Teams Using the State Name Instead of the City Name

[The_Admiral]

If the Texas Rangers really were the baddest bunch of dudes who ever bad-duded like everyone in Texas says they are, they wouldn't have licensed their intellectual property to the relocated second-rate Washington Senators to lose 90 games a year under.

[rainmaker17]

Never said they were the baddest anything, just makes sense for me region.

[sky1324]

I suppose if they weren't allowed to be the "Texas" whatevers, they would've chosen a different nickname to use with "Dallas", like the Cowboys.

[Gothamite]

20 minutes ago, QueenCitySwarm said:

I suppose if they weren't allowed to be the "Texas" whatevers, they would've chosen a different nickname to use with "Dallas", like the Cowboys.

 

Not necessarily. 

 

[_DietDrPepper_]

On 7/20/2019 at 4:23 AM, rainmaker17 said:

There really is a group known as the Texas Rangers...I don't get the issue.  Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Plano or Grand Prairie Rangers sounds ridiculous.  

Dallas Rangers sounds incredibly similar to Texas Rangers. At least in a sense. Both end in the same “as” sound. At least for me they do. So it’s really up to the beginning of the word. Tex or Dal. Since Tex has the emphasis on the “x” sound, I would prefer Dallas over Texas, because since it has the emphasis on the “d” sound, it helps the two words roll of the tongue better. As for the others. Fort Worth Rangers, while not bad isn’t as good as either, because it’s more of a mouthful and shares a similar problem as Texas with the way its pronounced. Arlington doesn’t sound bad, but it and Grand Prairie aren’t near recognizable enough to sound right in general

[The_Admiral]

Of course Grand Prairie sounds ridiculous, because why would you name a team for a suburb that isn't the suburb it plays in?

[chcarlson23]

I think Texas Rangers rolls off the tongue and just sounds better than any of the other options. And it works, especially when there’s an organization called the Texas Rangers. (Or at least there was. I’m not very well up to date on THOSE Rangers.) 

 

This debate is like arguing over the Florida Panthers name... It’s literally something, it fits perfectly, regardless of the fact of what specific city in Florida they play in. 

 

I think team location names really depend on the situation. For some teams the state name works. For others it doesn’t. Minnesota works better for all of the teams, because it unifies the whole state, (which does bring in a little state pride) as well as being a blanket of the Twin Cities. Because the Twin Cities have a ton of people, and most people refer to the area as the Twin Cities. So Minnesota fits nicely there. 

 

But for a place like California broad names wouldn’t work, unless there’s only one team for it in the sport. And in the top pro leagues, that’s not the case. So California Angels is dumb, but Los Angeles Angels is great... 

[rainmaker17]

Grand Prairie was a joke.

[Discrim]

If, like the Minnesota teams, you're the only team from the state in question, I have no issue with using the state name rather than city name...but then again, I always thought California Angels rolled off the tongue nicely. 

In the Northwoods League, there are several teams from Wisconsin...one of which is the Wisconsin Woodchucks, who play in Wausau.  They originally used 'Wausau' but changed to the state name when, at one point, the state's other teams had moved or folded.  Given WI's resurgence in NWL membership, they should've switched back to Wausau Woodchucks years ago, IMO.

[MilSox]

On 7/12/2019 at 10:33 PM, QueenCitySwarm said:

but the one that bothers me the most, by far, is the Golden State Warriors. Not only is San Francisco Warriors a better name, but "Golden State" isn't even a region, like Carolina or New England, but a nickname, for a state that has 3 other franchises playing in it (although only the Lakers played in California when they adopted the name, since the Rockets had just skipped San Diego for Houston). It's completely ridiculous, but the name will never change, given their recent success. 

 

I'm of the opinion that they should have become the San Francisco Bay Warriors when they moved to Oakland; thereby naming themselves after the entire bay area and not at all unlike the Rays being known as Tampa Bay while playing in St. Pete.

[B-Rich]

On 8/25/2019 at 4:52 PM, NicDB said:

 

I'm of the opinion that they should have become the San Francisco Bay Warriors when they moved to Oakland; thereby naming themselves after the entire bay area and not at all unlike the Rays being known as Tampa Bay while playing in St. Pete.

 

I agree with this totally, and have for a LONG time (thought it would be good back in the 80s when the Raiders moved to LA).

 

The ONLY real problem with it is that it's a bit long . Three words, fifteen letters, and five syllables, just for the place name. 

 

Only "Indianapolis" has more syllables

[MilSox]

I'm sure some sort of shorthand would have developed by now such as "San Fran Bay" or "SFB" akin to how Indianapolis is often referred to as "Indy."

[tBBP]

I dunno...how does "Bay Area" sound?

[The_Admiral]

Sounds vague. How do you carry a flag for an "area"? Just call them the San Francisco Warriors with the understanding that they're the team for all communities around San Francisco.

[bosrs1]

On 7/12/2019 at 8:33 PM, QueenCitySwarm said:

Well, I think that the Texas Rangers, the Florida Panthers, and the Carolina Panthers are all named after something pre-existing, being, of course, Texas Rangers, Florida Panthers, and Carolina Panthers, though Carolina Panthers are effectively extinct. I generally prefer city names, though I don't mind the state name when the team is the only one in the state, so Colorado, Arizona, Minnesota, etc. all get passes from me. However, it's kinda stupid when multiple teams in the same sport play in the same state, yet one claims the whole state. The MLB Rangers and NHL Panthers are notorious examples of this, but the one that bothers me the most, by far, is the Golden State Warriors. Not only is San Francisco Warriors a better name, but "Golden State" isn't even a region, like Carolina or New England, but a nickname, for a state that has 3 other franchises playing in it (although only the Lakers played in California when they adopted the name, since the Rockets had just skipped San Diego for Houston). It's completely ridiculous, but the name will never change, given their recent success. 

 

Regarding the use of Carolina, I don't mind it with the Panthers, since the whole region made a huge effort to bring the team here. Senators from both North and South Carolina lobbied the NFL, and governors of both states worked together to get the team up and running. The reason the "Carolina" identifier works for the Panthers is because Charlotte is close to South Carolina, and can serve as a hub for both states. It doesn't work for the Hurricanes, because Raleigh is not only not close to SC, but they don't even try anymore, given their use of the NC state flag on their awful black jerseys. It's impossible for fans in SC to get attached as "their team" since it's so far away. Additionally, I think hockey is much more a "regional" sport than football. It's not hard for a mid-sized city to have a minor league team, so you can find plenty across South Carolina (and North Carolina), while the Panthers are the only pro football team for 250 miles in both directions. 

 

Golden State was due to a reason you just mentioned. San Diego Rockets had just skipped town and the Warriors were playing home games in both Oakland and San Diego. They weren’t in San Francisco anymore (and you don’t use the San Francisco name in Oakland anyway). Now the San Diego experiment didn’t last, but the name did to continue to appeal to both SF and Oakland. The only alternative that would have flown would have been something like Bay Warriors, which is pretty bad itself.

[bosrs1]

4 hours ago, the admiral said:

Sounds vague. How do you carry a flag for an "area"? Just call them the San Francisco Warriors with the understanding that they're the team for all communities around San Francisco.

 

Playing in Oakland? Never would happen. You have more of an argument now that they’re back in SF. But then you risk alienating the Oakland/East Bay fanbase who are already being alienated by the move and ticket price increases.