Unpopular Opinions

[DCarp1231]

The Patriots current helmet looks awful and cheap with a red facemask. With a white helmet? Wonderful. Silver helmet? Horrible.

[The_Admiral]

It looks chintzy when the helmet is seen by itself, but it works as an accent color in the gestalt. With their wispy little baseball pennant logo and the uniform's general Y2Kitsch, the facemask is the least of their problems.

[Ark]

How is it an unpopular opinion on here that the Patriots 2000-present uniforms are bad?

 

Actual unpopular opinion is that they are great. Very close to the best they've ever had, and with a few tweaks they would definitely be.  

 

 

[Htown1141]

On 9/16/2019 at 7:34 PM, SFGiants58 said:

True, but they haven't worn the all-red in years. I completely forgot they did that! The Texans (well, Toros could also be the name) have a much greater identity potential than the Oilers. Their logo also passes the doodle test, but without looking like clip art. Had the Titans not switched up their uniforms, I'd give them the same defense (minus the doodle test). 

 

At the end of the day, Oilers nostalgia is going to fade in Houston (and I'm sure it has already in Tennessee). Some of us uniform nerds will try to keep that Luv' Ya Blue flame alive, but not me. 

As someone who has been born and raised here (in Houston), I can tell you certainly that almost every person older than 30 (and many younger) thinks the Oilers have some of the best uniforms of all time. Most don't care enough to follow this uniform :censored: but they remember the Oilers' and their bitchin' identity. The identity became something larger than just the team. It was Houston's first professional sports team, and for many in and around Houston, one of only a few things tying the surround area to the city and its (admittedly weak) culture. There was something intrinsically Houston, Texas about the Oilers, and my parents and their friends are old enough to remember Earl Campbell and Warren Moon and everything that happened. They light up when I ask them about the Oilers, but it . It's a real, genuine feeling that goes beyond simply remembering some exciting moments. It's inherent to almost every native (and many transplant) Houstonians: the Oilers mean something to a city that doesn't have much to care about in terms of culture, and even now have a greater impact on that culture than the Texans.

 

The show the extent of how little the Texans and their identity have shaped Houston as a whole is to look at my friend group.

Me (a Lions fan, because when I was 6 I thought their logo and colors were super cool, as well as Calvin)

A Panthers Fan

A Saints Fan

A fan of players, not a team

A Browns fan

A Seahawks fan

A Texans fan

All of us are reasonably big football fans, some more than others, but more importantly we only remember a time where the Texans existed. Of course we all watch the games, because it's what's on CBS on sundays, but none of us (even the Texans fan) find it to be must-watch tv. The identity plays a big part in that.

 

The Texans really look boring as hell.

Above is what I believe to be their two best looks of last year. Don't get me wrong, they're good looks. The way that the navy and red are able to play off each other, a minimal design that works well with the logo, one of the best number fonts in professional football. In fact, the only thing I would change is getting rid of the wordmark on the front (Actual unpopular opinion apparently??? NFL teams shouldn't have wordmarks on the front of their jerseys??), other than that, I think it's one of the prettiest looks to come after the turn of the century. Despite all this, they are literally the blandest look in the NFL. Their visual identity has no excuse of being before the time of digital graphics or modern uniform manufacturing like many of the older teams in the league, it just has no value to the city of Houston. I can look at this team, head to toe, and only gather that it's a team from Texas, and their name is possibly the Bulls.For an expansion team, this isn't good. No other way to go about it, this design makes no sense for an expansion franchise trying to establish itself in a football-heavy landscape. The point of this identity was to become Houston's NFL Team, because McNair and the NFL had to have known that the panhandle down to Brownsville, everything West of (and a lot east of) I-45 is Cowboys Country. It failed. It's a failure of an identity. It had one job, to reignite a burning passion for pro football in Houston, and compared to the Oilers, the Texans have to be viewed as one of the most spectacular failures in modern sports branding.

 

 

This is the prettiest look to ever debut in Houston. The striping is consistent, the colors work perfectly against a white back ground, and the columbia jersey still works as a very good backdrop to the striping pattern. I specifically used a photo without the helmet because it's its own topic, but the only thing I could possibly think to change from the 1979 set would be to give them the Texans number font (or possibly a modified block, similar to the current Jags numbers or an equivalent). Regardless, the '79 Oilers (or even the 90's teams in Houston, with the smaller sleeve stripes and red facemask) from a uniform and identity aspect are just as visually appealing, than the Texans. At least out of the people I've met and talked to, every single one can figure out what makes the Oilers uniforms look so good. The simple but iconic and unique elements (the striping and color scheme) are all that need to be ther for it to have the staying power it does within the city. I promise, not just based on nostalgia, that people would buy the hell out of an Oilers jersey with Deshaun Waston's number and name on the back. People who weren't even born would rock Oilers stuff if it was more accessible, because it looks good and says "Houston" to those who live here.

Now onto the logo.

