Teams that Relocated but kept their Nickname

[sky1324]

44 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

I think this is interesting and hopefully we can keep the philosophical disputes about whether teams should keep the names out of this.

 

Having the Jazz at the bottom makes total sense and the Lakers right behind makes sense, too.  I'm kinda surprised at the Hornets being below the Dodgers, though. Hornets seems like a "general" name whereas Dodgers, as you point out, isn't great for LA. (though it looks like you're making more about the franchise fit in New Orleans than simply the name), Without thinking of all of the 14 names you still have to go, I think you're already into the "general names" that work everywhere.  I tend to think Cardinals should probably be ranked higher since the name makes sense, even in the desert.  It certainly makes sense in St. Louis, so I am guessing your thought that they should have changed the name is based on the existence of the MLB team. 

 

It doesn't work as well when the name was selected for something completely unique to Charlotte ("hornet's nest of rebellion", hornets and specifically the nest are civic icons) and then kept in New Orleans. A rebrand upon moving should've been what they did, especially given that Charlotte was promised a team and the franchise was quite literally robbed from the city.

 

Great list so far, the ones listed are all examples of teams that probably should've rebranded upon moving.

[sportsfan7]

4 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

Having the Jazz at the bottom makes total sense and the Lakers right behind makes sense, too.  I'm kinda surprised at the Hornets being below the Dodgers, though. Hornets seems like a "general" name whereas Dodgers, as you point out, isn't great for LA. (though it looks like you're making more about the franchise fit in New Orleans than simply the name), Without thinking of all of the 14 names you still have to go, I think you're already into the "general names" that work everywhere.  I tend to think Cardinals should probably be ranked higher since the name makes sense, even in the desert.  It certainly makes sense in St. Louis, so I am guessing your thought that they should have changed the name is based on the existence of the MLB team. 

I have a rough tiered system for how I ranked the teams

1. Specific nickname that makes more sense in the new city (1 maybe 2 teams)

2. Specific nickname that still makes sense in the new city (6 maybe 7 teams)

3. Vague nicknames (10ish teams)

4. Specific nickname that makes less sense in the new city (4ish teams)

 

As far as the Dodgers, the team already had a solid brand and was one of the most popular teams (I think I saw somewhere that the Brooklyn Dodgers sell more memorabilia and apparel toady than some existing teams), having played in NYC and being Jackie Robinson's team. This is also why the Lakers where ahead of the Jazz. Both teams were misplaced, but the Lakers were the most successful team in the NBA at the time of the move, while the Jazz had only played 5 seasons and never broke .500 or made the playoffs. And you are right, my main issue with St Louis is that they shared a name with the MLB team. If this wasn't the case they would probably be around #12ish.

 

4 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

I notice there are really only of a couple of truly egregious transfers (Jazz and Lakers and maybe Dodgers, though I'd argue the Oilers, who you've indicated are still going to be listed).  There's no way either of those would happen today...very few would. The Raiders is an exception because THE RAIDERS are a brand that goes beyond their city(ies) and means more to the NFL than, say the Jaguars brand does.

 

As far as the Oilers go, they are one of 3 teams I find don't fit in nicely to my aforementioned ranking. Going into this, I thought I would rank them in the 20s, but they started to grow on me for some reasons I'll detail when I get them (probably tomorrow). The Raiders are another team that doesn't fit well, for the reasons you mention. The Raiders probably have the most unexplainable brand. They have played mostly in Oakland, only won 3 championships and none in the last 35 years and have moved 3 times, but are probably the 2nd most famous NFL brand behind the Cowboys. The 3rd team that doesn't fit well is the Athletics because well, what the heck is an Athletic. All in all, the A's were pretty hard to nail down and I'm starting to think I may have them a little high.

 

4 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

Curious as to whether North Stars-to-Stars will be included.  Everything about it makes sense and that franchise embraces it's Minnesota background. But you could also stick with the technicality that it's a different name.

Yes, I included the North Stars. They are one of two moves were the team slightly changed their name. I'll address the Hornets in a minute, but Stars could've very easily become an earlier version of them, but seem to have played their cards well. With that being said, I still prefer North Stars to Wild, but not as much I prefer Hornets to Bobcats.

