OnWis97

Worst Team Names (Big League)

Recommended Posts

Just now, hormone said:

Lightning and thunder are both uncountable nouns, but there are two of them, i.e. it is possible to count uncountable-noun words. For this reason we use the plural form are: Lightning and thunder are both natural phenomena

 

The fact that "lightning" is an uncountable noun does not mean that it is plural as well as singular. In the sentence "Lightning and thunder are both natural phenomena", the subject of the plural verb "are" is "lightning and thunder".  But it is not possible to say "Lightning are natural phenomena".   The noun "lightning" is always singular, and so always takes a singular verb; we'd always say "Lightning is a natural pheomenon".  

Side note: Some uncountable nouns can be rendered in the plural; the resulting form tends to mean either "types of" ("Many wines are available there.") or "collections of" ("He studies the waters of the world.").   But there is no application of this to the noun "lightning".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mingjai said:

 

Though in this case, the team name should be St. Paul Wild (suck it up, Minneapolis). Living in St. Paul and working in Minneapolis, I can see the justification for teams wanting to not alienate one city or the other. The city rivalry is not as heated as it was 100 years ago, but the two cities have unique enough identities that having a team called the Minneapolis Vikings would lose some support in St. Paul or likewise the St. Paul Wild would lose some support among Minneapolitans. I know many St. Paul residents would have a hard time calling a team named Minneapolis "our team."

 

I'm like team names that pay homage to something by incorporate both place and nickname--.e.g, the Texas Rangers, Florida Panthers, Baltimore Orioles, Buffalo Bills. But then, I also have no problem using a state name instead of a city name. It's regions like New England or Golden State that always seem odd to me.

Except, almost any of those names are A LOT worse when they're referred to by a city name. St. Paul Wild? No Minnesota Wild. Minneapolis Vikings? No... Minnesota Vikings. MINNESOTA is famous for having a lot of Scandinavian immigrants. (Even though we have a lot more immigrants from all over the World now) MINNESOTA is also famous for it's abundance of Wildlife and Natural scenery. I think the only team that could get away with being a city or in this case, cities, would be the Twins. Twin Cities Twins sounds ok...

 

Some regions work... Usually states, especially when the have only one team in the state. I definitely agree about New England and Golden State. I do like the Carolina team names, as the team names sound less choppy, and kinda unify the area with one team...

 

What I also don't understand, is why everyone on here seems to think that teams HAVE to be named after the city. Regions can work too. In fact, sometimes, I prefer regions over cities. Texas Stars would be better than Dallas Stars... Wisconsin Brewers has a nice ring to it, and so does Pennsylvania Pirates. New York Nets, California Clippers,and even Oregon Trail Blazers could work...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

among teams playing:

 

Minnesota Wild

Texas Rangers

New England Patriots

Golden State Warriors

Oklahoma City Thunder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How has no one mentioned the Buffalo Bills or the Cleveland Browns? Like, what the hell is a Brown or a Bill?

 

I know they've been that way forever-- and I get that they were named after people-- but that doesn't make the names magically sensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buffalo Bills is a little dopey but doesn't bother me as much as purporting to represent six states. The Cleveland Browns are named for a builder of the game whose name conveniently happened to be a color. The Cleveland Szymanskis would be a little harder to come to terms with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boston Patriots > New England Patriots > Massachusetts Patriots 

 

I can barely spell the last one -_-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know someone who says naming a team something like "Tampa Bay" is like naming a Seattle team something like "Puget Sound Seahawks" or a Portland team "the Willamette River TrailBlazers". He's not a big fan of Arizona, Minnesota, Golden State, or New England as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the Warriors have any plans to rename themselves the San Francisco Warriors once they move into their new arena in Mission Bay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Trapper John said:

Carolina is kind of dopey too as there is no place called Carolina... 

 

It's also used for two teams that play about 125 miles from each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing the Atlantic Schooners would've blown up this thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fyi, no nicknames really bother me that much...

MLB - Indians.  If they were an expansion team, not a chance.  Hypocritical to keep it.

NFL - Redskins.  Same thing.

NHL - Blue Jackets.  I don't mind any NHL nickname, this is formality.

NBA - Thunder.  TB Lightning have lightning & bolts identity.  OKC Thunder's logo is a Lucky Charms marshmallow.

 

re. New England Patriots, I love it.  However, NBC needs to stop only flying over Boston during home games.  Why can't they also fly over Providence or Hartford or Portland... embrace it.  I also love Golden State though it should probably be more Bay Area specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hoops McCann said:

I'm guessing the Atlantic Schooners would've blown up this thread

Yeah, with Mallrats references.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Trapper John said:

Carolina is kind of dopey too as there is no place called Carolina... 

I did not think of Carolina when I was making my list.  That's a good choice.  Of course it probably sounds better than "North Carolina Panthers."  "Charlotte" would be the best choice.

 

1 hour ago, chuckymack said:

How has no one mentioned the Buffalo Bills or the Cleveland Browns? Like, what the hell is a Brown or a Bill?

 

I know they've been that way forever-- and I get that they were named after people-- but that doesn't make the names magically sensible.

I thought of the Bills and then kinda forgot by the time I was done typing.  I think I am so used to it that I forget how stupid it is.

 

The Browns can get a pass since they have an old-timey name for an old-timey team...even if it would never work for a new team today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NHL: Minnesota Wild. I don't care how sharp the logo is, the name is a complete mockery of a big-league club in the State of Hockey. 

 

NBA: Oklahoma City Thunder. That's the best a relocated NBA franchise can do? 

 

MLB: Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Either it's LA or Anaheim. Can't be both. 

 

NFL: Washington Redskins: Political Correctness wins here. Go with "Warriors" and keep the same colours. 

 

CFL: Ottawa RedBlacks. Should've gone with "Riverjacks".

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

I did not think of Carolina when I was making my list.  That's a good choice.  Of course it probably sounds better than "North Carolina Panthers."  "Charlotte" would be the best choice.

Yeah, Charlotte Panthers sounds pretty smooth. I guess it was so they didn't alienate South Carolina. In the case of the Hurricanes, I suspect it's as much about not alienating Durham, Chapel Hill, Greensboro, or Winston-Salem as it is people not knowing where Raleigh is. Still, what a stupid setup. The New South sucks. It all just sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's "trying not to alienate" and "trying to attract."

 

The pioneers, the Twins, quickly followed by the Vikings were clearly trying to avoid alienating St. Paul. 

 

But I'd say most are trying to "attract" fans that could be interested in other teams.  Maybe South Carolina fans that could cheer for the Falcons (Carolina Panthers), Connecticut fans that could cheer for the Giants (New England Pats), or even just people throughout the state that don't like the big bad city (Arizona, Colorado, etc.).

 

I'd be curious to know what's behind Tampa Bay.  Was that about encompassing St. Pete into the nominal fan base?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, surely. Did "Tampa Bay" as a metropolitan area have any currency before the Buccaneers started using it or did they pretty much coin it themselves? I know people referred to it all as Tampa-St. Pete for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chcarlson23 said:

 and so does Pennsylvania Pirates

A whole lot of us from SE Pennsylvania would take great offense to this name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Yeah, surely. Did "Tampa Bay" as a metropolitan area have any currency before the Buccaneers started using it or did they pretty much coin it themselves? I know people referred to it all as Tampa-St. Pete for a long time.

The bay that separates Tampa and St Pete is called Tampa Bay so they named the teams after that to include the metropolitan area as a whole. 

Share this post


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