Location Name Changes

[chakfu]

I totally agree that Indiana Colts sounds much better. Less cluttered.

That was a point that hadn't been mentioned until now - the fact that "Indianapolis" and "Minneapolis" are way too long. The fact that they just mean "Indiana City" and "Minnesota City" also excuses the use of the state name. The Colts and Lakers ignored this, of course...Colts get away with it since "Colts" is only one syllable.

...

This is a really interesting thread, and I think there are a number of other factors regarding city vs suburb and city vs state that haven't been mentioned. Let me break down my thoughts:

All the arguments come down to dominant metro areas and media markets. A good litmus test might be...does a city have its own television stations? If it doesn't, it's a suburb.

Regarding these suburbs, the question is, was the team intentionally placed there? Or was it just a convenient place for a stadium? Obviously Foxborough, Richfield, Auburn Hills, Pontiac, Orchard Park, and East Rutherford are just convenient places for stadiums.

Anaheim is a touchy issue again - clearly it's a suburb of LA and part of the LA media market - but it's a prominent suburb with something of it's own identity. Given the fact that they're the second team in LA, naming them "Anaheim" is reasonable as a differentiating characteristic. But if the Dodgers didn't exist, naming a team "Anaheim Angels" would seem silly - Anaheim itself clearly doesn't justify placing a team - it's a big suburb of LA, but not a "major league city". Similarly, I'm not convinced the A's or Raiders would be Oakland if the 49ers and Giants didn't exist. That puts a monkey wrench in "Oakland Warriors", although maybe differentiating them from "San Francisco" teams in other sports is a partial justification. The same holds for the San Jose Sharks. Interestingly, San Jose seems to be listed as its own media market (with its own solitary PBS station!) while Oakland is not.

Incidentally, other arguments for Anaheim Angels include the alliteration and the stupid redundancy of L.A. Angels, literally "City of Angels Angels". The same goes for Indianapolis Indians. On the other hand, the whole semi-racist distancing themselves LA of the ultra-conservative Anaheim/Orange County makes me want them to lose the argument, redundancy notwithstanding.

On to city vs state:

To me, there are two kinds of cities:

1. Older industrial, port cities, often located peripherally within a state on coastlines or rivers. Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago, LA, New York, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, St Louis, Kansas City. These frequently are not state capitals, have a separate identity from the rest of the state; and naming these teams after the state would seem crazy. "Illinois Bulls"???

2. More centrally located, often "planned" cities, often seats of government and state capitals, and often the only large city in the state. Indianapolis, Columbus, Phoenix, Minneapolis, Atlanta; maybe Salt Lake City and Denver. These cities seem to share more of an identify with the rest of the state; naming the teams after the state seems find in these cases. "Georgia Falcons"? "Ohio Blue Jackets"? Not that bad.

Interesting how the second group of cities is the ones that are growing (Indianapolis, Phoenix) and the former in many cases are dying (Detroit, Cleveland.)

Interesting rule of thumb: if a team is based in the state capital, naming it after the state is probably appropriate. (Sorry Florida Marlins and Panthers; case in point: Memphis Grizzlies vs Tennesee (Nashville) Titans!)

[winghaz]

Well, chakfu, I do need to make one correction. Minneapolis doesn't mean Minnesota City. It means City of Water, as "Minne" is the Dakota word for water. Minneapolis City Hall proudly boasts that.

[chakfu]

Well, chakfu, I do need to make one correction. Minneapolis doesn't mean Minnesota City. It means City of Water, as "Minne" is the Dakota word for water. Minneapolis City Hall proudly boasts that.

Fair enough, but what does Minnesota mean? I presume Minnesota City would mean "City of Land of Water" which isn't too far off.

[The_Admiral]

There's a "Minnesota City" over by Winona and La Crosse, actually.

[Silent Wind of Doom]

All right, I know that we've all come to the conclusion that the Giants and Jets are practically playing in New York, and I know that the arguement is over. I don't want to dredge things back up, or beat a dead horse, but there's just two things I wanna correct from Art's post.

One is the idea that East Rutherford is a suburb of Jersey City and Newark rather than New York City. Jersey City and Newark are 200,000 person cities that are practically abutting the 8,000,000 people of the City of New York. They themselves are suburbs of New York. The Devils and Nets are still considered New York Area teams.

The second is the idea that Shea Stadium had a New York City feel to it. I don't care if you took the subway there. You came down the steps to a huge sea of asphalt to see the lone structure in the middle. I remember my first trip there, and I was shocked at the fact that I could look straight ahead and see sky. The wide open look out over the outfield fences offered nothing but open sky and a few small buildings in the distance. I love the Mets, and both Shea and Citi Field, but the area will never feel like it's in the City to me.

