Teams that have kept colors/names upon relocation

[bosrs1]

There is only one team that has moved and kept their original name that I feel comfortable about and they the Raiders. Whether it is Oakland or L.A., the Raiders name just fits. Then I look at the rest of the teams that did not change their name there is one that absolutely drives me nuts and that is the Utah Jazz. Of all teams to relocate, the Jazz name simply does not fit in the Utah landscape.

What about the Rockets? They moved from Denver to Houston and the name probably makes even more sense in their new state.

You could also sorta make the argument for North Stars.. they dropped the North and the name works perfectly in Texas.

One thing I liked about the Angels changing their location name even if not their location to Los Angeles is that the Angels name make much more sense with that city

The Rockets name does make more sense in Houston than in Denver, but I was not thinking about the NBA when I wrote my initial post because of not being a big fan of the league. As far as the Dallas Stars dropping the "North" that works as well. But when you think of teams like the original Winnipeg Jets and their new name of the Phoenix Coyotes it makes more sense to be called the Coyotes in Phoenix than the Jets.

Well yeah it definitly does. And ideally you'd like when teams move to take that into consideration IF the name makes sense in the new town. At this point the Lakers and Jazz aren't changing.. but if lets say the Coyotes move to Quebec you'd think they would change that name. However, if the name is pretty generic like Colts or Giants and it COULD make sense in the new town, then I think its up to the owners to decide wheather they want to keep the identity or create a new one.

In my opinion, the Cleveland Browns/Baltimore Ravens situation should be the case for ALL teams that move IF they change their identiy. You change you name, you are a new team with new stats and history. So for example the New York Giants and San Fransisco Giants share a history. But the Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals should not. Now, in the Browns case the issue where the expansion Browns sort of took over the history of the old Browns is a little weird but it doesn't bother me too much.

I'll kind of agree with this. In some cases the old method of team name/history/stats going with the franchise makes sense (more often than not). But in other cases it makes sense where a team name/identity is so attached to a city/region that it should be left behind (ala the Cleveland Browns, San Jose Earthquakes) as it would make little sense in the new city. But I think it only makes sense to leave the stats/history behind with the name when it is clear an expansion team will be re-entering that city in the foreseeable future (as was the case in Cleveland and San Jose). If no expansion/replacement is in the works then the stats/history should go with the departing franchise even if the name doesn't (as we've seen with say the Winnipeg Jets).

And I agree with whomever above stated that if a team is going to change identities when they change cities they should do so on moving, not 2 years later like the Oilers did. The Oilers would have made a perfect example of my option 2 above like the Browns and Earthquakes. Or at the very least they could have been a situation like the Jets where they at least got the name. The Oilers name was very much tied to Houston and had no business in Tennessee.

[goforbroke]

There is only one team that has moved and kept their original name that I feel comfortable about and they the Raiders. Whether it is Oakland or L.A., the Raiders name just fits. Then I look at the rest of the teams that did not change their name there is one that absolutely drives me nuts and that is the Utah Jazz. Of all teams to relocate, the Jazz name simply does not fit in the Utah landscape.

What about the Rockets? They moved from Denver to Houston and the name probably makes even more sense in their new state.

You could also sorta make the argument for North Stars.. they dropped the North and the name works perfectly in Texas.

One thing I liked about the Angels changing their location name even if not their location to Los Angeles is that the Angels name make much more sense with that city

The current Houston Rockets never played in Denver

I'm sorry.. don't know why I said that I meant San Diego. still the point about the name making more sense in the new city still true.

[bosrs1]

There is only one team that has moved and kept their original name that I feel comfortable about and they the Raiders. Whether it is Oakland or L.A., the Raiders name just fits. Then I look at the rest of the teams that did not change their name there is one that absolutely drives me nuts and that is the Utah Jazz. Of all teams to relocate, the Jazz name simply does not fit in the Utah landscape.

What about the Rockets? They moved from Denver to Houston and the name probably makes even more sense in their new state.

You could also sorta make the argument for North Stars.. they dropped the North and the name works perfectly in Texas.