Although I understand the clip-art angle, I don't think that you can argue against what it is. First and foremost, it immediately captures the mind as "Houston", or at least more than the Texans logo. Instead of being a standard r-w-n color palette with a stylized bull head, evoking Beaumont all the way to El Paso, this really is emblematic of Houston identity when it was created in 1960. Furthermore, the clipart argument is valid insofar as there are other options. In 1960, if you were going to draw an oil derrick, theres only a few ways to do it, and this is the one that looked best on a helmet. Despite its generic look, however, it was able to remain unchanged for over 35 years.

 

I'll probably work on this more at some point, and make this my "ultimate defense of the Oilers" argument, but I'll leave it here for now. 

 

TL/DR: You don't know what you're talking about from a cultural perspective. Unless the Texans pull off some '69 Miracle Mets kind of run in the next decade or so, which is very unlikely, the Texans won't have the kind of pull the Oilers ever had in Houston. The "Luv Ya Blue!" era, as well as the "Run N' Shoot" era produced more hype and excitement in Houston than the Texans probably ever will, and even those who weren't around to see the Oilers recognize its value surpasses the Texans. It doesn't look to be changing anytime soon.

(No one gives a :censored: about the Oilers and the pre-Titans history in Tennessee, for what it's worth.)

[SFGiants58]

32 minutes ago, Htown1141 said:

 

Yup, that's the reaction I was expecting!

 

32 minutes ago, Htown1141 said:

As someone who has been born and raised here (in Houston), I can tell you certainly that almost every person older than 30 (and many younger) thinks the Oilers have some of the best uniforms of all time. Most don't care enough to follow this uniform but they remember the Oilers' and their bitchin' identity.

 

I get that take, especially from people who remember it and can influence others.

 

32 minutes ago, Htown1141 said:

The identity became something larger than just the team. It was Houston's first professional sports team, and for many in and around Houston, one of only a few things tying the surround area to the city and its (admittedly weak) culture. There was something intrinsically Houston, Texas about the Oilers, and my parents and their friends are old enough to remember Earl Campbell and Warren Moon and everything that happened.

 

"Houston had a special relationship with the Oilers. You need to be from there to understand." That's a line shared with many other cities (e.g., Cleveland, Green Bay, Denver, and maybe San Diego), especially when there was a history of success. Nobody in Chicago or St. Louis gives a rat's ass about the Gridbirds, AFAIK.

 

32 minutes ago, Htown1141 said:

 

They light up when I ask them about the Oilers, but it . It's a real, genuine feeling that goes beyond simply remembering some exciting moments. It's inherent to almost every native (and many transplant) Houstonians: the Oilers mean something to a city that doesn't have much to care about in terms of culture, and even now have a greater impact on that culture than the Texans.

 

That's reasonable, especially when the color scheme and uniforms were so unique. The other team simply hasn't had room to grow, being a relatively-young expansion club.

 

32 minutes ago, Htown1141 said:

The show the extent of how little the Texans and their identity have shaped Houston as a whole is to look at my friend group.

Me (a Lions fan, because when I was 6 I thought their logo and colors were super cool, as well as Calvin)

A Panthers Fan

A Saints Fan

A fan of players, not a team

A Browns fan

A Seahawks fan

A Texans fan

All of us are reasonably big football fans, some more than others, but more importantly we only remember a time where the Texans existed. Of course we all watch the games, because it's what's on CBS on sundays, but none of us (even the Texans fan) find it to be must-watch tv. The identity plays a big part in that.

 

I can definitely see that.

 

32 minutes ago, Htown1141 said:

The Texans really look boring as hell.

Above is what I believe to be their two best looks of last year. Don't get me wrong, they're good looks. The way that the navy and red are able to play off each other, a minimal design that works well with the logo, one of the best number fonts in professional football. In fact, the only thing I would change is getting rid of the wordmark on the front (Actual unpopular opinion apparently??? NFL teams shouldn't have wordmarks on the front of their jerseys??), other than that, I think it's one of the prettiest looks to come after the turn of the century.

 

Agreed. Quite frankly, this @oldschoolvikings concept is the ideal Texans uniform. 

 

 

32 minutes ago, Htown1141 said:

Despite all this, they are literally the blandest look in the NFL.

 

Not when the Jaguars and Dolphins exist.

 

32 minutes ago, Htown1141 said:

Their visual identity has no excuse of being before the time of digital graphics or modern uniform manufacturing like many of the older teams in the league, it just has no value to the city of Houston.

 

 

I don't know, the people at the games don't seem to mind.

 

 

32 minutes ago, Htown1141 said:

I can look at this team, head to toe, and only gather that it's a team from Texas, and their name is possibly the Bulls.For an expansion team, this isn't good. No other way to go about it, this design makes no sense for an expansion franchise trying to establish itself in a football-heavy landscape. The point of this identity was to become Houston's NFL Team, because McNair and the NFL had to have known that the panhandle down to Brownsville, everything West of (and a lot east of) I-45 is Cowboys Country. It failed. It's a failure of an identity. It had one job, to reignite a burning passion for pro football in Houston, and compared to the Oilers, the Texans have to be viewed as one of the most spectacular failures in modern sports branding.

