City vs State/Region Team Names

[Wildcomet]

So this topic came up some in a concept thread of mine and I thought it was a pretty interesting topic so I wanted to give it its own thread. Under what situations does everyone feel it works best to name a team after it's home state or geographic region as opposed to its home city? This may not be 100% on topic for sports logo design, but it can certainly impact logo design so I think it fits here.

 

To me, the situations where a team should use it's home state/region rather than its home city (generally, I'm sure there will be some exceptions that are pointed out through discussion)...

 

1) The city the team represents is not a major, nationally prominent city (or at least was not when the team started). An example here might be Carolina Hurricanes in the NHL coming out of Raleigh.

2) The city name just doesn't lend itself particularly well to being part of a team name. An example city here may be Minneapolis; The Minnesota Vikings rolls off the tongue much better than the Minneapolis Vikings would in my opinion (no offense to anyone living there).

3) A tradition of doing so has already been established in the area. An example here could be Tampa, which wouldn't be that hard to use in a name and is a pretty good size city, but everyone is just so accustomed with teams from there going by Tampa Bay, that it would just be weird at this point not to do so.

 

I recognize not all existing sports team names follow these rules by any means, but these are just when I think it makes most sense to do it. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Curious about others' viewpoints.

[tigers]

Most of them don't worry me until you get to something like North West 'State Name' Lions instead of the 'City' Lions.

[slapshot]

If "State + Nickname" mimics an existing institution or entity, it's better to use state than city.

 

Examples: New Jersey Devils, Texas Rangers, Colorado Rockies, Florida Panthers.

[tigers]

10 minutes ago, slapshot said:

If "State + Nickname" mimics an existing institution or entity, it's better to use state than city.

 

Examples: New Jersey Devils, Texas Rangers, Colorado Rockies, Florida Panthers.

 

When there's only one team in that state it doesn't really matter but when there's multiples it just looks as though they are trying to appeal to as many people as they can.

 

Yes Panthers are a problem.

[Discrim]

Another good reason: if the rivalry between cities is strong enough that going with the city name runs a huge risk of alienating area fans.  That's why the Twins went with Minnesota instead of Minneapolis-people from St. Paul would likely have refused to support them (which apparently happened to the Lakers, prompting their move to LA).

This, oddly enough, is also partially why the football Cardinals, and later the Diamondbacks and Coyotes, go by Arizona instead of Phoenix.

[gimmick]

Indiana instead of Indianapolis.

[Needschat]

Albany-Schenectady-Troy media market has had many teams that have used regional names.  The first was a phantom team, Tri-City Comets (Schenectady) of the ABA in 1974.  It didn't become a team; the arena was never built.

 

Glens Falls, a city 50 miles north of Albany, has used Adirondack:

Adirondack Thunder 
Adirondack Flames 
Adirondack Phantoms 
Adirondack Red Wings 
Adirondack Icehawks/Frostbite 
Adirondack Wildcats 

Adirondack Lumberjacks

Empire State Stallions

 

Troy has used Tri-City (ValleyCats) and Capital District (Islanders).

Albany has used Capital Region (Pontiacs) and New York (Kick).

 

[OnWis97]

When in doubt, I historically prefer a city name, which might be ironic, given that I'm from Minnesota. But it was always weird growing up here and not really seeing Minneapolis along with Milwaukee, St. Louis, Dallas, etc. I think I thought of Minneapolis/St. Paul as less major league or something.

 

Over time, I've backed up on that. Honestly, the reason our teams do that make sense. "Tampa Bay" makes sense, too.  And in states with only one metro area that would ever get a team (Arizona, Colorado), it makes sense, too. When the Twins and Vikings made the decision, it was about not alienating St. Paul. Now, teams have to think about not alienating people who don't like the largest city represented, as well as trying to market to as wide of an audience as possible. So I generally am OK with some state names. I could even be persuaded that the Thunder should be Oklahoma instead of Oklahoma City: it's the only big-league team in the state; Oklahoma City is awkward on a jersey, and the name is clunkier.  In hindsight, I'm actually really surprised they didn't go with the state name.

