Teams that have kept colors/names upon relocation

[rams80]

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.

No, we just pay millions of dollars for their product. Which is what we do for sports too.

[ColeJ]

my little analogy that most will probably tear to shreds:

i've always said that team relocation is a bit like divorce. it's dirty and messy and leaves hurt feelings all around, but there's always a bond that connects both sides for better or worse.

the jazz franchise, for example, used to be married to the fans of new orleans. new orleans was their surname. jazz was their given name. when they divorced the city of new orleans and married the state of utah, they became the Utah Jazz. that just seems natural to me. it's still the jazz. same history. same logo. same players. same team. new life with their new hubby, if you will.

for certain sports fans to pine away for the new orleans jazz to return strikes me as a bit creepy. new orleans has a new woman now, that is its own entity. it's totally unfair to pretend that this new woman is the jazz when it's not. that chapter is over, and unless the jazz "break up" with utah and hook back up with their ex-husband in louisiana (like the raiders did), memories are all that you'll have.

that's why the winnipeg jets seem so odd to me. when fans were begging for a return of the jets name (and retired numbers, record books, and logos), even though the real jets are in phoenix for the time being, it was a bit like finally remarrying after all these years, and demanding your new bride wear your ex-wife's clothes and wedding ring, and then calling her "Pauline" just because you're more comfortable calling out the name that you did in the early 90's.

that said, i don't think every team has to keep their name when they relocate. it's a decision that a team makes when they make the move... but to say that the oilers name belongs to houston, when bud adams branded them from head to toe and still owns them to this day... it's silly to me. it couldn't be more clear or literal that the oilers belong to bud adams.

i guess my point is that a sports franchise is a company. an entity of it's own that only happens to play in a city because that's where customers are.

to say that the colts name belongs to baltimore and shouldn't be in indianapolis is to say that if coca-cola moved it's corporate offices from atlanta to portland, it would have to re-brand and allow whatever start up generic-brand soda that eventually moves into atlanta to call itself coke. as if it somehow has a right to the brand equity of it's predecessors, just because it helps some people keep that warm fuzzy nostalgic feeling that refusing to live in the present provides.

there are right ways to do it (the dallas stars, who even have masterton and goldsworthy's numbers hanging in the rafters in texas), and a wrong way to do it (the washington nationals, who pretend to somehow be every baseball team in washington history, but not the montreal expos for a second) and many ways in between.

but things change. teams move. the cleveland browns are the baltimore ravens now, and the team that plays in ohio is just a tribute expansion team, founded in 1999.

that's just how i see things. let me have it.

[tubby34]

Im going to wait for the sparknotes

[jc...]

Leave the team history and colors behind with the city they belong to. Jim Brown played in Cleveland. Johnny Unitas played in Baltimore and Earl Campbell played in Houston. Do you think Brown cares about Baltimore? Unitas had NOTHING to do with Indianapolis. Earl Campbell's number is retired, IN A CITY HE NEVER PLAYED IN!

For all of you who think the history and colors "belong" to the owner, then why don't we make Shad Khan, Stan Kroenke, and Jimmy Haslam completely revamp the Jaguars, Rams and Browns?? Just because they never "moved?"

[kw11333]

There is very little difference in the Dallas Texas-Kansas City Chiefs jerseys upon relocation.

Yeah, I know I used their AFL throwbacks, but that's what those jerseys would look like if modernized anyways. And no, they are not the same jersey. These pics are from the same season. The Chiefs jerseys have a small stripe at the end of the sleeve.

*Note Vrabel is wearing the wrong jersey in that picture. He has a side stripe on his right sleeve, but Cassels does not.

[tubby34]

That not a side stripe, it's the top of his jersey number 5

[RichO]

The problem I have with the newer notion of leaving the history behind in a movie is that involves some silly mental gymnastics. It sets up a fiction that one team ceased to exist and all the same players appeared with this new team. Every team that ever moved was as much the same team on both ends of the move as any of the other teams in the league that didn't move at all.

Had the "leave it behind" concept been applied in the past we'd be expected to believe that Willie Mays started his career with the Giants, then played for the Seals, then enjoyed a victory lap back with his old team- despite the clear falsehood of that narrative.

[tubby34]

What's changed from the 50's and 60's is the ability for players to play wherever they want through free agency and the upheaval of organizations front office and coaching staff.

The Baltimore colts didnt move with a headlining star, neither did the browns. You can argue the titans did but George wasn't one, yet. Same with the Sonics and Durant.

Free agency softened us up when it comes to player movement, the fact that testaverde was a brown and raven is meaningless in the end. Same with owners, and same with coaches.

Belicheck didn't want to leave Cleveland for Baltimore, therefore he will forever be a brown.

In my eyes the players don't make the team, the cities do these days. If Mays was a seal back then it would tarnish his teams history.

I don't believe there has been a single meaningful player who changed cities in all these moves, at the time of those moves.

Leave the identities behind like te browns did- they are the cities team. You can't be attached to players who can be gone tomorrow- The angels, cardinals and Pujols are prefect examples.