 

3 hours ago, QCS said:

It doesn't work as well when the name was selected for something completely unique to Charlotte ("hornet's nest of rebellion", hornets and specifically the nest are civic icons) and then kept in New Orleans. A rebrand upon moving should've been what they did, especially given that Charlotte was promised a team and the franchise was quite literally robbed from the city.

 

Great list so far, the ones listed are all examples of teams that probably should've rebranded upon moving.

Yeah, the big issue with the Hornets is that it was an open secret that the NBA was going to put another team there. Ironically, one could say the Carolina's deserved an NBA team almost as much as Minnesota deserved an NHL team. The biggest difference between the Stars and Hornets is that one could make a case for Stars fitting in TX (Lone Star State y'all), but there really isn't a similar argument for Hornets in New Orleans. The NBA was almost certainly going to return to Charlotte shortly after the move, while things were definitely dicier for the Twin Cities. Of course, being forced to play 2 years in OKC due to Katrina doesn't help matters either.

 

Also funny you should mention that the teams should've rebranded. This is right around the inflection point were I think that most teams from here on made a good decision and most teams before this made a bad decision. Most of the names in this 13ish-20ish range I'm fairly neutral on.

[sportsfan7]

14. Los Angeles Chargers → San Diego Chargers → Los Angeles Chargers
The Los Angeles Chargers were one of 8 founding members of the AFL. The team was not named after anything relating to lightning or electricity, but rather because the owner liked the bugle call/chant “Charge” played at USC and LA Dodgers games. Confusingly, the Chargers musical director claimed recently that he first invented the chant/song/bugle call 18 years later, in 1978, despite it appearing on TV at Dodgers games during the 1959 World Series, and it was probably invented in 1946 by a USC student. The Chargers also initially used a form of their bolt logo in conjunction with a “charging” horse on and off until 2001, when they dropped the horse for good. Since the team hasn’t moved very far, the name retains its significance, even if lightning is relatively rare in SoCal.
 

[sportsfan7]

13. Cleveland Rams → Los Angeles Rams → St Louis Rams → Los Angeles Rams
The Cleveland Rams were founded in the 2nd of 4 American Football Leagues. The team was named after the Fordham Rams, then a college football powerhouse. Fordham’s nickname allegedly comes from a fairly colorful source. In the 1800s the school cheer was "One-Dam, Two-Dam, Three-Dam, Fordham!". This obviously couldn’t stand at a Jesuit University and Ram was substituted in for Dam and their nickname was eventually changed from Rose Hills to Rams. The Cleveland Rams moved from the AFL to the NFL after 1 season, suspended operations during WWII, won the NFL championship in their second year back, and moved to LA only 1 month later. The Rams were the first major sports team out West. At that point the NFL only stretched as far West as Chicago and the St Louis Cardinals and Browns (both in MLB) were the only teams west of the Mississippi. Another consequence of the move to LA was their forced integration as a condition of their lease on the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. The Rams were also the innovators of the helmet design. In 1948, Fred Gehrke painted Rams Horns on his helmet, the first recorded design on a football helmet. The Rams move to St Louis occurred at the same time as metro area rivals Los Angeles Raiders left for Oakland, beginning one of the NFL’s greatest traditions; using the Los Angeles area as leverage to force a stadium bill to pass (a tactic used by many teams including the Bengals, Buccaneers, Cardinals, 49ers, Saints, Colts, Vikings, Jaguars, Falcons, Panthers, Seahawks, Dolphins, Browns, Bills, Raiders, expansion team that became the Texans, Chargers, and Rams, with the latter 2 following through). The team spent 21 years in St Louis as the Greatest Show on Turf, before deciding they had liked SoCal better. The name Rams is pretty good, but it hasn’t really fit with any of the cities it has occupied.
 

