AHL teams that could keep their identity if promoted to the NHL?

[Gothamite]

Also, I couldn't find the press release about the Admirals switching logos, but I remember one of the reasons for the drastic change in colors and design was due to Norfolk's brand being somewhat similar, at least in color, and the Admirals wanted something to set themselves apart from the rest of the league. It was also in the boom of 'Pirates of the Caribbean'.

Pirates of the Caribbean, yes. But not Norfolk.

They wanted to set themselves off from the Packers and the Brewers. They felt they were getting lost in the marketplace, and wanted a dramatic change to shake things up. Nothing about Norfolk.

Besides, Norfolk had only been in the AHL for what, a year before Milwaukee joined? And then the two teams happily co-existed for five years before the Admirals rebranded. I think you're giving the Virginia team way too much influence.

[illwauk]

The origin of the name comes after a TV brand called the "Admiral" from a store the owner ran. It doesn't have anything to do with a naval presence, just like Winnipeg has nothing to do with airplane traffic or production. Saying the 'Admiral' name isn't relevant to the area is like saying the 'Jets' aren't relative to Winnipeg because they don't produce airplanes. Furthermore, you could have said the same thing about the 'Browns' not being relevant because the origin of the franchise was no longer a 'Brown'. Your statement could also imply the Flames should have changed their name because their identity wasn't relevant to the area... as well as the Lakers... and Jazz... and Braves... and Grizzlies... and I could go on.

I still don't see how that makes Admirals relevant to Milwaukee. Are we a somehow a hotbed of television manufacturing that I don't know about?

Winnipeg was named Jets after the most famous player on its original roster, Bobby "The Golden Jet" Hull... the Jets name is absolutely relevant to the city's hockey history. Let's take a look at some of your other examples...

'Winnipeg Jets' is relevant because they had a team called the 'Jets' playing in the city of Winnipeg. It's the same concept with the team name 'Admirals'. It would be relevant because the team has existed since the 70's. All of the team names are relevant because of prior history connected with the team. Arguing that 'Admirals' is not relevant to the area, again, is like arguing the name 'Winnipeg Falcons' would not be relevant to the area due to the bird not holding any significance. The Browns were named after a coach with the same last name and is in no way connected to the current franchise. Obviously the name is still relevant because a team called the 'Cleveland Browns' resided there ten years prior. The point is, sports names become relevant to the area not because the mascot has a dominance specific to the area, but when the area itself embraces the team name. Milwaukee has a history of using a team called the 'Admirals' and regardless of the derivation of the word, it still is important and relevant. You could say the same thing about any of the other franchises. I'm sure the population 'Wolves' is rather small in the city of Chicago, but if they decided to add another team, the team name 'Chicago Wolves' would obviously be relevant.

If you're hinging "relevance" on the team and its identity being embraced by the community, then it only hurts your argument that Admirals is relevant to Milwaukee. Even when they won the Calder Cup a few years back, they weren't drawing crowds half as large as they were in the IHL's heyday. The UW-Madison hockey team is a bigger draw at the Bradley Center when they play there. Yes, the Admirals identity has 40 years of cache behind it, but if you think fans in Wisconsin have the same attachment to it as they do for the Packers and Brewers (or what Winnipeg fans do for the Jets identity), you're sadly mistaken.

[a3uge]

The origin of the name comes after a TV brand called the "Admiral" from a store the owner ran. It doesn't have anything to do with a naval presence, just like Winnipeg has nothing to do with airplane traffic or production. Saying the 'Admiral' name isn't relevant to the area is like saying the 'Jets' aren't relative to Winnipeg because they don't produce airplanes. Furthermore, you could have said the same thing about the 'Browns' not being relevant because the origin of the franchise was no longer a 'Brown'. Your statement could also imply the Flames should have changed their name because their identity wasn't relevant to the area... as well as the Lakers... and Jazz... and Braves... and Grizzlies... and I could go on.

I still don't see how that makes Admirals relevant to Milwaukee. Are we a somehow a hotbed of television manufacturing that I don't know about?

Winnipeg was named Jets after the most famous player on its original roster, Bobby "The Golden Jet" Hull... the Jets name is absolutely relevant to the city's hockey history. Let's take a look at some of your other examples...

'Winnipeg Jets' is relevant because they had a team called the 'Jets' playing in the city of Winnipeg. It's the same concept with the team name 'Admirals'. It would be relevant because the team has existed since the 70's. All of the team names are relevant because of prior history connected with the team. Arguing that 'Admirals' is not relevant to the area, again, is like arguing the name 'Winnipeg Falcons' would not be relevant to the area due to the bird not holding any significance. The Browns were named after a coach with the same last name and is in no way connected to the current franchise. Obviously the name is still relevant because a team called the 'Cleveland Browns' resided there ten years prior. The point is, sports names become relevant to the area not because the mascot has a dominance specific to the area, but when the area itself embraces the team name. Milwaukee has a history of using a team called the 'Admirals' and regardless of the derivation of the word, it still is important and relevant. You could say the same thing about any of the other franchises. I'm sure the population 'Wolves' is rather small in the city of Chicago, but if they decided to add another team, the team name 'Chicago Wolves' would obviously be relevant.

