Time For Arizona Cardinals To Change Name

[TruColor]

You are incorrect, and if I can find the old article I will post it, it was Arizona Firebirds because the work Phoenix means a firebird.

...

EDIT: If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Don't think I am though.

[4_tattoos]

They probably could have gotten away with changing the team name when University of Phoenix Stadium opened back in 2006. IIRC they kept saying the opening of the stadium would begin a new era in the franchise's history. Seems like that would have been the absolute best time to pull that switch.

SN: I wonder why the Cardinals didn't just wait a year to unveil their new/current uniforms. Why break out new unis for the final year in Sun Devil Stadium?

[TruColor]

They probably could have gotten away with changing the team name when University of Phoenix Stadium opened back in 2006. IIRC they kept saying the opening of the stadium would begin a new era in the franchise's history. Seems like that would have been the absolute best time to pull that switch.

SN: I wonder why the Cardinals didn't just wait a year to unveil their new/current uniforms. Why break out new unis for the final year in Sun Devil Stadium?

They were about to install a majority of the fixtures in the stadium that needed to have the new logo on it (the seats are the prime example). They thought it made sense to go ahead at that point.

[KCScout76]

Staying with the bird theme: a type of raptor found in the Southwest is called a ACCIPITERS.

Accipiters, such as Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks, have short rounded wings and long tails.

Many of this type of bird are named as Goshawks and Sparrowhawks.

They are expert at chasing small birds through trees and catching them mid-air.

Of course it's not a simple name that the common man can associate with so this bird would never fly in the NFL, but it's one tough hunter. It would make a great logo!

[chakfu]

Any name that is not a "real" thing and contains a descriptor just screams minor league or scholastic.

"Sea Dogs", "Ice Cats", "River Cats", etc. I'll include "Firebirds" and even "Sea Hawks" on this list (though I'm on the fence with Sea Hawks.)

Red Sox and White Sox are kind of grandfathered in due to the origin and how long they've been in use (and they're not gimmicky and made up to have some kind of cool mascot and sell gear to kids.)

You are missing the Dog River River Dogs.

It should be the Dog River Dogs. Is the city Dog or Dog River? Is the nickname River Dogs or Dogs? Is it "Nippon Ham" Fighters or Nippon "Ham Fighters"??

Can someone please make a concept of a baseball player wielding a big bone-in ham like a baseball bat? Hey, here's someone who came close.

HAMJACKED!

[Chromatic]

How about the 'Arizona Coyotes'?

In all seriousness though, if they were to be renamed, it would be nice to see them pick something that isn't a bird. The NFL has enough of those. Especially considering the team was originally named after the colour, not the bird anyways.

[JQK]

Oldest continually run professional football franchise in the NFL (since 1899)...

The team ain't changing the name.

[eliasrappaport]

Oldest continually run professional football franchise in the NFL (since 1899)...

The team ain't changing the name.

Yep. People are complaining about the amount of birds in football, however they should be changing other ones. Out of the 32 NFL teams, here are the bird ones:

Cardinals

Ravens

Falcons

Eagles

Seahawks

If you think 5 are too many (I disagree with that), you might get rid of one for a new rebrand. Personally I think it would be either Ravens or Seahawks. Falcons, Eagles, and Cardinals have to much history to give up their names. The Ravens are incredibly new, however also have won 2 superbowls which makes it hard to get rid of that name. The Seahawks become the most likely target to lose their name in that case. They aren't "new", but were an expansion team in the 1970s when most teams came to the league in the 1950s and 1960s. They also have struggled in the past with branding, so a full scale rebrand with their new uniforms might not be a bad decision. But Cardinals (1899), Eagles (1933), Falcons (1966 with a good history), and Ravens (2 superbowls) aren't going anywhere.

[seancarter]

Arizona Cardinals should become Arizona Wranglers to honor USFL team that was in Arizona before Cardinals decide to move Phoenix in 1987

[Chromatic]

Oldest continually run professional football franchise in the NFL (since 1899)...

The team ain't changing the name.

Yep. People are complaining about the amount of birds in football, however they should be changing other ones. Out of the 32 NFL teams, here are the bird ones:

Cardinals

Ravens

Falcons

Eagles

Seahawks

If you think 5 are too many (I disagree with that), you might get rid of one for a new rebrand. Personally I think it would be either Ravens or Seahawks. Falcons, Eagles, and Cardinals have to much history to give up their names. The Ravens are incredibly new, however also have won 2 superbowls which makes it hard to get rid of that name. The Seahawks become the most likely target to lose their name in that case. They aren't "new", but were an expansion team in the 1970s when most teams came to the league in the 1950s and 1960s. They also have struggled in the past with branding, so a full scale rebrand with their new uniforms might not be a bad decision. But Cardinals (1899), Eagles (1933), Falcons (1966 with a good history), and Ravens (2 superbowls) aren't going anywhere.

Or, the team that was never named after a bird in the first place could change their branding (which isn't very strong anyway) to reflect that.

[Funky Bunky]

Like Ice_Cap, the Cardinals are my #2 team behind the Chargers, and as a fan, I wouldn't support a change. The logos and colors are nice, and the names been around for ever. I see no reason for change.

[eliasrappaport]

Oldest continually run professional football franchise in the NFL (since 1899)...

The team ain't changing the name.

