandom, the stars never felt like they were a "new" team. they didn't feel marketed as such, and they certainly weren't welcomed as such. it was more like a "wow. i can't believe dallas lucked out and got the freaking north stars." in the same way people a few years later were like "wow, i can't believe the stars lucked out and signed brett freaking hull!" we knew the stars were special and were one of the sport's most beloved teams. think los angeles/brooklyn dodgers. an absolute mainstay and cherished franchise on two different coasts.

 

i'm a tennessee titans fan as well (because when we moved here, i picked houston as 'my team' just to piss off my grandparents who were cowboys fans), and i stuck with the team in the relocation to nashville, and consider the texans to be our evil rivals the same way i hate the wild. the primary difference between the stars and titans, from a fan perspective, is that people in nashville honestly wanted to rebrand. they wanted a team that was theirs and theirs alone. new name. new logo. a lot of fans even want to drop the columbia blue, because they consider that an oiler color and they're not the oilers. they piss me off, but i digress.

 

the stars fanbase NEVER shared a similar view point. we didn't want "our own team" to rebrand with new names, new logos, new colors, and have something to call our own. why would we want that, when what we inherited is so much better? it is a shame that the real stars fans in minnesota had to suffer through their loss, but i know quite a few former north stars fans that are currently dallas stars fans (mostly canadians, but still). the stars fanbase would gladly welcome them to continue being stars fans. we understand why minnesota fans cherish the north stars. we cherish them too, and have for damn near as many years as the north stars existed in the first place.

 

wild fans, as well as anyone, should appreciate how unfair it would be to rip the north stars identity from a fanbase that adores it.

 

this petition is just a perfect storm situation. the stars and nhl allowed the wild alumni game to use north stars jerseys the very same year the wild back in to the playoffs and play the dallas stars for the first time. there's bound to be a lot of hatred and vitriol, and hurt feelings. it may be inconvenient for the narrative, but the stars never stopped being the stars for even one day since 1967. why ask them to stop now?

[OnWis97]

37 minutes ago, ColeJ said:

i honestly believe that if the dallas stars knew minnesota fans were going to rabidly demand the north stars identity back, they never would have allowed them to wear the n-star in the alumni game.

 

stars fans were NOT happy about it... but the team was willing to let minnesota celebrate its own history. even the parts that belong to the stars franchise.

 

stars were cool and let the wild borrow it, as a gesture of good will. now it seems as though minnesota doesn't want to share. they just want to take it and make us re-brand for their convenience... which is honestly unfair.

 

I think you know that I, a childhood fan of the North Stars have been pretty complimentary about the way the team has behaved and I have not kidded myself into the notion that anyone owes us "our" logo or anything.  But relax.  The following words and phrases in your email are way off, as I type this from a mile away from the XCel Center:

• Rabidly.  No.  One goofball appears to have thrown it together without proofreading it and last I checked, a handful of people had signed it.
• Demand the North Stars Identity Back.  See above. Yes, as you've learned here there are people that feel this way in general (about the Colts, Jazz, or whoever).  But again, there is no movement of any significance with this specific identity.  
• Reference to wearing the jersey in the game.  People enjoyed that.  But it did not spur any movement.  North Stars throwback gear has been popular here for several years.
• "Minnesota doesn't want to share."  That balances nicely against "Stars fans were NOT happy about it."  Stars fans should get over it.  A non-official game was played in a jersey sporting a logo that's never been worn in Dallas.  By players who in ten years will be too old to skate (i.e., it's never coming out again). 

Very nice of the team to let the logo be worn, but I guess, presuming your assessment of the fans is correct, that is not reflected in the fan base. Let's tally it up:

• You got the team.  We got seven years off and the need to start over.
• A Stanley Cup.  We have none.
• The hope of winning Stanley Cup(s) in the next foreseeable future.  We have none.
• A team that does not have the worst name outside of Washington's NFL team.  You got us there too.
• You got stuck watching a uniform killed two years before your franchise moved down there.  We got one memory-inducing day.

It never occurred to me; not for one second; that the Stars fans cared a bit about that exhibition.  And it does not make me feel that good about them if it's true.  Can't they just be happy that their team is taking out a team that would be an also-ran in the ECHL and has a chance to make some real noise in this year's playoffs?  

 

I get it; people down there probably perceive some "hockey arrogance" from the north.  The Stars fanbase is as knowledgeable about hockey as the Wild fan base, and most people up here don't realize it.  You are victims of a sterotype.  Get this; some people think all we care about up here is high school hockey. Oh well.  And yeah, there still are some people (here and everywhere) that still chuckle in disbelief that the relocation happened.  It's comforting to know that your fanbase is no bigger than ours.  The touchdown dance is still ongoing or so it seems.

 

By the way, I'll always wonder what would have happens had the team left for Dallas after the Cleveland Deal.  You may have gotten the Armadillos...but hopefully the history would have gone with them.  And would that really have been so unjust?  I cheer for an MLB relocated team.  The fact that they were taken from another place is not my favorite part of having them....

 

In any case this alumni game started NOTHING.  Nothing of any significance.  Your team is safe.  The team is yours because yours was, in 1993, a better hockey market.  It remains as such now.  Your fans are absolutely more deserving of this team than ours are. (That will be proven in 15 years when the perpetually-mediocre Mild are moving on to Albuquerque or Atlanta or something).  And it's a real shame ours don't understand that and that Dallas does not go to greater lengths to throw it in our faces.  The fanbase should send the message to the all-too-accomodating team.  Maybe we'll get some snark on the videoboard tonight as our team's season comes to a merciful end.

