FightingGoldenDevil

NFL changes 2019

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Olmec said:

History belongs to the city. Case closed.

Not really, no :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Anyway history should follow the organization. 

 

Exactly right.  Where a person stands on this profoundly important principle functions as an indicator of that person's intellectual honesty (or lack thereof).

Share this post


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

This could actually be a great cap graphic, if they replace the two figures with a 1940s player in throwback navy and gold and a 1960s player. 

 

spacer.png

 

That’s a great idea. But let’s push it a level higher.

spacer.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Olmec said:

History belongs to the city. Case closed. Compromises can be made for stats and record keeping purposes but logos/identity/branding always belong to the city. 

Totally agree. I know it's an unpopular opinion on this board but I wish it would be a law that any team that moves from a city be required to leave the brand behind and create a new one in their new city. But go ahead and rip me for siding with fans rather than owners. 

Share this post


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

Oh...

spacer.png

Oh good, i wont have to buy one.  If they used the Florida flag then maybe...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Olmec said:

History belongs to the city. Case closed. Compromises can be made for stats and record keeping purposes but logos/identity/branding always belong to the city. 

I would agree, but only in certain aspects. In the Browns case, the original team 'folded' when the expansion was granted to Baltimore, for all intents and purposes. I live in Oklahoma City, we have the Thunder, despite having the Seattle legacy, it's very rarely mentioned here expect for when a player hits a huge milestone, and even then its merely "Best in team history". To the Thunder and most Oklahomans, the Seattle Sonics are not the OKC Thunder, should the NBA return to Seattle, cool, let them bring the Sonics back.

 

In the case of the Oilers being tied to Houston and Tennessee, I think a compromise should be found. The team history/stats/etc all belong to the Titans organization, but the Texans should be able to celebrate the legacy of pro football in Houston by honoring players. Maybe have a shared revenue on any Oilers merch sold by the Texans to appease the Titans ownership?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion in regards to franchise vs city etc... is it's a case by case basis. In regards to the browns I'm ok with the agreement arranged. 

 

But in more cases than not branding/colors/history belongs with the franchise. 

 

Some exceptions can be made. For instance if a franchise is tired of the city they're in, have no strength of brand and want to move. They can opt to dump the history and name etc for greener pastures and a new name elsewhere.

 

Jazz, Giants, Dodgers , A's have been in their current locations for as long or longer than their previous. They certainly deserve to be said brands and enjoy their history anyway they see fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It's weird that some of the left are in flag colors, while the right are using team colors. Yet, both of the Vikings are the same? Doesn't seem like any consistency...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, VDizzle12 said:

 

 

It's weird that some of the left are in flag colors, while the right are using team colors. Yet, both of the Vikings are the same? Doesn't seem like any consistency...

 

last year, most (if not all) teams had a secondary colorway, so it might just be that the vikings don't/didn't put that version as the 39thirty in their graphic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HoopsCoach55 said:

I would agree, but only in certain aspects. In the Browns case, the original team 'folded' when the expansion was granted to Baltimore, for all intents and purposes. I live in Oklahoma City, we have the Thunder, despite having the Seattle legacy, it's very rarely mentioned here expect for when a player hits a huge milestone, and even then its merely "Best in team history". To the Thunder and most Oklahomans, the Seattle Sonics are not the OKC Thunder, should the NBA return to Seattle, cool, let them bring the Sonics back.

 

In the case of the Oilers being tied to Houston and Tennessee, I think a compromise should be found. The team history/stats/etc all belong to the Titans organization, but the Texans should be able to celebrate the legacy of pro football in Houston by honoring players. Maybe have a shared revenue on any Oilers merch sold by the Texans to appease the Titans ownership?

