OnWis97 Posted November 14, 2010 Share Posted November 14, 2010 Moving teams kepping their nicknames.St Louis RamsWashington RedskinsA team name belongs to the private entity that is the team. Not the fans or the city. If a team wants to take their identity with them when they move they can.Hot dog, we have a wiener.Cities can work stipulations into funding deals where the owners would maybe agree to relinquish the nickname if they moved the team, in exchange for stadium funding or infrastructure improvements, etc., but short of that, yeah - it's NOT the city's team, it's NOT a national institution (they don't sing the star spangled banner when Target opens every morning, so they shouldn't when a game starts either) and it's silly to have a ton of local pride in a team comprised of players and coaches who would never have even been in most of these cities had they not been drafted or offered a sh t load of money. Hell - in many cases, the owners aren't even from the city, and in some cases, they don't even spend much time there.Additionally, for historic purposes, I am glad most teams keep the name. LA is part of the Rams' franchise history. I'll give you (footy fumbler) that (while it's the franchise's right to keep it), it is kinda stupid when they keep a name that is specific to an area they are leaving (Jazz, Lakers). The Minnesota Senators would be silly. But "Rams" has nothing to do with LA. With all the recent (i.e. in my memory) NFL moves, I am happy that Raiders did not change (and change back), along with Rams, Colts, Cardinals, etc. We don't want to lose too much history. I'll take it a step further...I wish we had the "Baltimore Browns" and that the historic lineage was properly recognized with that franchise and not artificially attached to the Cleveland expansion team of 1999 (or whenever). Though Ravens is a good name... Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse." BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD POTD (Shared) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arts11 Posted November 14, 2010 Share Posted November 14, 2010 In general, I don't really care for a lot of the animal-based nicknames. I like some of them, but unfortunately, the majority of the animal-inspired names (especially the ones based off of "big cats") just reminds me of little league or high school teams from when I was younger, so their uniqueness/significance has been kinda watered down for me.And in contrast to a lot of other posters, I actually don't mind team nicknames that don't end in "S." Granted, none are really a favorite (and there are some I just hate), but I don't automatically hate them because they lack a "S."Anyway, in no particular order, here are my least favorite professional sports team nicknames:-Charlotte Bobcats: One of the few names I actually hate (as opposed to just "not liking"). It just sounds "kiddie," and whether it's true or not, I just can't shake the belief that it was named in part after its original owner (in a not so subtle way at that).-Miami Heat: Hating the nickname is more of an extension of hating the organization as a whole than anything else. Being a Knicks fan, I've hated the team since the late '90s (predating all this recent LeBron/Bosh FA-induced hate), and I'll continue hating them for as long as Pat Riley's with the organization.-Washington Wizards: Nickname has nothing to do with the location, but that wouldn't be such a big deal to me (e.g., I like the Lakers, Jazz, etc. despite their lack of geographico-cultural relevance) if it wasn't for them having such a bad logo and the fact that I liked the Bullets nickname better.-St. Louis Rams: I don't know why, I just don't like this city/nickname combo. Love their helmet and colors, and have nothing against the name "Rams," but this particular name combination bothers me for some reason. I mean, I don't hate it, but it bothers me enough to warrant posting about it.-Houston Texans: Don't like the nickname for the same reason why I don't really like those old defunct teams called the "cityname Americans." It just sounds too presumptive. Also, I just loved the Oilers identity so much more.-Tampa Bay (Devil) Rays: Did not care for their nickname, before and after the slight alteration. -Dallas Stars: I don't hate the name or anything like that, I just still think of the Minnesota North Stars whenever I hear someone refer to "the Stars." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogoFan Posted November 14, 2010 Share Posted November 14, 2010 You know what, I've got a few minutes to spare.10/9) There are no Bears, Cubs, or Bulls in the city of Chicago. Did it ever occur to you that, just maybe, aggressive, powerful animals make suitable representations for sports franchises?This.However, I do think there are times when a team name is just so inappropriate for the setting that it makes the name stupid. A classic example of this was the Birmingham Barraccudas. Now, I have no problem with a team near an ocean having this name regardless as to whether or not Cudas are indeginous to the area. But when the team is land-locked like Birmingham is, the name is just a head-scrathcer. Likewise, names such as Miami Blizzard, Calgary Tropics, Boston Cowboys, etc. also are not appropriate for obvious reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmejia Posted November 15, 2010 Share Posted November 15, 2010 Aren't the Chicago Bulls referencing the Chicago stock yards with their nickname? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fumbler Posted November 15, 2010 Share Posted November 15, 2010 Thanks for clarifying that OnWis97 RICHMOND TIGERS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakemon08 Posted November 15, 2010 Share Posted November 15, 2010 there's an awful lot of Redskins that i'm seeing on here because people say it is "insensitive". i was just on an actual reservation last week, and i saw an awfully large amount of Native Americans wearing Redskins memorabilia. they didn't seem offended. if anything, they were proud of it.anyway, now for my own list.Tampa Bay Rays- preferred Devil Rays. Rays itself is fine if they hadn't added the sunshine ray in to the mix. that is just dumb.Philadelphia Phillies- it's just kind of silly, when you really think about it.Indiana Pacers- i'm not certain if i don't like the name at all or if it just comes from my distaste for their logo.Golden State Warriors- don't get me wrong, i really like their new uniforms and logo. and it's a HUGE improvement over what they had previously. but i don't see that the name Warriors goes well with it.Denver Nuggets- just has always sounded funny to me.Buffalo Bills- i shouldn't really put this one, because i actually love the name. i only put it because when their logo represents a buffalo instead of what they could be doing with the name they have, it isn't a good name.Cleveland Browns- i know the history of it and all that. i mean, i get it... but that doesn't make it a good name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrySmalls Posted November 15, 2010 Share Posted November 15, 2010 Sporting Kansas City. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jhero34 Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 The Victoria Salmon Kings, ECHL worst name and logo for that matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrySmalls Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 Sporting Kansas City.Now that it is official. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.