Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[BrianLion]

Anyone else surprised they didnt try and come up with a more inclusive regional moniker than just "Los Angeles" since they're still effectively in the same part of the country? 

 

Something like  "Southern California Chargers" or "California Chargers" maybe?  That way you sort of differentiate yourself from the Rams (since you basically have the same color scheme and are in the same stadium) and you don't completely alienate the San Diego fanbase (to some degree). 

 

Regional monikers aren't new to the NFL (New England, Tampa Bay, and Carolina), and neither are states ones either (Arizona, Tennessee)

[IceCap]

1 minute ago, BrianLion said:

Something like  "Southern California Chargers" or "California Chargers" maybe?

"California Chargers" would be ridiculous, considering the Rams and 49ers also call the state home. "Southern California" could work I suppose, as a way to brand the team as something San Diego fans can still support, but I think the last two seasons have proven that the team has successfully salted the earth in that market.

Ultimately, the "Los Angeles" branding is what has value. It's the second largest media market in the US. The Los Angeles Clippers sold for close to $3 billion. A team with no real historical cache. It's a pro team in LA though, so it's ridiculously valuable. The Chargers being based in LA along would still have that effect, but the LA brand itself is part of the value.

[hawk36]

3 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

"California Chargers" would be ridiculous, considering the Rams and 49ers also call the state home.

But there is the Golden State Warriors even though the Kings, Lakers, and Clippers also call the state home. 

[IceCap]

Just now, hawk36 said:

But there is the Golden State Warriors even though the Kings, Lakers, and Clippers also call the state home. 

That name's stupid too. For the same reason.

[Gothamite]

9 minutes ago, BrianLion said:

Anyone else surprised they didnt try and come up with a more inclusive regional moniker than just "Los Angeles" since they're still effectively in the same part of the country? 

 

Something like  "Southern California Chargers" or "California Chargers" maybe?  That way you sort of differentiate yourself from the Rams (since you basically have the same color scheme and are in the same stadium) and you don't completely alienate the San Diego fanbase (to some degree). 

 

Regional monikers aren't new to the NFL (New England, Tampa Bay, and Carolina), and neither are states ones either (Arizona, Tennessee)

 

But in the NFL they always relate to a territory exclusively held by one club. 

[BrianLion]

1 minute ago, Ice_Cap said:

That name's stupid too. For the same reason.

 

funny story (and tangentially related to them having a stupid name), as a kid who wasnt overly into the NBA, I had for a long time assumed people were talking about a college team when I heard "Golden State"

[IceCap]

1 minute ago, BrianLion said:

 

funny story (and tangentially related to them having a stupid name), as a kid who wasnt overly into the NBA, I had for a long time assumed people were talking about a college team when I heard "Golden State"

They ought to just go with the San Francisco branding when they make the move into their new arena.

 

As far as regional names go...it seems like they don't happen any more. The last one I can think of would have been the Tampa Bay Rays. That was 1998. Since then every new team name in the big four, be they a relocated team or an expansion team, has used a city or state name.

[hawk36]

3 minutes ago, BrianLion said:

 

funny story (and tangentially related to them having a stupid name), as a kid who wasnt overly into the NBA, I had for a long time assumed people were talking about a college team when I heard "Golden State"

Well I grew up in San Diego and as a kid didn't know that the "Golden State" referred to our Golden State. I had no idea where they were from. 

[Gothamite]

"Tampa Bay" is like "Minnesota" - you won't have a top-level team single out one of the two cities.

[IceCap]

So there was a flood of NBA merchandise in southern Ontario when the Raptors began playing. I remember getting a kids book that talked about the league's biggest stars, and they had brief write-ups for each team. "Golden State" completely confused me. American college sports aren't as big in Canada, so I didn't even have the "I thought they were a NCAA team" thing to fall back on. They just baffled me. Then I figured out it meant California, and that just bugged me further because the Lakers, Clippers, and Kings were there too.

[BrandMooreArt]

56 minutes ago, Jezus_Ghoti said:

There is hope. Reportedly just a marketing logo. 

 

 

 

if thats true its a bit of a shame. i have no problem with the logo (aside from some minor craftsmanship issues) and actually like it as a secondary. theres a huge need to have a secondary logo for this team, but they shouldn't go navy and white. even though that's where they are primarily right now, this is the opportunity to embrace powder blue and/or yellow. 

[IceCap]

3 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

"Tampa Bay" is like "Minnesota" - you won't have a top-level team single out one of the two cities.

True. If we're not counting "Tampa Bay" than the last regional nickname (ie a non-state or city name) would have been the Carolina Hurricanes, in 1997.

 

It's just not a naming convention you see today at the top levels of North American pro sports. For good reason too. I get going with a state nickname if it fits ("Minnesota" comes to mind, due to the whole "Twin Cities" dynamic), but regional names just sounds lame to me. "New England Patriots"? Really? You're going to claim six states?

It doesn't even make sense. Is there really anyone in, say, Maine who's a Patriots fan but not a Celtics, Bruins, or Red Sox fan because the latter three "only" represent Boston?

[CreamSoda]

So Cal Chargers

[Lee Noire]

29 minutes ago, BrianLion said:

Anyone else surprised they didnt try and come up with a more inclusive regional moniker than just "Los Angeles" since they're still effectively in the same part of the country? 

 

Something like  "Southern California Chargers" or "California Chargers" maybe?  That way you sort of differentiate yourself from the Rams (since you basically have the same color scheme and are in the same stadium) and you don't completely alienate the San Diego fanbase (to some degree). 

 

Regional monikers aren't new to the NFL (New England, Tampa Bay, and Carolina), and neither are states ones either (Arizona, Tennessee)

I'm not surprised at all. It's a fight for LA.

 

Dot com.

[IceCap]

Just now, Lee Noire said:

I'm not surprised at all. It's a fight for LA.

 

Dot com.

#

[OnWis97]

19 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

That name's stupid too. For the same reason.

For the same reason plus the additional reason of how much worse that is than even "California."

[Lee Noire]

2 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

#

Ahh yes. #FightForLA

 

Sounds like a PWG BOLA lead in show.

[OnWis97]

14 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

"Tampa Bay" is like "Minnesota" - you won't have a top-level team single out one of the two cities.

Probably so.

 

How different would the whole thing be if the City was not called Tampa...that is, the cities of St. Petersburg and Springfield sat on Tampa Bay and the teams are called "Tampa Bay?"

 

I would not have incorrectly believed there was a city called "Tampa Bay" for longer than I care to admit.

[FlyEaglesFly76]

14 minutes ago, CreamSoda said:

So Cal Chargers

I hope you're not serious because this is the worst name I have ever heard.

[CreamSoda]

Just now, FlyEaglesFly76 said:

I hope you're not serious because this is the worst name I have ever heard.

 

I wonder what you think of my next suggestion:

 

So Cal Lightning Rods