 

I think you nailed exactly why it’s a divisive topic. Every situation is different and it’s impossible to paint them all with a broad brush. The stuff that happened when they were your team matters to you, but the people in the new locale rarely care. As a Thunder fan (maybe you’re not even a fan, but I’m sure you know some), do you share any attachment to the Sonics’ lone championship? Does it even feel right to claim it from a fan’s perspective? Is it weird that, according to the books, the Thunder are “former NBA champions”? Would you feel proud to see them hang Gary Payton’s number from the rafters? Some may disagree, but for me, the answer would be a resounding “no” to all those if I were a Thunder fan.

 

Likewise, it doesn’t seem right to see Earl Campbell and Warren Moon in the Titans’ ring of honor. Neither of them ever played a down of pro football in Tennessee (well, Moon maybe once or twice as an opponent, but he never attempted a regular season pass in Tennessee), let alone suited up as Tennessee Titans. Eddie George? Fine. Bruce Matthews? Be my guest. Leave the Houston icons in Texas.

 

But, as I said, every situation is different. The Raiders and Rams, for example, have hopped around quite a bit. When they do the same thing, it doesn’t feel nearly as incongruous to me, and I think it’s becsuse they’ve kept their brands intact through three moves each. Their records and history feel more tied to the brands than the cities they’ve played in because of that.

 

Maybe the best way to handle it is if you ditch the brand when you move, you leave the records behind. If you keep the brand, you keep the records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hawk36 said:

Totally agree. I know it's an unpopular opinion on this board but I wish it would be a law that any team that moves from a city be required to leave the brand behind and create a new one in their new city. But go ahead and rip me for siding with fans rather than owners. 

 

Because it doesn't stand to any genuine logic.


If you loved KB Toys, you can't just name your new business KB Toys. That one is gone, and someone owns the rights. It doesn't matter "how much it meant to the community", that BUSINESS is gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mania said:

 

Because it doesn't stand to any genuine logic.


If you loved KB Toys, you can't just name your new business KB Toys. That one is gone, and someone owns the rights. It doesn't matter "how much it meant to the community", that BUSINESS is gone.

 

But isn't that pretty much exactly what happened with Hostess brand snacks, might be about to happen with Toys r us, and probably has happened a few more times I don't know about.  A new company aquires the brand/logo/name because people remember and love it so much?

Share this post


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

 

But isn't that pretty much exactly what happened with Hostess brand snacks, might be about to happen with Toys r us, and probably has happened a few more times I don't know about.  A new company aquires the brand/logo/name because people remember and love it so much?

A company did buyout Toys R Us and controls pretty much every asset except that brand name. It will come back just under a new name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Likewise, if the new team (or the league or whoever owns the trademarks for the old brand), doesn’t continue to use them in commerce, they can’t just hold onto them forever. If KB toys went belly up and no one bought the business, including brand and trademarks, those absolutely will expire and you could then open your very own KB Toys.

Share this post


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

 

Because it doesn't stand to any genuine logic.


If you loved KB Toys, you can't just name your new business KB Toys. That one is gone, and someone owns the rights. It doesn't matter "how much it meant to the community", that BUSINESS is gone.

 

if you're linking to your pro graps podcast in your sig, how can you make this analogy and not use WCW/ECW????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mania said:

 

Because it doesn't stand to any genuine logic.


If you loved KB Toys, you can't just name your new business KB Toys. That one is gone, and someone owns the rights. It doesn't matter "how much it meant to the community", that BUSINESS is gone.

What you are missing is that sports are unlike any other business in the world. Sports ownership is a bond with the team, city, and fans like no other business. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Business A is a store exclusive to a town and has a years of positive impacts on the community. However, the owner wants to move Business A to another town and changes the name. Years later, someone wants to open a store in the same building as Business A and even decides to keep the same name as Business A that moved years prior. Is it right to do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, DNAsports said:

Business A is a store exclusive to a town and has a years of positive impacts on the community. However, the owner wants to move Business A to another town and changes the name. Years later, someone wants to open a store in the same building as Business A and even decides to keep the same name as Business A that moved years prior. Is it right to do that?

 

As long as IP laws allow it, sure. 

 

The Winnipeg Jets probably agree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.