Anyway, the task at hand:

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim - I remember it was only a few years ago, while watching the Lakers and Celtics play for the championship, that I first heard the "Beat L.A." chant. I then found soon after that it was a chant that seemed to be universal to all sports, making me ask why I'd never heard it before. Then it occured to me: the team I watch the most is the Yankees, and the American League doesn't have a Los Angeles team. The Angels left Chavez Ravine and moved into Anaheim Stadium, and that's a name that really makes a statement. They were moving to Anaheim. The Yankees dont go to Los Angeles. They go to Anaheim. I've rarely if ever heard people refer to the Angels' home as L.A.. It's Anaheim. The Angels play in Anaheim, not Los Angeles. Heck, at the All-Star Game, when they showed the logos of all the teams in alphabetical order by city, the Angels were in the front, ahead of the Baltimore Orioles. "A" for Anaheim. The All-Star Game's parade took place in Disneyland, not Hollywood Boulevard. Save for the "Angels" name, the team's identity is fully entrenched in Anaheim. They should be the Anaheim Angels.

New England Patriots - I could go either way on this. Given the ties to the revolution, the name Boston Patriots does have a nice name to it. A change back to the old look would be a nice accompanyment to that chance.

Minnesota Teams - The Twin Cities issue is understandable, and the best way to deal with it is using the "Minnesota" moniker. The Twins figured it out best.

Texas Rangers - They play in Arlington, halfway between the two large cities of Dallas and Ft. Worth. I feel it's a similar issue to the Twin Cities. Texas is an acceptable compromise, added with the reference to the Texas Rangers. If any other name was chosen, would you prefer "Dallas-Ft. Worth"?

Washington Teams - Is there ever going to be a pro team based in the state of Washington that doesn't use the name Seattle? Does anyone who lives outside of the Pacific Northwest associate Washington more with the state than the capital of our nation? I don't think there's nearly enough confusion or muddling of the name to necessitate a switch to DC, although more usage of the DC wordmark in places such as the Nationals caps is more than welcome.

Florida Panthers and Colorado Rockies - These all get a pass because of the references they make. Mention has been made of the Colorado Rockies referring to the mountains, but I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned the Florida Panthers. The Florida panther is an actual subspecies of puma. The name is together a reference to an animal, like the Baltimore Orioles.

Golden State Warriors - I think Oakland Warriors would be the best way to go. They play there. It goes well with their neighbors, the Raiders. It just sounds good.

That being said, and I haven't said everything because it's 1:30 in the morning and I'm really tired and barely coherent, I find fault with people mentioning teams claiming state names when there's another team in the sport there. I counter that it is allowable if the two teams are in a different league/conference. The Angels left Los Angeles, and changed their names to the California Angels. See, while the National League had the Dodgers, Giants, and Padres, the Angels were the only American League team in the state, and could claim that title as the AL's California team. Of course, the Athletics would later move in from KC and ruin that sentiment for the next 30 years, but you get the picture.

Tampa Bay Teams - The Tampa/St. Pete situation is the same as the Twin Cities and Dallas-Ft. Worth. Some play in St. Pete, but Tampa is the more widely known name, so Tampa Bay is an incredible compromise.

[Discogod]

I seem to remember that back around 1996 there were talks that the Warriors were thinking of changing their name to the "Oakland Warriors" - IIRC, they played a year in San Jose whilst their arena was being refurbished, so the name change would have taken effect for the 1997-8 season, which happened to be the same season they brought out the new logo & uniforms. Now, obviously the name change never happened, but I always wondered if it didn't have something to do with the lack of regional identifiers in that whole logo package...

[winghaz]

Minnesota means land of sky-tinted water.

The old Hamm's Beer commercials put an even better twist on it: "From the Land of Sky-Blue Waters."

[Norva]

Washington Teams - Is there ever going to be a pro team based in the state of Washington that doesn't use the name Seattle? Does anyone who lives outside of the Pacific Northwest associate Washington more with the state than the capital of our nation? I don't think there's nearly enough confusion or muddling of the name to necessitate a switch to DC, although more usage of the DC wordmark in places such as the Nationals caps is more than welcome.

[winters in buffalo]

'Raleigh Hurricanes' sounds bad, but I like how 'Raleigh-Durham Hurricanes' sounds.

