Old fashioned team names they'd never pick today

[Brass]

Let's get real old school with hockey!

-Wanderers

-Senators (Same reason as the 'Nationals' in the MLB)

-Shamrocks

-Rosebuds

I think your missing the point.

I didn't miss the point. I just read it wrong.

Also, if you're going to do something like that, at least have the common courtesy to explain what exactly I 'missed'.

Well if you just read it wrong you know what I was talking about. No need for me to explain it then. Relax.

I thought it was current teams with old fashioned names, not teams that had old fashioned names and haven't existed for 50+ years, kind of beats the purpose.

The title threw me off. I was still a bit confused after reading, so I just went with what the title says.

[quantum]

A lot of good responses.

The two I can't believe teams were short-sighted enough to pick were Astros and Expos.

Expos? You actually named yourself after the 1967 World's Fair? Like that wasn't going to get to be an old, outdated name in short time.

I have a lesser, but similar complaint with Astros. From Wikipeida: " "Astros" was a good fit for the futuristic ambiance of the revolutionary domed stadium and also since Houston was by then the home of NASA's astronaut program." Well, they aren't playing in the Astrodome anymore and the space program has certainly lost it's luster after we stopped going to the moon in 1972.

I'm pretty certain my Twins fall into the 'old fashioned' category and would have a more exciting name if chosen today.

If MLB was naming teams to cater to the hispanic community, Astros would be a reasonable choice. For the same reason, I think choosing the name Padres would not be far fetched today.

[Lee.]

Black Crackers.

....what?

[Jamikel]

Given the time that they were named and the reasons behind them, I think none of the Original 6 in the NHL would have the names they have now. As for the Next 6, the Penguins and Blues are the only ones that seem like they would still have a chance.

If the Blues were named today, they would definitely be in Chicago, not St. Louis.

[Spearhead]

Remember than the Astros were originally the Colt .45s, an absoloute no-no for these hyper-sensitive times. Think Washington Bullets. But I wonder what the Astros would be called? I have often thought that Blue Sox would be a good name. That way we could have the Bosox, the Chisox and the Hosox. HOsox?! Nope.

In football: Browns? No way. Possible racial meanings. Saints? Too Catholic as well as Christian.

[PeytonManningRocks]

A bunch of others I recently thought of...

Carolina Hurricanes, San Jose Earthquakes - I know that this name isn't very old, but after the Hurricane Katrina, I think team namers would have to be more sensitive to victims (I know that Katrina didn't strike North Carolina hard but still).

New York Jets - do people in NYC really want to bring back images of 9/11?

Boston Celtics - again, racial connotations, even if it may not be super negative

San Diego Padres, LA Angels, New Jersey Devils, New Orleans Saints - religious connotations

LA Lakers, LA Clippers, Utah Jazz, New Orleans Hornets, Indianapolis Colts, LA Dodgers, SF Giants, AZ Cardinals, etc. - if these teams were expansion teams you can bet they wouldn't have those names, as really none of them fit their current regions well

Cincinnati Reds, Cleveland Browns, Detroit Red Wings, Chicago White Sox, Boston Red Sox, Philadelphia Phillies, Oakland Athletics, New York Rangers, Boston Bruins, Montreal Canadiens, Atlanta Hawks, New Jersey Nets, New York Giants - all team names that would be considered boring and generic in today's time

Detroit Lions, Detroit Tigers, Chicago Bears, St. Louis Cardinals, etc. - traditional, but also boring and generic team names

Chicago Cubs - the ultimate non-intimidating team name in pro sports, would not see the light of day as an expansion team

Anaheim Mighty Ducks, Toronto Raptors - bad movie references

I already mentioned the Redskins, Chiefs, etc.

If we wanted to expand this to the college ranks, you could include the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, UL-Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns, UND Fighting Sioux and maybe even the Ole Miss Rebels for racial connotations, as well as the Tulane Green Wave for potential references to storm surges from hurricanes.

Basically if all the leagues started up today we'd probably see such bad names as "Krunk", "Lumberjaxx", "Starzzzzzzzzzzzzzz", etc. all throughout the leagues.

[Neon_Matrix]

ROCKY MOUNTAIN EXTREME!!!!