 

Honestly, just because a team doesn't reflect the city doesn't mean it was a failure. The fans in the stands seem to have accepted it (it's not a Brewers, Rams, or Padres situation) with little provocation, even if they might prefer the Oilers.

 

The Wild was a failure (name), the Bobcats were a failure, the Texans are not AFAIK. 

 

32 minutes ago, Htown1141 said:

 

This is the prettiest look to ever debut in Houston.

 

Not when these exist:

 

   

 

It pains me to point out the former Quakes. 

 

32 minutes ago, Htown1141 said:

 

The striping is consistent,

 

That's the problem. It produces the ugliness known as "floating stripes." Florida and Ohio State both downgraded with them. 

 

32 minutes ago, Htown1141 said:

 

the colors work perfectly against a white back ground,

 

Sure.

 

32 minutes ago, Htown1141 said:

and the columbia jersey still works as a very good backdrop to the striping pattern.

 

But it produced ugly floating stripes.

 

32 minutes ago, Htown1141 said:

I specifically used a photo without the helmet because it's its own topic, but the only thing I could possibly think to change from the 1979 set would be to give them the Texans number font (or possibly a modified block, similar to the current Jags numbers or an equivalent). Regardless, the '79 Oilers (or even the 90's teams in Houston, with the smaller sleeve stripes and red facemask) from a uniform and identity aspect are just as visually appealing, than the Texans.

 

Yeah, I get that you like it, but I simply don't like it as much compared to the Texans' uniforms. I love the USC stripes and the overall plainness of the Texans compared to the overdone striping/floating stripes.

 

32 minutes ago, Htown1141 said:

 

At least out of the people I've met and talked to, every single one can figure out what makes the Oilers uniforms look so good. The simple but iconic and unique elements (the striping and color scheme) are all that need to be ther for it to have the staying power it does within the city.

 

That's understandable, but that doesn't make it good. 

 

Quote

I promise, not just based on nostalgia, that people would buy the hell out of an Oilers jersey with Deshaun Waston's number and name on the back. People who weren't even born would rock Oilers stuff if it was more accessible, because it looks good and says "Houston" to those who live here.

 

My guess is that it says "Houston" for memories of the past/part of the collective memory, which equals "nostalgia." You can be nostalgic for things you never experienced.

 

Quote

Now onto the logo.

Although I understand the clip-art angle, I don't think that you can argue against what it is. First and foremost, it immediately captures the mind as "Houston", or at least more than the Texans logo. Instead of being a standard r-w-n color palette with a stylized bull head, evoking Beaumont all the way to El Paso, this really is emblematic of Houston identity when it was created in 1960. Furthermore, the clipart argument is valid insofar as there are other options. In 1960, if you were going to draw an oil derrick, theres only a few ways to do it, and this is the one that looked best on a helmet. Despite its generic look, however, it was able to remain unchanged for over 35 years.

 

Unchanged doesn't equal good. I find the Texans' logo far more compelling and an excellent adaptation of the state flag. The "Houston" angle is appreciated, but the Texans' logo does lay claim to the idea that the Texans represent all of non-Dallas-Ft. Worth Texas. I like that as a way to stick it to the hegemonic Cowboys.

 

Quote

I'll probably work on this more at some point, and make this my "ultimate defense of the Oilers" argument, but I'll leave it here for now. 

 

TL/DR: You don't know what you're talking about from a cultural perspective. Unless the Texans pull off some '69 Miracle Mets kind of run in the next decade or so, which is very unlikely, the Texans won't have the kind of pull the Oilers ever had in Houston. The "Luv Ya Blue!" era, as well as the "Run N' Shoot" era produced more hype and excitement in Houston than the Texans probably ever will, and even those who weren't around to see the Oilers recognize its value surpasses the Texans. It doesn't look to be changing anytime soon.

(No one gives a about the Oilers and the pre-Titans history in Tennessee, for what it's worth.)

 

I get that, I really do. The football fans of Houston from your experience still have fond memories of the Oilers because they've had more success than the Texans have had (naturally, one was an expansion team while the other was an AFL original). The color scheme was unique in the NFL and the stripes were good for some (not me), but I still maintain that the Texans (or Toros, as they should have been named) have a much prettier logo and more potential for a fantastic look. 

 

 

Ah well, agree to disagree. This is the unpopular opinions thread, after all.

 

[SFGiants58]

A less controversial unpopular opinion - T-bar stripes should come back to baseball.

 

 

At the very least, those Cardinals fauxbacks should use them.

[_DietDrPepper_]

I’m sorry @Htown1141, the Oilers look is overrated, the Columbia blue is the only good thing to ever come out of the identity, but it would’ve been much better for a team in a tropical setting such as Miami or LA, the logo and striping is more boring than the Texans identity ever has been. The Texans look is gorgeous 

[FroBroStudio]

On 9/22/2019 at 4:35 PM, DNAsports said:

The Dolphins orange CR uniform may not “exist” anymore, but the only salvageable part of it should’ve been the orange pants. With the slight modification of dropping the dark blue in the stripe as with what Miami did with the rest of the uniforms, it gives them a good alternate pants option:

Looking at this, it makes me wonder why Miami never tried that. The Aqua Top and Coral (orange) bottom looks beautiful while the bottom pic gives me a Creamsicle Tampa Bay Vibe with teal.