[sportsfan7]

12. Philadelphia Warriors → San Francisco Warriors →Golden State Warriors
As far as anyone can tell, the Philadelphia Warriors were named after the Philadelphia Warriors of the old ABL, but no one seems to know how the original Warriors got their name. The team kept the name after moving to San Fran and changed their location to Golden State when they moved across the Bay. Overall it is generic enough that it doesn’t feel out of place in NorCal, which has a sizable Native populace. 
 

[sportsfan7]

11. Tri-Cities Blackhawks → Milwaukee Hawks → St Louis Hawks → Atlanta Hawks
After less than half a season in Buffalo as the Bisons, the team relocated to Moline, Illinois and began play as the Tri-Cities Blackhawks. They were named after Chief Black Hawk, the same one the Chicago Blackhawks are named after. The team dropped Black- from their name and changed the logo from an Indian-Head to a hawk and moved to Milwaukee and then St Louis. They kept the same name when they moved to Atlanta. This name is generic enough to work and still makes sense, since hawks live in all 3 cities.
 

Only 10 left! Anyone care to take a crack at how the top 10 shakes out?

[sportsfan7]

10. Oakland Raiders → Los Angeles Raiders → Oakland Raiders → Las Vegas Raiders
The Oakland Raiders were founded as an inaugural member of the AFL. A name-the-team contest was won by the Señors, but the name was rejected and replaced by Raiders. The reason Señors was rejected depends on who you talk to; the team was either worried about being the butt of jokes (obviously the name change didn’t help with that) or because nobody could find a typewriter with a ñ on it. Even more curious was the choice of Oakland. The team spent its first 2 years in San Fran before spending 3 more in a temporary stadium in Oakland (Additionally, I would have liked the San Francisco Señors, which has nice alliteration and affixes a Spanish nickname to a city named in Spanish). The nickname still seemed to apply in LA and the second stint in Oakland, but there was too much tradition to replace by the time they moved to Vegas. I think Raider is generic enough to work most places, but seems more suited to a team near an Ocean.
 

[Ark]

On 5/18/2020 at 4:03 PM, OnWis97 said:

I think this is interesting and hopefully we can keep the philosophical disputes about whether teams should keep the names out of this.

 

The Tennessee Oilers/Titans are evidence of why a team should keep an identity even if it isn't totally appropriate for the new city, if the identity is good.

 

Everything about the Oilers identity is great, and not much of the Titans identity is good. It's reasonable to assume that the Lakers would have used purple and gold and that the Jazz would have had a mountain era no matter what the team names were, but imagine if the Jazz became the Utah Bobcats or something like that which would always have been inferior to the Jazz. In the specific case in the Oilers, because of legal issues the Oilers will never exist again outside of occasional throwbacks (which aren't even possible right now because of the NFL's helmet rules). That is truly unfortunate. 

[Ben in LA]

On 5/16/2020 at 11:56 AM, sportsfan7 said:

Dodgers doesn’t really make sense in LA, in fact it would be more suited for the Dodgers rivals in San Fran, where there is an actual Trolley system.

LA HAD an extensive streetcar system though (LARy and Pacific Electric)...although by 1958 much of it had been fazed out.

 

[OnWis97]

12 hours ago, sportsfan7 said:

11. Tri-Cities Blackhawks → Milwaukee Hawks → St Louis Hawks → Atlanta Hawks
After less than half a season in Buffalo as the Bisons, the team relocated to Moline, Illinois and began play as the Tri-Cities Blackhawks. They were named after Chief Black Hawk, the same one the Chicago Blackhawks are named after. The team dropped Black- from their name and changed the logo from an Indian-Head to a hawk and moved to Milwaukee and then St Louis. They kept the same name when they moved to Atlanta. This name is generic enough to work and still makes sense, since hawks live in all 3 cities.
 

Only 10 left! Anyone care to take a crack at how the top 10 shakes out?

Wow.  I didn’t know anything before St. Louis.  Most interesting to me is Moline as the home of the “Tri-Cities” Blackhawks when it’s currently part of the Quad Cities.

 

I thought you might rank the Raiders higher.  I know we’re getting further removed from when they were always competitive but Raiders is kind of a brand of its own without a city name.  The still have some of a national following that doesn’t care where their home games are played.

