Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[panthers_2012]

1 hour ago, jmac11281 said:

Why does every relocation thread turn into who owns the records/retired numbers??

Because it sounds better as "EST 1960" than "EST 2017" because of the established history. It's easier to brand a team with historic success(or longevity) than a team that is essentially "new".

It's a whole mess when it comes to that. I believe the Browns relocation was the best move for the relocation of the history. Cleveland kept the history and everything and the Ravens were announced as an "expansion" and were able to distance themselves from the Browns brand. 

[JayMac]

I know the stories but this issue always arises.

[29texan]

On 12/19/2016 at 11:17 AM, BrianLion said:

 

Texans is a derivative and boring name. It's akin to naming your team the "People."  The "Houston" part already tells us they're from Texas, we get it.   They might as well just be Houston FC. 

 

It's a name to honor the people of the state. I'd go further into why I think there's another reason why people hate "Texans" being used as a nickname, but I don't want to start any arguments here, so... it is what it is. 

As far as I see it, Houston's current identity is perfect and shouldn't change just because some people who don't even live in this part of the country don't like it. 

[BrianLion]

6 hours ago, 29texan said:

 

It's a name to honor the people of the state. I'd go further into why I think there's another reason why people hate "Texans" being used as a nickname, but I don't want to start any arguments here, so... it is what it is. 

As far as I see it, Houston's current identity is perfect and shouldn't change just because some people who don't even live in this part of the country don't like it. 

 

You're right, only people who live somewhere can have an objective opinion about something contained within it's borders. 

[IceCap]

The Texans, like the Wild, have a subpar name saved by a fantastic uniform and logo set. 

 

I hate histories not following teams (the Thunder are the Sonics of old and always will be), but if it must happen? The ship's sailed on the Texans getting the Oilers' history. 

 

When the original Browns left Cleveland and were forced to abandon their IP and historical records it sucked. At least the break was clean though. The old Cleveland Browns were suddenly the Baltimore Ravens and a brand new team would become the Cleveland Browns and pick up where they left off. Dishonest yes, but at least it was straightforward. 

 

With the Oilers and Texans? Never mind that the Titans have been the ones to hold the Oilers' history while the Texans founded an entirely new franchise, thus making the break not so clean. 

There's also the fact that the Oilers remained the Oilers for two seasons after moving to Tennessee. That complicates things further.

If the NFL "sends the Oilers' history" (a truly stupid term that highlights how ridiculous this discussion is) to Houston then what does it entail? Do the two years of Tennessee Oilers history then reside with the Houston team? That doesn't seem right. After all, isn't this about keeping histories with locales? 

And yet those are still Oilers football seasons. So what happens if the stats from those two seasons stay with the Titans? We'll get a situation where 99% of the Oilers' stats are in Houston but 1% reside in Tennessee?

This, like the "sending history" phrase, ought to illustrate just how ridiculous this whole discussion is. 

It's far too late for the clean break that made the "Cleveland Deal" somewhat palatable. 

 

Organisations have histories. There's no magical spell that reboots a part of reality when those organisations move to another city to do business elsewhere. 

 

For all this talk about the Winnipeg Jets 1.0 and 2.0? I think they got it right. 

The records for the original Jets reside with the Coyotes. Where they should reside. 

Yet the new Jets have the old team's IP for throwbacks and honour the legacies of the old team's greats without pretending they own the record book. The team's own history page reflects that they're the Thrashers, but that doesn't stop them from honouring the Jets of yesteryear. It's a great system that lets new teams respect what came before while also keeping the record books where they ought to be kept. 

[OnWis97]

7 hours ago, 29texan said:

 

It's a name to honor the people of the state. I'd go further into why I think there's another reason why people hate "Texans" being used as a nickname, but I don't want to start any arguments here, so... it is what it is. 

As far as I see it, Houston's current identity is perfect and shouldn't change just because some people who don't even live in this part of the country don't like it. 

Now I'm curious.  

 

For me I would actually like the name if they were the state's only (or at least first) team.  Actually, I don't hate it (particularly compared to some goofy names like Wild, Magic, and Heat) but it does leave a bit of a bad taste in my mouth when Texas has two teams.  And I suspect they picked the name in part because they wanted to attract some non-DFW-area fans throughout the state.

[Burmy]

2 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

With the Oilers and Texans? Never mind that the Titans have been the ones to hold the Oilers' history while the Texans founded an entirely new franchise, thus making the break not so clean. 

There's also the fact that the Oilers remained the Oilers for two seasons after moving to Tennessee. That complicates things further.

If the NFL "sends the Oilers' history" (a truly stupid term that highlights how ridiculous this discussion is) to Houston then what does it entail? Do the two years of Tennessee Oilers history then reside with the Houston team? That doesn't seem right. After all, isn't this about keeping histories with locales? 

