Unpopular Opinions

[AFirestormToPurify]

4 hours ago, TrevorBotting said:

Did a quick search and didn't see any results, but whats the general consensus on teams keeping names as they move cities? I feel this fits as an Unpopular Opinion but I am 100% for it. 

 

Give me the Colorado Nordiques, the Minnesota Senators and the Oklahoma City SuperSonics. 

 

And I realize its gets muddled with some instances, or how far to go back (do you want the New Jersey Rockies or the New Jersey Scouts in the NHL?), but I do like the premise. 

 

(if this is the wrong section for this, please let me know). 

Colorado Nordiques makes absolutely no sense. Especially with the fleur de lys plastered all over the jersey. I didn't like the RR1.0 either for the same reason

Hard pass

[TrevorBotting]

Los Angeles Lakers makes no sense. Utah Jazz makes no sense. LA Dodgers makes no sense. But those teams had a chance to build decades of history after the move with the name. I think it would keep the legacy of the franchise alive and give it a starting point to build on top of. 

[raysox]

Yeah but none of those teams have moved since the 70s, when branding meant less than it does now. The Winnipeg Thrashers would be less supported than the Winnipeg Jets. The people of a far away city deserve to have their own unique name that represents them as a city as opposed to a scar of a franchise that moved

[Echo]

1 hour ago, raysox said:

The Winnipeg Threshers would be less supported than the Winnipeg Jets.

 

The Threshers might actually work for Winnipeg.  Manitoba is one of Canada's top wheat-producing provinces. 

[OnWis97]

On 4/12/2023 at 8:12 AM, Sport said:

The train conductor look Astros of the early 2000's was a good look, but wrong for the Astros. Plus it took the shooting star and made it static and slow. 

 

Give me the 90's look every time. 

There was a designer here (I don't recall the name, so maybe they're even one of the recent respondents to this thread) that used to frequently talk about brand vs. aesthetics and that the latter sometimes needed to be sacrificed because it was of secondary importance to the former.   

 

This might be the best example for me. I think the 2000s Astros could be the best example of that...at least for me. Aesthetically, I like everything about the earthy look better. I like the "slow" star better. I view it as bold and solid and the "trails" on the 1990s star are just too long. I also think the colors in the 1990s are just completely drab; like a more boring version of the 2000s Brewers. That all said, giving the Astros earthy tones is like coloring the Stanford Cardinal in blue and yellow. As great as that Astros uniform was, the designers should never have gotten anywhere near the point of completing the design. The drab 1990s look is more fitting. (That all said, I favor aesthetics enough that I hate the look so much that I don't think it was sustainable; going back to blue and orange was always the way to go).

[OnWis97]

18 hours ago, TrevorBotting said:

Did a quick search and didn't see any results, but whats the general consensus on teams keeping names as they move cities? I feel this fits as an Unpopular Opinion but I am 100% for it. 

 

Give me the Colorado Nordiques, the Minnesota Senators and the Oklahoma City SuperSonics. 

 

And I realize its gets muddled with some instances, or how far to go back (do you want the New Jersey Rockies or the New Jersey Scouts in the NHL?), but I do like the premise. 

 

(if this is the wrong section for this, please let me know). 

I think this is an appropriate page for this, but it has the potential to open up a can of worms related to how we track franchises pre- and post-Browns/Ravens, etc.

That said, I think your opinion is unpopular and I tend to agree with it. The Indianapolis Colts, SF Giants, LA Dodgers, etc. make the history of sports easier to track. My default is definitely keeping the same name. I understand why the Twins didn't but we celebrate the full histories of the Giants and Dodgers so much better than we do for the Twins/Sens simply because of this factor. (I know, the Senators were generally terrible but they won the same number of World Series as the Brooklyn Dodgers).

To me, the Baltimore Colts are remembered and the Houston Oilers are largely forgotten even though both franchises did the same thing outside of the name change.  Most fans, however, consider it insulting to the old fans to keep the name. (As someone who grew up with the North Stars, I am glad Dallas didn't totally rebrand and that they acknowledge their Minnesota history). And Dallas kept as as much as they could; "Dallas North Stars" is probably worse than Utah Jazz.

I get it with the Senators, Rockies (though it would be Scouts), etc. But I tend to agree with you in principle. 

[TrevorBotting]

I definitely understand the “why” behind name changes. Money, branding, etc. but the nostalgic part of my brain thinks that keeping the name just adds so much history to the entire franchise. 
 

I am also well aware of being on the losing end of the discussion. 
 

And I gave Dallas a pass because they kept Stars but dropped the North. But c’mon, the Dallas North Stars? That’s gold. It makes zero sense and is an automatic conversation starter/trivia answer. I say lean into it. Same with Colorado Nordiques. It just gives the whole franchise a layer of something completely different to that area. Suddenly, the fleur-de-lis is a symbol for hockey in Colorado! 
 

Maybe I flip this over to the concepts boards. A current league where all teams kept original names when they moved. 

Edited April 13, 2023 by TrevorBotting
Added content

[WestCoastBias]

On 4/12/2023 at 2:30 PM, TrevorBotting said:

Did a quick search and didn't see any results, but whats the general consensus on teams keeping names as they move cities? I feel this fits as an Unpopular Opinion but I am 100% for it. 

 

Give me the Colorado Nordiques, the Minnesota Senators and the Oklahoma City SuperSonics. 

 

And I realize its gets muddled with some instances, or how far to go back (do you want the New Jersey Rockies or the New Jersey Scouts in the NHL?), but I do like the premise. 

 

(if this is the wrong section for this, please let me know). 

 

I think its a case by case basis.

