Tygers09

Regional/Geographical/City Names

Recommended Posts

All sport teams are first list as the City or Regional/Geographical area the team is from or located. 

 

Is today's standards becoming more precise or logical that it HAS to be exactly where their located? For instance, I was thinking of a football team from El Paso or Las Cruces, NM( nevermmind whether or not those cities have the population or the right stadium, this is not the issue) and thought it would cool to call them the 

Rio Grande ______. Is this acceptable? 

 

You see or hear other teams called like the Mohawk Valley, Motor City Mustangs, Grand Valley, etc. So see what I'm asking? It's about what sounds better than what is exact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tygers09 said:

All sport teams are first list as the City or Regional/Geographical area the team is from or located. 

 

Is today's standards becoming more precise or logical that it HAS to be exactly where their located? For instance, I was thinking of a football team from El Paso or Las Cruces, NM( nevermmind whether or not those cities have the population or the right stadium, this is not the issue) and thought it would cool to call them the 

Rio Grande ______. Is this acceptable? 

 

You see or hear other teams called like the Mohawk Valley, Motor City Mustangs, Grand Valley, etc. So see what I'm asking? It's about what sounds better than what is exact.

 

What's acceptable is completely subjective, and you're going to get answers on both sides of it.

 

As for your specific example, I did some quick Googling and it looks like the geographic region known as Rio Grande Valley is actually more southern, and doesn't involve New Mexico, so unless there's another use of it that I'm not familiar, while both  cities are on the Rio Grande floodplain, it probably wouldn't be an appropriate location as it would just create confusion.

 

As for my opinion on the matter, it's... "it depends".  I think that city nicknames ("Motor City") sound hokey and minor league.  Regional names can work if there's no "prestigious" main city that's the true "heart" of the region.  In Minnesota, they could use Minneapolis, but that might alienate residents of St. Paul.  They can't really use St. Paul, because it's not nearly as well known.  If they used Twin Cities, it would fit my definition of "hokey", so their chosen option of "Minnesota" works.

 

Another region that you hear that isn't as obvious is Tampa Bay.  I think it's fair that Tampa wouldn't have teams if not for the supplemental population provided by St. Petersburg and Clearwater, so it probably makes sense to go with a regional name there too.

 

Not sure if there's any others that I like or at least don't hate.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The St. Petersburg Times becoming the Tampa Bay Times was a weird case of the tail wagging the dog, wasn't it? People know Tampa Bay from sports, but less so St. Pete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that if a city is named after the state that it's in, it should always be called the state name. Minnesota instead of Minneapolis. The Colts should be Indiana instead of Indianapolis. The Thunder should be the Oklahoma Thunder. The extra word or ending just makes it sound clunky and long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2020 at 1:52 PM, Tygers09 said:

All sport teams are first list as the City or Regional/Geographical area the team is from or is located

 

The Spirits of St. Louis (ABA), Team Hawaii, Team America, Caribous of Colorado, Manic de Montreal (NASL), FC Dallas, Real Salt Lake, Sporting Kansas City, Inter Miami CF, FC Cincinnati (MLS), Mighty Ducks of Anaheim (NHL) and Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim MLB)  would disagree.

 

On 4/28/2020 at 6:34 PM, BringBackTheVet said:

 

... the geographic region known as Rio Grande Valley is actually more southern, and doesn't involve New Mexico...

spacer.png

 

Based in Harlingen, TX, reprented Brownsville, Harlingen, McAllen, Edinburg, etc., in minor leagues from 1994 to 2014.

 

In general I agree that use of city or  region nicknames is bush-league in just about all aspects, from actual team names (Rocket City Trash Pandas) to city nicknames on NBA jerseys ( Rip City, The City, The Town, The Bay, Sactown, Buzz City, Motor City, North, etc.)

 

I will give a pass on those with actual abbreviations- NOLA, OKC, LA, NY or NYC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, the admiral said:

The St. Petersburg Times becoming the Tampa Bay Times was a weird case of the tail wagging the dog, wasn't it? People know Tampa Bay from sports, but less so St. Pete.

 

That was weird for me as someone who grew up in that area. It was always the St. Petersburg Times. Then I moved out of the area after high school and came back to visit at some point and saw it and was like "What the hell is the Tampa Bay Times?!?". Thought it was some knock off neighborhood paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So bush league is second rate? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Another region that you hear that isn't as obvious is Tampa Bay.  I think it's fair that Tampa wouldn't have teams if not for the supplemental population provided by St. Petersburg and Clearwater, so it probably makes sense to go with a regional name there too.

 

Youre exactly right there.  Tampa Bay works because the region is kinda stuck in a twin cities mentality (with St Pete being the main cause, but Clearwater sure does add population).  To this day you still hear the arguments against going across one of the 3 bridges from county to county.

 

If the teams here were just called "Tampa", and the way things are and have been you'd essentially be cutting off your fanbase just because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

What's acceptable is completely subjective, and you're going to get answers on both sides of it.