One thing I liked about the Angels changing their location name even if not their location to Los Angeles is that the Angels name make much more sense with that city

The current Houston Rockets never played in Denver

I'm sorry.. don't know why I said that I meant San Diego. still the point about the name making more sense in the new city still true.

Actually Houston is one of the ones that made perfect sense. They made rockets in San Diego at the time the team played there. And they were controlling rocket launches from NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston when the team moved there. Both cities had/have ties to rockets.

[dahatman]

I am surprised no one mentioned the Dodgers. Brooklyn to Los Angeles

[nuordr]

What team that relocated did the best job of identifying with it's new fan base and old at the same time?

Rockets? Titans? Lakers? Jazz? Ravens? Grizzlies? Cardinals? North Stars? Colts? Jets? Avalanche? Nationals? Giants?

My answers would the Titans and the Avalanche. Because they both successfully changed their nickname to benefit the city to which they moved.

[bosrs1]

What team that relocated did the best job of identifying with it's new fan base and old at the same time?

The Raiders, hands down. Their image plugged in very well in both cities without them even having to try.

[The_Admiral]

I am glad they did not become the Dallas Armadillos, change their colors to purple and silver

Once you beat them, you can come back over and over to replenish your health and then teleport right back out.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

One of the things I love about sports is the history. And for that reason I prefer it if a team keeps its name. I prefer the Colts, Rams, Cardinals (whatever history they have) having a basic, obvious, lineage. I know that if you are in Indianapolis, you don't thump your chest about Baltimore successes, or vice versa, but as someone who likes the history, I am glad we still have the Colts. We've been debating this some in the Hornets/Pelicans thread and I don't want to rehash my thoughts on the Cleavland Deal, etc., so I'll leave it at "keep the names with the franchise" in MOST circumstances.

I am kind of with the poster that said to do this with generic names like Rams and Colts. But I am actually OK with moves like Lakers and Jazz.

A lot of this impacts me as a Minnesota fan. I could[n't] care less about the Lakers, who moved well before I was born. But I am glad the Dallas Stars had some continuity in their move. Obviously they needed to drop the "North", but the rest of the identity remained with what the North Stars had at the end of their time (though only for two years). There is a connection with "my" team's history. They retired Neal Broten's number based on the time he spent with Minnesota; would they have done that if they'd changed their name completely? I believe they also have maintained the numbers retired before the move (Bill Goldsworthy and Bill Masterton, the only player to die in an on-ice incident).

I think most people's reaction to the "Senators" becoming the "Twins" (including mine) is "well yeah, 'Minnesota Senators' would be bad." But if they'd kept the name, we'd be used to it. There would be the comments like with the LA Lakers, and Utah Jazz, but so be it. And while the Sens were usually terrible in DC, there would perhaps at least be a team/franchise to honor him (though he did not have a number to retire).

Yes, if it were up to me, I'd have the Baltimore Browns, New Orleans Hornets, Winnipeg Thrashers, Phoenix Jets, etc., and am glad to have the Indianapolis Colts, St. Louis Rams, etc. The more that franchise history can be maintained and recognized, the better, in my opinion.

I agree with 99% of this -- the main point is that the franchise history is something that is very important to maintain. The Giants, the Dodgers, the Braves, and the A's have histories in multiple cities; and it's important to acknowledge that. Indeed, all those teams do acknowledge it and embrace it. With the Giants, Dodgers, and Braves, there are key players who span the cities: Mays, Snider, Aaron, Mathews.

The A's don't have anyone like that, unfortunately. (Well, most of their 70s guys like Reggie and Bando also played in Kansas City; but they don't have anyone who spans Philadelphia and Oakland.) But their use of the elephant logo shows the link. The Braves have that great statue of Spahn, and the franchise's founding date of 1876 on a patch.

Even when a team changes names upon a move, it still ought to acknowledge the franchise's history. That's why I was thrilled to see the Texas Rangers wearing Washington Senators throwbacks and the Orioles wearing St. Louis Browns throwbacks; and why I hope that we'll someday see the Nationals wearing Expos throwbacks. (As long as we have to have that blasted interleague play, maybe they could do it on a Canada Day visit to Toronto.)