That name wouldn't fly here. While the rest of the civilized world uses that term, locals only use it to refer to the airport. The regional term is the Triangle (which encompasses Chapel Hill, as well)

[nash61]

Washington Teams - Is there ever going to be a pro team based in the state of Washington that doesn't use the name Seattle? Does anyone who lives outside of the Pacific Northwest associate Washington more with the state than the capital of our nation? I don't think there's nearly enough confusion or muddling of the name to necessitate a switch to DC, although more usage of the DC wordmark in places such as the Nationals caps is more than welcome.

I guess this proves your point, but all this time, I seriously thought the Stealth were based in DC.

[jhans203]

What about teams going from a city named club to a State/Province named club? While they are not my favorite I think there are a couple that could work.

Winnipeg Jets --> Manitoba Jets

Columbus Blue Jackets --> Ohio Blue Jackets

Charlotte Bobcats --> Carolina Bobcats

Thoughts?

[The_Admiral]

We went over the Manitoba thing in June. There's no population of consequence beyond metro Winnipeg. Manitoba is just an arbitrary rectanguloid.

[JohnnySeoul]

What about teams going from a city named club to a State/Province named club? While they are not my favorite I think there are a couple that could work.

Winnipeg Jets --> Manitoba Jets

Columbus Blue Jackets --> Ohio Blue Jackets

Charlotte Bobcats --> Carolina Bobcats

Thoughts?

I'm def behind a change for Ohio Blue Jackets. I highly doubt Cleveland (failed in the past) and Cincy would be able to get a new or relocated NHL team, so the Jackets should represent the whole state. Especially since Columbus is the neutral ground between the other 2 sports cities.

Carolina Bobcats is very interesting. Hmmmmmm

[-kj]

We went over the Manitoba thing in June. There's no population of consequence beyond metro Winnipeg. Manitoba is just an arbitrary rectanguloid.

Frankly, there's no population of consequence including metro Winnipeg.

[Gothamite]

I'm def behind a change for Ohio Blue Jackets. I highly doubt Cleveland (failed in the past) and Cincy would be able to get a new or relocated NHL team, so the Jackets should represent the whole state. Especially since Columbus is the neutral ground between the other 2 sports cities.

I think that was part of their reasoning at the time. Split the difference between Cleveland and Cincy, attract fans from both cities.

Hasn't worked, but...

[JohnnySeoul]

I'm def behind a change for Ohio Blue Jackets. I highly doubt Cleveland (failed in the past) and Cincy would be able to get a new or relocated NHL team, so the Jackets should represent the whole state. Especially since Columbus is the neutral ground between the other 2 sports cities.

I think that was part of their reasoning at the time. Split the difference between Cleveland and Cincy, attract fans from both cities.

Hasn't worked, but...

It hasn't. It's a shame that Ohio isn't big on hockey. There's a local push for Cleveland to get a NHL team, but it would just ultimately fail again.

On a side note, I would like to see Columbus get a NBA team though.

[nuordr]

I'm def behind a change for Ohio Blue Jackets. I highly doubt Cleveland (failed in the past) and Cincy would be able to get a new or relocated NHL team, so the Jackets should represent the whole state. Especially since Columbus is the neutral ground between the other 2 sports cities.

I think that was part of their reasoning at the time. Split the difference between Cleveland and Cincy, attract fans from both cities.

Hasn't worked, but...

It hasn't. It's a shame that Ohio isn't big on hockey. There's a local push for Cleveland to get a NHL team, but it would just ultimately fail again.

On a side note, I would like to see Columbus get a NBA team though.

Cleveland took my favorite AHL the KY Thoroughblades and renamed them the Cleveland Barons due to relocation and I believe it didn't work out either.

[hrivnak]

Hmmm... weird.

[bosrs1]

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.

The Warriors were originally based in San Francisco... And they're still based in The San Francisco Bay Area. And hell their next home may just be back in SF proper again.

Actually they were originally based in Philadelphia. Their first home was on the west coast was SF

Don't be a smart ass... Frankly though while Oakland Warriors might sound better, it would be a bad move. Ten years from now Oakland won't have any teams left.

[The_Admiral]

On a side note, I would like to see Columbus get a NBA team though.

Why can't we just let Columbus be America's biggest minor-league town? They're really really good at that and kinda crappy at supporting the NHL.

hrivnak, we call it Washington but there's no "City of Washington" as a legal jurisdiction anymore, having been merged with the District of Columbia. There used to be a City of Washington and a City of Alexandria in the district, maybe a City of Georgetown too I don't recall, but Alexandria went back over to Virginia and so Washington as a city within the district was dissolved. We still call it Washington, DC out of tradition and such. Technically, the mayor is the Mayor of the District of Columbia, not Washington.