Location Name Changes

[BBTV]

I saw the last post was Ice_Cap and I was going to say "hey Ice_Cap remember when we did this thread last year and a bunch of people jumped down your throat for that whole business about DC's government not being called 'the City of Washington'" but looks like you beat me!

Fun times all around indeed.

I get the sentimentality attached to the name "Washington." Also, I understand that despite what's official the name of the city's always been "Washington" to most people. That's not anything to scoff at, public perception's a powerful thing. So I don't really have a problem with DC-based teams using the name "Washington."

I just think "District of Columbia"/"DC" is a viable alternative. I'm still not sure why pointing out that "Distinct of Columbia" is the only official name for the US capital caused so much ruckus on here.

So I was reading about the history of the District today and how it was Alexandria and Washington (maybe Georgetown was separate too at one point?) but I can't seem to find anything that explains the history of the official names. It certainly makes sense that if there's only one "city" in the district, then it really should just be called the District of Columbia (or just Columbia - not sure why that didn't catch on - you don't hear anyone use "state of Pennsylvania colloquially) but I can't find anything "official" to explain this. Lil help?

I probably did this exact same reading and posted this exact same thing last time this came up. And I probably will again next time!

[FooMasterX5]

Anyone know which team plays the furthest away from the city it claims? Quick Google Maps research show these. Any others I missed?

Los Angeles Angels

26 miles from Los Angeles

Dallas Cowboys

15 miles from Dallas

New York Giants/Jets

13 miles from New York

The Miami Dolphins play 15 miles from the actual city of Miami

[xTr1pleXx]

Here's my wish-list of changes:

Arizona Diamondbacks to Phoenix Diamondbacks: I much prefer city names to state names, and there's no good reason for them to be the "Arizona Diamondbacks" rather than the "Phoenix Diamondbacks" other than branding to a wider area. It's not like the Texas Rangers or Colorado Rockies where they're referencing the law enforcement agency or the mountain range, respectively. Plus, since Phoenix is unquestionably the most prominent city in Arizona, I don't think anyone in that state would have any problem identifying with a Phoenix team, rather than an "Arizona" team (they never have with the Suns). Plus, "Arizona Diamondbacks" is too many syllables: Phoenix at least cuts out one of them.

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim to Los Angeles Angels: The Angels name was MADE for Los Angeles, and the team is fairly close to LA. Right now, their name is a complete joke, and they basically refuse to use a location moniker. I know why that pesky "of Anaheim" is there, but this is a wish-list, so I suppose my wish is for the City of Anaheim to give up and let the Angels choose their own name.

Tampa Bay Rays to Tampa Stingrays: Naming a team for a body of water is a bit odd, even though that's become a "regional" name. Still, I much prefer city names, and it cuts out a completely unnecessary word. And Stingrays sounds so much better than Rays.

Carolina Panthers to Charlotte Panthers: There's no such formal location as "Carolina" - they're two different states, and two very different states in many respects. This is worse than a state name, it's a bizarre regional name for a region that has barely existed as a cohesive unit since the 1700's. Charlotte is a very well-known city, and a metropolitan area that does indeed span both states. Plus, Charlotte Panthers sounds good.

Carolina Hurricanes to Raleigh Hurricanes: See above. Plus, most people from outside that region think they play in Charlotte. The only problem is that Raleigh doesn't have tremendous name recognition nationwide, but you'd think the city would really want the team to carry the name Raleigh for that reason - increase their visibility.

Arizona Cardinals to Phoenix Cardinals: See the Diamondbacks entry.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers to Tampa Buccaneers: I'd get rid of the "Bay" in every team name.

Tampa Bay Lightning to Tampa Lightning: See above.

New England Patriots to Boston Patriots: Naming a team after a region is even worse than naming it after a state. They represent one of the most prominent cities in the country, and Patriots name makes so much sense for a Boston team. There's zero problem with the Red Sox, Bruins, and Celtics being "New England's Team" in their respective sports, so I don't think there's any sort of branding issue either.

Golden State Warriors to San Francisco Warriors: Self-explanatory. The current name is one of the worst is sports, and certainly not because of the Warriors. You're an NBA team, not a D-III basketball team.

Colorado Avalanche to Denver Avalanche: I'm not a fan of names that don't end with "s" (or "x" in the case of the two Sox), but I'll let that fly for now. Unlike with the Colorado Rockies, there's no such thing as a "Colorado Avalanche," so this one doesn't function as a direct reference to something. Denver Avalanche sounds perfectly fine, and it also cuts down on the length of the name (the 4-syllable Colorado makes team names sound quite long).

Utah Jazz to Salt Lake Jazz: They've been the Jazz while playing in Utah for over 3 decades now, so even though the name does not fit the location at all, at this point, why change it? No reason why they can't use "Salt Lake" as their location name rather than "Utah" though. I'd go with Salt Lake rather than Salt Lake City - it's a very common name for the city itself, including being used in the 2002 Olympics and in the name of the city's most famous landmark (the Salt Lake Temple). I think it flows better too.