The only part of OnWis's comment that I don't go along with is the part about the Lakers' Minneapolis history not meaning much to him, because it took place before he was born. When I was a kid just getting into baseball, and I learnt that the Giants had been in New York, they became the team that I rooted for in the National League.

The first season that I followed baseball was 1972; that season the Mets acquired Willie Mays. Even though I was a Yankee fan, this event had a profound influence on me. Because of Mays, I didn't become a Met-hater. (That came later on, in the 80s, when the press fawned over that Met team while ignoring the Yankees of Winfield, Mattingly, and Henderson. Don't get me started.) The acquisition of Mays spurred my interest in the New York Giants, and, generally, in the history of the game. I learnt that the Giants had a championship history that predated even that of the Yankees; so, I became fascinated with the Giants.

The next year, 1973, was the last year for the Yankees at the old Yankee Stadium; and it was the Stadium's 50th anniversary. So the team included in its yearbook a record on the history of the Stadium, narrated by Mel Allen. It was on that record that I heard accounts of the 1923 World Series between the Yankees and Giants. This increased my fascination with them.

So, even though the New York Giants existed before I was born, they became real to me due to my interest in history (which had been helped along by Willie Mays); and this influenced my affections towards the San Francisco Giants.

[The_Admiral]

So, even though the New York Giants existed before I was born, they became real to me due to my interest in history (which had been helped along by Willie Mays); and this influenced my affections towards the San Francisco Giants.

Mad Dog really aged hard since he left the Fan.

[BrandMooreArt]

i have no opinion one way or the other really. if a team moves and dosent change their identity then so what? i mean as long as it works in the new city, the Colts were generic enough to work. the Tampa Bay Buccaneers couldnt pull it off if they moved to Montana though.

[rams80]

_{The Denver Rockets did not move to Houston. They were an ABA team that became the Denver Nuggets. The San Diego Rockets -- so named because the Atlas rocket was made there -- moved to Houston. The SD Rockets were green and gold.}

_{It doesn't strike me as a slap in the face to keep the old franchise name when a team moves. But often, the team name is so associated with a feature of the city that moving it elsewhere renders its identity silly (Oilers in Tenesssee, Jazz in Utah, although I'm sure they listen to Jazz there).}

_{It's fine to call the Colts the Colts in Baltimore or Indianapolis BUT, I would mark the change with a change in colors, even a slight one like the adding of a color, or a change in the uniform or logo to designate the change and give the new city something to make the team its own.}

Such as renaming the team from the Baltimore Colts to the Indianapolis Colts?

[goforbroke]

So, even though the New York Giants existed before I was born, they became real to me due to my interest in history (which had been helped along by Willie Mays); and this influenced my affections towards the San Francisco Giants.

Mad Dog really aged hard since he left the Fan.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH gooood afternoooon everbody!!!!!

ONE TIME!!! ONE TIME!!!!

[goforbroke]

I don't know which is right or wrong -- but all i'm saying is IMO if a team changes is identity (nationals, titans etc) they are becoming a new team and starting fresh. if they are simply changing City's (Colts, Dodgers, Cardinals) then they are keeping their identity, history, stats etc. Totally up to owners which direction they want to go, but if they choose to change their name I think they are therefore choosing to start a NEW team.

[kw11333]

I don't know which is right or wrong -- but all i'm saying is IMO if a team changes is identity (nationals, titans etc) they are becoming a new team and starting fresh. if they are simply changing City's (Colts, Dodgers, Cardinals) then they are keeping their identity, history, stats etc. Totally up to owners which direction they want to go, but if they choose to change their name I think they are therefore choosing to start a NEW team.

Nationals and TItans both acknowledge their former histories.(sort of) The Nats don't recognize any of the retired numbers from the Expos, yet have the Expo's logo, next to two players names in their "level of excellence".

