Teams that have kept colors/names upon relocation

[ColeJ]

to go back to my divorce analogy, there's nothing at all wrong with baltimore having statues to a colts-logo adorned unitas. it's honoring the history of their city's past heroes. it's like not throwing away photographs from family vacations you took with your ex wife in them. the minnesota wild can honor north stars players all they want, as well. the texans can honor earl campbell.

my argument is that they don't have MORE right to do so than the actual franchises that the players played for. the titans would be disrespectful to unretire earl's number. he played for their franchise, and is in their record books. the wild can't have any claim that the stars shouldn't have a banner with masterton and goldy's numbers on them... because they WERE stars, and the stars want to honor them.

both cities have ties to these franchises, and it's flat out dumb to say that they don't.

unitas was a colt, and the colts play in indiana. unitas is a baltimore hero, and they have a statue of him in a colts jersey outside. there is nothing wrong with either of those statements.

[kw11333]

to go back to my divorce analogy, there's nothing at all wrong with baltimore having statues to a colts-logo adorned unitas. it's honoring the history of their city's past heroes. it's like not throwing away photographs from family vacations you took with your ex wife in them. the minnesota wild can honor north stars players all they want, as well. the texans can honor earl campbell.

my argument is that they don't have MORE right to do so than the actual franchises that the players played for. the titans would be disrespectful to unretire earl's number. he played for their franchise, and is in their record books. the wild can't have any claim that the stars shouldn't have a banner with masterton and goldy's numbers on them... because they WERE stars, and the stars want to honor them.

both cities have ties to these franchises, and it's flat out dumb to say that they don't.

unitas was a colt, and the colts play in indiana. unitas is a baltimore hero, and they have a statue of him in a colts jersey outside. there is nothing wrong with either of those statements.

The Nats un retired all the Expos numbers. Outside of the two players in their ring of honor, that have the Expos logo next to it, there is almost nothing left of that teams history.

[ColeJ]

exactly why i said a few posts ago that they did it wrong.

it's a disgrace that the expos are basically dead now, while the nationals parade themselves around as an conglomeration of every team to ever call DC home.

[OnWis97]

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.

And if you throw in a Cleveland Browns deal that would "officially" be true. Actually "officially" should not be in quotes, but I just could not bring myself to type it that way.

[Billy B]

to go back to my divorce analogy, there's nothing at all wrong with baltimore having statues to a colts-logo adorned unitas. it's honoring the history of their city's past heroes. it's like not throwing away photographs from family vacations you took with your ex wife in them. the minnesota wild can honor north stars players all they want, as well. the texans can honor earl campbell.

my argument is that they don't have MORE right to do so than the actual franchises that the players played for. the titans would be disrespectful to unretire earl's number. he played for their franchise, and is in their record books. the wild can't have any claim that the stars shouldn't have a banner with masterton and goldy's numbers on them... because they WERE stars, and the stars want to honor them.

both cities have ties to these franchises, and it's flat out dumb to say that they don't.

unitas was a colt, and the colts play in indiana. unitas is a baltimore hero, and they have a statue of him in a colts jersey outside. there is nothing wrong with either of those statements.

Probably the best post so far in this thread. Teams can retire numbers and put up statues for players that were never part of that franchise. It's something nice to do for the fans and shouldn't confuse anyone on the real history of the team. I think the Winnipeg Jets have done a great job with their relocation even if I'm not a huge fan of them reusing the Jets name (but that was mainly from fan pressure.) Even though they have the same name as the previous team, they don't pretend like their Atlanta years never happened. Ilya Kovalchuk is still their scoring leader. But Evander Kane still asked Bobby Hull for permission to wear #9 even though he never played for this Jets franchise. Just a good balance of keeping their true history with remembering the city's other team.

[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.

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.

That's why I said perfect world. I know they would never institute such regulations in major sports BUT it would make the world a much better place if they would.

Here in Seattle, we've had the Sounders in soccer since 1974 with many different owners, franchises, leagues yet all have been and always will be Seattle soccer players, records, championships. That's the right way to do it in my opinion.

This whole thread is a great argument for not having team nicknames. If it's just Seattle, or New York, or Baltimore, you can't take the city name (although I'm sure some would argue that's what the Jets and Giants have done).

[TheLavisShow]

I feel like this is one of the saddest things in the states. All across the major European sports leagues (in particular soccer) the notion of franchsing is nonexistent. Over there the notion of taking a teams colors and nickname when they move cities results in mass anger (see the Wimbledon move to Milton-Keynes).

As a Seattle Supersonics fan I have obvious bias that I acknowledge. But honestly, it's sad we are accustomed to this here because it means the likelyhood of a transition in stance is very weak. The Colts should've changed their name, the Flames should've changed their name, the Grizzlies, Hornets, Jazz, Rams, should've all changed their name (especially the Jazz, honestly I know there aren't a lot of good names for Utah teams but I doubt there's one jazz club within 1000 miles of Salt Lake).

