Jump to content

Worst Team Names (Big League)


OnWis97
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, radchad said:

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:censored: of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.

 

No one denies the cultural gap between Orange County and Los Angeles.  But consider that most of the people in New Jersey are openly hostile towards New York City, and that they identify themselves against New York.  (I will note that this attitude is absent in the New Jersey cities of Hudson County, particularly Jersey City and Hoboken.  Not coincidentally, these are my favourite places in New Jersey.)  

Yet the New Jersey hostility towards New York City does not prevent the NFL teams in northern New Jersey from calling themselves "New York".  This is due to the fact that these teams are within the New York City metropolitan area.  This simple geographical fact takes precedence over all cultural issues.
 

And likewise with the Los Angeles area.  Here is the test: when you turn on the television or the radio in Anaheim, you get Los Angeles stations.  This means that you're in the Los Angeles metropolitan area.  That's all you need to know in order to understand why "Los Angeles Angels" is appropriate.  (And don't forget that the Los Angeles Rams played in Anaheim as well.)

 

Other points:

 

* "Anaheim Angels" is not alliterative, because alliteration applies only to consonant sounds.  The analogous term to "alliteration" for vowel sounds is "assonance".

 

* I am sorry to break it to you that Anaheim is not one of the U.S.'s major cities, and that "Anaheim" is not a notable or recognisable name.  That town has exactly one tourist attraction.  By contrast, Los Angeles is one of the biggest and most important cities in the entire world, and is the capital of the movie and television industries.  The sphere of influence of a city the magnitude of Los Angeles or New York is enormous.

 

* It is necessary to repeat that the name "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" is only a technicality, a means of fulfilling a contractual obligation.  Of course the full name sounds ridiculous to say.  Simple solution: don't say it!  For all practical purposes, the name is "Los Angeles Angels".  The full legal name is not intended for us fans, and we have no reason ever to say it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2016 at 2:59 PM, FlyEaglesFly76 said:

The NFL would never allow the Raiders name to change. Its iconic to the league. It would be like if the MLB let the Yankees change their name (as if they would ever move..)

 

No....just no.  The two teams are not even REMOTELY similar in terms of their significance to their respective leagues.  The Yankees are the winningest and most popular team in the history of not only MLB but all American pro sports. The Raiders are a team who had a bunch of guys who played dirty and were successful in the 1970s (and 1983) and have all of THREE championships to their name.  

 

Hell, the Browns had a far more storied and winning history (yes, the NFL existed before the Super Bowl era) than the Raiders, and their identity was forced to remain in Cleveland.  If the "Cleveland Browns Rule" is still enforced, the\ Raiders could very well have to leave the identity behind. (although I agree the NFL would be insane from a merchandising standpoint to do so..)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Los Angeles is one of the biggest and most important cities in the entire world, and is the capital of the movie and television industries.  The sphere of influence of a city the magnitude of Los Angeles or New York is enormous.

 

Well, given its enormous "sphere of influence", the City of Los Angeles should be more than capable of generating the revenue necessary to cover the construction and upkeep of a publicly-financed ballpark for the Los Angeles Angels. Further, I'm certain that Angels' owner Arte Moreno would jump at the chance to set up shop in "one of the biggest and most important cities in the entire world". After all, Arte actually spent 22 months playing footsie with Tustin (TUSTIN?!?!?), a community a bit more than 1/4 the size of Anaheim.

Of course, maybe Los Angeles is so "enormous" with regard to its "sphere of influence" that the Angels would get lost in the shuffle if forced to compete for attention within the actual borders of the "City of Angels". It could also be that, given the enormity of its size, importance and influence, the City of Los Angeles wouldn't actually be inclined to invest a significant amount of public funds into a new ballpark for the Angels. In Los Angeles proper, Arte might actually have to make good on his claims that he's capable of privately-financing a new home for the Angels.

Personally, I'm hoping that developer LT Global's proposed 15-acre, mixed-use entertainment complex on a portion of the Anaheim Stadium parking lot proves so lucrative for both the company and the City of Anaheim, that when it comes time for the city's political leadership to determine what to do with regard to further development of the parking area land and the Angels' long-term future, the ball club is told to pound sand... or, embrace the name Anaheim Angels if it wants a dime of public money going forward.