 

Anyway, I like cities, but think states are acceptable when it's a one-market state. I really don't like state names when there's already a team in the state. And I generally don't like special / region names. Tampa Bay is OK, as it captures St. Pete without going "Florida." I understand why we have New England and Carolina but I don't like them. Here are the worst to me:

• California Angels. There were five teams in the state. I think they needed either to be Los Angeles or Anaheim.  There was no need for that. (Yes LA A of A was a dumber name, but that's kind of a tangent).
• Golden State Warriors.  I understand their predicament. Playing in the third largest city, but not a suburb, San Francisco and Oakland are questionable. So then you start getting into Bay Area, California, Northern California (but the Kings), etc. It all stinks.  The problem with where we are now is that California is the GOLDEN State, but we always call them Golden STATE and that cadence is really very "college." I don't really have a good solution. I guess I wish it had been SF.
• Carolina. I guess I can live with this. Maybe makes more sense for the Panthers since they play right on the border in a more regional game. Not too many people from SC are driving up to Raleigh on a Tuesday to see the Flames, though. 
• New England Patriots. Obvious southern New England land grab vs. the Giants (or Jets).  Boston. Done.
• Texas Rangers and Florida Panthers. Those are the only teams I can think of that became the second team in the state and took the state name.  Sure, both of the nicknames make more sense with the state, but I honestly suspect that's why they were chosen; as an excuse to take the state names.

[The_Admiral]

Minnesota, Tampa Bay, New Jersey, that's it. All the rest are annoying. Thanks for reading!

[ManillaToad]

I just about always love when teams use atypical regional names. New England, Tampa Bay, Golden State, BC Lions, Tri-Cities Blackhawks, Bay Area Seals. They make sense in terms of attracting fans, and add a little flavor to the league. I see no reason to dislike them.

 

State names are pretty much all good. Carolina sounds better than Raleigh, Minnesota sounds better than Minneapolis, etc. Tennessee works better for the Titans than Nashville would have. Agreed with @OnWis97 about teams playing in states with only one metro area. The Thunder should have used Oklahoma (and picked a better nickname). I loved California Angels.

[Discrim]

2 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

I could even be persuaded that the Thunder should be Oklahoma instead of Oklahoma City: it's the only big-league team in the state; Oklahoma City is awkward on a jersey, and the name is clunkier.  In hindsight, I'm actually really surprised they didn't go with the state name.

From what I've heard/read, the Thunder had the opposite problem from the Twin Cities teams: apparently, going with Oklahoma instead of OKC would have risked alienating the locals, sending a "you hicks aren't major league" message or something of that ilk.  IIRC, that was one reason the Arena league's Oklahoma Wranglers didn't draw all that well.

[Wildcomet]

7 minutes ago, Discrim said:

From what I've heard/read, the Thunder had the opposite problem from the Twin Cities teams: apparently, going with Oklahoma instead of OKC would have risked alienating the locals, sending a "you hicks aren't major league" message or something of that ilk.  IIRC, that was one reason the Arena league's Oklahoma Wranglers didn't draw all that well.

 

I hadn't heard that but that is interesting, and also helps explain the issues the Wranglers had. I honestly though that team would do real well in the market when they first came in. Then again I also thought the Arena league would make it as a "big" league back in the day so shows what I knew, lol.

[The_Admiral]

45 minutes ago, Discrim said:

From what I've heard/read, the Thunder had the opposite problem from the Twin Cities teams: apparently, going with Oklahoma instead of OKC would have risked alienating the locals, sending a "you hicks aren't major league" message or something of that ilk.  IIRC, that was one reason the Arena league's Oklahoma Wranglers didn't draw all that well.

