Worst Team Names (Big League)

[SilverBullet1929]

21 minutes ago, FlyEaglesFly76 said:

I'm sorry but Florida Marlins sounds terrible and I can't comprehend why so people like it better.

Gonna guess 85% of it is just because it came first and thus it sounds better to our minds.

[~Bear]

4 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

-In defense of the Minnesota Wild, not that it's a great name but the term Wild CAN be used as a noun and not an adjective. It's a short way of saying the wilderness. If you're out in a forest you're out in "the wild." I don't think it's as bad of a name as many make it out to be. I'm not an NHL guy though so my opinion may be off but I think people are too harsh on the name. 

I'm pretty sure it's used as the noun. Just look at the logo:

Best logo in all of sports makes one of the worst name in all of sports bearable 

[BrianLion]

it is a great logo, although the nitpicker in me is always bothered by the fact that the full moon and star are out but the sky is still red?  

 

Unpopular opinion, but replacing the red in their scheme with either blue or a purple would be tremendous, and give the look almost a 90's Milwaukee Bucks scheme. 

[B-mer]

I think the Wild branded well to avoid the name becoming gimmicky. They could have done something crazy like the old Owen Sound Attack jerseys to come off "x-treme!"  By going with classic hockey branding it more than mitigated the potential of turning the name and identity into the xfl or pro beach hockey. 

[The_Admiral]

On 11/27/2016 at 0:21 PM, Tygers09 said:

Utah Jazz is a unique name, does it fit with what Salt Lake City stands for? No. I always thought Utah should give back the Jazz name to  New Orleans, much like New Orleans did with the Hornets name to Charlotte. Maybe Utah could've been called the Bobcats or something else et all...

'

 

Unsay this.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

13 hours ago, FlyEaglesFly76 said:

I'm sorry but Florida Marlins sounds terrible and I can't comprehend why so people like it better. Miami is the infinitely better name.

 

12 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Gonna guess 85% of it is just because it came first and thus it sounds better to our minds.

 

The name "Florida Marlins" did not come first. The name "Miami Marlins" goes back more than 60 years.

 

Satchel Paige played for the Miami Marlins.

 

 

Jim Palmer played for the Miami Marlins.

 

 

Even original Florida Marlin Benito Santiago played for the Miami Marlins.

 

 

The historically correct name is "Miami Marlins". Furthermore, that name sounds better because of the alliteration. 

 

By contrast, the name "Florida Marlins" is clunky and discordant. What's worse is that it's ahistorical.

 

The Miami Marlins, like the L.A. Angels, have come to their senses by returning to the only appropriate names for these teams.

[C-Squared]

It is far too popular to change now, but I never liked how the Buffalo Bills were named after a clumsy pun about Buffalo Bill Cody that has no other bearing on the team identity whatsoever. The Bills name itself doesn't really make sense without the city name. I find the whole thing a bit strange.

[SilverBullet1929]

3 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

 

The name "Florida Marlins" did not come first. The name "Miami Marlins" goes back more than 60 years.

 

Satchel Paige played for the Miami Marlins.

 

 

Jim Palmer played for the Miami Marlins.

 

 

Even original Florida Marlin Benito Santiago played for the Miami Marlins.

 

 

The historically correct name is "Miami Marlins". Furthermore, that name sounds better because of the alliteration. 

 

By contrast, the name "Florida Marlins" is clunky and discordant. What's worse is that it's ahistorical.

 

The Miami Marlins, like the L.A. Angels, have come to their senses by returning to the only appropriate names for these teams.

Please don't recite to me the history of the Marlins. I know it quite well. Florida Marlins came first for the major league team and that's what most remember first when thinking of the team founded in 1991... that's all I meant when I said the name Florida Marlins came first. I know very well about the Miami Marlins minor league team.

[AstroCree]

7 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The Miami Marlins, like the L.A. Angels, have come to their senses by returning to the only appropriate names for these teams.

Angels don't even play in LA.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

12 minutes ago, insert name said:

8 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The Miami Marlins, like the L.A. Angels, have come to their senses by returning to the only appropriate names for these teams.

Angels don't even play in LA.

 

Just as the Dallas Cowboys don't play in Dallas; and the New York Giants and Jets don't play in New York.

 

The Angels play in the L.A. area, which is good enough.  Same with the L.A. Galaxy.  Whether a team's home stadium is technically inside or outside the city limits is immaterial.  

 

[Ark]

Florida Marlins sounds better than Miami Marlins. It's as simple as that.

 

They also look better.

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

6 minutes ago, Ark said:

Florida Marlins sounds better than Miami Marlins. It's as simple as that.

 

This show is brought to you by the letter M.

 

 

See "alliteration".

The name "Marlins" without "Miami" is a big ol' clunker.  It's like the last line in a verse that goes

 

Roses are red

Violets are blue

Sugar is sweet

I'd like a ham sandwich

 

I get that the name "Florida Marlins" sounds right to kiddies who first heard of the name that way.  But there are objective reasons to conclude that "Miami Marlins" is aesthetically superior.  And, on top of that, it is correct historically.

 

[Ark]

The iami in Miami is much stronger than the M, rendering the alliteration ineffective.