 

As for your specific example, I did some quick Googling and it looks like the geographic region known as Rio Grande Valley is actually more southern, and doesn't involve New Mexico, so unless there's another use of it that I'm not familiar, while both  cities are on the Rio Grande floodplain, it probably wouldn't be an appropriate location as it would just create confusion.

 

As for my opinion on the matter, it's... "it depends".  I think that city nicknames ("Motor City") sound hokey and minor league.  Regional names can work if there's no "prestigious" main city that's the true "heart" of the region.  In Minnesota, they could use Minneapolis, but that might alienate residents of St. Paul.  They can't really use St. Paul, because it's not nearly as well known.  If they used Twin Cities, it would fit my definition of "hokey", so their chosen option of "Minnesota" works.

 

Another region that you hear that isn't as obvious is Tampa Bay.  I think it's fair that Tampa wouldn't have teams if not for the supplemental population provided by St. Petersburg and Clearwater, so it probably makes sense to go with a regional name there too.

 

Not sure if there's any others that I like or at least don't hate.

 

 

 

 

I agree with all of this. Especially the bold.  I would really hate to see the Seattle NHL team become the Emerald City Kraken. (Or even a better mascot like Emerald City Sockeyes).

 

I think the two closest things to offending the bold are the Vegas Golden Knights and the Golden State Warriors.  Vegas isn't as bad as Motor City would be...but it's almost like the Frisco 49ers (except I know people in San Francisco don't like 'Frisco).  I'm not a fan, even though the hokiness is minimal.

 

I've always been fascinated by Golden State Warriors ever since my earliest memories of thinking it was a college team.  I get why they do it: It's hard to use San Fransisco when they play in Oakland (which is not the same thing as playing in Auburn Hills). And even when they move back to SF, Oakland and other places are analogous to St. Pete and St. Paul.  "Bay Area Warriors" sounds almost worse, even if it's kind of analogous to "Tampa Bay." "San Francisco Bay Warriors" is also analogous but clunky and still leaves SF in.  "California Warriors" is bad because of the other teams in the state, but it worked for the Angels and it's really just a formal version of the name they use, and therefore less hokey.  The Warriors have almost no good option.

 

And, to the "college" thing,  California is the GOLDEN State.  But we always say "Golden STATE Warriors," which makes it sound like a college team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Galaxy Lawyer Brain move would have been to remain the San Francisco Warriors all along but insist that it was in reference to the San Francisco Bay, the way you'd refer to the Pacific Ocean as "the Pacific."

 

But the original idea behind the Golden State Warriors was to be a regional team in earnest like the ABA Virginia Squires, with games in San Francisco, San Diego, and I want to say there was even another city in there. Then they realized that was stupid and no one cared so they moved the whole slate back to Oakland. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New England Patriots - 6 states claimed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But isnt the reason why they're called New England is simple fact the team or stadium is located between Boston and Providence RI, so they would rather be called by whole general area rather than either of those two cities?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is the Great Lakes Loons, a baseball team that plays in Midland, MI affiliate of the LA Dodgers.

I disagree about hokey and minor league, thats just because minor league teams use that name. Also, just like New England, I feel the same about Golden State, if team cant decide on a city, they use a regional name such as these two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Florida Fire Frogs of the Florida State League in MILB are one that falls into this category.

 

I know that some Geographic/Regional names can be used in MILB, but when all 12 teams are in the state you use as an identifier it might not be the best idea...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TBGKon said:

The Florida Fire Frogs of the Florida State League in MILB are one that falls into this category.

 

I know that some Geographic/Regional names can be used in MILB, but when all 12 teams are in the state you use as an identifier it might not be the best idea...

That I can see... But dealing just two teams such as in NHL, MLB (before Marlins changed from Florida to Miami), I don't the importance...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So yes, for the current standards, we all agree that is should the team should be named after the city it represents or can be the State providing that it is the only team with exception of one other? But regional names are frowned upon because they sound hokey or *sigh* bush league?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget one of the potential names of the then-Nordiques when they moved to Colorado:

THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN EXTREME!!!

Rocky Mountain Extreme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2 that bug me the most are the Texas Rangers and Florida Panthers. They aren't the only team in the state. Just be the Dallas Rangers and Miami Panthers. Golden St also bothers me, I would rather have Golden Bay or San Francisco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, sportsfan7 said:

The 2 that bug me the most are the Texas Rangers and Florida Panthers.

 

Both of these make sense though.  The Texas Rangers are named for the legendary law enforcement bureau of the same name.  Walker wasn't a Dallas Ranger after all.  Florida panthers are an actual subspecies of cat.  I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as a Miami panther. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, sportsfan7 said:

The 2 that bug me the most are the Texas Rangers and Florida Panthers. They aren't the only team in the state. Just be the Dallas Rangers and Miami Panthers. Golden St also bothers me, I would rather have Golden Bay or San Francisco.

I believe Golden State changed because they moved to Oakland but still played some games in San Francisco. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.