[The_Admiral]

2 hours ago, BellaSpurs said:

 it would’ve been much better for a team in a tropical setting such as Miami or LA

 

Houston is more like living in a fat guy's ass crack than Los Angeles is

[SFGiants58]

8 minutes ago, the admiral said:

 

Houston is more like living in a fat guy's ass crack than Los Angeles is

It’s one of the reasons why the story of excavating Dean Corll’s body dumping ground was so horrific.

[_DietDrPepper_]

14 minutes ago, the admiral said:

 

Houston is more like living in a fat guy's ass crack than Los Angeles is

I never said it wasn’t hot, it’s not tropical though, atleast to my knowledge, or at least known for its tropical-ity like Miami or LA.

[IceCap]

Both Houston teams had/have great identities. The Oilers looked great, but so do the Texans. I don't agree with @Htown1141's assertion that the Texans look boring at all. To me? They have one of the best modern sets in the NFL. A rare situation where a team got it right from get-go. Yeah, red socks on the road would be better, but considering what other teams have done? That lone misstep is small potatoes.

 

That's why unpopular opinion is that the Tennessee Titans should revert to being the Tennessee Oilers. So we can have both the Texans and Oilers' identities in the league. It beats out the abominations the Titans are wearing now.

[SFGiants58]

I like the alliteration, and if Houston can’t have the identity that’s so important to them (their first pro team, those big runs, etc.), nobody should have it!
 

We’re in a post-branding age, so Tennessee Oilers sounds like an awful idea to me. It’s not good branding anymore for a relocated team to keep their name (the NFL in LA aside). The Brooklyn Dodgers and Milwaukee Braves’ moves kind of made that idea unpalatable for some, with the Browns/Oilers moves being the curtain call on it.

[Htown1141]

 

@Ice_Cap THAT is an unpopular opinion right there. Ask anyone from a city whose sports teams were relocated, and I promise only an increasingly few amount of people care about the history pre-relocation. The Tennessee Oilers are a bad idea for a lot of reasons. I doubt anyone in the city of Houston would buy merch that even though looks like what it did in Houston, has Mariota's name and number on the back. Even general t-shirts or cups or anything, it wouldn't appeal to anyone here because everyone old enough to remember knows how awful Bud Adams was about the stadium demands. He was an awful pr guy and Lanier as able to paint him as a villain, and the city and its people haven't forgiven him and his family for the blowing up of the '91 team or (more importantly) the relocation. But I digress.

People in Tennessee don't give 2 :censored:s about Earl Campbell, Billy Cannon, Warren Moon, Dan Pastorini, Robert Brazile, so on and so forth. The people of Houston do. It makes no sense to make the argument based on aesthetics alone to dictate the identity of a relocated sports team. Specifically in the Titans/Oilers situation, the Oilers while in Tennessee were very mediocre and posted some of the worst attendance numbers in the post-merger era. Although the stadium choice and hastened move by Adams had a lot to do with this, identity played a key part in this. People were going to be showing up for Houston's team, playing in Tennessee. Only when the Titans rebranded and a new stadium was built did they sell out in Tennessee.

 

@SFGiants58 Your arguments on the aesthetics of the Oilers are completely valid, and after explaining your problem with the striping, I can understand where and why you stand the way you do on the Oilers. However, there are some things I feel like I should further explain or clear up.

 

On 9/26/2019 at 6:08 PM, SFGiants58 said:

Quote

 

They light up when I ask them about the Oilers, but it . It's a real, genuine feeling that goes beyond simply remembering some exciting moments. It's inherent to almost every native (and many transplant) Houstonians: the Oilers mean something to a city that doesn't have much to care about in terms of culture, and even now have a greater impact on that culture than the Texans.

 

That's reasonable, especially when the color scheme and uniforms were so unique. The other team simply hasn't had room to grow, being a relatively-young expansion club.

 

On 9/26/2019 at 6:08 PM, SFGiants58 said:

Quote

Now onto the logo.

Although I understand the clip-art angle, I don't think that you can argue against what it is. First and foremost, it immediately captures the mind as "Houston", or at least more than the Texans logo. Instead of being a standard r-w-n color palette with a stylized bull head, evoking Beaumont all the way to El Paso, this really is emblematic of Houston identity when it was created in 1960. Furthermore, the clipart argument is valid insofar as there are other options. In 1960, if you were going to draw an oil derrick, theres only a few ways to do it, and this is the one that looked best on a helmet. Despite its generic look, however, it was able to remain unchanged for over 35 years.

