Jump to content

Relocation and Branding


kw11333

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

I find that just as inaccurate though. Sports are a unique business where the city and the franchise should share equally in the history. In fact, regarding the 1979 NBA Championship... the city of Seattle and the fans that were around then are the only thing left of that history. OKC's team, owner, management, coaches, etc. has nothing to do with the title. 

Those fans are fleeting though. In, say, 100 years. Everyone who saw that Championship team in person will be dead, but the organisation will likely still be around. If not as the Oaklahoma City Thunder than as another team. 

Regardless the legal entity will be the only thing remaining. 

 

Furthermore the Oaklahoma City franchise currently doesn't have any of the same players, coaches, or management in place, but the continuity is still there. Billy Donavan's tenure as coach is in a lineage of coaches that goes all the way back to Lenny Wilkens, the coach who coached that 1979 Championship team. 

 

And then you have cases like the Arizona Cardinals. By your own criteria you can't splice the Cardinals' history up three ways because the Bidwell family's owned them since their days in Chicago. They, more than any one fanbase or city, have been the one constant in team history. 

 

Fans are an intergal part of sports as a business, but the idea that they hold ownership over the actual record books seems absurd to me. 

I'm fine with a Winnipeg Jets route where the new team takes the identity but the records stay with the old team in their new locale. Actually moving history from team to team to make people who have no ownership over it seems borderline sacreligeous to me as a student of history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply
51 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Fans are an intergal part of sports as a business, but the idea that they hold ownership over the actual record books seems absurd to me. 

I'm fine with a Winnipeg Jets route where the new team takes the identity but the records stay with the old team in their new locale. Actually moving history from team to team to make people who have no ownership over it seems borderline sacreligeous to me as a student of history.

I'm advocating a shared ownership, not full. I can see where an owner would want to keep the history, but I can also see that the history doesn't exist without the city/fans where that history was created. And I'd only advocate doing that in the cases where the team name is the same as the old one, ie. Browns, Jets, hopefully Sonics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always try to put myself in the shoes of someone like Bud Adams.

 

He created the Houston Oilers. He picked the colors himself, because they were his favorite colors. He even started a LEAGUE for the Oilers to play in, when he couldn't get into the NFL.

 

He moved the team to Tennessee, and reluctantly, because of fan pressure, changed the team name to the Titans, and modernized the colors but kept them largely the same...

 

Up until his death, he was the only owner in franchise history, dating over 50 years.... One man created the team, branded the team, lived and died with the team... and some people think it is fair for Houston's new team to co-opt the identity of his Oilers all these years later?

 

It isn't possible to have more ownership over a brand than Bud had over the Oilers, for better or worse. The team is still in the hands of his family now.

 

The fans and city were simply the market for his product. Yes, fans live and die by their teams, but at the end of the day, the team is still an entertainment product. If I really really enjoy Coca-Cola, and collect everything I can get my hands on, it doesn't give me ownership of the brand... Why are sports teams different?

 

I think it would be disrespectful to someone like Bud Adams to give his "baby" to a rival team just because his team isn't using that name any more... it isn't yours to give away.

 

 

 

Other teams that didn't have the same consistency in ownership are similar in philosophy though too... When you sell a team, you give your "baby" over to the new caretaker, who assumes the control and weight of that history, that brand, and that image. You can do with that what you want. Either honor it (like the Colts and SF Giants), or give it away (like the Ravenbrowns and Coyotejets).

 

The continuity between separate franchises in the same city should begin and end with the fact that they share a city name. The Houston Texans and the Houston Oilers are both the Houston NFL team... but it would be disingenuous to pretend that they are in any other way related. I'm not saying the Houston fans shouldn't celebrate Houston's football history, including their years with the Oilers... I'm just saying that it isn't fair to anyone to pretend that the Titans aren't the ACTUAL Oilers, playing in a new stadium with a new nickname.

 

There's a reason North American teams have a city name and a mascot name, instead of just being "Raiders FC" or "Rangers HC."

 

Charlotte is Charlotte, regardless of it is followed by Hornets or Bobcats... but by that same token, Hornets are Hornets, regardless of if it is preceded by Charlotte, New Orleans, or Oklahoma City.

 

It seems so simple to me, that I don't understand how there can be so many differing opinions on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like how with computers there's "physical" vs "logical". 

 

If if I have a hard drive volume that's 100 GB and full, I can plug in a second physical 100 GB drive and logically extend the first one to 200 GB. 

 

To to the end user (the fan in the original city) they see a 200 GB drive. But the IT guy knows that it's two physical drives, each with their own data lineage. 