[tubby34]

Would you feel the same way if say Testaverde was a Cleveland Brown in 1994 and Canton Great in 1995 if the team stayed in the same stadium? Would his history be tarnished?

Or if Willie Mays went from a New York Giant to a Long Island Duck if the team relocated a few miles away towards a new stadium but everything stayed the same except the name and colors?

[ColeJ]

Leave the team history and colors behind with the city they belong to. Jim Brown played in Cleveland. Johnny Unitas played in Baltimore and Earl Campbell played in Houston. Do you think Brown cares about Baltimore? Unitas had NOTHING to do with Indianapolis. Earl Campbell's number is retired, IN A CITY HE NEVER PLAYED IN!

For all of you who think the history and colors "belong" to the owner, then why don't we make Shad Khan, Stan Kroenke, and Jimmy Haslam completely revamp the Jaguars, Rams and Browns?? Just because they never "moved?"

would you rather earl campbell's number be retired by the texans? a TEAM he never played for? if numbers are retired by cities and not teams, then should all new york rangers refrain from wearing #5 out of respect for denis potvin?

i guess it's all subjective. there's no finite way to determine what is more important to a team identity, the name or the city... i consider the Rams the Rams, no matter where they play... and don't consider them any more linked to the St. Louis Cardinals football team than I'm linked to the man that lived in my apartment before i moved in.

[chakfu]

Some people care about sports history and tradition.

Some people care about uniform and identity concepts with relatively little regard to the sports history itself.

I'd wager that the former care more about continuity of the identities while the others don't care about and may even enjoy moves and renamings.

I like continuity and sports history, and hate moves period...but it's a shame to lose the Houston Oilers and replace them with the Texans a couple years later, same deal with the Hornets/Bobcats. It's still messy, but the Cleveland Browns hiatus situation preserved the continuity for the fanbase a lot better than a brand new identity would have, and with less mess than Jets/Hornets renamings have and will.

[rams80]

I like continuity and sports history, and hate moves period...but it's a shame to lose the Houston Oilers and replace them with the Texans a couple years later, same deal with the Hornets/Bobcats. It's still messy, but the Cleveland Browns hiatus situation preserved the continuity for the fanbase a lot better than a brand new identity would have, and with less mess than Jets/Hornets renamings have and will.

Except the result is a disgrace to the name "Cleveland Browns" but hey....sock monkey.

[jc...]

Leave the team history and colors behind with the city they belong to. Jim Brown played in Cleveland. Johnny Unitas played in Baltimore and Earl Campbell played in Houston. Do you think Brown cares about Baltimore? Unitas had NOTHING to do with Indianapolis. Earl Campbell's number is retired, IN A CITY HE NEVER PLAYED IN!

For all of you who think the history and colors "belong" to the owner, then why don't we make Shad Khan, Stan Kroenke, and Jimmy Haslam completely revamp the Jaguars, Rams and Browns?? Just because they never "moved?"

would you rather earl campbell's number be retired by the texans? a TEAM he never played for? if numbers are retired by cities and not teams, then should all new york rangers refrain from wearing #5 out of respect for denis potvin?

i guess it's all subjective. there's no finite way to determine what is more important to a team identity, the name or the city... i consider the Rams the Rams, no matter where they play... and don't consider them any more linked to the St. Louis Cardinals football team than I'm linked to the man that lived in my apartment before i moved in.

Yes, I would rather see Campbell's number retired in Houston than Nashville.

[IceCap]

Leave the team history and colors behind with the city they belong to. Jim Brown played in Cleveland. Johnny Unitas played in Baltimore and Earl Campbell played in Houston. Do you think Brown cares about Baltimore? Unitas had NOTHING to do with Indianapolis. Earl Campbell's number is retired, IN A CITY HE NEVER PLAYED IN!

For all of you who think the history and colors "belong" to the owner, then why don't we make Shad Khan, Stan Kroenke, and Jimmy Haslam completely revamp the Jaguars, Rams and Browns?? Just because they never "moved?"

would you rather earl campbell's number be retired by the texans? a TEAM he never played for? if numbers are retired by cities and not teams, then should all new york rangers refrain from wearing #5 out of respect for denis potvin?

i guess it's all subjective. there's no finite way to determine what is more important to a team identity, the name or the city... i consider the Rams the Rams, no matter where they play... and don't consider them any more linked to the St. Louis Cardinals football team than I'm linked to the man that lived in my apartment before i moved in.

Yes, I would rather see Campbell's number retired in Houston than Nashville.

He never played for the Texans though. The team he played for is in Nashville, whether anyone likes it or not. Let the actual organization he represented retire his number.

[kw11333]

There is a Johnny Unitas statue outside their stadium in Baltimore. He clearly means more to the city, than the franchise. Although his number is retired by the actual Colts franchise, it is also out of circulation for the Ravens franchise as well. The statue of him outside is NOT logo-less, it has the Colts logo on the helmet

Also the Ring of Honor in Baltimore, is mainly filled with former (Baltimore)Colts.