I believe the rationale behind the Oklahoma City designation was that they did not want to appear to come down on the OU side of the OU/OkSU rivalry. By being Oklahoma City, they were neither/nor. 

 

  

On 7/30/2021 at 9:12 PM, Wildcomet said:

1) The city the team represents is not a major, nationally prominent city (or at least was not when the team started). An example here might be Carolina Hurricanes in the NHL coming out of Raleigh.

Yeah, it's almost as if moving to a city so irrelevant that people won't recognize its name was a dumbass idea to begin with. Say what you will about the abandoned aircraft hangar, I don't see any Central Ohio Region Blue Jackets.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

Like @OnWis97, I prefer a city name.  But I don't mind state names in some of the cases that he mentioned, particularly if the state has only one major urban area.  Also, when the team name is using an existing phrase, then I suppose a state name is OK.  When the Rockies came out, I would have preferred "Denver Rockies"; but I suppose that the two foregoing factors combined to give us the "Colorado" name.  But the Marlins should have been "Miami Marlins" all along, as that name had existed in pro baseball for decades.  (Whereas, the Florida Panthers are covered under the "existing phrase" clause.)

 

I definitely do not subscribe to the notion that the state name necessarily means that the team is the only team in the state.  For that reason, I prefer "California Angels" to all other versions.  The name "Los Angeles Angels", while having a PCL history, is just goofy, with the repeat of "angels" in two different languages.  And "Anaheim" as a name is strictly minor-league. It ranks, as in the Mel Blanc / Jack Benny gag, with Azusa and Cucamonga; it has no business being in the same league with the New Yorks and the Chicagos of the world, or even with smaller (but still major) cities such as Seattle and Kansas City.  "Anaheim" is simply far too cheesy a name for a team in Major League Baseball.  (Response to anticipated retort: it's too cheesy for the NHL, too.)

 

I can imagine that some will suspect that my support for the name "California Angels" is down simply to my having grown up with the name.  The evidence that this is not the case is my opposition to the names "New England Patriots" and "Golden State Warriors", both of which I also grew up with. 

 

OnWis nailed the Patriots' situation:  it is an attempt to claim southern New England, particularly Connecticut, which has always been (and largely still is) Giants territory.  This team's name should have remained "Boston".  Other Boston teams appeal to all of New England; the Patriots should earn that the same way that the other teams did.

My beef with "Golden State", contrary to OnWis's, is not that the name sounds collegiate; my beef is the same as with the name "Anaheim": it's bush-league.  If the team was going to play home games in multiple California cities, as per its original plan, then "California Warriors" would've been a fine choice; and likewise "Oakland Warriors" once the team settled in Oakland.

 

New Jersey is a special case.  Its largest cities are well within New York's metropolitan area.  But a whole region of the state, South Jersey, has no connection to New York.  Indeed, South Jersey is closer to Philadelphia, but (apart from Camden) it is not really part of the Philly metro area the way that Newark and the cities of Hudson County are part of the New York area.  Yet, of course, there is no big city in South Jersey to host a team in a major league.  So a team in North Jersey would have the choice of being a New York team seeking to draw from the New York area (Giants, Jets, Red Bulls), thereby alienating South Jersey, or else being a New Jersey team seeking to appeal to the entire state (Devils, Nets, Generals — even if that last one's name was imposed upon the team by the State authority that ran Giants Stadium).  Still, it must be said that plenty of South Jersey fans consider any team in North Jersey, even one called "New Jersey", to be close enought to being a New York team that they don't care about it.  Anyway, I can easily accept a state name in that case.

 

And I suppose that "Carolina" constitutes another special case.  While technically a regional name, it still seems alright to me, even though Charlotte would be better where applicable.  The name "Carolina" is also better than a hyphenated city name; the Raleigh-Durham Skyhawks of the WLAF would have been better as the Carolina Skyhawks.

