Location Name Changes

[UnclearInitial]

NEW YORK JETS/GIANTS

Horrible. It's one thing if they played in the STATE but to not be in New York City or New York State and call yourself New York is lame. It's like moving to the suburbs but still telling everyone you live downtown... Dude, you live in the burbs, deal with it.

So should it be the Maryland Redskins too? New York has much more of a brand appeal, and they still play in the NEW YORK metro area, most of their fans are NEW YORKERS, and it takes less time to go from Boston to Foxborough than from New York to East Rutherford

San Francisco Bay Warriors has a strange appeal to me. It doesn't piss off any fans and also includes the San Jose market.

[Gothamite]

In my experience, the only people who have a serious problem with the New York Giants and Jets are those who haven't been here and don't understand the nature of our suburbs just happening to straddle state lines.

That, or frustrated Jersey partisans.

[GriffinM6]

I honestly think that all teams in the capital should have DC at the front. When I was younger, I thought that they Washington Redskins played in Washington State.

DC Redskins, DC Nationals, DC Capitals, DC Wizards.

[AnythingChicago]

I honestly think that all teams in the capital should have DC at the front.

DC Redskins, DC Nationals, DC Capitals, DC Wizards.

If you ask me, the only one of those I think could work would be DC Capitals. The other ones just don't flow off the tongue, IMO. But I still like Washington Capitals over DC Capitals, although DC Capitals could work.

[DCDuck]

The name of the city is actually Washington. Since the District of Columbia is not a state, it rarely gets used officially aside from the local government and to distinguish itself from the state.

[IceCap]

The name of the city is actually Washington.

No, it's not. In 1871 the city of Washington, city of Georgetown, and county of Washington were abolished and merged into one entity, the District of Columbia. Everyone calls the capital Washington, and that's all well and good, but it hasn't been the city's legal name for one hundred and forty years.

[DCDuck]

Every map I have ever seen, government or otherwise, has the city named "Washington". Though the government refers to itself as "such and such of the District of Columbia".

[winghaz]

I remember David Brinkley on the Huntley-Brinkley Report introducing himself by saying, "David Brinkley, NBC News, Washington." He didn't say, "David Brinkley, NBC News, District of Columbia."

If it was good enough for David Brinkley, it sure as heck should be good enough for us.

[Saint Zephyr III]

Wouldn't it have been absurd if the Bills named themselves the New York Bills? Makes me think of dollar bill signs though.

[RedSox44]

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.

As a fan from Maine, yes we claim allegiance to the Boston name. And Boston Patriots just sounds better.

[WSU151]

What was the impetus behind the foolishness of building the first stadium all the way out there? Why couldn't they have done better?

Foxborough is equidistant (if that's a word) from Providence, Hartford, and Boston. Truly a "New England" location.

At least that's the story I was told.

EDIT: According to Mapquest, the three major cities aren't even close to being equidistant. But Foxboro is by far a more central location to the three cities than just Boston.

[Fox]

I honestly think that all teams in the capital should have DC at the front.

DC Redskins, DC Nationals, DC Capitals, DC Wizards.

If you ask me, the only one of those I think could work would be DC Capitals. The other ones just don't flow off the tongue, IMO. But I still like Washington Capitals over DC Capitals, although DC Capitals could work.

I agree. Also put me in the minority that thought "Capital Bullets" was a great name.

It wouldn't work for any of DC's current sports teams, but I like the concept and how it sounds.

[ARTnSocal]

The name of the city is actually Washington.

No, it's not. In 1871 the city of Washington, city of Georgetown, and county of Washington were abolished and merged into one entity, the District of Columbia. Everyone calls the capital Washington, and that's all well and good, but it hasn't been the city's legal name for one hundred and forty years.

. . .

Good grief!!! You're always so argumentative about everything.

You must Google things and then proceed to type your posts in hopes of portraying yourself as some kind of know-it-all . . . It's so incredibly transparent.

Washington IS a city located inside the District of Columbia .... DC is an enclave located inside of the State of Maryland.

Look at any map worldwide, and it will show it Washington as a city, located in DC.

What are you gonna tell us next, that Brooklyn was it's own city and not technically part of New York until 1898, and that the NL Baseball Club should have changed their name to the NY Dodgers at that very time?

You really are ridiculously pedantic.

Hmmm ... Perhaps us American citizens should notify our local Congressman and demand they legislate action to change the logo inside of the White House press room because 'Washington' should have been removed back in 1871 ....

[DaytonBlue]

I'm sure I'm in the minority on this, but I'd change the Angels to be the Orange County Angels. I know their lease doesn't allow this, but it would give a regional feel without naming the team after a city they aren't in.

University of Louisiana-Lafayette: They should be able to drop Lafayette. They already refer to the sports teams as Louisiana's Ragin Cajuns. I know there are other campuses, but this seems like the most prominent school (athletically) in the UL system.

Oklahoma City Thunder should be Oklahoma Thunder. Well, ideally they should be the Seattle Supersonics but dropping City would be a nice start.

River City Rascals (Frontier League)...I can't stand names like this that refer to some generic geographic area as River City. They should be the O'Fallon Rascals or the St. Charles County Rascals. There are numerous other examples of this in minor league sports.

Phoenix Coyotes>>>Arizona or Glendale Coyotes: If I were Glendale I'd make them change the name for the amount of money I'm throwing their way.