 

Unchanged doesn't equal good. I find the Texans' logo far more compelling and an excellent adaptation of the state flag. The "Houston" angle is appreciated, but the Texans' logo does lay claim to the idea that the Texans represent all of non-Dallas-Ft. Worth Texas. I like that as a way to stick it to the hegemonic Cowboys.

 

That's not necessarily what I meant but I get why you would interpret that to be what I meant. My main argument on that point was that it did its best in 1960 terms to derive the best way to represent a team named the Oilers. Are there better, more interesting ways to do it now? Absolutely, however at that point it did it's job and still looked serviceable at worst (and darn good at best) on a helmet despite its verticality. I just disagree that it's clip-art-y. At the very least it looks good despite being similar to clip art, and the logo would fit in well with the modern NFL.

 

On 9/26/2019 at 6:08 PM, SFGiants58 said:

My guess is that it says "Houston" for memories of the past/part of the collective memory, which equals "nostalgia." You can be nostalgic for things you never experienced.

I mean yeah that makes sense. I'm often nostalgic for the Brooklyn Dodgers and, weirdly, Enron. However, the idea of that saying "Houston" isn't necessarily just nostalgia. I don't feel like I said this enough. Houston has about as little culture imaginable for any city, let alone the 4th largest city in the US. The closest shared experiences we have are Harvey, traffic, and the Astros. The reason I didn't include the Rockets is because they feel more global than local, although many in Houston, including myself, are Rockets fans (the case would be different in 1995 but whatever). The Oilers, until they left, were possibly the single most unifying part of Houston's identity. Even if you weren't a football fan, the Oilers meant something to you. The Luv Ya Blue stuff really was a huge thing here and will always be a part of what being a Houstonian is.

 

 

[SFGiants58]

9 minutes ago, Htown1141 said:

 

@Ice_Cap THAT is an unpopular opinion right there. Ask anyone from a city whose sports teams were relocated, and I promise only an increasingly few amount of people care about the history pre-relocation.

 

I care about the pre-SF history of the Giants, but only because it was so thoroughly marketed when the team hadn't won a title since 1954. After the three-in-five, there's less emphasis on the New York history. Moving with the Dodgers helped make it profitable and relevant to fans to acknowledge that history. I still kind of wish the Dodgers-Giants rivalry became the Angels-Seals rivalry in 1958.

 

9 minutes ago, Htown1141 said:

The Tennessee Oilers are a bad idea for a lot of reasons. I doubt anyone in the city of Houston would buy merch that even though looks like what it did in Houston, has Mariota's name and number on the back. Even general t-shirts or cups or anything, it wouldn't appeal to anyone here because everyone old enough to remember knows how awful Bud Adams was about the stadium demands. He was an awful pr guy and Lanier as able to paint him as a villain, and the city and its people haven't forgiven him and his family for the blowing up of the '91 team or (more importantly) the relocation. But I digress.

People in Tennessee don't give 2 :censored:s about Earl Campbell, Billy Cannon, Warren Moon, Dan Pastorini, Robert Brazile, so on and so forth. The people of Houston do.

 

It makes no sense to make the argument based on aesthetics alone to dictate the identity of a relocated sports team. Specifically in the Titans/Oilers situation, the Oilers while in Tennessee were very mediocre and posted some of the worst attendance numbers in the post-merger era. Although the stadium choice and hastened move by Adams had a lot to do with this, identity played a key part in this. People were going to be showing up for Houston's team, playing in Tennessee. Only when the Titans rebranded and a new stadium was built did they sell out in Tennessee.

 

I've read a @Buc post about the Snatit that nobody really cares about the Oilers history in Tennessee, nor should they. Steve McNair, parts of that '99 team, and Vince Young are more important to them. 

 

9 minutes ago, Htown1141 said:

@SFGiants58 Your arguments on the aesthetics of the Oilers are completely valid, and after explaining your problem with the striping, I can understand where and why you stand the way you do on the Oilers. However, there are some things I feel like I should further explain or clear up.

 

That's not necessarily what I meant but I get why you would interpret that to be what I meant. My main argument on that point was that it did its best in 1960 terms to derive the best way to represent a team named the Oilers. Are there better, more interesting ways to do it now? Absolutely, however at that point it did it's job and still looked serviceable at worst (and darn good at best) on a helmet despite its verticality. I just disagree that it's clip-art-y. At the very least it looks good despite being similar to clip art, and the logo would fit in well with the modern NFL.

 

Thanks. Now that you've explained it like that, I get that it worked then and it had brand equity. It had so much brand equity, that the XFL decided to pump it full of garbage for their Houston team!

 

There's a simplicity there that could outlast its compatriots (which often relied on complicated illustrations and/or just looked doofy - Patriot Pat, the original Broncos' horse, the Dolphins' early design, and the static buffalo for the Bills). 

 

9 minutes ago, Htown1141 said:

I mean yeah that makes sense. I'm often nostalgic for the Brooklyn Dodgers and, weirdly, Enron.

 

I can definitely get behind the former and I can see why a Houstonian would consider the latter.

