Location Name Changes

[crashcarson15]

I'll give a very concise reason why the "Giants/Jets should be named for New Jersey!" argument is bogus.

MetLife Stadium is about the same distance from 42nd and Broadway as Citi Field is (in fact, I think it's a little closer to Times Square than Citi Field is, but I don't have the numbers on me). Yankee Stadium, while slightly closer, is a comparable distance from Times Square as the other two stadiums.

East Rutherford is more than just "a part" of the NYC Metropolitan Area. It's right next to New York City. Extremely, extremely close. There are lots of parts of New York City proper that are a greater distance from Midtown than is East Rutherford.

Just because the slightly wider of the two rivers separates the southwestern part of Bergen County from Manhattan doesn't mean it's not anywhere close to the city, or that the teams can't identify themselves using their metropolitan area's name.

Having an issue with the Giants and Jets names would be just as asinine as having an issue with the Redskins, Bills, Cowboys, and Dolphins names. In fact, the Giants and Jets play CLOSER to Midtown Manhattan than most of those teams do to their respective downtown areas.

but the jets and giants don't play in new York city or new York state. They play in new jersey. I couldn't care less what they call themselves but the fact is they play in a different state than their name would suggest. If I was from new jersey that would slightly annoy me.

Well then it looks like we're just gonna have to call the Bills the Orchard Park Bills. How about them Arlington Cowboys? Go Landover Redskins! Miami Gardens Dolphins! Auburn Hills Pistons!

Would you be in favor of all of those, too? After all, they don't play in Buffalo or Dallas or DC or Miami or Detroit, so how dare them name their teams after those cities!

[Gothamite]

People in the New York suburbs know that they'e in the New York suburbs, regardless of whether there's a state line in between.

[OnWis97]

I'll give a very concise reason why the "Giants/Jets should be named for New Jersey!" argument is bogus.

MetLife Stadium is about the same distance from 42nd and Broadway as Citi Field is (in fact, I think it's a little closer to Times Square than Citi Field is, but I don't have the numbers on me). Yankee Stadium, while slightly closer, is a comparable distance from Times Square as the other two stadiums.

East Rutherford is more than just "a part" of the NYC Metropolitan Area. It's right next to New York City. Extremely, extremely close. There are lots of parts of New York City proper that are a greater distance from Midtown than is East Rutherford.

Just because the slightly wider of the two rivers separates the southwestern part of Bergen County from Manhattan doesn't mean it's not anywhere close to the city, or that the teams can't identify themselves using their metropolitan area's name.

Having an issue with the Giants and Jets names would be just as asinine as having an issue with the Redskins, Bills, Cowboys, and Dolphins names. In fact, the Giants and Jets play CLOSER to Midtown Manhattan than most of those teams do to their respective downtown areas.

but the jets and giants don't play in new York city or new York state. They play in new jersey. I couldn't care less what they call themselves but the fact is they play in a different state than their name would suggest. If I was from new jersey that would slightly annoy me.

Well then it looks like we're just gonna have to call the Bills the Orchard Park Bills. How about them Arlington Cowboys? Go Landover Redskins! Miami Gardens Dolphins! Auburn Hills Pistons!

Would you be in favor of all of those, too? After all, they don't play in Buffalo or Dallas or DC or Miami or Detroit, so how dare them name their teams after those cities!

The Redskins example is essentially the same as the Jets/Giants issue. They don't play in the District. They play in a different state. So I agree with the Admiral's assertion that people are hung up on the fact that New York is the name of the city and the state; they cannot quite get to the fact that they are named only after the city and if the state had a different name, I question whether they'd care. Otherwise to be consistent, they may be OK with Buffalo Bills, Detroit Pistons, etc., but they should be just as adamant for "Landover Redskins" or "Maryland Redskins" as they are for "New Jersey Jets/Giants."

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

Oh god not this again.