Houston Texans should be Texas Texans...haha jk.

[Dexter Morgan]

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.

Those teams play in Boston, the Patriots don't...

[Dexter Morgan]

I've said this before: A team should only carry a state's name if it's the only team (in that sport) in that particular state. So, for example, Minnesota, Colorado, Arizona and others work well. Florida Marlins never worked, and neither did California Angels.

Geographical areas present different challenges. I would say it would be OK if it's named for a readily identifyable (or is it identifialble?) area. So, in this case, Tampa Bay works, and so does New England. (One could argue about which is better -- Boston Patriots or New England Patriots, but I think they both sound good. How's that for being wishy washy?)

Golden State, as in the Golden State Warriors, is horrible. Golden State implies all of California, but what else would you call them? San Francisco Bay Warriors -- yuck. San Francisco Warriors -- too much of a slam to Oakland. Oakland Warriors -- too much of a slam to San Francisco. Northern California Warriors -- not as long as there are the Sacramento Kings. I don't know the answer here, but Golden State does suck.

Yes it did, the Marlins were around before the Rays.

[ARTnSocal]

Wouldn't it have been absurd if the Bills named themselves the New York Bills? Makes me think of dollar bill signs though.

. . .

Well, we are the only NFL team that actually plays our games in New York State.

but ... it'd never work .... Buffalo Bill goes hand-in-hand just like Texas Rangers or Canadian Mounties

The Patriots prefix .... that was all Billy Sullivan's doing.

He had officially renamed them the 'Bay State' Patriots in the '71 offseason before Schaefer Stadium opened ... but after that it was realized that they'd probably end up being acronymed the 'BS' Patriots , so he quickly changed it to 'New England' several weeks later.

[Fox]

1. I think that Florida Marlins sounds much better than Miami Marlins. It rolls off the tongue

2. While I don't have a problem with the Pats becoming the Boston Patriots, it would be off because I'm so used to hearing Boston followed by 2-syllable team names. Boston Red-Sox. Boston Cel-tics. Boston Bru-ins. The 2-2 syllable pattern works well but would sound off as Bos-ton Pat-ri-ots... if this makes sense to anyone.

3. Also, in response to Dexter, while the Patriots don't play in Boston, it's not like the city of Foxborough has much significance, and I don't see it as much different from the Jets calling themselves New York, etc.

[IceCap]

The name of the city is actually Washington.

No, it's not. In 1871 the city of Washington, city of Georgetown, and county of Washington were abolished and merged into one entity, the District of Columbia. Everyone calls the capital Washington, and that's all well and good, but it hasn't been the city's legal name for one hundred and forty years.

. . .

Good grief!!! You're always so argumentative about everything.

You must Google things and then proceed to type your posts in hopes of portraying yourself as some kind of know-it-all . . . It's so incredibly transparent.

Get over yourself.

It's called being educated/well read. Try it some time.

Washington IS a city located inside the District of Columbia .... DC is an enclave located inside of the State of Maryland.

No, the city of Washington hasn't technically existed for one hundred and forty years. This isn't my opinion. It's all laid out in the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871. Take your kvetching up with the US government.

Look at any map worldwide, and it will show it Washington as a city, located in DC.

Maps do not always reflect the technical reality. During the Cold War, for example, the Federal Republic of Germany was listed as West Germany and the German Democratic Republic was listed as East Germany. Why? Because official names tend to be a tad to wordy for most people, so maps use terms that are more recognizable to people in everyday conversation. This does not make the unofficial terms "official" in any capacity.

Maps have the capital of the United States listed as Washington, because that's what everyone knows it as, and that's all well and good. It doesn't change the fact that the city hasn't legally been called Washington for over a century. Again, this isn't my opinion. It's laid out in fact in an act passed by the United States government.

You really are ridiculously pedantic.

You come across like a senior citizen who's discovered the internet for the first time.

Hmmm ... Perhaps us American citizens should notify our local Congressman and demand they legislate action to change the logo inside of the White House press room because 'Washington' should have been removed back in 1871 ....

It goes back to what I discussed above. The majority of people know the capital of the US as Washington, so that's the name that gets the most use. That does not make it the official name of the capital, however. Again, an act passed by the government of the United States in 1871 legally dissolved the city of Washington, the city of Georgetown, and the county of Washington and merged all three into a new entity with only one official name, the District of Columbia. That. Is. Fact. Arguing against that is akin to arguing that the sky is isn't blue. You're simply wrong.

It wouldn't be an ARTnSocal post without silly off-site smiley icons and a picture, would it?

[IceCap]

To exemplify my point, the city's website.

http://dc.gov/DC/

Notice the lack of the word "Washington," as well as the "one city" logo in the shape of the District's borders.

But yes, I know. Facts are apparently stupid things. People have their preconceived notions. When confronted with hard facts (ones recorded for posterity in government records no less!) that their preconceived notions are wrong they lash out and stubbornly refuse to admit that maybe they're wrong.

See I have no "side" here. This isn't a debate. It's a fact that Washington is not the official name of the capital of the United States, and hasn't been for one hundred and forty years. This isn't something that can be argued.

All I did was bring it up as a little "hey what about this?" idea, given that this thread is devoted to location name changes. That's no reason for you to get indigent and complain about me simply stating a fact of the matter.

Again, take your kvetching up with the United States government if this bothers you so much. They're the ones who changed it in the first place.