I have no problem with the Minnesota names since they're representing two largely equal cities, and "Twin Cities" would be an awful name.

[IceCap]

I saw the last post was Ice_Cap and I was going to say "hey Ice_Cap remember when we did this thread last year and a bunch of people jumped down your throat for that whole business about DC's government not being called 'the City of Washington'" but looks like you beat me!

Fun times all around indeed.

I get the sentimentality attached to the name "Washington." Also, I understand that despite what's official the name of the city's always been "Washington" to most people. That's not anything to scoff at, public perception's a powerful thing. So I don't really have a problem with DC-based teams using the name "Washington."

I just think "District of Columbia"/"DC" is a viable alternative. I'm still not sure why pointing out that "Distinct of Columbia" is the only official name for the US capital caused so much ruckus on here.

So I was reading about the history of the District today and how it was Alexandria and Washington (maybe Georgetown was separate too at one point?) but I can't seem to find anything that explains the history of the official names. It certainly makes sense that if there's only one "city" in the district, then it really should just be called the District of Columbia (or just Columbia - not sure why that didn't catch on - you don't hear anyone use "state of Pennsylvania colloquially) but I can't find anything "official" to explain this. Lil help?

I probably did this exact same reading and posted this exact same thing last time this came up. And I probably will again next time!

No problemo. Alexandria was returned to Virginia in 1846, leaving the cities of Washington and Georgetown within the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 abolished the cities of Washington and Georgetown and reorganized them into one entity, the District of Columbia. So there hasn't been a "city of Washington" since then. The District's website reflects this, referring to the city as only "DC" or the "District." Technically speaking the city of Washington does not exist.

As for why "Columbia" never really caught on, I think it has to do with the fact that it's not a state. You don't say "the State of Ohio" or "the State of Kansas" because it goes without saying that they are states. Columbia's a district though, so the distinction needs to be made when referring to it. That would be my guess at any rate.

Also, possibly because "Columbia" on its own is taken to mean the nation of Columbia. There's also the Canadian province British Columbia, which could have further driven the need to emphasis the American capital's uniqueness with the "District" part of the name.

[mjrbaseball]

Back in the old World Hockey Association, there was a team that played in Madison Square Garden called the New York Golden Blades. (Forget that that's a ridiculous name, stay with me.) They moved and became the New Jersey Knights. But they didn't just move across the Hudson River. They moved to Cherry Hill NJ, which is suburban Philadelphia, nowhere near New York City.

The WHA also gave us the New England Whalers, who went the reverse route of the Patriots when they joined the NHL and became the Hartford Whalers. The Alberta Oilers also became the Edmonton Oilers without moving.

?????

Then there was the USFL team known as the Breakers, The nickname, referring to a type of wave hitting the coast, was used on three different coastlines in three consecutive seasons: Boston (Atlantic coast), New Orleans (Gulf coast), and Portland (Pacific coast).

[raysox]

Tampa Bay Rays to Tampa Stingrays: Naming a team for a body of water is a bit odd, even though that's become a "regional" name. Still, I much prefer city names, and it cuts out a completely unnecessary word. And Stingrays sounds so much better than Rays.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers to Tampa Buccaneers: I'd get rid of the "Bay" in every team name.

Tampa Bay Lightning to Tampa Lightning: See above.

It comes down to the Tampa Bay area being the 13th largest region population wise, and Tampa being the 53rd largest city in the US.

It's an area effort.

[The_Admiral]

NHL: Manitoba Jets

Had things played out the way they should have and the Coyotes moved to Winnipeg, it wouldn't make sense to call them anything but the Winnipeg Jets. But since it was the Thrashers who ended up moving and they decided to go with a completely separate identity than the original Jets, they may as well mark the distinction with a completely different name.

Manitoba isn't worth representing. It's a big nothing. Winnipeg is a distinct location, in multiple senses of the word. Have you seen My Winnipeg? Weird movie.

I admire the idea behind "San Francisco Bay Warriors," but it suffers from Nippon Ham Fighters syndrome. Since the Warriors are bound for San Francisco anyway, it might just make sense to establish their official team facilities in San Francisco in the meantime and compete as a San Francisco team whose arena is, for the time being, in Oakland.

[sportstar1212]

I disagree with the New England Patriots changing to Boston Patriots. Most people don't realize that Gillette Stadium is almost 2 hours drive from Boston. It's in no man's land. If the stadium was closer to metro Boston, I'd be in favor of them becoming the Boston Patriots.

[xTr1pleXx]

I disagree with the New England Patriots changing to Boston Patriots. Most people don't realize that Gillette Stadium is almost 2 hours drive from Boston. It's in no man's land. If the stadium was closer to metro Boston, I'd be in favor of them becoming the Boston Patriots.

It's 38 minutes without traffic. Granted, if you're heading to a Pats game, you won't be able to do it without traffic, but still, to say they're 2 hours apart is very inaccurate. It's 28 miles or so driving distance, and I think 22 as the crow flies.