East Rutherford, Newark and Stamford freakin Connecticut would not exist if it wasn't for New York City. It is part of metro New York City. Stateline or not.

[altosax29b]

Oh god not this again.

East Rutherford, Newark and Stamford freakin Connecticut would not exist if it wasn't for New York City. It is part of metro New York City. Stateline or not.

Yeah and the bottom line is that the Jets and the Giants both have their histories based in New York and that's where the majority of their fan bases are. "New York" refers to the New York metropolitan area because that's the region where both teams are rooted and play. If Jersey natives were upset by this, which they aren't, wouldn't you think this would be more of an issue? The Jets and Giants belong to everyone in the metropolitan area, so if that's the case, what's the best possible name? It isn't New Jersey, it's New York because that's the name of the metropolitan area, I don't know what's so difficult to understand about that.

[xTr1pleXx]

People in the New York suburbs know that they'e in the New York suburbs, regardless of whether there's a state line in between.

This. I live in Connecticut, but I've always considered myself as living in a suburb of New York. I've even had some people from outside the area not understand why I'm a New York sports fan rather than a Boston sports fan (but you're from NEW ENGLAND!), which is unbelievable, because I live way, way closer to New York than Boston.

Just because we're spread across 3 different states doesn't mean we're not one metroplotan area that's entirely centered on NYC. As said above, there is no Jersey City or Stamford without NYC. Really, everything from New Haven County, CT down to Monmouth County, NJ would not exist as we know it today without NYC.

[hawk36]

All of this talk just goes to show that where a team plays has little to do with their actual name. Lot's of examples.

Just fuels my assertion that sooner or later teams will sell location name rights. Not tied to the place they play so might as well make money on it.

[kw11333]

My thought on the teams name, is simply what area do they want to represent, and not always the area they play in. Jets/Giants CHOOSE to represent NY. The redskins don't play in DC, but they choose to represent Washington. Most of the fans for these teams are coming from the areas that are represented in the name anyways.

When teams are forced to move home games to another city (like when Minnesota vikings played that one home game in Detroit) they still represented Minnesota.

There is a large number of sports teams in North America that don't play in the exact city they choose to represent.

[BBTV]

"Represent" is an incorrect term. They're not "representing" anyone other than themselves.

"Market to" is a better term. They're going to use the location that reflects who they're trying to market to.

When the Sixers were set to move to Camden NJ, they were still going to be the Philadelphia 76ers, because they're marketing to the Philadelphia metro area. "Delaware Valley 76ers" just doesn't have the same ring to it. (actually, neither has a good ring to it.)

Perfect example would be the Anaheim Angels changing to the LA Angels of Anaheim.

[Lee Noire]

People in the New York suburbs know that they'e in the New York suburbs, regardless of whether there's a state line in between.

This. I live in Connecticut, but I've always considered myself as living in a suburb of New York. I've even had some people from outside the area not understand why I'm a New York sports fan rather than a Boston sports fan (but you're from NEW ENGLAND!), which is unbelievable, because I live way, way closer to New York than Boston.

Just because we're spread across 3 different states doesn't mean we're not one metroplotan area that's entirely centered on NYC. As said above, there is no Jersey City or Stamford without NYC. Really, everything from New Haven County, CT down to Monmouth County, NJ would not exist as we know it today without NYC.

Im L.A . 'til I die so forgive my east coast ignorance but, what do you mean when you say those places wouldn't exist without NYC?

[The_Admiral]

"Represent" is an incorrect term. They're not "representing" anyone other than themselves.

"Market to" is a better term. They're going to use the location that reflects who they're trying to market to.

When the Sixers were set to move to Camden NJ, they were still going to be the Philadelphia 76ers, because they're marketing to the Philadelphia metro area. "Delaware Valley 76ers" just doesn't have the same ring to it. (actually, neither has a good ring to it.)

Perfect example would be the Anaheim Angels changing to the LA Angels of Anaheim.