[Cujo]

Just Baseball for now:

Red Sox

Yankees

White Sox

Twins

Indians

Athletics

Phillies

Mets

Reds

Dodgers

Astros

Padres

Nationals

wilson, I'm not quite sure how you missed the Braves on your list of MLB teams. There's no way, in this PC world of ours, that a nickname like theirs would go over well with most people, especially with that tomahawk of theirs alongside it.

Just to add on, eventhough they're not "old fashioned", I would also put the Rays/Devil Rays the list as well. As much as the franchise refuses to admit it, if they could have a do-over, they would.

Aside from those two teams, your list pretty much covers them all.

I thought I put them there, my bad. I almost put your Cubbies there too, but ya never know these days, it still could have happened.

I agree, the Cubs could ealisy make the list. But knowing the Bears play across town, I could still see the nickname having a slim possibility these days.

[FiddySicks]

A bunch of others I recently thought of...

Carolina Hurricanes, San Jose Earthquakes - I know that this name isn't very old, but after the Hurricane Katrina, I think team namers would have to be more sensitive to victims (I know that Katrina didn't strike North Carolina hard but still).

Considering they JUST came back under the exact same name, I'd have to say you're wrong.

[rvrdgsfn]

Well, if it wasn't under tradition, I know there's a lot of schools in the South that are still under Rebels. My own High School went by the nickname Confederates. Let's see what else, Well yeah Maple Leafs isn't really intimidating IMO. The Knicks is one I see that wouldn't have stuck, but one guy did mention the Houston Colt 45's as well.

[Atomic]

I disagree with the "Angels" moniker. I think being from the translated "City of Angels", this name would still remain if a new club were to emerge out of the L.A. market.

Other than that, I'd go with Lakers, Clippers, Blue Jays, Cubs, Rays (Devil or otherwise), Yankees (think juvenile here), Red or White Sox, Braves, Redskins, Blackhawks, Indians, Raptors, Dodgers, Giants (SF), Chiefs, Colts, Browns, Dolphins, Knicks, Maple Leafs and Ducks.

[spyboy1]

I was waiting for someone to say the Knicks.

I am surprised to see Dolphins come up though. That one seems to fit Miami really well and Miami in particular seems to be the kind of place where they give way too much input to the Office of Tourism in choosing a name that presents the image of the area to me.

It seems like a given that any team that relocated and did not change names would never be named that way from scratch. Calgary Flames is another to add to Lakers, Jazz & Dodgers.

Athletics still kills me. That just sounds so lame. And it's not like all the teams back then got names like that when you think the Pirates and Tigers were around at the same time.

[tBBP]

One of my all-time faves: the Boston Beaneaters.

Always got a good chuckle out of that one.

(Wasn't there also some team nicknamed "Bug Eaters" at some point...or was that anold nickname for the University of Nebraska or something like that? I'm having a hard time recollecting right now.)

[PeytonManningRocks]

A bunch of others I recently thought of...

Carolina Hurricanes, San Jose Earthquakes - I know that this name isn't very old, but after the Hurricane Katrina, I think team namers would have to be more sensitive to victims (I know that Katrina didn't strike North Carolina hard but still).

Considering they JUST came back under the exact same name, I'd have to say you're wrong.

Yea but I'm sure they had a "Cleveland Browns" deal in place for that franchise..... if there wasn't previously a San Jose Earthquakes franchise, I'm sure they might've thought twice.

Also, you could add the Grizzlies to the list of names that don't fit their current area.

[Viper]

Carolina Hurricanes, San Jose Earthquakes - I know that this name isn't very old, but after the Hurricane Katrina, I think team namers would have to be more sensitive to victims (I know that Katrina didn't strike North Carolina hard but still).

Indeed, the 'Canes franchise is 0-for-2 when it comes to nickname sensitivity. Imagine the fit Greenpeace would be having today if a new team named itself the Hartford Whalers.

You might even add the Houston/Tennessee and Edmonton Oilers to the list of nicknames that would never fly today. "Peak-Oilers" is more like it.

[spyboy1]

Let's not get too far off topic here. We all know that the relocated teams names are usually inappropriate if not changed.