Yep. People are complaining about the amount of birds in football, however they should be changing other ones. Out of the 32 NFL teams, here are the bird ones:

Cardinals

Ravens

Falcons

Eagles

Seahawks

If you think 5 are too many (I disagree with that), you might get rid of one for a new rebrand. Personally I think it would be either Ravens or Seahawks. Falcons, Eagles, and Cardinals have to much history to give up their names. The Ravens are incredibly new, however also have won 2 superbowls which makes it hard to get rid of that name. The Seahawks become the most likely target to lose their name in that case. They aren't "new", but were an expansion team in the 1970s when most teams came to the league in the 1950s and 1960s. They also have struggled in the past with branding, so a full scale rebrand with their new uniforms might not be a bad decision. But Cardinals (1899), Eagles (1933), Falcons (1966 with a good history), and Ravens (2 superbowls) aren't going anywhere.

Or, the team that was never named after a bird in the first place could change their branding (which isn't very strong anyway) to reflect that.

Or, the team that has been around since the 1800s keeps it's historical name and your franchise (also with poor branding historically) that has only been around for 37 years, gives up it's name for something that makes a little more sense for Seattle.

[Chromatic]

Oldest continually run professional football franchise in the NFL (since 1899)...

The team ain't changing the name.

Yep. People are complaining about the amount of birds in football, however they should be changing other ones. Out of the 32 NFL teams, here are the bird ones:

Cardinals

Ravens

Falcons

Eagles

Seahawks

If you think 5 are too many (I disagree with that), you might get rid of one for a new rebrand. Personally I think it would be either Ravens or Seahawks. Falcons, Eagles, and Cardinals have to much history to give up their names. The Ravens are incredibly new, however also have won 2 superbowls which makes it hard to get rid of that name. The Seahawks become the most likely target to lose their name in that case. They aren't "new", but were an expansion team in the 1970s when most teams came to the league in the 1950s and 1960s. They also have struggled in the past with branding, so a full scale rebrand with their new uniforms might not be a bad decision. But Cardinals (1899), Eagles (1933), Falcons (1966 with a good history), and Ravens (2 superbowls) aren't going anywhere.

Or, the team that was never named after a bird in the first place could change their branding (which isn't very strong anyway) to reflect that.

Or, the team that has been around since the 1800s keeps it's historical name and your franchise (also with poor branding historically) that has only been around for 37 years, gives up it's name for something that makes a little more sense for Seattle.

Or you could untwist your panties, re-read my post and not jump the gun when you didn't even understand what I said.

[Gothamite]

I'm not quite sure I should be contributing to this silliness, but...

Or, the team that was never named after a bird in the first place could change their branding (which isn't very strong anyway) to reflect that.

Um...

I think the phrase you're looking for is "was not originally named after a bird". Like those other Cardinals, they were originally named after the color but have been bird-themed for over seventy years now.

[TruColor]

Let's all keep in mind that the story about the faded Maroon jerseys ("they're Cardinal Red") has been debunked as somewhat of an urban legend. May or may not be actually true.

The state bird of Illinois is the cardinal.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Any name that is not a "real" thing and contains a descriptor just screams minor league or scholastic.

"Sea Dogs", "Ice Cats", "River Cats", etc. I'll include "Firebirds" and even "Sea Hawks" on this list (though I'm on the fence with Sea Hawks.)

What?!

[pokecat12]

Any name that is not a "real" thing and contains a descriptor just screams minor league or scholastic.

"Sea Dogs", "Ice Cats", "River Cats", etc. I'll include "Firebirds" and even "Sea Hawks" on this list (though I'm on the fence with Sea Hawks.)

What?!

Put the evidence in the car, Junior!

Now I have this overwhelming urge to listen to Jerry Reed.

[hugevolsfan]

Any name that is not a "real" thing and contains a descriptor just screams minor league or scholastic.

"Sea Dogs", "Ice Cats", "River Cats", etc. I'll include "Firebirds" and even "Sea Hawks" on this list (though I'm on the fence with Sea Hawks.)

What?!

Yeah I don't like the name Sea Dogs either but for some reason Seahawks & Firebirds just don't seem the same to me in terms of minor league status.

It could be because of the Firebird car though I can't call that minor league & the fact the Seahawks have been a pro team my whole life.

[TruColor]

It could be because of the Firebird car though I can't call that minor league & the fact the Seahawks have been a pro team my whole life.

To old guys like me, the Seahawks and Bucs are still expansion teams.

*going outside to sit on my porch with a flyswatter and yell at kids to stay off my lawn now*

[IceCap]

Like Ice_Cap, the Cardinals are my #2 team behind the Chargers, and as a fan, I wouldn't support a change. The logos and colors are nice, and the names been around for ever. I see no reason for change.

I'd even go so far as to say that a name change would result in me ditching the team. A big part of the Cardinals' appeal is that longevity, that history. Being a Cardinals fan? That's cool. There would be no appeal to the Arizona Scorpions/Wranglers/Vultures to me.

Let's all keep in mind that the story about the faded Maroon jerseys ("they're Cardinal Red") has been debunked as somewhat of an urban legend. May or may not be actually true.

The state bird of Illinois is the cardinal.

Thank you!

Also the colour cardinal red is named after the bird. So the bird theme still works even if the colour story is true.