And yet those are still Oilers football seasons. So what happens if the stats from those two seasons stay with the Titans? We'll get a situation where 99% of the Oilers' stats are in Houston but 1% reside in Tennessee?

This, like the "sending history" phrase, ought to illustrate just how ridiculous this whole discussion is. 

It's far too late for the clean break that made the "Cleveland Deal" somewhat palatable. 

The Tennessee Oilers years would still be counted under the Titans history (just as the New Orleans Hornets years are counted under Pelicans' history)

[IceCap]

3 minutes ago, MBurmy said:

The Tennessee Oilers years would still be counted under the Titans history (just as the New Orleans Hornets years are counted under Pelicans' history)

Well that's just silly (just as it's silly that two NBA teams share the history of "Hornets" basketball).

[IceCap]

2 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

Now I'm curious.  

 

For me I would actually like the name if they were the state's only (or at least first) team.  Actually, I don't hate it (particularly compared to some goofy names like Wild, Magic, and Heat) but it does leave a bit of a bad taste in my mouth when Texas has two teams.  And I suspect they picked the name in part because they wanted to attract some non-DFW-area fans throughout the state.

There have been various "Dallas Texans" and "Houston Texans" teams. There's even been a "San Antionio Texans" team. 

It's not my favourite name, but I'm fine with it.

[jojotarantino]

On 12/22/2016 at 10:14 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

 

 

Each fan approaches things in his/her own way; and I understand that being a fan is more an emotional thing than a rational thing.
 

Nevetheless, I will say that it is not appropriate to compare a move from San Diego up to Los Angeles to a move from Montreal to Washington.  In the grand scheme of things, this Chargers move barely counts as a move at all, considering (as I mentioned ealier) that the team's games will still be on the same radio stations, and that the team will still be covered by the same local newspapers, sports radio stations, and other media.  If you're not attending the game, there will be no difference whatsoever.

Imagine that there had never been an NFL team in San Diego; imagine that the AFL's L.A. Chargers had stayed in Los Angeles through the life of the AFL and after the merger.  In that case, football fans in San Diego would have gravitated towards one of the L.A. teams, either the Chargers or the Rams, just as football fans living 100 miles away from Pittsburgh root for the Steelers, and football fans living 100 miles away from Chicago root for the Bears.

I get that San Diego and Los Angeles are separate cities.  So are Washington and Baltimore.  So are San Francisco and Oakland and San Jose.  But, when only one city in any given cluster has a team, it naturally becomes the team for the entire region.

So, just as the Bullets didn't really leave Baltimore by moving only as far as Washington, and just as the Warriors didn't really leave San Francisco by moving only as far as Oakland, and just as the 49ers didn't really leave San Francisco (and didn't even change their name) by moving only to a place just outside San Jose, the Chargers won't really have left San Diego by moving merely to Los Angeles.  So Chargers fans will have no reason to act as though they have lost their team.

 

Your last 2 sentences here are infuriating.  And no, I can't just imagine that they stayed in LA in 1961.  Your arguments are ridiculous.  While still SoCal, San Diego and LA are 2 completely different things.  As a SD native, I don't and never will associate myself with LA because it's close and regional.

[hawk36]

Once again, I feel all the renaming discussion regarding the Chargers has one MAJOR flaw... the Los Angeles Chargers have already existed. When this happens I am perfectly fine with the team keeping its name/identity. 

 

[jojotarantino]

3 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

Once again, I feel all the renaming discussion regarding the Chargers has one MAJOR flaw... the Los Angeles Chargers have already existed. When this happens I am perfectly fine with the team keeping its name/identity. 

 

Sure if that's your only criteria, but they played only the inaugural season there in a brand new "renegade" league.  From the outside looking it it makes sense because they did exist.  But those of us that grew up in Jack Murphy/Qualcomm think differently, the whole "they started in LA" argument makes no sense to us, it's just a footnote in our history.  They came to San Diego for a reason.  My dad has been going to games since Balboa Stadium in 1961.  I don't want our memories and history going to LA.  It's going to kill me to see them on TV as the LA Chargers.  I can't imagine LT being enshrined in Canton during the summer and then being honored by the team in a city he never played in or for.

 I'd rather they just start fresh with something new.  I told directv yesterday to not auto-renew my Sunday Ticket package for 2017 for this reason. And my dad won't be renewing our season tickets to go to LA.

[The_Admiral]

4 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

For all this talk about the Winnipeg Jets 1.0 and 2.0? I think they got it right. 

The records for the original Jets reside with the Coyotes. Where they should reside. 

Yet the new Jets have the old team's IP for throwbacks and honour the legacies of the old team's greats without pretending they own the record book. The team's own history page reflects that they're the Thrashers, but that doesn't stop them from honouring the Jets of yesteryear. It's a great system that lets new teams respect what came before while also keeping the record books where they ought to be kept. 