 

9 minutes ago, Htown1141 said:

However, the idea of that saying "Houston" isn't necessarily just nostalgia. I don't feel like I said this enough. Houston has about as little culture imaginable for any city, let alone the 4th largest city in the US. The closest shared experiences we have are Harvey, traffic, and the Astros.

 

I was going to add Dean Corll to that list, but it's just in bad taste and is pretty thoroughly buried in the city's history (i.e., it happened in the early '70s, Gacy had a higher official kill count, and Corll's death is what set off the investigation). I know they aren't everybody's taste, but Last Podcast on the Left did an excellent series on Corll.

 

I'm surprised that Houstonians feel that "lack of culture." You'd think there'd be some famous musicians or films local to the area, or even NASA might be part of it.

 

9 minutes ago, Htown1141 said:

The reason I didn't include the Rockets is because they feel more global than local, although many in Houston, including myself, are Rockets fans (the case would be different in 1995 but whatever). The Oilers, until they left, were possibly the single most unifying part of Houston's identity. Even if you weren't a football fan, the Oilers meant something to you. The Luv Ya Blue stuff really was a huge thing here and will always be a part of what being a Houstonian is.

 

That's an excellent anthropological point! It's just something intrinsic to the city, maybe more the Browns were to Cleveland (a city certainly not lacking in culture) or the Colts/Ravens were/are to Baltimore (John Waters and The Wire are two fantastic pieces of "culture"). Even Brooklyn has culture that extended far beyond the Dodgers, in ways that Houston doesn't.

 

This is all the more reason why if Houston can't have the Oilers, nobody should have the Oilers. Same goes with the Browns, but that's mostly because I love the Ravens' identity.

[IceCap]

25 minutes ago, Htown1141 said:

@Ice_Cap THAT is an unpopular opinion right there. Ask anyone from a city whose sports teams were relocated, and I promise only an increasingly few amount of people care about the history pre-relocation. The Tennessee Oilers are a bad idea for a lot of reasons. I doubt anyone in the city of Houston would buy merch that even though looks like what it did in Houston, has Mariota's name and number on the back. Even general t-shirts or cups or anything, it wouldn't appeal to anyone here because everyone old enough to remember knows how awful Bud Adams was about the stadium demands. He was an awful pr guy and Lanier as able to paint him as a villain, and the city and its people haven't forgiven him and his family for the blowing up of the '91 team or (more importantly) the relocation. But I digress.

First off, I'm firmly onboard the side of things that says history should stay with the franchise. The Oilers' history belongs to the Titans as far as I'm concerned. There's not even a clean break. They were the Tennessee Oilers for two seasons.

Also the Titans re-adopting the Oilers name wouldn't have anything to do with Houston. They wouldn't care how many Houston fans bought Oilers gear, because they'd be the Tennessee Oilers, not the Houston Oilers.

 

28 minutes ago, Htown1141 said:

 

People in Tennessee don't give 2 :censored:s about Earl Campbell, Billy Cannon, Warren Moon, Dan Pastorini, Robert Brazile, so on and so forth. The people of Houston do. It makes no sense to make the argument based on aesthetics alone to dictate the identity of a relocated sports team. Specifically in the Titans/Oilers situation, the Oilers while in Tennessee were very mediocre and posted some of the worst attendance numbers in the post-merger era. Although the stadium choice and hastened move by Adams had a lot to do with this, identity played a key part in this. People were going to be showing up for Houston's team, playing in Tennessee. Only when the Titans rebranded and a new stadium was built did they sell out in Tennessee.

that was then this is now. The Titans were a hot brand when they debuted, because everything had that Y2K sheen. That's worn off, their new unis are drab and sucky, and their team hasn't been legitimately good in ages. On top of that? The Titans already have a history of selling Oilers throwback gear (the AFL 50th comes to mind).

With retro being "in"? I firmly believe the Titans could make a re-adoption of the Oilers' brand work. There's really nothing that stands out about the Titans' tenure, other than coming one yard short in the Super Bowl.

Besides, it's their history. They have the right to it.

 

 

[SFGiants58]

3 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

First off, I'm firmly onboard the side of things that says history should stay with the franchise. The Oilers' history belongs to the Titans as far as I'm concerned. There's not even a clean break. They were the Tennessee Oilers for two seasons.

 

Two awful seasons that nobody really cares about. Sure, they have the history in the record books (as they should), but do any Titans fans give a crap about what happened in Houston? The '99 team was the Titans, not the Oilers. Steve McNair had his best work as a Titan. Vince Young was a Titan. Marcus Mariota is a Titan. They're not Oilers, except for the first few years of Steve McNair's career.

 

3 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Also the Titans re-adopting the Oilers name wouldn't have anything to do with Houston. They wouldn't care how many Houston fans bought Oilers gear, because they'd be the Tennessee Oilers, not the Houston Oilers.

 

I don't think there's market research to support that.

 

3 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

that was then this is now. The Titans were a hot brand when they debuted, because everything had that Y2K sheen. That's worn off, their new unis are drab and sucky, and their team hasn't been legitimately good in ages.