Bottom line? The Angels are more than welcome to seek to benefit from the "sphere of influence of a city the magnitude of Los Angeles"... but, the City of Anaheim shouldn't be expected to publicly finance said pursuit while playing second-banana in terms of branding to a municipality that isn't investing a dime of municipal funds into the upkeep of the ball club's home.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BrianLion said:

If the "Cleveland Browns Rule" is still enforced, the Raiders could very well have to leave the identity behind.

Where the :censored: are people getting this ''cleveland browns rule'' from? Rams moved and kept the name. The Raiders WILL keep their name if they move. End of discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, FlyEaglesFly76 said:

Where the :censored: are people getting this ''cleveland browns rule'' from? Rams moved and kept the name. The Raiders WILL keep their name if they move. End of discussion.

There is no Cleveland Browns Rule. It was just a special deal made for Cleveland that other franchises deiced to mimic later upon moving. No league has it as a mandatory thing though. The Raiders have already been the Raiders in two cities. And the brand is incredibly valuable. No way the league lets it go dormant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2016 at 3:45 AM, Tygers09 said:

CFL's Ottawa REDBLACKS will make a lot of people ask "What is a red black?". Well, it definately can be one of the worst names suggested for a football team. But there is an explanation of how the name came to be.

 

It's pretty common in Quebec and eastern Canada, for football teams to name by their team colors. There are two Canadian college teams that come to mind, Laval Rouge et Or,"Red & Gold" and Sherbrooke Vert et Or,"Green & Gold". So when the owners of the Ottawa franchise were deciding on a team name, they came up with REDBLACKS, which in French translation, is ROUGENOIR. Yes, ownership did specify that the correct spelling of the team nickname is with all capital letters. And their official mascot is a lumberjack, and you will notice red and black plaid flannel clothing predominantly worn by fans at home games and aboard.

Not just that it's a tribute to our sporting colours!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2016 at 3:45 AM, Tygers09 said:

CFL's Ottawa REDBLACKS will make a lot of people ask "What is a red black?". Well, it definately can be one of the worst names suggested for a football team. But there is an explanation of how the name came to be.

 

It's pretty common in Quebec and eastern Canada, for football teams to name by their team colors. There are two Canadian college teams that come to mind, Laval Rouge et Or,"Red & Gold" and Sherbrooke Vert et Or,"Green & Gold". So when the owners of the Ottawa franchise were deciding on a team name, they came up with REDBLACKS, which in French translation, is ROUGENOIR. 

 

The French version is "Rouge et Noir", as three words, with normal capitalisation. Likewise, the English version should be "Red and Black".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enough about the Angels, Some think Los Angeles is better, some think Anaheim is better, some think California is better for some reason, No one's opinion is going to be changed and all the arguing over it is pointless. If something sounds better to you, cool. All this bickering isn't going to change what you think sounds better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2016 at 10:40 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

No one denies the cultural gap between Orange County and Los Angeles.  But consider that most of the people in New Jersey are openly hostile towards New York City, and that they identify themselves against New York.

 

 

And vice versa. "Family? They're a glorified crew."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

It could also be that, given the enormity of its size, importance and influence,

 

Brian in Boston probably felt like he just laid down an all-time own but he used "enormity" instead of "enormousness" and said that Los Angeles's size and influence are a disgusting abomination to humanity. Then again, maybe they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, the admiral said:

 

Brian in Boston ... said that Los Angeles's size and influence are a disgusting abomination to humanity.

 

Well, more its presumed size, importance and influence. That said, I specifically chose to use "enormity" for a reason.    

To quote Peter O'Toole's Reginald Fleming Johnston in The Last Emperor, "If you cannot say what you mean, your majesty, you will never mean what you say. And a gentleman should always mean what he says."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2016 at 3:03 PM, 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?

 

The "49ers" name refers to San Francisco's role in the California Gold Rush. Santa Clara had nothing to do with the Gold Rush - it didn't even exist as a town until 1852, by which time the Gold Rush had mostly played itself out. It wouldn't be incorporated as a city for another decade after that.