 

Teams that are currently relocation candidates:

 Athletics (A's): Definitely a name that can and should stay with it's team, its already been done twice. Would work in Las Vegas or Portland or any other city. 

Rays: Don't think this name would work anywhere else. Yeah it supposed to be "rays of sunshine" but everyone still thinks of it as the fish which just fits Tampa perfectly. Definitely wouldn't work in Nashville, Charlotte, or Montreal.

Coyotes: It could work in Houston I guess but who's going to want to hold onto the legacy of the Coyotes in their new city. Wouldn't work in Quebec City. 

 

Some teams that have relocated:

Raiders: Its the Raiders, no brainer.

Chargers: Still close enough to SD to appeal to old fans, some history in LA, and the beautiful uniforms.  Good decision. 

Rams: History in LA, another no brainer.

Thrashers/Jets: Previous history of Winnipeg Jets, no brainer. Thrashers was an awful name to begin with.

Sonics/Thunder: Good decision after stealing the team from Seattle. Wouldn't of worked well in OKC anyway.

Grizzlies: Should of changed the name, makes no sense in Memphis. 

Jazz/Hornets/Bobcats: Utah keeping the Jazz name messed all this up and it doesn't fit at all in Utah. New Orleans could of become the Jazz again when the Hornets moved there and then there wouldn't have ever been the Bobcats. Pelicans is a fine name though.

Oilers/Titans: Fine with changing to Titans but Houston should have been allowed to use Oilers again.

 

 

 

[Ark]

Remember when people would say New Orleans Jazz, Charlotte Hornets, and Utah Bobcats. Most popular opinion ever lol

 

I like how Utah Jazz sounds honestly.

[maz]

It depends. Dodgers, Giants, Raiders, Chargers, Rams... those all work fine. When it annoys me is if the name has a unique connection to the original city. Then I am against it. I mean, imagine: the Dallas North Stars. Then again, we have the LA Lakers and Utah Jazz...

[ManillaToad]

Tennessee should still be the Oilers

[colinturner95]

23 hours ago, TrevorBotting said:

I definitely understand the “why” behind name changes. Money, branding, etc. but the nostalgic part of my brain thinks that keeping the name just adds so much history to the entire franchise. 
 

I am also well aware of being on the losing end of the discussion. 
 

And I gave Dallas a pass because they kept Stars but dropped the North. But c’mon, the Dallas North Stars? That’s gold. It makes zero sense and is an automatic conversation starter/trivia answer. I say lean into it. Same with Colorado Nordiques. It just gives the whole franchise a layer of something completely different to that area. Suddenly, the fleur-de-lis is a symbol for hockey in Colorado! 
 

Maybe I flip this over to the concepts boards. A current league where all teams kept original names when they moved. 

In some cases the history does help keep names through a relocation. 

 

Unfortunately for the Nordiques, they only won 1 championship in the WHA and in 23 years between the two leagues, 4 division titles.

 

Plus the fact that Denver =/= North and with the Fleur De Lis being a feature of the Quebec flag, keeping that around after the franchise moved would be a huge middle finger to Quebec. 

[DTConcepts]

5 hours ago, maz said:

Then again, we have the LA Lakers and Utah Jazz...

 

Both of which are stupid names too.

[chcarlson23]

33 minutes ago, DTConcepts said:

 

Both of which are stupid names too.

I recently had a conversation with a friend where the Lakers came up. When I mentioned that they used to be the Minneapolis Lakers, because Minneapolis is the city of lakes, they said they had no clue, and always wondered why LA had such a terrible name…

[DCarp1231]

I’ve learned that something you never say on these boards with confidence is the Charlotte-New Orleans-Utah NBA name shuffle

[spartacat_12]

On 4/12/2023 at 5:30 PM, TrevorBotting said:

Did a quick search and didn't see any results, but whats the general consensus on teams keeping names as they move cities? I feel this fits as an Unpopular Opinion but I am 100% for it. 

 

Give me the Colorado Nordiques, the Minnesota Senators and the Oklahoma City SuperSonics. 

 

And I realize its gets muddled with some instances, or how far to go back (do you want the New Jersey Rockies or the New Jersey Scouts in the NHL?), but I do like the premise. 

 

(if this is the wrong section for this, please let me know). 

 

I think teams should always try and do a rebrand when they relocate. Obviously back in the '50s the logistics around moving a franchise had the branding as an afterthought, but when it comes to modern sports marketing you have a much better chance at establishing yourself with a new brand. It also helped that the Dodger, Giants, Lakers all had pretty generic logos/uniforms that didn't explicitly try to reflect their nicknames.

 

Look at Las Vegas. The Raiders kept their name (which makes sense as they're a bit of a nomadic franchise), and because of that they don't really feel like Vegas's team. Compare that to the Golden Knights, who designed an entire brand around being "Vegas's team".

 

The other thing to consider is if a market ends up getting a new team. Seattle is likely getting back their NBA team in the next decade, and it would be really awkward of the OKC Sonics were in the league. We'd likely just end up with another Hornets/Pelicans situation.

[PERRIN]

6 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

I’ve learned that something you never say on these boards with confidence is the Charlotte-New Orleans-Utah NBA name shuffle

I've always admired the New Orleans-Utah-Miami-Phoenix-Minnesota-Los Angeles name shuffle, plus the Sacramento-Memphis name swap, solely because it's so bonkers whilst making every name region-specific. It's just as perfect as it is ludicrous.

[TheBigFiz21]

The 76ers roundel logo should have never died. The only good use of the current circle of stars/76 logo is for small spaces in TV scoreboards/graphics packages.

[DCarp1231]

I yearn for the Pistons Horse logo

[Ark]

They upgraded that logo perfectly

 

 

Should still be the primary today