 

The final category where a state name is preferable is where the city name is unwieldy; the only example of this that I can think of is Indianapolis.  The nickname "Colts" barely works with that city name, only because the nickname has only one syllable.  But multisyllabic nicknames such as "Pacers" or "Firebirds" work much better with the state name.

 

Note that I have been talking only about major leagues.  Minor leagues are kind of a different story; that's where you can have "Tri-City", "Quad Cities", "Kane County", "Scranton-Wilkes Barre", "Anaheim", and other things that are not fit for major leagues.

[ManillaToad]

The Pats originally wanted to switch to Bay State Patriots when they moved to Foxborough and ditched the Boston moniker.

[cajunaggie08]

21 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

• Texas Rangers and Florida Panthers. Those are the only teams I can think of that became the second team in the state and took the state name.  Sure, both of the nicknames make more sense with the state, but I honestly suspect that's why they were chosen; as an excuse to take the state names.

 

With both the Rangers and the Panthers, they are located in suburbs of major cities. Its kind of similar to the Anaheim situation where they dont want the bigger city in the market to get the full recognition of the team. The Rangers have always been in Arlington, TX since relocating from DC. They could have given the team a Dallas based name, but Arlington is the one that built the stadium so they weren't going to let Dallas take credit. Arlington isn't even in the same county as Dallas. Plus its closer to Fort Worth. The Cowboys play next door with a Dallas based name, but there was no chance the Cowboys would ever be rebranded while being in the same metro area. No one thinks much of the Rangers name since the Texas Rangers is a much better name than Arlington Rangers or Dallas Rangers. I don't feel taking the state name has increased their fan base much than if they were named after just a city. Outside of Houston and DFW, the state's favorite baseball team is whichever is doing better between the Astros and Rangers.

[Brian in Boston]

8 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

OnWis nailed the Patriots' situation:  it is an attempt to claim southern New England, particularly Connecticut, which has always been (and largely still is) Giants territory.

The Patriots don't have to "claim Southern New England", as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is one of the states that constitutes Southern New England and, by extension, New England as a whole. The fact of the matter is that the Patriots - whether playing home games in Boston or Foxborough, whether conducting training camp in Massachusetts or Rhode Island - have always called New England and - even more specifically - Southern New England home.  
 

Quote

Other Boston teams appeal to all of New England; the Patriots should earn that the same way that the other teams did.

The Bruins, Celtics, and Red Sox all play in Boston. The Patriots haven't since 1971, with the upcoming NFL season marking their 51st campaign in Foxborough.  

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

8 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Other Boston teams appeal to all of New England; the Patriots should earn that the same way that the other teams did.

 

1 hour ago, Brian in Boston said:

The Bruins, Celtics, and Red Sox all play in Boston. The Patriots haven't since 1971, with the upcoming NFL season marking their 51st campaign in Foxborough.  

 

Well, the team that the Patriots were afraid of hasn't played in New York since 1975.  

 

Indeed, both New York teams and both Los Angeles teams in the NFL play outside their nominal home cities, as do, of course, the Cowboys and the 49ers.  

 

So being a few miles outside the city limits is not an excuse to abandon the city's name. 

[infrared41]

On 8/1/2021 at 10:18 PM, the admiral said:

Yeah, it's almost as if moving to a city so irrelevant that people won't recognize its name was a dumbass idea to begin with. Say what you will about the abandoned aircraft hangar, I don't see any Central Ohio Region Blue Jackets.

 

Damn. That would have been awesome.

[tigers]

26 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

 

Well, the team that the Patriots were afraid of hasn't played in New York since 1975.  

 

Indeed, both New York teams and both Los Angeles teams in the NFL play outside their nominal home cities, as do, of course, the Cowboys and the 49ers.  

 

So being a few miles outside the city limits is not an excuse to abandon the city's name. 

 

FEW miles.

 

How does Boston appeal to people from Attleboro, Taunton, New Bedford, Providence and more?

They renamed in 71 and people still get sore about it.