Jump to content

Location Name Changes


jhans203

Recommended Posts

We've seen it before in Sports. The Phoenix Cardinals became the Arizona Cardinals, the California Angels became the Anaheim ... then Los Angeles ... Angels and soon the Florida Marlins will become the Miami Marlins.

The question is simple. What teams in the five major leagues (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL and MLS) could use a location nickname change? Whether it's the Golden State Warriors going with Oakland or the Arizona Diamondbacks going with Phoenix what would you like to see changed?

(NOTE: Please no 'of Anaheim' jokes ... it was only funny in 2005)

Anyways ... what are yours? Here are mine:

New England Patriots --> Boston Patriots

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim --> Anaheim Angels

Golden State Warriors --> Oakland Warriors

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 256
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'd have to agree with San Francisco Warriors > Golden State Warriors.

I always thought "Phoenix Cardinals" rolled off the tongue better than "Arizona Cardinals."

"Denver Rockies" sounds great, IMO.

"Boston Patriots" sounds a lot better as well, but I understand the whole regional thing they're trying to push.

Come to think of it, "Indiana Colts" doesn't sound half-bad either. It seems odd because we're so used to "Indianapolis" but I think it could catch on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

San Fran Warriors makes no sense...team plays in Oakland. Just like Tampa Rays makes no sense...hometown in St. Pete.

I get that team sometimes use brand name value of larger city as their moniker (hello, New York Giants) but usually that name is a carryover from an older location. When teams reach into thin air to grab a geographically incorrect name (I'm talking to you, LA Angels of Anaheim...and yes, I know they were originally from LA, but the team became California and then Anaheim before reaching back into it's past) they're ususally mocked and ridiculed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've toyed in some of my concepts with the ideas of:

Phoenix Diamondbacks

Denver Rockies

but since decided I like the idea of the entire state(s) being represented.

Similarly, I think the Angels should be the California Angels for three reasons:

1. The above argument

2. History (32 years of California vs. 4 of LA, 8 of ANA, and 7 of LAoA)

3. Compromise. They play in Anaheim, but want the LA market. What do those two cities have in common? Duh! How hard is this?

Edit: Also, I'm not the biggest football fan... but as a New Yorker, it would be weird to see the Giants & Jets not be "New York". Is there some kind of "New England"-esque sweeping term that would cover NY & NJ? Metro Giants? Appalachia Jets? (Obviously those are both super-lame, but you see where I'm going, right?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Golden State Warriors to San Fransisco Warriors. Oakland Warriors would work too.

New England Patriots to Boston Patriots.

All of the Washington DC teams going with the "District of Columbia" name. Legally speaking the capital of the United States hasn't been known as "Washington" since 1871.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the Washington DC teams going with the "District of Columbia" name. Legally speaking the capital of the United States hasn't been known as "Washington" since 1871.

I don't like it.

District of Columbia Wizards, District of Columbia Nationals, District of Columbia Capitals and District of Columbia Redskins just don't sound right.

in before "Anything Redskins doesn't sound right". We know. That's another topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naming your team after the state your in is only ok in select circumstances, in my opinion. Naming your team after six just comes off as silly.

Maybe, but if you go back and look at the circumstances, it was a good PR move.

Everyone causes a stink about the Jets and Giants playing 5 minutes from NY. For those of you wanting a Boston Patriots name, they play in Foxborough. That's 40 minutes from Boston, and they ain't moving anytime soon. I think New England works over Boston because it allows states without a pro team in any sport (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island) to claim allegiance, and they certainly do. Connecticut is really more of Giants country though. All things considered, while I'm a Packers fan and generally have no satisfaction from anything Patriots, New England is a helluva lot better than Boston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naming your team after the state your in is only ok in select circumstances, in my opinion. Naming your team after six just comes off as silly.

Maybe, but if you go back and look at the circumstances, it was a good PR move.

Everyone causes a stink about the Jets and Giants playing 5 minutes from NY. For those of you wanting a Boston Patriots name, they play in Foxborough. That's 40 minutes from Boston, and they ain't moving anytime soon. I think New England works over Boston because it allows states without a pro team in any sport (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island) to claim allegiance, and they certainly do. Connecticut is really more of Giants country though. All things considered, while I'm a Packers fan and generally have no satisfaction from anything Patriots, New England is a helluva lot better than Boston.

I get that, but wouldn't fans in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island claim allegiance if they used the Boston name too? I may be wrong, but I doubt there are very many fans in those states that refuse to root for the Celtics, Red Sox, and Bruins because they use "Boston" over a more regionally inclusive nickname.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.