If you're hinging "relevance" on the team and its identity being embraced by the community, then it only hurts your argument that Admirals is relevant to Milwaukee. Even when they won the Calder Cup a few years back, they weren't drawing crowds half as large as they were in the IHL's heyday. The UW-Madison hockey team is a bigger draw at the Bradley Center when they play there. Yes, Admirals has 40 years of cache behind it, but if you think fans have the same attachment to the identity as they do for the Packers, Brewers or Badgers, you'd be sadly mistaken.

I'm not claiming they have widespread support and definitely did not claim fans have the 'same attachment to the identity as they do for the Packers, Brewers, or Badgers'. I'm not sure where you got that statement from. All I am saying is that the name has some form of relevancy, more than a new name like the 'Voyagers'.

Also, in terms of attendance, Milwaukee is right above average in terms of AHL attendance.* I also never argued that the Admirals were more relevant than the Badgers... not sure where you got that from either. I'm not sure it's in their best interest to name an NHL team the 'Badgers', given they somehow got a pro-team. Again, the argument I'm making was against the notion that an NHL team called the 'Admirals' would not be relevant due to their lack of a naval presence. The 'Admirals' would be a more relevant team name than the proposed 'Voyagers' because they historically have operated team there with the name 'Admirals'.

* http://theahl.com/stats/schedule.php?view=attendance&season_id=34

[illwauk]

The origin of the name comes after a TV brand called the "Admiral" from a store the owner ran. It doesn't have anything to do with a naval presence, just like Winnipeg has nothing to do with airplane traffic or production. Saying the 'Admiral' name isn't relevant to the area is like saying the 'Jets' aren't relative to Winnipeg because they don't produce airplanes. Furthermore, you could have said the same thing about the 'Browns' not being relevant because the origin of the franchise was no longer a 'Brown'. Your statement could also imply the Flames should have changed their name because their identity wasn't relevant to the area... as well as the Lakers... and Jazz... and Braves... and Grizzlies... and I could go on.

I still don't see how that makes Admirals relevant to Milwaukee. Are we a somehow a hotbed of television manufacturing that I don't know about?

Winnipeg was named Jets after the most famous player on its original roster, Bobby "The Golden Jet" Hull... the Jets name is absolutely relevant to the city's hockey history. Let's take a look at some of your other examples...

'Winnipeg Jets' is relevant because they had a team called the 'Jets' playing in the city of Winnipeg. It's the same concept with the team name 'Admirals'. It would be relevant because the team has existed since the 70's. All of the team names are relevant because of prior history connected with the team. Arguing that 'Admirals' is not relevant to the area, again, is like arguing the name 'Winnipeg Falcons' would not be relevant to the area due to the bird not holding any significance. The Browns were named after a coach with the same last name and is in no way connected to the current franchise. Obviously the name is still relevant because a team called the 'Cleveland Browns' resided there ten years prior. The point is, sports names become relevant to the area not because the mascot has a dominance specific to the area, but when the area itself embraces the team name. Milwaukee has a history of using a team called the 'Admirals' and regardless of the derivation of the word, it still is important and relevant. You could say the same thing about any of the other franchises. I'm sure the population 'Wolves' is rather small in the city of Chicago, but if they decided to add another team, the team name 'Chicago Wolves' would obviously be relevant.

If you're hinging "relevance" on the team and its identity being embraced by the community, then it only hurts your argument that Admirals is relevant to Milwaukee. Even when they won the Calder Cup a few years back, they weren't drawing crowds half as large as they were in the IHL's heyday. The UW-Madison hockey team is a bigger draw at the Bradley Center when they play there. Yes, Admirals has 40 years of cache behind it, but if you think fans have the same attachment to the identity as they do for the Packers, Brewers or Badgers, you'd be sadly mistaken.

I'm not claiming they have widespread support and definitely did not claim fans have the 'same attachment to the identity as they do for the Packers, Brewers, or Badgers'. I'm not sure where you got that statement from. All I am saying is that the name has some form of relevancy, more than a new name like the 'Voyagers'.

Your points (at least as far as I understand them... not an easy thing to do) were:

-The relevancy of a teams' identity hinges on how well it's embraced by fans.

-Admirals is relevant to Milwaukee.

I'm simply pointing out that is not the case and giving some examples of identities that are embraced in Wisconsin. Not surprisingly, they're all local historical references.

Again, the argument I'm making was against the notion that an NHL team called the 'Admirals' would not be relevant due to their lack of a naval presence. The 'Admirals' would be a more relevant team name than the proposed 'Voyagers' because they historically have operated team there with the name 'Admirals'.