 

To IT, it matters from a physical support and maintenance perspective. To the end user, they don't give a F as long as they can keep saving new files. 

 

Also, it's sports - aside from the business aspect that really only the owners (IT) need to care about, the fans (end user) just want to continue to cheer for a team and also celebrate past accomplishments (access old files). 

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ColeJ said:

The continuity between separate franchises in the same city should begin and end with the fact that they share a city name. The Houston Texans and the Houston Oilers are both the Houston NFL team... but it would be disingenuous to pretend that they are in any other way related. I'm not saying the Houston fans shouldn't celebrate Houston's football history, including their years with the Oilers... I'm just saying that it isn't fair to anyone to pretend that the Titans aren't the ACTUAL Oilers, playing in a new stadium with a new nickname.

 

Back when the Texans first brought pro football back to Houston, I think many people were hoping that they would bring in many of the former oilers for appearances and perhaps retire a few of their uniform numbers to embrace the city's football history. Instead, the Texans organization has not even acknowledged that there was a pro team in town for them. I get why. The Texans are Bob McNair's baby and product. While their level of on-field success has been rather lackluster, the city has embraced the team without a need of bringing up the past and the bitter breakup that occurred when Adams moved the Oilers away. Houston basically got a second wife. As good as some of the times were with the ex, theres no need to hang pennants and banners around the stadium reminding you of them. I miss the Oilers and it would be nice to formally recognize their history here, but at the same time there are more people living in Houston that never saw the Oilers play in the dome than there are those that did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, AgentColon2 said:

I recall Johnny Unitas wearing a Ravens jersey in the ceremony at the first game.

 

My recollection is that the old Colts usually wore Colts jerseys, if they wore jerseys.  The picture below is of Johnny Unitas and Lenny Moore before/during the Ravens' first regular season game.

 

 9d3504bd29fddc728013e89a70678198.jpg

 

This is from the Baltimore Sun (via some old Baltimore columnist named Ken Rosenthal) --

 

Quote

Unitas was the star of the pre-game ceremonies, the mystery guest who came out in his old No. 19 and handed the referee the game ball.

 

A day for passing the torch in football's circle of life

 

However, this is from Ravens PR director, Kevin Byrne --

 

BYRNE IDENTITY: VINNY REMEMBERS FIRST RAVENS GAME

 

Quote

 

Vinny mentioned the Baltimore Colts being at our first game. We had 57 Colts volunteer, and we asked them to form a gauntlet that the Ravens ran through. We gave each of these former players a jacket that had Colts on it. The jackets were reversible with a Ravens logo on the back when it was turned inside out.

We were worried that the Colts would balk at reversing the jackets, but they said "yes" and changed enthusiastically. That was a great gesture by these older athletes. Not sure how many fans saw what was happening. We didn't have a video board at Memorial Stadium. But, it was still cool, and it was shown on TV.

 

 

 

Most Liked Content of the Day -- February 15, 2017, August 21, 2017, August 22, 2017     /////      Proud Winner of the CCSLC Post of the Day Award -- April 8, 2008

Originator of the Upside Down Sarcasm Smilie -- November 1, 2005  🙃

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 The history of sports is :censored:ing confusing.

Fly Eagles Fly, on the road to victory...

Philadelphia Eagles: NFL Champions in 1948, 1949, 1960, Super Bowl Champions in 2017-18. Philadelphia Phillies: World Series Champions in 1980 and 2008. Philadelphia 76ers: NBA Champions in 1966-67 and 1982-83. Philadelphia Flyers: Stanley Cup Champions in 1973-74, 1974-75

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cajunaggie08 said:

Houston basically got a second wife. 

That's been one of my arguments for shared history. Houston (husband in this case) still was very much a part of everything that happened with his first wife (Oilers). You can choose to ignore that past, but you shouldn't be forced to to ignore it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, leopard88 said:

 

My recollection is that the old Colts usually wore Colts jerseys, if they wore jerseys.  The picture below is of Johnny Unitas and Lenny Moore before/during the Ravens' first regular season game.

 

 9d3504bd29fddc728013e89a70678198.jpg

 

This is from the Baltimore Sun (via some old Baltimore columnist named Ken Rosenthal) --

 

 

A day for passing the torch in football's circle of life

 

However, this is from Ravens PR director, Kevin Byrne --

 

BYRNE IDENTITY: VINNY REMEMBERS FIRST RAVENS GAME

 

 

 

 

It's hard tracking down stuff from this event. I know Unitas definitely wore a Ravens jersey at some point. Maybe it wasn't the first game. But I can't find a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, AgentColon2 said:

 

It's hard tracking down stuff from this event. I know Unitas definitely wore a Ravens jersey at some point. Maybe it wasn't the first game. But I can't find a thing.

