Titans: No Oilers Throwback Uniform Until NFL Changes Rules

[The Easter Beagle]

Yes, please!

[Red Wolf]

3 minutes ago, mafiaman said:

Is there THAT big of a movement in Tennessee to wear Oilers stuff?  Maybe the Winnipeg Jets can bust out some Atlanta Thrashers throwbacks someday, too.

 

I'd guess the average Titans fan would like to see them, especially when they see what the Titans normally wear now.

[MilSox]

13 hours ago, jn8 said:

I mean, that’s a fair point to make, but I don’t think they should’ve done it either though. Just because it HAS happened, doesn’t mean it SHOULD happen

Why not?  Because fans should be held to some standard of franchise to city purity that the leagues themselves don't even adhere to? 

[The Easter Beagle]

Just now, NicDB said:

Why not?  Because fans should be held to some standard of franchise to city purity that the leagues themselves don't even adhere to? 

That right there is the Avalanche barely wear Nordiques uniforms.

[mafiaman]

1 hour ago, NicDB said:

Why not?  Because fans should be held to some standard of franchise to city purity that the leagues themselves don't even adhere to? 

Right?  Who in LA would care to see Brooklyn Dodgers throwbacks?  Likely no one.  New York, on the other hand...

 

And, yes, while part of me loved seeing the Hartford Whalers jerseys this year, the majority of me threw up in my mouth a little.  Can you imagine the Oklahoma City Thunder breaking out Seattle SuperSonics jerseys?  No way in bloody hell should that happen.    

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, mafiaman said:

Is there THAT big of a movement in Tennessee to wear Oilers stuff?

They've worn Oilers gear before, and they sell Oilers throwback merch. I don't know if it's extremely popular, but it seems to be reasonably popular amongst the Tennessee fanbase.

 

Regardless? It's the Titans' history. They even played as the Oilers in Tennessee, so you don't even have a clear dividing line where you can say all of the Oilers' history belongs in Houston. It's the Titans', and will likely remain that way.

 

Honestly? If I had my way? I'd ditch the Titans brand entirely. Just be the Tennessee Oilers. Why not?

 

27 minutes ago, mafiaman said:

Right?  Who in LA would care to see Brooklyn Dodgers throwbacks?

The Dodgers have worn Brooklyn throwbacks before. In LA even.

 

EDIT:

 

 

[BigDmo]

28 minutes ago, mafiaman said:

Right?  Who in LA would care to see Brooklyn Dodgers throwbacks?  Likely no one.  New York, on the other hand...

 

And, yes, while part of me loved seeing the Hartford Whalers jerseys this year, the majority of me threw up in my mouth a little.  Can you imagine the Oklahoma City Thunder breaking out Seattle SuperSonics jerseys?  No way in bloody hell should that happen.    

 

But the city of Seattle still owns the rights to the Supersonics identity whereas the Oilers identity belongs to the Titans. The Thunder don't claim the Supersonics history. They are an "expansion" team.

[FiddySicks]

The dodgers JUST wore Brooklyn throwbacks earlier this week, even. 

[SFGiants58]

1 hour ago, Bucfan56 said:

The dodgers JUST wore Brooklyn throwbacks earlier this week, even. 

 

It’s different, because the name didn’t change. Besides, it’s been over six decades since the move and the team has done plenty to promote both historic locations. 

 

Some relocated teams place branding emphasis on their history

• Giants, Dodgers, arguably the A’s and Braves, and the Lakers - to inflate the title count

...while others subtly acknowledge it

• Flames, Stars, Devils and Hurricanes as of late, and Jazz 

or try their best to ignore it in favor of a local-themed identity

• Orioles, Twins, Rangers, Pilots, Thunder, Titans, Ravens, Avs, Jets, and others that I’m probably forgetting.

 

That last category could exist for several reasons:

• the team’s ownership wants to bury that part of their past
• legal complications (why Whalers throwbacks were impossible until relatively recently, IIRC)
• the original team was so unremarkable/awful that we’d like to sweep it away

 

Relocated teams should be free to honor their past in whatever way they choose. Of course, that doesn't prevent us from calling out  the Hurricanes’ Whalers throwbacks as a shameless way to garner interest for an unpopular team and cash in on that throwback money.

[FiddySicks]

I was just answering the who in LA would care to see Brooklyn throwbacks question. 

[andycumbee19]

4 hours ago, The Easter Beagle said:

That right there is the Avalanche barely wear Nordiques uniforms.

Barely? Try never. 

[The Easter Beagle]

I'm guessing the Avs need to buy the lisence from the NHL?