The only exceptions are when a team only slightly changes venue such as the Raiders and the Nets.

[bosrs1]

I feel like this is one of the saddest things in the states. All across the major European sports leagues (in particular soccer) the notion of franchsing is nonexistent. Over there the notion of taking a teams colors and nickname when they move cities results in mass anger (see the Wimbledon move to Milton-Keynes).

As a Seattle Supersonics fan I have obvious bias that I acknowledge. But honestly, it's sad we are accustomed to this here because it means the likelyhood of a transition in stance is very weak. The Colts should've changed their name, the Flames should've changed their name, the Grizzlies, Hornets, Jazz, Rams, should've all changed their name (especially the Jazz, honestly I know there aren't a lot of good names for Utah teams but I doubt there's one jazz club within 1000 miles of Salt Lake).

The only exceptions are when a team only slightly changes venue such as the Raiders and the Nets.

When did the Raiders "slightly" change venue? I'm assuming you're talking about when they moved from San Francisco to Oakland?

[ColeJ]

yeah.... oakland and los angeles may be the same state, but so is houston and dallas. not exactly the twin cities. buffalo and new york city are closer, and they're not even the same stratosphere.

[jetstender]

The Colorado Rockies (NHL) kept the same colours as the Kansas City Scouts, they just changed the striping.

And the WHA's Toronto Toros became the Birmingham Bulls and kept the same Jersey.

Same with the Philadelphia Blazers to Vancouver Blazers

[TheLavisShow]

I'm just saying in the Raiders case the Bay Area had the 49ers before they came to town and LA had the Rams before they came to town. Besides the Raider Nation represents more than just a football team playing for a city, it's about a team playing for an urban and rebellious culture. Only way you can remove that is if you change the logo or colors; not city.

[Enio125]

IMO there needs to be a clear distinction between a "team" and a "franchise". A franchise is composed of employees while a team is composed of history, and emotions. Fans don't root for their "franchise"; they root for their "team". They don't cheer for the director of sales, they cheer for the team. Even when they cheer a player, they don't do it because they care about the individual player, they cheer because that player is helping the team. When owners take team colors and history with them they hope to make fans in the new city connect emotionally to the franchise when they can't because they weren't there to live through it. For example: most Sonics fans, who are old enough, can tell you what they were doing and how they felt when the Sonics won their championship, most Thunder fans cannot. Similarly, when Titans fans see Earl Campbell’s retired number, they can only admire him as great player like someone in Oakland or New England would. Someone in Houston that watched him play could tell you his best run or the best Oilers team he was on because there is an emotional connection there.

To sum it up, fans in the new city don’t care about the old history or lore of a franchise because they weren’t there to enjoy it. It is a new team for them. Most owners don’t even care because they weren’t there to enjoy it either. The only people that care are the fans in the old city. So, why should owners take away the history of a team from fans that have an emotional connection to it and force feed it to fans that don’t care either way.

[Sguse1]

Seattle Pilots ---> Milwaukee Brewers kept a similar color scheme.

[hawk36]

To sum it up, fans in the new city don’t care about the old history or lore of a franchise because they weren’t there to enjoy it. It is a new team for them. Most owners don’t even care because they weren’t there to enjoy it either. The only people that care are the fans in the old city. So, why should owners take away the history of a team from fans that have an emotional connection to it and force feed it to fans that don’t care either way.

Exactly. WHEN a team is relocated here to once again become the Seattle Supersonics, I will have no interest in anything that relocated team ever did in their history. They could be the Boston Celtics and I'd still only care about what the Seattle Supersonics did over their 40 years here.

[rams80]

I know there aren't a lot of good names for Utah teams but I doubt there's one jazz club within 1000 miles of Salt Lake).

There is, but I'm sure that doesn't matter to you.

[Foxxtrot44]

I know there aren't a lot of good names for Utah teams but I doubt there's one jazz club within 1000 miles of Salt Lake).

There is, but I'm sure that doesn't matter to you.

3 blocks from Energy Solutions Arena to the nearest "jazz-specific" club...it gets even shorter if one simply wants a bar where there happens to be live jazz music.

If you're afraid you'll get tuckered out, you can take the train.

[jc...]

IMO there needs to be a clear distinction between a "team" and a "franchise". A franchise is composed of employees while a team is composed of history, and emotions. Fans don't root for their "franchise"; they root for their "team". They don't cheer for the director of sales, they cheer for the team. Even when they cheer a player, they don't do it because they care about the individual player, they cheer because that player is helping the team. When owners take team colors and history with them they hope to make fans in the new city connect emotionally to the franchise when they can't because they weren't there to live through it. For example: most Sonics fans, who are old enough, can tell you what they were doing and how they felt when the Sonics won their championship, most Thunder fans cannot. Similarly, when Titans fans see Earl Campbell’s retired number, they can only admire him as great player like someone in Oakland or New England would. Someone in Houston that watched him play could tell you his best run or the best Oilers team he was on because there is an emotional connection there.