 

Agreed.  It took a while to track down what I was able to find.  I assumed it would be easy to find pictures and/or video from the introductions at the inaugural game.

Most Liked Content of the Day -- February 15, 2017, August 21, 2017, August 22, 2017     /////      Proud Winner of the CCSLC Post of the Day Award -- April 8, 2008

Originator of the Upside Down Sarcasm Smilie -- November 1, 2005  🙃

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, hawk36 said:

I'm advocating a shared ownership...

How does that work? We know the books record that the Seattle SuperSonics won the 1979 NBA Championship. Well that team's in Oklahoma City now, playing as the Thunder. That's their title.

You're asking for shared history essentially means that the fans/city of Seattle should get to claim some part of the 1979 NBA Championship. That's absurd. The city of Seattle didn't win it. The team won it. The team that's now in Oklahoma.

 

As I said earlier. I'm not looking to stick it to fans who have lost a team. I'm simply following the historical record. A team that won something in City A still won that thing if they move to City B. City A's fans witnessed it, and I get that they're pissed, but they don't have ANY ownership over it.

 

If you want a compromise, this isn't it. You're still demanding that a city be given ownership over something they have no right to.

As far as compromises go? Again, I think the Winnipeg Jets handled it perfectly. The new Winnipeg Jets have the name of the old team, and the rights to wear the old team's throwbacks. They regularly honour the old team's players and legacy. They never try to claim the old team's records or championships as their own though. Those stay with the old Jets, who now play as the Arizona Coyotes.

Everyone wins. The fans in Winnipeg get a new team named the "Jets" and get to honour that history. The Coyotes get to claim ownership of the stats and accomplishments that are rightfully theirs. It's far more elegant than the Cleveland Deal, which is essentially league-approved lying to make Cleveland feel better about the fact that they didn't build a new stadium fast enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shared ownership does not make a ton of sense to me, either.  Does that mean if, say, Seattle gets an expansion team, Gary Payton becomes the all-time scoring leader for both franchises?  

 

I'm OK with "sharing" in some ways.  If the New Sonics arena pays homage to "Seattle Hoops History" and specifically highlights the 1979 team, that's fine by me so long as "team/franchise" history reflects actual history.

 

I actually wish teams would do a lot more with history. I wish the Twins would acknowledge their Washington roots more.  No, that doesn't mean I'm high-fiving other Twins fans and saying "1924 Champs in Washington, baby!"  But it tells me about the team's roots.  What I don't want is Walter Johnson to be the all-time wins leader for this franchise and the one currently in Washington.  If the Nats want a statue of the greatest pitcher ever to pitch in Washington, that's great.  "Baseball in Washington" has a long history and while it was not always successful, it's worth remembering.  

 

The Timberwolves have a banner for MPLS Lakers in the Hall of Fame.  The Target Center also has a statue of George Mikan, the MPLS Laker that was the NBA's first true big man.  I actually think the Wolves could do more to highlight "pro basketball in Minnesota" and remind us that several titles were won here and the league's first dynasty was based here.  I myself think that's kind of cool.  But the Timberwolves did not do that.  Even if they'd been named the Lakers, they did not do that.  The Lakers were dominant for a period in Minnesota and have since been at times in LA.  To suggest (and, worse, make "official") that any of these accomplishments are associated with the Timberwolves is intellectually dishonest (and laughable).

 

Two teams cannot, in any official way, share actual franchise history.  Gary Payton leading both in scoring?  Two different franchises claiming the 1979 title?  But both a franchise and a city can pay homage to and celebrate key events and athletes.  I was actually hoping the Wild would retire Neal Broten's #7 before starting play simply because he was from Minnesota, on the 1980 Olympic team, and played most of his career in Minnesota.  It would not be wrong for him to be honored by his franchise and the team in the city where he spent most of his career.  (Didn't happen; oh, well).  But to put him on "leaders" lists for the Wild?  No. History is created by the events that happen.  Not the events fans in the old city wish had happened.

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 think by changing locations you fundamentally change a team and it no longer exists as the same entity but has evolved into a new one. So while I get the arguments here, I just don't agree. I keep seeing the same "history the way it happened" argument and it just seems silly to me. You just as much, to me, have to acknowledge that whatever record happened in a separate city on what was, essentially, an entirely different team. The location of a team is as much a part of it's identity as anything. Literally the only thing I understand taking issue with in the Browns deal is the idea that the Browns "ceased operations" before resuming 1999 instead of acknowledging that it's an expansion team. Otherwise, I'm fine with a team using the same logo, colors, and jerseys from the same city picking up the mantel of the old, lost team. Comparing Ray Rice to Jim Brown (unless we're talking abuse) makes very little sense to me because they are entirely different identities in different cities.