 

So if the team were to rename itself for Santa Clara, the 49ers nickname would no longer make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Viper said:

 

The "49ers" name refers to San Francisco's role in the California Gold Rush. Santa Clara had nothing to do with the Gold Rush - it didn't even exist as a town until 1852, by which time the Gold Rush had mostly played itself out. It wouldn't be incorporated as a city for another decade after that.

 

So if the team were to rename itself for Santa Clara, the 49ers nickname would no longer make sense.

You completely and utterly missed the point of that post but whatever

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2016 at 9:16 PM, B-mer said:

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. 

Agreed, but it's unfortunate they lost their original name which was a perfect fit. We have White Sox and Red Sox in MLB, why coudln't the NHL have Stars and North Stars?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2016 at 11:40 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

No one denies the cultural gap between Orange County and Los Angeles.  But consider that most of the people in New Jersey are openly hostile towards New York City, and that they identify themselves against New York.  (I will note that this attitude is absent in the New Jersey cities of Hudson County, particularly Jersey City and Hoboken.  Not coincidentally, these are my favourite places in New Jersey.)  

Yet the New Jersey hostility towards New York City does not prevent the NFL teams in northern New Jersey from calling themselves "New York".  This is due to the fact that these teams are within the New York City metropolitan area.  This simple geographical fact takes precedence over all cultural issues.
 

And likewise with the Los Angeles area.  Here is the test: when you turn on the television or the radio in Anaheim, you get Los Angeles stations.  This means that you're in the Los Angeles metropolitan area.  That's all you need to know in order to understand why "Los Angeles Angels" is appropriate.  (And don't forget that the Los Angeles Rams played in Anaheim as well.)

 

Other points:

 

* "Anaheim Angels" is not alliterative, because alliteration applies only to consonant sounds.  The analogous term to "alliteration" for vowel sounds is "assonance".

 

* I am sorry to break it to you that Anaheim is not one of the U.S.'s major cities, and that "Anaheim" is not a notable or recognisable name.  That town has exactly one tourist attraction.  By contrast, Los Angeles is one of the biggest and most important cities in the entire world, and is the capital of the movie and television industries.  The sphere of influence of a city the magnitude of Los Angeles or New York is enormous.

 

* It is necessary to repeat that the name "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" is only a technicality, a means of fulfilling a contractual obligation.  Of course the full name sounds ridiculous to say.  Simple solution: don't say it!  For all practical purposes, the name is "Los Angeles Angels".  The full legal name is not intended for us fans, and we have no reason ever to say it.

...why do you use British spelling as an American?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MCM0313 said:

...why do you use British spelling as an American?

 

It's a stylistic choice that I picked up.  I just find those spellings aesthetically pleasing.  

 

My preference for those spellings emerged in the early 1990s, when I first got on the internet and began reading Canadian newspapers about the CFL (I am a huge fan of Doug Flutie, though he is tarnished by having been an NFL scab in 1987), and then about the Quebec referendum.

 

This preference was strengthened when I began following English football in the early 2000s.  Since then, I have been a regular reader of a great deal of media from Britain, especially The Guardian; so I have become fully acclimated to British spellings, and now use them naturally.  

 

I am so used to those spellings that I occasionally make mistakes at work, where I am supposed to follow the American conventions.  I will say that I really hate spelling "judgement" as "judgment", because, without the E after the G, there is no justification for the G to have a soft sound.  And I cringe at the unpleasant-looking "-ize" ending with a Z. (By the way, while I use British spellings without thinking about them, I sometimes very self-consciously call the alphabet's final letter "zed"; a Canadian colleague and an Indian colleague have on separate occasions actually thanked me for saying "CTRL-Z" as "control zed".)

 

I must admit, however, that I am not 100% consistent.  I have not become accustomed to the forms "tyre" or "kerb".  And there is one British spelling which I emphatically reject: "sceptical".  The letter C before E should have a soft sound; so on those grounds I write "skeptical".

 

But it's "colour" and "centre" and "defence" all the way for me. If someone wanted to call this a foppish affectation, then I could not dispute that assertion.  I accept comparisons to Paul F. Tompkins's characterisation of Andrew Lloyd Weber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.