I'm more interested in really old professional team names that would never be chosen in this modern, marketing driven world.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

A better way to ask the question is to look at some of the team names that are given to new franchises now. In the big four over the past 15 years, we've had Panthers, Jaguars, Marlins, Rockies, Devil Rays, Diamondbacks, Bobcats, Blue Jackets, Thrashers, and Predators.

Of those names, I think only "Marlins" is suspect, but then again, I don't know much about fish. A marlin was the fish in Old Man and the Sea, yes? It's a big one, but still not as powerful a name as some of the other newer franchise names.

The Sox names would probably not be around. I think the only way Native American naming goes through is if it's specific to a particular area, like calling a team the Rochester Senecas, or something like that. The broad-brush "Indians," "Braves," and certainly "Redskins" would definitely not be allowed. And, really, I'm okay with that -- especially the last one. It's a slur, and a continued embarrassment to us all.

Other than that, I don't know. Packers and Steelers are old-timey but representative of their blue collar regions. "Colts" isn't all that impressive a team name, but I could see a city like Louisville, Lexington, or Baltimore going for it.

You're right about one thing -- Athletics wouldn't stand a chance. It's just a terrible name.

[BlueSky]

How about a modern name that totally fits this theme's thread...but was chosen anyway? If everyone's up in arms over Athletics, what about the...

Houston Texans??

Aside from other teams having had the name previously, I mean come on...that's the best they could do? Falls right down there with the Birmingham Americans, Memphis Southmen and the old WFL Hawaiians. (Weren't they WFL?) Just dull, boring, and unimaginative. Especially when compared to the uber-cool Houston Oilers. Great name, great logo, and sweet unis back in the silver helmet days.

Hadn't thought about Saints really until someone pointed it out, but it's true, it's unlikely that name would be chosen today. I don't get why somebody mentioned the Falcons though.

[tBBP]

How about a modern name that totally fits this theme's thread...but was chosen anyway? If everyone's up in arms over Athletics, what about the...

Houston Texans??

Aside from other teams having had the name previously, I mean come on...that's the best they could do? Falls right down there with the Birmingham Americans, Memphis Southmen and the old WFL Hawaiians. (Weren't they WFL?) Just dull, boring, and unimaginative. Especially when compared to the uber-cool Houston Oilers. Great name, great logo, and sweet unis back in the silver helmet days.

Hadn't thought about Saints really until someone pointed it out, but it's true, it's unlikely that name would be chosen today. I don't get why somebody mentioned the Falcons though.

It produced one sweet-looking logo, though, did it not?

But yeah, I'm with you on the Texans one there. That's just about one of the most unimaginative, uninspiring, just nothingness monikers one can think of. I mean...they could have went with Toros, or something else that could evoke more emotion than simply "Texans".

In regards to the Saints, I really don't see why that name wouldn't fly today, if the franchise was awarded today under the same set of circumstances that it was awarded back in...1967, was it? The franchise was awarded on All Saints Day, in a region with a substantial Catholic influence. But, of course, the PC police woulda cam out the woodwork to flame that there.

[rant]

PC can shove it, for all I give a care...cultural awareness is one thing, but if we have separation of church and state, why in the world can we not have separation of sports and POLITICS???

[/rant]

[quantum]

The Packers name would be DOA nowadays. Packers isn't that aggressive. Green Bay isn't even that big of a meat processing city. Paper, foundry or insurance is far more prevalent. Then again, Green Bay would never have a franchise awarded to them anyway, so the name works.

Other than Raptors, wildlife names are fine. Raptors is only an exception because it was a trendy pick coming off of a movie.

Tribe names or specific groups have a shot (ex. Seminoles, Irish, Illini, etc), but the general names such as Indians, Braves and Redskins have no chance.

Teams based on a color (Browns, Red Sox, White Sox, etc) are very unlikely choices. A team (especially in baseball) might name themselves something similar to feed off of another team's success.

I don't buy into the oversensitivity crap that names like earthquakes and hurricanes wouldn't be used. The point of aggressive names is that there is a danger element to them. Acts of nature are just part of life. Certain acts by humans, however, would be taboo (murderers, rapists, terrorists, etc).

Names like nationals or texans are rather unimaginative and lack unique identity or identity altogether.