 

Florida Marlins flows, there is a similar l-r/r-l sound in both words, and depending on how you pronounce Florida Flor and Mar rhyme.

 

Miami Rays sounds better than Miami Marlins

[OnWis97]

Florida Marlins, my preference for city names aside, sounds good.  But I really like the alliteration of Miami Marlins.

 

---

 

On 11/27/2016 at 9:32 PM, Tygers09 said:

Then if Diamondbacks is such a bad name, what are some of your suggestions for what the team should be?

Good question.  I would fear something much, much worse.

 

I actually like the name "Diamondbacks."  It's area-appropriate, unique, and not goofy (e.g., Wild).  As the starter of the thread, I really did simply mean to discuss "names" (i.e., not worrying about how well it fits on a jersey).  But in naming the team, I suppose that should have been a consideration.  I like the name, but I don't like the "Backs" underline and the only thing worse is "D*BACKS."  So that probably should have been a consideration.

 

---

 

While I do like city names, one state name that would make sense to me is the Thunder.  They're the only big-league team in the state and "Oklahoma Thunder" sounds better than "Oklahoma City Thunder" to me.  Additionally the wordmark on the road jersey is awful...getting rid of "City" would help that.  They probably should go the Bulls route of just using "Thunder" on the homes and roads.

[Sport]

On 11/23/2016 at 4:40 PM, OnWis97 said:

 

I guess the worst offender there is when the original LA Angels changed to "California."

 

Every once in a while you'd see a guy get traded inside the state and they'd write it like "traded from California to Oakland". I hated it as a kid. Why wouldn't you say he was traded from the Angels to the Athletics? 

[FlyEaglesFly76]

3 hours ago, insert name said:

Angels don't even play in LA.

New Jersey Giants

New Jersey Jets

Miami Gardens Dolphins

Orchid Park Bills

Santa Clara 49ers

Arlington Cowboys

Landover Redskins

Auburn Hills Pistons

 

Are any of those right? Are these what these teams ''should'' be called?

[Brian in Boston]

4 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Whether a team's home stadium is technically inside or outside the city limits is immaterial.  

 

In my opinion, that depends upon the scenario.

For instance, if I were a government official in a municipality where the city was on the hook for investing significant public funding into the construction and/or upkeep of a publicly-owned facility that a professional sports franchise called home, you can bet your a** that said team would be branded with the name of the city where said facility was located. If the owner refused, so be it. He could go and see if the burg whose name he wanted to grace his team was ready, willing, and able to pony-up the dough to build and maintain an arena, ballpark, or stadium.  

That's particularly true in the modern era of pro sports, when sports franchise-owners often benefit from sweetheart deals that see them pay nominal rents, have their local tax burdens reduced, and gain control of ancillary revenue streams in publicly-owned facilities, while the local government is on the hook for financing the bulk of construction costs and saddled with the responsibility of maintaining the facility.
 

[OnWis97]

1 hour ago, FlyEaglesFly76 said:

New Jersey Giants

New Jersey Jets

Miami Gardens Dolphins

Orchid Park Bills

Santa Clara 49ers

Arlington Cowboys

Landover Redskins

Auburn Hills Pistons

 

Are any of those right? Are these what these teams ''should'' be called?

As an aside, I am surprised nobody's yet said "New York Giants/Jets" because they're not even in the same state.  I always find that hilarious.  People get really hung up on that, but they never, ever say that about the Redskins..."Maryland Redskins!"  It's essentially the same situation except DC does not have statehood...nevertheless DC is no more in Maryland than NYC is in New Jersey.

 

I think the real reason for this difference is that New York City and State happen to have the same name.  If, rather than "New York, New York," it was "Gotham, New York" then I think folks would struggle less with the Gotham Jets playing in New Jersey, even though it would be the same thing.

 

As to the actual point of this post...I could not agree more.  If the Twins and VIkings, in 1961 had named themselves Bloomington, many fans would not even be sure of what time zone those team were in, much less what urban area.  I know Anaheim is bigger than some of these places, but I'd prefer "Los Angeles" (as long as they can work out not having to use "of Anaheim."  If not, then I'd deal with Anaheim).  But San Diego is as close to LA as I've ever been so I do defer to locals on the relation between the cities.

[Tygers09]

On 11/29/2016 at 1:49 AM, the admiral said:

 

Unsay this.

???

[radchad]

I grew up in the Orange County area. Many, if not most, of the residents there view themselves as ideologically separated from the urban and more liberal LA County.  There's even a term, the "Orange Curtain" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Curtain) to describe this divide.  There's a palpable disdain for being associated with the name "Los Angeles" in any way.  I'm not saying it's right or wrong, that's just how it is.

So for at least a loud set of fans, that's the main gripe.  "Los Angeles Angels" doesn't work because LA is (figuratively) a world away.

IMO California Angels doesn't work because there are four other teams in the state, so there's no way the Angels can claim to represent the entire state.

I like Anaheim Angels, because it's alliterative, and thanks largely to Disneyland, Anaheim is notable and recognizable enough to stand on its own. Of course, this could be because I was born during the Clinton administration and "Anaheim Angels" is the name I grew up with.

That said, literally any "Geographic Name + Angels" is better than the current cluster of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.