[sportsfan7]

5 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

Wow.  I didn’t know anything before St. Louis.  Most interesting to me is Moline as the home of the “Tri-Cities” Blackhawks when it’s currently part of the Quad Cities.

 

I thought you might rank the Raiders higher.  I know we’re getting further removed from when they were always competitive but Raiders is kind of a brand of its own without a city name.  The still have some of a national following that doesn’t care where their home games are played.

The region was known as Tri-Cities (Davenport, Moline, Rock Island) until the 30s, when East Moline was "promoted". Interestingly the Tri-Cities Blackhawks weren't founded until after WWII, some 10-15 years after the region had started being known as Quad-Cities. Nowadays, the Quad Cities generally includes Bettendorf as well.

 

The one thing working against the Raiders is the vagueness of their nickname. We're starting to get towards nicknames that are more specific. Raiders could conceivably make sense anywhere in the US, while most of the ones coming up have a more limited geographic footprint. I still think the Raiders have some of the best branding in the NFL and it is a real testament to their following that they were still widely supported in Oakland when they returned.

8 hours ago, Ben in LA said:

LA HAD an extensive streetcar system though (LARy and Pacific Electric)...although by 1958 much of it had been fazed out.

 

Yeah, I think most cities did at one point or another, but San Fran is one of the few that kept them. LA has never really been known for their public transportation.

[leopard88]

1 hour ago, sportsfan7 said:

The region was known as Tri-Cities (Davenport, Moline, Rock Island) until the 30s, when East Moline was "promoted". Interestingly the Tri-Cities Blackhawks weren't founded until after WWII, some 10-15 years after the region had started being known as Quad-Cities. Nowadays, the Quad Cities generally includes Bettendorf as well.

 

I always assumed Bettendorf was No. 4.

My first "get on a plane and have to fly somewhere" business trip was to Davenport in 1998.  My co-worker and I shared our puddle jumper back to O'Hare with the Quad City Thunder (CBA team) and Glen Campbell and his entourage.  The Quad Cities will always have a weird little place in my heart. 

 

* Tangent Over *

[sportsfan7]

9 minutes ago, leopard88 said:

 

I always assumed Bettendorf was No. 4.

My first "get on a plane and have to fly somewhere" business trip was to Davenport in 1998.  My co-worker and I shared our puddle jumper back to O'Hare with the Quad City Thunder (CBA team) and Glen Campbell and his entourage.  The Quad Cities will always have a weird little place in my heart. 

 

* Tangent Over *

I assumed the same thing until I looked it up a while back.

Speaking of tangents, this next entry goes on one for the whole second half.

 

9. Atlanta Flames → Calgary Flames
The Atlanta Flames were named in “honor” of the city being burned to the ground by General William Tecumseh Sherman and his troops during his March to the Sea in 1864, during the Civil War. Somewhat of a weird thing to name a team after, it remains only the second worst branding of the team named after a fire that burned the entire city down, thanks to the Chicago Fire’s new Latin Kings-inspired logo. The team relocated to Calgary, which coincidentally had also had a citywide fire. The Calgary Fire of 1886 was a normal fire that only got out of hand because the city didn’t have a fire department. The contested municipal election in January of that year led to 2 rival city governments, neither of which could pay the fire department, who had their truck repossessed. A unified local government was finally elected only 4 days before the fire and had yet to check up on the well-being of the department. When the fire broke out on November 7, the department was called into action and promptly stole their truck back from the Canadian Pacific freight shed it was being stored in. The buildings in Calgary were packed too close together to effectively corral the fire, so former mayor George Murdoch (the one whose attempt at voter fraud led to the rival governments and himself a former fireman) offered to blow up his store. The attempt failed and the fire went on to destroy 18 buildings (No one died), much tamer than the Burning of Atlanta. I did not know this name fit, but it still feels out of place and I think it's kind of weird to name a team after one tragedy, much less one tragedy and one comedy of errors.
 

[Ark]

Calgary Flames is good example of a team that should have kept its name when relocating.