* http://theahl.com/stats/schedule.php?view=attendance&season_id=34

Above average attendance in the AHL doesn't exactly scream "civic institution." It's not like they've been around long enough to have a claim as a direct link to hockey's infancy like the Hershey Bears, nor do they boast a crap-ton of titles. Call it me, but one title and four decades of mediocrity doesn't count as "historical." So please explain how the Admirals brand is relevant enough to warrant its inclusion into the NHL.

[The_Admiral]

I have a fair deal of 1990s Milwaukee Admirals baubles. Not terribly passionate about a Milwaukee NHL team having that name, though. Give me Voyageurs, or even Muskies, or even Ice Shanties.

[IceCap]

When thinking which AHL identities could work in the NHL I think of the topic in terms of "promotion." As in "could a new NHL team located in this AHL city use the current AHL identity?" So teams that either play in NHL markets, ho share a name/logo(s) with an NHL club, or who's logos are clearly inspired by an NHL logo are out.

This line of reasoning is what leads me to support the idea of a NHL team in Milwaukee using the Admirals name. It's not as entrenched as the Hershey Bears or Rochester Americans' names are, but it has been around a good 34 years. It has SOME relevancy, which is more then you can say for any new name. It's not fantastic, but it is relevant to some degree, and it has three plus decades to its credit. That's why I like the idea of a Milwaukee NHL team using the Admirals name. I wouldn't promote the skeleton to the NHL, but the name itself would be nice.

[The_Admiral]

It could still work, but I've sort of lost the fire for that argument since learning that the team was originally named after an appliance. Now, even though the refrigerator can be seen as a distant cousin of the ice plant, an integral part of any hockey rink, it's still kind of ignominious when you get right down to it. Probably best to leave minor league names in the minors.

[rams80]

Also, I couldn't find the press release about the Admirals switching logos, but I remember one of the reasons for the drastic change in colors and design was due to Norfolk's brand being somewhat similar, at least in color, and the Admirals wanted something to set themselves apart from the rest of the league. It was also in the boom of 'Pirates of the Caribbean'.

Pirates of the Caribbean, yes. But not Norfolk.

They wanted to set themselves off from the Packers and the Brewers. They felt they were getting lost in the marketplace, and wanted a dramatic change to shake things up. Nothing about Norfolk.

Besides, Norfolk had only been in the AHL for what, a year before Milwaukee joined? And then the two teams happily co-existed for five years before the Admirals rebranded. I think you're giving the Virginia team way too much influence.

Additionally, Norfolk and Milwaukee actually have to play for confusion to become a problem. They've played home and homes what? Once or twice in their entire AHL existence?

[Lights Out]

But I seem to recall a movement to have the team rechristened to "Houndogs" when they moved.

No, even worse: they were going to be renamed the Memphis Express (after FedEx) until the league stepped in.

[Patchez]

Side note about Milwaukee getting into the NHL. That would depend on the Blackhawks ownership to allow a team in their "territory".

Since old man Wirtz is no longing running things, this is the best time for cheese heads to band together and lobby Rocky Wirtz, the NHL and potential Milwaukee owners to buy into the league.

Having such a close rival for the Hawks would be good for the league and for the Chicago-Milwaukee area.

[Drakonius26]

If anything, the NHL should continue with this WHA theme and move the Columbus Blue Jackets, Florida Panthers, or Phoenix Coyotes to Houston just so we can see these beauties again. The double-blue uniform that works...

After that, the other two can be moved to Milwaukee and Quebec respectively.

[The_Admiral]

If the Blackhawks still aren't willing to have another team up the road, the least they can do is syndicate their 20-game-or-so over-the-air TV package to Milwaukee, or Milwhawkee, and see if they can make some inroads there (plus Madison, Rockford, South Bend, while we're on the topic). Otherwise, they're just squatting.

[IceCap]

It could still work, but I've sort of lost the fire for that argument since learning that the team was originally named after an appliance. Now, even though the refrigerator can be seen as a distant cousin of the ice plant, an integral part of any hockey rink, it's still kind of ignominious when you get right down to it. Probably best to leave minor league names in the minors.

Eh, people like to draw parallels between the Winnipeg Jets name and a rascist a$$hat, so a team named after a frige isn't the worst thing in the world.

[The_Admiral]

Thanks for reminding us why Stan Mikita is the greatest Black Hawk, irrespective of who scored more goals.

[DaytonBlue]

To follow up on Memphis, I read somewhere that after the Express fiasco, the team still considered changing the name once the FedExForum was built (after their 3rd season here). When the team polled season ticket holders, they were against changing the Grizzlies name at that point and had embraced it.

The nickname Grizzlies does have history in Memphis. The WFL was going to put a team in Toronto but they moved to Memphis at the last minute, changing their name from Northmen to Southmen. The logo planned for Toronto was a bear, and Memphians didn't like "Southmen", so the team gained the nickname Grizzlies.