[OnWis97]

The only part of OnWis's comment that I don't go along with is the part about the Lakers' Minneapolis history not meaning much to him, because it took place before he was born. When I was a kid just getting into baseball, and I learnt that the Giants had been in New York, they became the team that I rooted for in the National League.

You know, what's funny about that is that my statement actually contradicts a statement I made in another thread...where I said I think it's kinda cool that the "Lakers" name can serve as a conversation starter around the fact that an early NBA dynasty was in Minnesota...so in that sense I am glad they have the name.

I think what I was really saying is that the emotional attachment I had/have to the North Stars (who I watched play in person and on TV) is not there with the Lakers.

[hawk36]

Perfect world...

1. Owners own the right to own a team in a league. They can move as they wish but must leave the team name and history behind.

2. Cities own the name and history of anything that took place while that team played in that city.

For those comparing it to any other business moving, it simply is not the same thing. People do not pay millions of dollars each year to watch Ford workers assemble cars or Microsoft engineers to write software.

[kw11333]

When the Grizz moved from Vancouver, I thought it was such a giant slap in the face to keep everything. Uniforms were the same, they took out "Vancouver" and put "Memphis", and they did the same for the logo. I realize this was NBA imposed, as they did not want to keep the name. Credit to the Grizz for at least making their court completely different.

The Raiders are likely to move again, since they have no new stadium in sight. Their look will stay 100% the same.

Upon the Browns relocation to Baltimore, that team WOULD have used the "Browns" name, if not for several lawsuits. During the announcement in Baltimore for the relocation, the Browns colors were really apparent. There was even an "We go the Browns" banner.

[BrandMooreArt]

guess i have more to say than i first thought i would . . .

when it comes to rebranding or not rebranding a team after relocation, theres lots of examples that show us it can be done either way. you know whats more popular than the Colts in Indianapolis right now? . . . nothing. a brand will always be more than a logo and a name, those things are external reflections of what a brand really is and they dont even need to be good ones to have a successful product.

but when a team is tied to a city by identity it makes the identity a bit more special. more unique. more thoughtful. and its just damn cool to see it. i mean the fact that the Buccs, 49ers, and Steelers can't exist in the same way outside their current cities makes them really special identities. but either way fans (and lets not forget you dont have to be part of that city/state to be a fan of the team) will learn to cherish their team regardless of if it originated there or not. brands always change and adapt; sports teams more so than others because ownership changes, coaches change, players come and go, identity gets redesigned, new stadiums built, and every year brings a different win/loss record that impacts brand. there is a lot that builds a brand, but a logo and name is not the foundation of it. its the smallest part. its a reflection of a bigger idea

[Eye]

Perfect world...

1. Owners own the right to own a team in a league. They can move as they wish but must leave the team name and history behind.

2. Cities own the name and history of anything that took place while that team played in that city.

For those comparing it to any other business moving, it simply is not the same thing. People do not pay millions of dollars each year to watch Ford workers assemble cars or Microsoft engineers to write software.

Right, but just like not paying millions of dollars each year to watch Ford workers assemble cars or Microsoft engineers to write softward, you can also not pay millions of dollars each year to watch people play sports. Nobody is forcing anyone to spend money on or watch sports.

[IceCap]

Perfect world...

1. Owners own the right to own a team in a league. They can move as they wish but must leave the team name and history behind.

2. Cities own the name and history of anything that took place while that team played in that city.

For those comparing it to any other business moving, it simply is not the same thing. People do not pay millions of dollars each year to watch Ford workers assemble cars or Microsoft engineers to write software.

Right, but just like not paying millions of dollars each year to watch Ford workers assemble cars or Microsoft engineers to write softward, you can also not pay millions of dollars each year to watch people play sports. Nobody is forcing anyone to spend money on or watch sports.

Agreed. The differences hawk36 cited are based in emotions, not facts. It's a nice idea that the fans/community own a part of a team, but they simply do not. The owners own the team, and everything that goes along with that. Names, logos, colours, legacy, history, the whole thing. Fans are just along for the ride. And that's fine. As a fan I'm happy to go along for the ride. I don't pretend like my fandom entitles me to a part of the Maple Leafs though.