 

The name Flames is absolutely related to Atlanta but is a pretty generic name in Calgary - the story you mentioned seems like a total coincidence. However, the identity is fantastic and Calgary Flames sounds great. It's a good thing that they exist. 

[monkeypower]

When the Flames moved from Atlanta to Calgary, the name was kept as a reference to the oil and gas industry.

 

This post here is the first time I have heard anyone connect the name of the hockey team to the Calgary Fire, and I'm from Calgary.

[johnnysama]

SIDENOTE: Mr. Murdoch was also Calgary's first-ever mayor.

[sportsfan7]

 

15 minutes ago, monkeypower said:

When the Flames moved from Atlanta to Calgary, the name was kept as a reference to the oil and gas industry.

 

This post here is the first time I have heard anyone connect the name of the hockey team to the Calgary Fire, and I'm from Calgary.

That makes sense. I hadn't been able to find any specific reasoning for keeping the name in Calgary, so I figured the Fire was at least a subconscious reason.

 

45 minutes ago, Ark said:

Calgary Flames is good example of a team that should have kept its name when relocating.

 

The name Flames is absolutely related to Atlanta but is a pretty generic name in Calgary - the story you mentioned seems like a total coincidence. However, the identity is fantastic and Calgary Flames sounds great. It's a good thing that they exist. 

It is without a doubt a coincidence, as evidenced by MonkeyPower's statement.

 

5 minutes ago, johnnysama said:

SIDENOTE: Mr. Murdoch was also Calgary's first-ever mayor.

Well they sure got off to a rough start.

[sportsfan7]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you, the oft discussed Oilers!

 

8. Houston Oilers → Tennessee Oilers
The Houston Oilers were one of the founding members of the AFL. Oilers was presumably chosen in reference to the Oil Business in West Texas and the Gulf. The team later moved because *gasp* The Astrodome was outdated. The team settled and practiced in Nashville as the Tennessee Oilers, but played their home games in Memphis. The Tennessee DoT conveniently picked those 2 years to redo Interstate 40 between Nashville and Memphis, making the Oilers an early version of the Los Angeles Chargers by playing in front of 25,000 mostly opposing fans. The team was renamed the Titans when they opened a brand new stadium in Nashville. There is in fact oil in Tennessee, but I have never thought of them on the same level as Texas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Alaska, or the like. The team was put in an awkward position during their 2 years in Memphis, but were able to make the best of a bad situation.
 

[sportsfan7]

7. Vancouver Grizzlies → Memphis Grizzlies
When Vancouver joined the league they were initially going to be named the Mounties, but the Royal Canadian Mounted Police demanded they change it. The team then selected Grizzlies after the bear native to BC. The team didn’t have much success and relocated to Memphis after only 6 years. The NBA nixed an offer by FedEx (who are based in Memphis) to pay the franchise $1 million to rebrand as the Express. The city's fans pushed for the team to keep the name Grizzlies. The Memphis Southmen, who also relocated from Canada (Toronto) and played in the WFL, were informally known as the Grizzlies. This name isn’t perfect, but it gets a bad rap and is better than being the New York Red Bulls of the NBA.

 

[B-Rich]

5 hours ago, sportsfan7 said:

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you, the oft discussed Oilers!

 

8. Houston Oilers → Tennessee Oilers
The Houston Oilers were one of the founding members of the AFL. Oilers was presumably chosen in reference to the Oil Business in West Texas and the Gulf. The team later moved because *gasp* The Astrodome was outdated. The team settled and practiced in Nashville as the Tennessee Oilers, but played their home games in Memphis. The Tennessee DoT conveniently picked those 2 years to redo Interstate 40 between Nashville and Memphis, making the Oilers an early version of the Los Angeles Chargers by playing in front of 25,000 mostly opposing fans. The team was renamed the Titans when they opened a brand new stadium in Nashville. There is in fact oil in Tennessee, but I have never thought of them on the same level as Texas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Alaska, or the like. The team was put in an awkward position during their 2 years in Memphis, but were able to make the best of a bad situation.
 

Oilers only played 1 year in Memphis. 2nd year, they played at Vanderbilt.