If we can briefly navigate this sea of necessary cynicism, I would say that the people to whom teams are marketed see themselves as being represented by the teams, so both words work. Perception is reality here. I think that fundamentally, North American professional teams "represent," and are marketed to, their resident metropolitan areas. This is especially true with the NBA and NHL (at least as far as the U.S. goes), where once you get out into the sticks, there's a precipitous drop in interest and perceived representation, giving way to college teams that represent/are marketed to statewide populations (though no less cynically than any pro team, let's not kid ourselves). So to that end, I think it's best to go with the city name whenever possible. I'll allow "Minnesota" because of the Twin Cities issue, but the idea of purporting to represent the entirety of Colorado or Texas when you only play in one place in front of people from or around that place is one that's always struck me as silly, especially when it's done for the purpose of some "witty" or "more appropriate" moniker like "Colorado Rockies" or "Texas Rangers."

[xTr1pleXx]

People in the New York suburbs know that they'e in the New York suburbs, regardless of whether there's a state line in between.

This. I live in Connecticut, but I've always considered myself as living in a suburb of New York. I've even had some people from outside the area not understand why I'm a New York sports fan rather than a Boston sports fan (but you're from NEW ENGLAND!), which is unbelievable, because I live way, way closer to New York than Boston.

Just because we're spread across 3 different states doesn't mean we're not one metroplotan area that's entirely centered on NYC. As said above, there is no Jersey City or Stamford without NYC. Really, everything from New Haven County, CT down to Monmouth County, NJ would not exist as we know it today without NYC.

Im L.A . 'til I die so forgive my east coast ignorance but, what do you mean when you say those places wouldn't exist without NYC?

They wouldn't exist as we know them today - there wouldn't be businesses flocking to those cities, there wouldn't be extremely dense, often extremely wealthy suburban areas, and New Jersey and Connecticut certainly would not be two of the richest states in the nation (as well as two of high population densities in the nation). The presence of a gigantic city that's a financial and cultural nervecenter of both the nation and the world has obviously transformed not just the city itself, but its suburbs into very bustling, prominent places.

We have a TON of large corporations and lots of capital housed in the NYC suburbs - many of which fled from Manhattan into nearby suburbs during the 1960's and 1970's during the city's nadir. Without that, and without millions of people living in the suburbs and commuting into the city as well, this area would look so dramatically different that it might as well be a completely different place then it is today. Most of the place names would be the same, but that's about it.

(Think of Orange County, San Bernardino, etc., without LA. Those places wouldn't exist as we know them without LA - hence why it's totally reasonable for an Anaheim team to use the "LA" name, IMO.)

[kw11333]

"Represent" is an incorrect term. They're not "representing" anyone other than themselves.

"Market to" is a better term. They're going to use the location that reflects who they're trying to market to.

When the Sixers were set to move to Camden NJ, they were still going to be the Philadelphia 76ers, because they're marketing to the Philadelphia metro area. "Delaware Valley 76ers" just doesn't have the same ring to it. (actually, neither has a good ring to it.)

Perfect example would be the Anaheim Angels changing to the LA Angels of Anaheim.

Represent is the correct term. When I played jr hockey, each time I got was introduced to the team I got told I "represented" the team and the city. Some major teams ever go out of their way to say "represent".

You pretty much agreed with my point, and tried to break in down in a way to make yourself seem smart.

[BBTV]

"Represent" is an incorrect term. They're not "representing" anyone other than themselves.

"Market to" is a better term. They're going to use the location that reflects who they're trying to market to.

When the Sixers were set to move to Camden NJ, they were still going to be the Philadelphia 76ers, because they're marketing to the Philadelphia metro area. "Delaware Valley 76ers" just doesn't have the same ring to it. (actually, neither has a good ring to it.)

Perfect example would be the Anaheim Angels changing to the LA Angels of Anaheim.

