Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[PrimalCookie]

Just now, TJSC said:

I don't think that's plausible. If the Chargers want to get ahold of the LA market, they can't have any USC or UCLA references. For example, if a "Bruins" LA team with a UCLA-based color scheme occurs, USC fans will automatically refuse to support that team, which take up a lot of Los Angeles itself. Same goes to a "Trojans" LA team, UCLA fans will refuse to support them and they also take up a large population of the Los Angeles area.

 

Also, it's really confusing if you have two teams named the "Bruins" in the same city/market.

[Pauly]

15 minutes ago, TJSC said:

I don't think that's plausible. If the Chargers want to get ahold of the LA market, they can't have any USC or UCLA references. For example, if a "Bruins" LA team with a UCLA-based color scheme occurs, USC fans will automatically refuse to support that team, which take up a lot of Los Angeles itself. Same goes to a "Trojans" LA team, UCLA fans will refuse to support them and they also take up a large population of the Los Angeles area.

 

Also, it's really confusing if you have two teams named the "Bruins" in the same city/market.

Agreed.Think they need to keep the Chargers name and history.Perhaps the Los Angeles Silver Chargers with Silver and Black color's.? Raiders would freak out but hey stuff happens.

[PrimalCookie]

5 minutes ago, Pauly said:

Agreed.Think they need to keep the Chargers name and history.Perhaps the Los Angeles Silver Chargers with Silver and Black color's.? Raiders would freak out but hey stuff happens.

 

23 minutes ago, Magic Dynasty said:

 

[TJSC]

30 minutes ago, Magic Dynasty said:

I have a horrible sense of sarcasm. Better delete this post now. XD

[AnPheitseog]

Even if the chargers move, there's no reason why San Diego can't honour the history, when a team comes back. 

 

Ravens are completely separate from the Colts, but there's a statue of Unitas outside the stadium, colts are in the ring of honor,  the marching bands the same 19 isn't issued.

 

No pretense of being the same, but, they keep Baltimore football history alive. 

[mcrosby]

[larrypep]

3 hours ago, mcrosby said:

 

Looks like the Los Angeles Rhinos to me. 

[Gothamite]

8 hours ago, mcrosby said:

 

Is that a modified Rochester logo?  Looks familiar. 

 

I like it.  A rhino is an inspired choice for a football team; powerful, relentless and unstoppable.  The perfect symbol for a team with a nebulous mascot. 

 

Even if if they stay in San Diego I'd like to see them adopt it.  If anything, the zoo connection helps; San Diego is known for its animal attractions. 

[~Bear]

A rhino wouls be a fun route to go down. You can't do horse imagery since the Broncos are in your division. No Big 4 team uses rhino imagery. Rhinos "charge." It works with the name. 

 

Not a huge fan of the mockup, but the use of the lightning bolt on the horns is a fun idea.  

[larrypep]

I know Barron Hilton picked "Chargers" (from a name-the-team contest) because he owned a credit card company, but the franchise used the charger horse as it's mascot.  A rhino "charging" is a pretty big stretch but hey, it would line right up with the idiot Spanos family's logic.  

 

 

[Lights Out]

22 hours 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. 

 

They played in LA for one season, where they were the fifth-priority tenant at the Coliseum, averaged only 15,768 at a 100,000-seat stadium (that's not a typo), and lost over $900,000. Not exactly the optics I'd want following my franchise into LA, especially since history is going to repeat itself anyway.

[mcrosby]

5 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Is that a modified Rochester logo?  Looks familiar. 

Yup! I reworked my Rochester concept when the Chargers rumor mill started churning at full speed. 

[hawk36]

20 hours ago, SJAnfield said:

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. 

Then just remove San Diego from the name and simply be Chargers. Then they can play where ever they like without issue. 

[hawk36]

45 minutes ago, Lights Out said:

They played in LA for one season, where they were the fifth-priority tenant at the Coliseum, averaged only 15,768 at a 100,000-seat stadium (that's not a typo), and lost over $900,000. Not exactly the optics I'd want following my franchise into LA, especially since history is going to repeat itself anyway.

I'd guess 99% of fans don't know and don't care about that. All they know is the team played in Los Angeles at one time. I don't see the stats having any affect on people liking or not liking the Chargers name in Los Angeles. 

 

As an old San Diego Clippers fan, as bad as they were, I'd take the San Diego Clippers back in a heart beat. 

[PaleVermilion81]

29 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

I'd guess 99% of fans don't know and don't care about that. All they know is the team played in Los Angeles at one time. I don't see the stats having any affect on people liking or not liking the Chargers name in Los Angeles. 

 

As an old San Diego Clippers fan, as bad as they were, I'd take the San Diego Clippers back in a heart beat. 

 

I'd guess 99% of fans don't even know the Chargers played in LA.

[Old School Fool]

After that awful game today, they might as well just flush the Chargers brand down the toilet because it's dead.

[DCarp1231]

Los Angeles Bolts and call it a day

[IceCap]

On 2016-12-20 at 2:55 PM, Lights Out said:

As a Charger fan, I'm okay with this for two reasons.

 

1. It leaves open the possibility of a future expansion team adopting the San Diego Chargers' name, uniforms, colors and history. Even though the Chargers have sucked for the bulk of their post-merger existence, there's still some things to be proud of that are worth remembering. I know this board generally seems to hate the Cleveland Deal, but the average fan wants to at least keep the history in San Diego.

 

2. The Spanos family is utterly clueless when it comes to... well, just about everything, and branding is no exception. These are the idiots who still dress the Chargers in boring navy uniforms when the majority of the fanbase prefers powder blue. Hell, if Alex Spanos had his way, the lightning bolts would have been taken off our uniforms decades ago and we'd look like Penn State. Needless to say, they will bungle this rebrand badly - not only because they have no taste, but also because they're poor compared to most other NFL owners and will pinch pennies on the rebrand instead of paying top dollar for competent work. They'll end up going into debt trying to sell tickets for the third wheel in LA (behind the Raiders and Rams) with an all-new brand, no history and no connection to any market. Good luck with that! It will be just another reason to laugh at the failure of the LA Chargers experiment.

Nope, sorry. Can't follow that. I have no allegience to the cities of San Diego or Los Angeles. I'm a fan of the Chargers, and I'll root for them wherever they play.

I have no interest in rooting for a completely rebranded LA team that dumped the record books and brand I'm loyal to. 

[#ConceptLeagues]

It would be a great time to introduce a reptile into the mix.

Maybe the LA or SoCal Vipers if the Rams want to be the sole "LA" team.

Maybe even a Lizard.

[The_Admiral]

The Chargers brand is not irreparably damaged because they lost a game to Cleveland, you drama queens.