(BTW, I didn't realize Gillette Stadium was about 4 miles off of the highway. That is a truly terrible location, especially considering how long the drive down is there anyways. I don't know what the Pats were thinking when they decided to stay in Foxborough. I get that Kraft wanted "Patriot Place," but that was their chance to get out of a terrible location, and they blew it.)

[The_Admiral]

It's 29 miles from the Garden to Gillette via I-95, less as the crow flies. Stop pretending that Foxborough is a world unto itself and not a Boston exurb.

Though it certainly does seem to be the quaintest jurisdiction to host, such as it is, an NFL team. It's like if the town from Gilmore Girls had a football team.

[Spearhead]

NFL: Indiana Colts

NCAA: Any non-flagship state school using the flagship's name.

By this, I mean every "University of North Carolina" that's not in Chapel Hill, every "University of Wisconsin" that's not in Madison, every "University of Texas" that's not in Austin, or "Texas A&M" that's not in College Station, etc. The lone exception is the University of California, which is actually unified by a singular identity and mission statement.

I love this idea. That way West Texas A&M could return to West Texas State, Texas A&M - Kingsville could go back to Texas A&I etc.

[jc...]

Just throwing my 2 cents in on this year old topic.

I am actually surprised at how many Jets fans wanted that West Side Stadium built. Yeah, it would be cool to have it right in Manhattan, but if Jets games are anything like the Giants games I have been to at Metlife Stadium, the parking lot is FULL OF TAILGATERS! The parking lot before the game is an event itself. The food, the beer, the games, the music, and thousands of fans who have never met being best friends for the day. You won't get that in a parking garage in a city.

P.S. You can see Manhattan at the complex (as many have pointed out.) Its not like they play in the southern tip of New Jersey.

[WSU151]

(BTW, I didn't realize Gillette Stadium was about 4 miles off of the highway. That is a truly terrible location, especially considering how long the drive down is there anyways. I don't know what the Pats were thinking when they decided to stay in Foxborough. I get that Kraft wanted "Patriot Place," but that was their chance to get out of a terrible location, and they blew it.)

If by "blew it" you mean Kraft made himself wealthier, then yeah, you're right. By staying in Foxboro, Kraft gets action on damn near every dollar that enters the town's economy. He makes far more money by staying in Foxboro than he ever would going to an urban city location like Hartford or Boston.

Colorado Avalanche to Denver Avalanche: I'm not a fan of names that don't end with "s" (or "x" in the case of the two Sox), but I'll let that fly for now. Unlike with the Colorado Rockies, there's no such thing as a "Colorado Avalanche," so this one doesn't function as a direct reference to something. Denver Avalanche sounds perfectly fine, and it also cuts down on the length of the name (the 4-syllable Colorado makes team names sound quite long).

Colorado Avalanche is far better than Denver Avalanche. There are no avalanches in Denver. Denver is not in the mountains.

Also, possibly because "Columbia" on its own is taken to mean the nation of Columbia.

The South American country is spelled Colombia.

[CSSdesigns]

Utah Jazz to Salt Lake Jazz: They've been the Jazz while playing in Utah for over 3 decades now, so even though the name does not fit the location at all, at this point, why change it? No reason why they can't use "Salt Lake" as their location name rather than "Utah" though. I'd go with Salt Lake rather than Salt Lake City - it's a very common name for the city itself, including being used in the 2002 Olympics and in the name of the city's most famous landmark (the Salt Lake Temple). I think it flows better too.

Salt Lake works.

[OnWis97]

I'd have thought there'd be more interest in "Oklahoma Thunder". The "City" makes the name longer and messes up the road jersey. That and, as the only big-time pro team in the state, I was surprised they did not go with "Oklahoma".

[WSU151]

I'd have thought there'd be more interest in "Oklahoma Thunder". The "City" makes the name longer and messes up the road jersey. That and, as the only big-time pro team in the state, I was surprised they did not go with "Oklahoma".

That's a really good suggestion. I like the name better without the "City".

[kajeet]

For the NBA the Warriors should change to the Bay Area Warriors and the Wizards should change to the Capital Wizards. For the MLB the Nationals should change to the D.C Nationals.NFL: The Louisiana Saints.And for the NHL:Ohio Blue Jackets

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

For the NBA the Warriors should change to the Bay Area Warriors and the Wizards should change to the Capital Wizards. For the MLB the Nationals should change to the D.C Nationals.NFL: The Louisiana Saints.And for the NHL:Ohio Blue Jackets

Worst. Post. Ever.

[kajeet]

For the NBA the Warriors should change to the Bay Area Warriors and the Wizards should change to the Capital Wizards. For the MLB the Nationals should change to the D.C Nationals.NFL: The Louisiana Saints.And for the NHL:Ohio Blue Jackets

Worst. Post. Ever.

OK you're right.But D.C Nationals still sounds cool.

[hawk36]

How close are we to selling city naming rights? As a kid, I never would have dreamed Qualcomm would be anything other than San Diego Stadium yet it is the norm now.

Could the state of New Jersey pay $100 million for the Jets to change to the New Jersey Jets? Just thinking out loud.