 

[ColeJ]

Fair post, and some great points.

 

You, being in the belly of the proverbial beast, likely have a different perception than I do. 

 

Most interactions Dallas fans ever get from Minnesota Hockey fans are angry and fit the image I painted... But that's because that is the type of fan that takes it upon themselves to stir up ill will on the internet and social media. Certainly not a fair representation of Minnesota fans, I'll admit.

 

My rant wasn't intended for you or really anyone in particular. Just born of years of frustration of being told we shouldn't be allowed to love our team because someone else liked it first.

 

My apologies if I came off too harsh. I consider you an ally in this debate traditionally.

 

 

 

-edit- and to clarify, when I said Stars fans were not happy, I didn't mean I was upset. I'm fine with sharing the history on such occasions, like the franchise seems willing to do. I just recall seeing a ton of pissed off fans on Twitter and blogs about it. Especially the Wild players like brunette wearing it, and the Wild logo shoulder patches. 

[hockey week]

18 hours ago, DaytonBlue said:

I will say one silver lining of the whole Rams fiasco is that if St. Louis ever did get another team (in 20+ years or something) there would be no discussion of trying to trade for the Rams name or anything.  Even if they had moved to London or somewhere besides back to LA, no one around here would want that name back.  

 

I bet people thought the same of the North Stars name...what exactly have they done? What makes them so special? Is it only because they dislike Wild as a name?

[OnWis97]

All I have is anecdotes.  I know some people are still bothered by it. Hell I am.  I wish they were still here.  A far cry from wanting to go. Ack though.  When Dallas won the Cup in 1999, my friends were split.  Some were cheering for them...mainly because of the few remaining players from Minn.  I was pulling for Buffalo because sour grapes.  By now though our first round opponent is just another team.  15 years ago I would have loved to bounce them out.  Now I kinda wanna lose in hope the Wild blow it up and start over.

 

Are there people tha would retroactively mess with this?  Yeah.  But as you know this actually happened in the NBA.  A lot of fans, particularly those not that into history feel that way in general.  I'd be lying if I told you the fact that the team moved to Texas did not lead to a bit of snark up here.  But it has waned.  Most people are content having this team...which happens to be the one local team we kid ourselves into thinking is good.  Not sure why...their annual six week nap is growing tiresome.

 

In any case I had no sense at all that the alumni game rally gave many people any ideas.  And while those of us who are old enough may wish they had never left (and you must understand that) I think the vast majority also understand that the ship has long since sailed.

[OnWis97]

6 minutes ago, hockey week said:

 

I bet people thought the same of the North Stars name...what exactly have they done? What makes them so special? Is it only because they dislike Wild as a name?

It is funny...it is probably something intangible.  Winnipeg wanted the Jets.  Charlotte's NBA team flat out could not be embraced without being the Hornets.  I get a sense that Seattle would really like the Sonics name.  And yet I totally see St. Louis not clamoring for the Rams name.  Of course that is a baseball town.  The Rams are more secondary than the othe teams.

 

here, the terrible name may play a role, though I don't think people care a ton about that any more.  Sometimes I think it is the grea logo and uniforms.  They are nostalgia-instilling.

[ColeJ]

Yeah, I totally get the longing for old memories. I'd honestly love the Titans moving to San Antonio or back to Houston or anywhere in Texas, and bringing back the Oilers name. It'd make me happy...

 

I just wouldn't want the Texans adopting it. Different team. Rival team.

 

I just have a unique viewpoint on that since I kept being an Oilers fan after the move. I like to think if the Stars end up in Quebec or something random, I'd still follow them just as closely as long as they continued to honor the (North) Stars heritage.

 

I've lived in so many places and cheer for such a diverse range of teams because of it (Stars, Crimson Tide, Red Sox, Titans, etc) that I can't expect my teams to stay in one place. God knows I haven't stayed in one place. I'm a Stars fan. Not a Dallas fan. We just happened to move here around the same time, and the love match was struck.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

In any case this alumni game started NOTHING.

 

29 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

In any case I had no sense at all that the alumni game rally gave many people any ideas.

 

In an article published on the NHL's site, former North Star player and current Wild radio announcer Tom Reid mentions the alumni game as significant in reigniting something within the Minnesota fans. "I don't think there's any question it reinvigorated some of the fans from those days", he said.

 

The article goes on to say: "If 23 years' worth of time had cooled the emotions of old-school hockey fans in Minnesota still angry about their team being taken away, chances are the outdoor game brought many of those feelings back to the surface."

 

Reid brings up the alumni game a second time when he talks about the current playoff series, referring also to the excitement caused by the Dallas Stars' first trip back to Minnesota in the Wild's inaugural season of 2000-01: "Judging by the response we had for the outdoor game and the alumni coming here, and how excited [fans] were to see the players of the past, I think this [the playoff matchup] might rejuvenate the feelings from the first year."
 

While the idea of moving teams' histories is offensive, and while this petition is the work of one lone fan rather than the expression of a movement, perhaps the alumni game did stir up a new wave of North Star nostalgia; so maybe saying that it "started nothing" is a bit strong.