If we can briefly navigate this sea of necessary cynicism, I would say that the people to whom teams are marketed see themselves as being represented by the teams, so both words work. Perception is reality here. I think that fundamentally, North American professional teams "represent," and are marketed to, their resident metropolitan areas. This is especially true with the NBA and NHL (at least as far as the U.S. goes), where once you get out into the sticks, there's a precipitous drop in interest and perceived representation, giving way to college teams that represent/are marketed to statewide populations (though no less cynically than any pro team, let's not kid ourselves). So to that end, I think it's best to go with the city name whenever possible. I'll allow "Minnesota" because of the Twin Cities issue, but the idea of purporting to represent the entirety of Colorado or Texas when you only play in one place in front of people from or around that place is one that's always struck me as silly, especially when it's done for the purpose of some "witty" or "more appropriate" moniker like "Colorado Rockies" or "Texas Rangers."

I understand that fans feel that they are "represented", but there's nobody in a team's board room saying "we don't just want to 'represent' the people in this city, we want to go out there and fight for the honor of the entire state!" I get why fans use that word, but I think that for the purposes of this discussion it's more accurate to look at it from the business perspective.

"Represent" is an incorrect term. They're not "representing" anyone other than themselves.

"Market to" is a better term. They're going to use the location that reflects who they're trying to market to.

When the Sixers were set to move to Camden NJ, they were still going to be the Philadelphia 76ers, because they're marketing to the Philadelphia metro area. "Delaware Valley 76ers" just doesn't have the same ring to it. (actually, neither has a good ring to it.)

Perfect example would be the Anaheim Angels changing to the LA Angels of Anaheim.

Represent is the correct term. When I played jr hockey, each time I got was introduced to the team I got told I "represented" the team and the city. Some major teams ever go out of their way to say "represent".

You pretty much agreed with my point, and tried to break in down in a way to make yourself seem smart.

Of course you were told that you're representing those people. You're a player - that's what they say in order to get you into a "battle" mentality so that you go out there like a true knight and fight for the freedom of your people, because if you lose, the other team (and the city they represent) will kill their men, enslave their children, and rape their women.

If we want to use "represent" and "market to" interchangeably, then that's fine, as long as we're not dillusional about it and think that 1. those players really care about what their performance says about their city, and 2. fans aren't dilusional enough to think that how their team's athletes perform is any reflection of them.

The concept of "representation" is what leads to a lot of the fan buffoonery that we see today. My team beats your team, therefore I'm inherently a better person than you, and can treat you like sh1t - because, after all, my team represents me, yours represents you, therefore I beat you.

[The_Admiral]

The concept of "representation" is what leads to a lot of the fan buffoonery that we see today. My team beats your team, therefore I'm inherently a better person than you, and can treat you like sh1t - because, after all, my team represents me, yours represents you, therefore I beat you.

This is more a college sports problem than a pro sports problem. "The defensive back is in my 100-level sociology survey! I think! So I can say 'we' won!"

[goforbroke]

My thought on the teams name, is simply what area do they want to represent, and not always the area they play in. Jets/Giants CHOOSE to represent NY. The redskins don't play in DC, but they choose to represent Washington. Most of the fans for these teams are coming from the areas that are represented in the name anyways.

When teams are forced to move home games to another city (like when Minnesota vikings played that one home game in Detroit) they still represented Minnesota.

There is a large number of sports teams in North America that don't play in the exact city they choose to represent.

This is the correct answer. I'm usually one to entertain every side of a debate, but in this case there really shouldn't be a question. The Giants and Jets REPRESENT New York and the New York metro area. When they played in the Meadowlands, the Devils and Nets REPRESENTED New Jersey. Same exact location, different location name, totally acceptable. There is much more that goes into naming a team then the exact location of their arena/stadium. There happens to be a state line/river between MetLife Stadium and New York City/State, but that doesn't mean anything. Its a location they found to build the stadium that makes financial sense and convienient for all fans. It does not mean they are representing New Jersey by playing there. The Mets chose to build their stadium in Queens, The Yankees in the Bronx, and the Jets/Giants in East Rutherford, NJ. All teams represent New York City and the New York metro area.