 

Should we have the Oklahoma City SuperSonics then? The Washington Expos? The Phoenix Jets (before the Thrashers relocated)? Just because the uniforms and the team sucks doesn't mean they should take back their old brand that's so thoroughly tied to another city.

 

3 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

 

On top of that? The Titans already have a history of selling Oilers throwback gear (the AFL 50th comes to mind).

With retro being "in"? I firmly believe the Titans could make a re-adoption of the Oilers' brand work.

 

They couldn't. It's too tied to Houston. Nobody gives a :censored: about two awful seasons of Houston's team playing in Tennessee.

 

3 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

There's really nothing that stands out about the Titans' tenure, other than coming one yard short in the Super Bowl.

Besides, it's their history. They have the right to it.

 

There's really nothing that stands out about the Thunder's tenure, other than falling to the Heat in five games in the NBA Finals.

 

You see how that logic is a problem? Let the Oilers stay dead. If Houston can't have it, nobody should have it. That's why the NFL retired the name.

[IceCap]

6 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Two awful seasons that nobody really cares about.

The big argument in favour of the Browns' situation is that the break was clean. It's not like they played for two years as the Baltimore Browns before having to give the name back and start pretending they were never actually the Browns in the first place. The break was clean, which makes the hoop-jumping easier to swallow.

Two awful seasons or not? The Oilers' history bleeds into Tennessee.

 

8 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

I don't think there's market research to support that.

I'm not saying I 100% believe that Tennessee Titans merch would sell out. I'm saying that Houston's response to the proposed re-adoption of the Oilers' nickname is a non-issue.

 

9 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Should we have the Oklahoma City SuperSonics then? The Washington Expos? The Phoenix Jets (before the Thrashers relocated)? Just because the uniforms and the team sucks doesn't mean they should take back their old brand that's so thoroughly tied to another city.

I think it's a case-by-case basis. Phoenix Jets wouldn't have been the worst thing ever (there was someone who once did a hypothetical "history of the Phoenix Jets" concept series working under the assumption that they kept the name). And Oklahoma SuperSonics (or just "Oklahoma Sonics") wouldn't have been bad either if you want my honest opinion.

Washington Expos wouldn't have worked as well as Nationals because of the rich baseball history in the city, but that's neither here nor there.

 

11 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

They couldn't. It's too tied to Houston. Nobody gives a about two awful seasons of Houston's team playing in Tennessee.

It's an identity with retro cache. I think admiral was right when he called them the football Whalers. Only unlike the Whalers? The Oilers established the precedent of their name in their current locale.

 

13 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

If Houston can't have it, nobody should have it.

Houston has the Texans. The Texans are not, nor will they ever be, the Oilers.

The Titans, in my opinion, have an identity that's aged as well as Ecks vs Sever. Am I going to argue that the Tennessee Oilers in the present day would be a slam-dunk move? Nah. I don't know if it would, but I think it has a few factors working in its favour.

And given my distaste for the Titans' brand? It's my personal (and unpopular) opinion that the Tennessee Oilers ought to make a comeback

[Htown1141]

14 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

I'm surprised that Houstonians feel that "lack of culture." You'd think there'd be some famous musicians or films local to the area, or even NASA might be part of it.

I suppose I forgot about Travis Scott. Like everyone knows Beyonce is from Houston, but the way Travis has taken ownership of Houston with his music (Astroworld was especially huge in Houston, both the thee park and the record even more-so) has kinda been a really cool thing that I didn't think I would ever see. A bunch of people at my school own astroworld stuff, and I know a few with Cactus Jack Jordan 4's specifically because they have the Oilers colors (see: indicative of Houston and its identity). So there is that.

 

NASA is also big, but it's pretty out of the way. From where I live, JSC and Space Center Houston is a solid 40 minute drive without traffic, and no one really goes down there unless they're on their way to Kemah or Galveston. I would love for it to be a bigger part of Houston's identity, but most people I interact with on a day-to-day basis are a few degrees of separation from anyone who works there (This is unlike Enron, in which I could name about 10 people I got to school with whose parents worked for the Crooked E).

 

To be a little more specific, Houston doesn't have any sort of national narrative. It's hard to explain, but the easiest way to think of Houston is that it's just a collection of small towns that kinda have to act as a singular unit because they accidentally expanded on top of one another, save for the medical center and downtown, which were built because the city acted like a city. Therefore, it can't really create a national narrative like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Atlanta, or to keep it in state, Dallas, San Antonio, or Austin. There are very few (if any) generalizations to make about the city, and that's rooted in the fact that there isn't a culture here that's become nationally (and very often locally) relevant.

 

As far as Wes Anderson, only film lovers know he's from Houston and filmed his first movie at St. John's.

[SFGiants58]

1 minute ago, Ice_Cap said:

The big argument in favour of the Browns' situation is that the break was clean. It's not like they played for two years as the Baltimore Browns before having to give the name back and start pretending they were never actually the Browns in the first place. The break was clean, which makes the hoop-jumping easier to swallow.

Two awful seasons or not? The Oilers' history bleeds into Tennessee.