[kutztown]

You know what makes me mad? Ever have a player on your team who is warming up with his helmet on with a dark shield, then the game starts and no shield? You trying to tell me they don’t have multiple helmets already? No way these training staffs are wasting time removing all those shields between warmups and the game. This is random, but my point is this whole helmet rule is BS, I’m upset about it and GET OFF MY LAWN 

[MilSox]

6 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

It’s different, because the name didn’t change. Besides, it’s been over six decades since the move and the team has done plenty to promote both historic locations. 

 

Some relocated teams place branding emphasis on their history

• Giants, Dodgers, arguably the A’s and Braves, and the Lakers - to inflate the title count

...while others subtly acknowledge it

• Flames, Stars, Devils and Hurricanes as of late, and Jazz 

or try their best to ignore it in favor of a local-themed identity

• Orioles, Twins, Rangers, Pilots, Thunder, Titans, Ravens, Avs, Jets, and others that I’m probably forgetting.

 

That last category could exist for several reasons:

• the team’s ownership wants to bury that part of their past
• legal complications (why Whalers throwbacks were impossible until relatively recently, IIRC)
• the original team was so unremarkable/awful that we’d like to sweep it away

 

Relocated teams should be free to honor their past in whatever way they choose. Of course, that doesn't prevent us from calling out  the Hurricanes’ Whalers throwbacks as a shameless way to garner interest for an unpopular team and cash in on that throwback money.

My feelings on Bud Selig are as mixed as any other fan.  But one thing he truly got right from the beginning was building the Brewers brand on a foundation of Milwaukee's past baseball traditions.  Adopting the Brewers name.  Barrel Man logo.  The block M monogram.  Bringing in Hank Aaron.  Having Aaron's #44 be the first number ever retired by the Brewers (thus tying the Hammer's legacy to Milwaukee as much as the Braves franchise).
 

[SFGiants58]

35 minutes ago, NicDB said:

My feelings on Bud Selig are as mixed as any other fan.  But one thing he truly got right from the beginning was building the Brewers brand on a foundation of Milwaukee's past baseball traditions.  Adopting the Brewers name.  Barrel Man logo.  The block M monogram.  Bringing in Hank Aaron.  Having Aaron's #44 be the first number ever retired by the Brewers (thus tying the Hammer's legacy to Milwaukee as much as the Braves franchise).
 

 

It was also smart of Selig to keep the two good parts of the Pilots’ brand, namely the color scheme and light blue road uniforms. 

[Red Wolf]

9 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Honestly? If I had my way? I'd ditch the Titans brand entirely. Just be the Tennessee Oilers. Why not?

 

I'm with you. I personally prefer when teams keep their names in spite of logic. Los Angeles Lakers for instance.

 

9 hours ago, BigDmo said:

 

But the city of Seattle still owns the rights to the Supersonics identity whereas the Oilers identity belongs to the Titans. The Thunder don't claim the Supersonics history. They are an "expansion" team.

 

Is that the situation with OKC and the Sonics? I've never been clear on it. I thought the Thunder kept the history or maybe are sharing it with Seattle, while letting Seattle keep the name.

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, Red Wolf said:

I thought the Thunder kept the history or maybe are sharing it with Seattle, while letting Seattle keep the name.

They "share" the history, but that's really only a technically. The Thunder had a deal with Seattle that the history and identity would revert to Seattle if they got a team within five years of the Thunder leaving. That never happened, so the Thunder are under no obligation to let a new Seattle team have the identity/record books.

[BBTV]

9 hours ago, kutztown said:

You know what makes me mad? Ever have a player on your team who is warming up with his helmet on with a dark shield, then the game starts and no shield? You trying to tell me they don’t have multiple helmets already? No way these training staffs are wasting time removing all those shields between warmups and the game. This is random, but my point is this whole helmet rule is BS, I’m upset about it and GET OFF MY LAWN 

 

Nobody has ever tried to tell you that.  The point is that you can choose to have multiple helmets, but the league/team can't force you to have a second one*.  Also keep in mind that those "second" helmets are worn all season long and are theoretically broken in the same as the normal ones, rather than just getting new ones to wear in a random week 7 game.

 

*they can force you in the case of a trade, but they might even offer one-off repainting for situations like that too.

[Sec19Row53]

9 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

It was also smart of Selig to keep the two good parts of the Pilots’ brand, namely the color scheme and light blue road uniforms. 

Well, that happened in Milwaukee, not Seattle.

[IceCap]

5 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Well, that happened in Milwaukee, not Seattle.

The Pilots had light blue road uniforms. I’m in phone so I can’t post pics but Google confirms it. 

 

EDIT-