 

Quote

and some people think it is fair for Houston's new team to co-opt the identity of his Oilers all these years later?

 

I think it's fair for Houston to take ownership of their team yes. While there are explicit billionaire owners in sports, that's only possible because of the participation of the fans. Seems insane to me that some people would defer to the sentiment of a billionaire over thousands of fans. But hey, we're allowed to disagree.

 

At this point though it's pretty much a moot debate. You likely either side with history being owned by a city or a franchise, and I side with the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

How does that work? We know the books record that the Seattle SuperSonics won the 1979 NBA Championship. Well that team's in Oklahoma City now, playing as the Thunder. That's their title.

You're asking for shared history essentially means that the fans/city of Seattle should get to claim some part of the 1979 NBA Championship. That's absurd. The city of Seattle didn't win it. The team won it. The team that's now in Oklahoma.

I think it's equally, if not more, absurd for OKC to claim it's their title. The OKC team/organization had zero to do with the championship. Since the Seattle Supersonics no longer exist, and the owner, management, coaches, and players who won that championship have nothing to do with OKC, the only thing that does exist is from that championship is Seattle. 

 

I get what you are saying but fundamentally disagree with your thinking that a team in a different city, with a different name, has any right to that claim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Thunder are not the Sonics. Nobody in OKC gives a :censored: about Seattle's championship, just like people in L.A don't care about any success Minneapolis had.  The Jets don't care about the Thrasher's less than stellar history and only care about the past of the team in Arizona (like I said, sports history is confusing)

 

The only people who truly care are the people in the city (or the fans in general), Even the most devoted owner only cares about money. If an owner decides to stay in a city despite losing money it's because he knows it can get profitable. Sad Truth.

Fly Eagles Fly, on the road to victory...

Philadelphia Eagles: NFL Champions in 1948, 1949, 1960, Super Bowl Champions in 2017-18. Philadelphia Phillies: World Series Champions in 1980 and 2008. Philadelphia 76ers: NBA Champions in 1966-67 and 1982-83. Philadelphia Flyers: Stanley Cup Champions in 1973-74, 1974-75

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any team that has been relocated since their last championship, should not have rights to claim that title for their current city. Using the NBA as an example, which feature the gold logo on the back collar for a title. If you won a title in 1980 in "X" city but have since moved to "Y" city, state that is not the original, you cannot claim to have won a title under those guidelines. 

 

Let the championship history stay with that city BUT................ BUT allow the current city to celebrate the championship winning players for their success. It's not their fault the team moved afterall 

bleedblue-1.png

Bleeding Blue since 1986

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread makes me think of the Arizona Coyotes wrapping their arms around Winnipeg Jets lore, meanwhile in Winnipeg, I'm fairly certain not a one Manitoban would care if Ilya Kovalchuk was invited to drop a ceremonial face off puck or not.  

The Coyotes have all the former Jets retired numbers in their rafters.  The current Winnipeg Jets last season began a Winnipeg Jets HOF, starting with the Hull-Hedberg-Nilsson line.

 

I've liked that the Washington Nationals have shown signs of honouring former Expos, & I would cut off my right arm to watch them play in classic unis.

cropped-cropped-toronto-skyline21.jpg?w=

@2001mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, worcat said:

Any team that has been relocated since their last championship, should not have rights to claim that title for their current city. Using the NBA as an example, which feature the gold logo on the back collar for a title. If you won a title in 1980 in "X" city but have since moved to "Y" city, state that is not the original, you cannot claim to have won a title under those guidelines. 

 

Let the championship history stay with that city BUT................ BUT allow the current city to celebrate the championship winning players for their success. It's not their fault the team moved afterall 

Looking at YOU, Sacramento Kings.

jersey-signature03.pngjersey-signature04.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love to see the Chargers keep the name since they were originally the Los Angeles Chargers. Obviously, that was 57 years ago, but I still think it would be cool.

 

On the other hand, I'm not asking the people of Los Angeles to embrace a new team so sticking with Chargers may not be the way to go.

 

I think the Rams is perfect, and I hope Kroenke gets his head out of his ass and creates a uniform that falls in line with some historical tie to the Rams instead of the post-1999 St. Louis days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good point. From all I've heard today Los Angeles doesn't even want the Chargers. It would be risky to abandoned the brand but it could be a huge windfall if the city embraces a new team name. Maybe even have the people in the city suggest and vote on a new name that would endear itself to Los Angeles. Could be crap but also could be a great way to become LA's team. Probably too risky though. 

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.