Brooklyn Nets are representing Brooklyn, not all of New York City. That's their choice and a branding technique (They will probably draw fans from Staten Island, Queens, Long Island, and lower manhattan based on location BUT the team is representing Brooklyn only). If they wanted to be called the New York Nets, that would have been acceptable too and they could have represented all of NY like the Knicks do, but they chose not to.

[goforbroke]

"Represent" is an incorrect term. They're not "representing" anyone other than themselves.

"Market to" is a better term. They're going to use the location that reflects who they're trying to market to.

When the Sixers were set to move to Camden NJ, they were still going to be the Philadelphia 76ers, because they're marketing to the Philadelphia metro area. "Delaware Valley 76ers" just doesn't have the same ring to it. (actually, neither has a good ring to it.)

Perfect example would be the Anaheim Angels changing to the LA Angels of Anaheim.

If we can briefly navigate this sea of necessary cynicism, I would say that the people to whom teams are marketed see themselves as being represented by the teams, so both words work. Perception is reality here. I think that fundamentally, North American professional teams "represent," and are marketed to, their resident metropolitan areas. This is especially true with the NBA and NHL (at least as far as the U.S. goes), where once you get out into the sticks, there's a precipitous drop in interest and perceived representation, giving way to college teams that represent/are marketed to statewide populations (though no less cynically than any pro team, let's not kid ourselves). So to that end, I think it's best to go with the city name whenever possible. I'll allow "Minnesota" because of the Twin Cities issue, but the idea of purporting to represent the entirety of Colorado or Texas when you only play in one place in front of people from or around that place is one that's always struck me as silly, especially when it's done for the purpose of some "witty" or "more appropriate" moniker like "Colorado Rockies" or "Texas Rangers."

I understand that fans feel that they are "represented", but there's nobody in a team's board room saying "we don't just want to 'represent' the people in this city, we want to go out there and fight for the honor of the entire state!" I get why fans use that word, but I think that for the purposes of this discussion it's more accurate to look at it from the business perspective.

"Represent" is an incorrect term. They're not "representing" anyone other than themselves.

"Market to" is a better term. They're going to use the location that reflects who they're trying to market to.

When the Sixers were set to move to Camden NJ, they were still going to be the Philadelphia 76ers, because they're marketing to the Philadelphia metro area. "Delaware Valley 76ers" just doesn't have the same ring to it. (actually, neither has a good ring to it.)

Perfect example would be the Anaheim Angels changing to the LA Angels of Anaheim.

Represent is the correct term. When I played jr hockey, each time I got was introduced to the team I got told I "represented" the team and the city. Some major teams ever go out of their way to say "represent".

You pretty much agreed with my point, and tried to break in down in a way to make yourself seem smart.

Of course you were told that you're representing those people. You're a player - that's what they say in order to get you into a "battle" mentality so that you go out there like a true knight and fight for the freedom of your people, because if you lose, the other team (and the city they represent) will kill their men, enslave their children, and rape their women.

If we want to use "represent" and "market to" interchangeably, then that's fine, as long as we're not dillusional about it and think that 1. those players really care about what their performance says about their city, and 2. fans aren't dilusional enough to think that how their team's athletes perform is any reflection of them.

The concept of "representation" is what leads to a lot of the fan buffoonery that we see today. My team beats your team, therefore I'm inherently a better person than you, and can treat you like sh1t - because, after all, my team represents me, yours represents you, therefore I beat you.

Historically, the players from a team really would be FROM the city/state they play for, so in that case represent would be more appropriate (much like the Olympics are today.. the athletes are REPRESENTING their country in an event.. these are the best swimmers america has to offer to go against your best swimmers). However you are right that now-a-days Market would be a better word than represent.