To sum it up, fans in the new city don’t care about the old history or lore of a franchise because they weren’t there to enjoy it. It is a new team for them. Most owners don’t even care because they weren’t there to enjoy it either. The only people that care are the fans in the old city. So, why should owners take away the history of a team from fans that have an emotional connection to it and force feed it to fans that don’t care either way.

THIS! Thank you!

[TalktoChuck]

I know there aren't a lot of good names for Utah teams but I doubt there's one jazz club within 1000 miles of Salt Lake).

There is, but I'm sure that doesn't matter to you.

3 blocks from the stadium to the nearest "jazz-specific" club...it gets even shorter if one simply wants a bar where there happens to be live jazz music.

Do people not understand that there are a lot of people in every single state that like/play Jazz music? Jazz is not strictly confined to the city limits of New Orleans.

New Orleans was/is a significant city when it comes to the birth and evolution of Jazz music, but it is hardly the only city that is significant in those respects. Chicago and New York (and you could argue for a couple more cities) both had huge impacts on how Jazz music evolved over the years. Music is universal and transparent, it doesn't belong to a specific city nor should it.

[goforbroke]

I know there aren't a lot of good names for Utah teams but I doubt there's one jazz club within 1000 miles of Salt Lake).

There is, but I'm sure that doesn't matter to you.

3 blocks from the stadium to the nearest "jazz-specific" club...it gets even shorter if one simply wants a bar where there happens to be live jazz music.

Do people not understand that there are a lot of people in every single state that like/play Jazz music? Jazz is not strictly confined to the city limits of New Orleans.

New Orleans was/is a significant city when it comes to the birth and evolution of Jazz music, but it is hardly the only city that is significant in those respects. Chicago and New York (and you could argue for a couple more cities) both had huge impacts on how Jazz music evolved over the years. Music is universal and transparent, it doesn't belong to a specific city nor should it.

This is a little bit of a weak argument... YES of course there are Jazz clubs in Utah... that was some assumptive hyperbole by TheLavisShow. But that doesn't mean it makes sense to name the team after something that, while it EXISTS, doesn't have the historical significance to merit branding a team around.

I'm not on the "re-name the Jazz" bandwagon.. If you didn't do it 30 years ago you're not doing it now. But i still think the name makes no sense.

Having said that, I don't know how many Tigers there are in Detroit. So, sometimes it doens't have to make sense.

[TheLavisShow]

I know there aren't a lot of good names for Utah teams but I doubt there's one jazz club within 1000 miles of Salt Lake).

There is, but I'm sure that doesn't matter to you.

3 blocks from the stadium to the nearest "jazz-specific" club...it gets even shorter if one simply wants a bar where there happens to be live jazz music.

Do people not understand that there are a lot of people in every single state that like/play Jazz music? Jazz is not strictly confined to the city limits of New Orleans.

New Orleans was/is a significant city when it comes to the birth and evolution of Jazz music, but it is hardly the only city that is significant in those respects. Chicago and New York (and you could argue for a couple more cities) both had huge impacts on how Jazz music evolved over the years. Music is universal and transparent, it doesn't belong to a specific city nor should it.

This is a little bit of a weak argument... YES of course there are Jazz clubs in Utah... that was some assumptive hyperbole by TheLavisShow. But that doesn't mean it makes sense to name the team after something that, while it EXISTS, doesn't have the historical significance to merit branding a team around.

I'm not on the "re-name the Jazz" bandwagon.. If you didn't do it 30 years ago you're not doing it now. But i still think the name makes no sense.

Having said that, I don't know how many Tigers there are in Detroit. So, sometimes it doens't have to make sense.

Tigers is a classic sports team nickname that goes way back, much like Wildcats and Bulldogs. Nicknaming a team "Jazz" on a professional level was invented in New Orleans. All I'm saying is if Utah was given an NBA franchise initially instead of New Orleans, how far down the list of nicknames would've Jazz appeared? Probably wouldn't have made the top 100 easily.

There's just zero logic in Utah Jazz. If they're basing their nickname off of Utah's jazz scene then every single NBA team would have the same base. Memphis, Portland, Sacramento, even Minneapolis probably have larger jazz scenes then the Salt Lake City metro area.

Hell why we're talking about a utopian-like world of franchises actually having relevant team nicknames why is LA still called the Lakers. Why don't Utah, LA, and Minnesota do a three-way swap of nicknames.

All-in-all I think we can agree professional franchises are a lot more lazy and stubborn when changing nickname then minor league franchises (Yakima had their baseball team move to Hillsboro, OR and now they have a completely different color scheme and nickname).