 

Bleeds into it, but it's negligible. It should be treated the same way the Brewers treat that one year in Seattle, as in "forgotten." The Brewers don't acknowledge any 1969-based anniversaries, which is how it should be. 

 

1 minute ago, Ice_Cap said:

I'm not saying I 100% believe that Tennessee Titans merch would sell out. I'm saying that Houston's response to the proposed re-adoption of the Oilers' nickname is a non-issue.

 

I was more referring to if Titans fans wanted it (I doubt they do), and yes, I'm sure people in Houston would be outraged over it and the Texans might try to protest the idea. If the Oilers were legitimately popular in Nashville, the Titans would have done throwbacks to the classic look on a regular basis (a la the Falcons, Bucs, and Rams).

 

1 minute ago, Ice_Cap said:

I think it's a case-by-case basis. Phoenix Jets wouldn't have been the worst thing ever (there was someone who once did a hypothetical "history of the Phoenix Jets" concept series working under the assumption that they kept the name). And Oklahoma SuperSonics (or just "Oklahoma Sonics") wouldn't have been bad either if you want my honest opinion.

Washington Expos wouldn't have worked as well as Nationals because of the rich baseball history in the city, but that's neither here nor there.

 

Jets, you could get away with (Phoenix's airport is a bit of SouthWest Airlines hub). SuperSonics/Sonics, after what happened? Hell no. The Oilers' situation is similar and it was a mistake to let the Tennessee Oilers exist for two years. 

 

I can see case-by-case, but most cases say no.

 

1 minute ago, Ice_Cap said:

It's an identity with retro cache. I think admiral was right when he called them the football Whalers. Only unlike the Whalers? The Oilers established the precedent of their name in their current locale.

 

I'd say the Browns of the South is more appropriate. It's so tied to their old location, that they shouldn't go back.

 

1 minute ago, Ice_Cap said:

Houston has the Texans. The Texans are not, nor will they ever be, the Oilers.

The Titans, in my opinion, have an identity that's aged as well as Ecks vs Sever. Am I going to argue that the Tennessee Oilers in the present day would be a slam-dunk move? Nah. I don't know if it would, but I think it has a few factors working in its favour.

 

The Titans' brand may not be to your taste, but it could have been refined (pun not intended) into something that was classy and simple. Maybe giving in to the minimalism fad would have helped them achieve a cleaner look that's less tied to what looked good in 1999 (granted, powder/white/navy and white/powder/navy were easily the best uniforms in their set and pretty beautiful to me). Operating like their hockey partners might have helped. 

 

At the very least, the navy helmet was a good change to me. No Oilers throwbacks!

 

1 minute ago, Ice_Cap said:

And given my distaste for the Titans' brand? It's my personal (and unpopular) opinion that the Tennessee Oilers ought to make a comeback

 

Fair enough there.  

 

10 minutes ago, Htown1141 said:

I suppose I forgot about Travis Scott. Like everyone knows Beyonce is from Houston, but the way Travis has taken ownership of Houston with his music (Astroworld was especially huge in Houston, both the thee park and the record even more-so) has kinda been a really cool thing that I didn't think I would ever see. A bunch of people at my school own astroworld stuff, and I know a few with Cactus Jack Jordan 4's specifically because they have the Oilers colors (see: indicative of Houston and its identity). So there is that.

 

NASA is also big, but it's pretty out of the way. From where I live, JSC and Space Center Houston is a solid 40 minute drive without traffic, and no one really goes down there unless they're on their way to Kemah or Galveston. I would love for it to be a bigger part of Houston's identity, but most people I interact with on a day-to-day basis are a few degrees of separation from anyone who works there (This is unlike Enron, in which I could name about 10 people I got to school with whose parents worked for the Crooked E).

 

I love learning this stuff! Seriously, it's fascinating to hear about the local culture and how it might not translate to the national perception of the city. 

 

10 minutes ago, Htown1141 said:

To be a little more specific, Houston doesn't have any sort of national narrative. It's hard to explain, but the easiest way to think of Houston is that it's just a collection of small towns that kinda have to act as a singular unit because they accidentally expanded on top of one another, save for the medical center and downtown, which were built because the city acted like a city. Therefore, it can't really create a national narrative like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Atlanta, or to keep it in state, Dallas, San Antonio, or Austin. There are very few (if any) generalizations to make about the city, and that's rooted in the fact that there isn't a culture here that's become nationally (and very often locally) relevant.

 

That's a fascinating way in which the city formed. I was learning a little bit about the history when looking into Dean Corll (who committed most of the murders in The Heights and a few other suburbs). One thing came up with great frequency, namely how the city went through a boom and its relatively small police force couldn't keep up (and refused federal aid, because the chief of police was a c-word). I can see how that hinders a national narrative, especially compared to the other Texas metropoles. 

 

10 minutes ago, Htown1141 said:

As far as Wes Anderson, only film lovers know he's from Houston and filmed his first movie at St. John's.

 

Hmm, I didn't know that! I like Wes Anderson.