[rams80]

There is a Johnny Unitas statue outside their stadium in Baltimore. He clearly means more to the city, than the franchise. Although his number is retired by the actual Colts franchise, it is also out of circulation for the Ravens franchise as well. The statue of him outside is NOT logo-less, it has the Colts logo on the helmet

Also the Ring of Honor in Baltimore, is mainly filled with former (Baltimore)Colts.

That's Baltimore's prerogative. That doesn't mean the Indianapolis Colts can't also claim him as their own.

[kw11333]

There is a Johnny Unitas statue outside their stadium in Baltimore. He clearly means more to the city, than the franchise. Although his number is retired by the actual Colts franchise, it is also out of circulation for the Ravens franchise as well. The statue of him outside is NOT logo-less, it has the Colts logo on the helmet

Also the Ring of Honor in Baltimore, is mainly filled with former (Baltimore)Colts.

That's Baltimore's prerogative. That doesn't mean the Indianapolis Colts can't also claim him as their own.

The Colts franchise do claim it as their own, but all their players have remained loyal to Baltimore and not the Colts name. I am not even sure if Johnny Unitas had ever even visited Indianapolis in his lifetime.

[sorcerer77]

There is a Johnny Unitas statue outside their stadium in Baltimore. He clearly means more to the city, than the franchise. Although his number is retired by the actual Colts franchise, it is also out of circulation for the Ravens franchise as well. The statue of him outside is NOT logo-less, it has the Colts logo on the helmet

Also the Ring of Honor in Baltimore, is mainly filled with former (Baltimore)Colts.

That's Baltimore's prerogative. That doesn't mean the Indianapolis Colts can't also claim him as their own.

The Colts franchise do claim it as their own, but all their players have remained loyal to Baltimore and not the Colts name. I am not even sure if Johnny Unitas had ever even visited Indianapolis in his lifetime.

I think we have to understand that while sports are definitely a business, it's unique in the bond it forms with the city and fans it represents. The McDonalds in California is virtually identical to the one in Delaware, and you don't see non McDonalds employees wearing McDonalds gear. And I'm struggling to think of another business where the city name is so prominently mentioned, and actually worn by employees of that company. In fact, the memories and ties to the community play a major role in getting stadiums and arenas built, tradition is absolutely important, going back generations.

Indianapolis can do whatever it wants, but the reality of the situation, is the only tie Johnny U. has with the Indy Colts is wearing a similar uniform. Roughly 99% of folks living in and around Indianapolis just don't have any ties to Baltimore when the Colts last played there(1983). And if you tested Indy Colts fans about the history of the Baltimore Colts, they would fail. Not because they aren't good fans, but that history occurred elsewhere, and prior to 1984, the overwhelming majority of Indianapolis residents didn't care about the Colts. The interest and caring began when the Colts became THEIR team, because those moments and memories began with the opening kickoff of the 1984 season.

[kw11333]

There is a Johnny Unitas statue outside their stadium in Baltimore. He clearly means more to the city, than the franchise. Although his number is retired by the actual Colts franchise, it is also out of circulation for the Ravens franchise as well. The statue of him outside is NOT logo-less, it has the Colts logo on the helmet

Also the Ring of Honor in Baltimore, is mainly filled with former (Baltimore)Colts.

That's Baltimore's prerogative. That doesn't mean the Indianapolis Colts can't also claim him as their own.

The Colts franchise do claim it as their own, but all their players have remained loyal to Baltimore and not the Colts name. I am not even sure if Johnny Unitas had ever even visited Indianapolis in his lifetime.

I think we have to understand that while sports are definitely a business, it's unique in the bond it forms with the city and fans it represents. The McDonalds in California is virtually identical to the one in Delaware, and you don't see non McDonalds employees wearing McDonalds gear. And I'm struggling to think of another business where the city name is so prominently mentioned, and actually worn by employees of that company. In fact, the memories and ties to the community play a major role in getting stadiums and arenas built, tradition is absolutely important, going back generations.

Indianapolis can do whatever it wants, but the reality of the situation, is the only tie Johnny U. has with the Indy Colts is wearing a similar uniform. Roughly 99% of folks living in and around Indianapolis just don't have any ties to Baltimore when the Colts last played there(1983). And if you tested Indy Colts fans about the history of the Baltimore Colts, they would fail. Not because they aren't good fans, but that history occurred elsewhere, and prior to 1984, the overwhelming majority of Indianapolis residents didn't care about the Colts. The interest and caring began when the Colts became THEIR team, because those moments and memories began with the opening kickoff of the 1984 season.

Good point.

I guess it is the same with the Coyotes and the Jets. Still seems odd to me that old Jets players numbers are in the 'Yotes Ring of Honor, with the old Jets colours no less.

[chakfu]

I like continuity and sports history, and hate moves period...but it's a shame to lose the Houston Oilers and replace them with the Texans a couple years later, same deal with the Hornets/Bobcats. It's still messy, but the Cleveland Browns hiatus situation preserved the continuity for the fanbase a lot better than a brand new identity would have, and with less mess than Jets/Hornets renamings have and will.

Except the result is a disgrace to the name "Cleveland Browns" but hey....sock monkey.

better than nothing though. and to most fans, if not to outsiders, better than a replacement identity.