 

I don't think they got it 100-percent right. Following that the Jets didn't purchase the Thrashers' IP, the league should have said the Thrashers franchise was finished and the Winnipeg franchise, bringing over as it did the ownership and front-office personnel of the Manitoba Moose, was a brand-new organization that purchased the Thrashers' roster. Given that 35% of the purchase price went to the league and not Atlanta Spirit, which is without recent precedent in the NHL (the WHA 3 were out their respective doors without a penny for a "relocation fee"), I think there's expanded latitude to play fast and loose with what the franchise is and isn't.

[hawk36]

Just now, jojotarantino said:

Sure if that's your only criteria, but they played only the inaugural season there in a brand new "renegade" league.  From the outside looking it it makes sense because they did exist.  But those of us that grew up in Jack Murphy/Qualcomm think differently, the whole "they started in LA" argument makes no sense to us, it's just a footnote in our history.  They came to San Diego for a reason.  My dad has been going to games since Balboa Stadium in 1961.  I don't want our memories and history going to LA.  It's going to kill me to see them on TV as the LA Chargers.  I can't imagine LT being enshrined in Canton during the summer and then being honored by the team in a city he never played in or for.

 I'd rather they just start fresh with something new.  I told directv yesterday to not auto-renew my Sunday Ticket package for 2017 for this reason. And my dad won't be renewing our season tickets to go to LA.

I'm with you that it will hurt. My Grandfather and Dad too grew up going to games at Balboa stadium and I was lucky enough for my family to have season tickets through the Coryell years.

 

My point though it that whereas I generally think when teams move they should be forced to leave their history behind with the city, in this case there is a part of me that thinks, if it's a move to LA, they at least were in LA before (albeit for just one year) so it's not as bastardeous as if they moved to Las Vegas and became the Las Vegas Chargers. 

 

Still stinks but I'm just kind of a beaten down Charger fan whose sick of it all. 

[dont care]

2 hours ago, jojotarantino said:

Sure if that's your only criteria, but they played only the inaugural season there in a brand new "renegade" league.  From the outside looking it it makes sense because they did exist.  But those of us that grew up in Jack Murphy/Qualcomm think differently, the whole "they started in LA" argument makes no sense to us, it's just a footnote in our history.  They came to San Diego for a reason.  My dad has been going to games since Balboa Stadium in 1961.  I don't want our memories and history going to LA.  It's going to kill me to see them on TV as the LA Chargers.  I can't imagine LT being enshrined in Canton during the summer and then being honored by the team in a city he never played in or for.

 I'd rather they just start fresh with something new.  I told directv yesterday to not auto-renew my Sunday Ticket package for 2017 for this reason. And my dad won't be renewing our season tickets to go to LA.

What you are talking about are memories not history. The chargers history won't ever go away, even a rebrand won't change that, if much rather LT get memorialized as a charger than a LA golden knight or what ever. 

[SJAnfield]

The worst things owners do to fans is stick their city or region's name on the team. It gives the fans a sense of ownership, when in actuality they have absolutely none. It helps these plutocrats gain favor for their billion dollar municipal projects that aid them in collecting millions in revenues. When the owner doesn't get what he wants, he abandons the city, and shows the fans exactly what they are worth. 

[29texan]

9 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

Now I'm curious.  

 

For me I would actually like the name if they were the state's only (or at least first) team.  Actually, I don't hate it (particularly compared to some goofy names like Wild, Magic, and Heat) but it does leave a bit of a bad taste in my mouth when Texas has two teams.  And I suspect they picked the name in part because they wanted to attract some non-DFW-area fans throughout the state.

 

I'm inboxing because I don't want this convo to go further on a topic that has to do with the San Diego (or L.A) Chargers. 

[jojotarantino]

4 hours ago, dont care said:

What you are talking about are memories not history. The chargers history won't ever go away, even a rebrand won't change that, if much rather LT get memorialized as a charger than a LA golden knight or what ever. 

This makes sense as well. However, it's just different for that city. I heard the Rams honored Orlando Pace and the crowd was indifferent because he never played in LA. 

That history of the franchise would be there but it just doesn't mean as much in another city. I just prefer a scenario like the Browns even if we aren't getting another team. 

[PrimalCookie]

The LA Silver Bruins. (Nike talk here) LA represents what the majority of people refer to the city as, as well as distancing themselves from the Rams. Silver represents the Silver Bruins becoming the second fiddle to the Rams in LA, because second place gets a silver medal. Bruins represents the owner's passion for UCLA. The colors will be a weird grey/teal because it makes sense with "silver", black because everyone has black, and blue and gold because UCLA. Also, the Dodger Stadium (after the owner got rejected for both the Rose Bowl and StubHub Center) video boards failed playing the intro video the first time before playing on the second time - because silver = second.

[TJSC]

I missed the joke.