Time For Arizona Cardinals To Change Name

[suns1977]

Too bad "Arizona Rattlers" is already taken.

....or, Arizona Coyotes.

You know, just to start another s*** storm in Glendale.

[rams80]

Too bad "Arizona Rattlers" is already taken.

Give it a year or two.

[LogoFan]

I thought I remembered us being the same age, ColorWerx...yep, I remember the name not making sense when they moved there and...well...they still don't make sense. But you're right at this point...been Phoneix-then Arizona- Cardinals too long to change now.

I've been a die-hard Cardinals fan since most of you were even born (I go back to 1969, when I was 6), but even I would have supported a name change back in '88. "Firebirds" would have been my choice - they even could have kept a Red bird on the helmet.

Now however, it would be horribly costly to change - not only for merchandise, but the myriad of logos all over University of Phoenix Stadium itself. Including on every permanent seat in the place.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

The Cardinals are the oldest franchise in the NFL and have carried their name through three locations and for name changes (Chicago Cardinals, St. Louis Cardinals, Phoenix Cardinals, Arizona Cardinals). Changing it "just because"? That's what's wrong with modern sports design, in my opinion.

this.

[Beluga4]

The St. Louis Cardinals NFL team existed alongside the MLB team from 1960-87. That was the reason I (only half seriously) suggested that they take that name back.

But really in the modern day I don't think there could be two teams in the same city with the same name (St. Louis Sluggers has a nice ring to it!! )

[queso fundido]

How is this still going on? The Cardinals are the oldest team in the NFL founded in 1898, they are one of the last teams I would want to see change their name.

[suns1977]

How is this still going on? The Cardinals are the oldest team in the NFL founded in 1898, they are one of the last teams I would want to see change their name.

Didn't mean to stir up controversy.

I know I don't speak for all natives to AZ, but there are a lot of us (again, not all) that have wondered why the team never got a new identitiy when they moved here.

I just started the thread to see how every one felt about it, that's all.

[wonderbread]

How is this still going on? The Cardinals are the oldest team in the NFL founded in 1898, they are one of the last teams I would want to see change their name.

Didn't mean to stir up controversy.

I know I don't speak for all natives to AZ, but there are a lot of us (again, not all) that have wondered why the team never got a new identitiy when they moved here.

I just started the thread to see how every one felt about it, that's all.

Its a pretty simple concept. They are the oldest team in the league, and should never change there name ever

[Foxxtrot44]

How is this still going on? The Cardinals are the oldest team in the NFL founded in 1898, they are one of the last teams I would want to see change their name.

[Claystation360]

How is this still going on? The Cardinals are the oldest team in the NFL founded in 1898, they are one of the last teams I would want to see change their name.

Didn't mean to stir up controversy.

I know I don't speak for all natives to AZ, but there are a lot of us (again, not all) that have wondered why the team never got a new identitiy when they moved here.

I just started the thread to see how every one felt about it, that's all.

Its a pretty simple concept. They are the oldest team in the league, and should never change there name ever

It's pretty well self explanatory somethings are not meant to change. Just look at it this way, Y'all have a piece of NFL history from the colors to the name so cherish it.

[hawk36]

To have a mascot that has nothing to do with a city or region just emphasizes that fact that they were a moved team that had nothing to do with Phoenix or Arizona. Not really "their" team.

In my perfect world the team would have changed the name when they originally moved, and the league would have saved the Cardinals name for a new city in the future that has an actual connection to the mascot.

Too late now and thus we have this odd but all too common issue.

[WideRight]

Utah Jazz anyone?

If tradition was really more powerful than $$$ we would have:

The Baltimore Colts

The St. Louis Cardinals

The Houston Oilers

The Arizona Rams (at least it makes sense with mountains in Arizona)

The Tennessee Titans (this happened, but Oilers was not preserved for Houston)

The Indianapolis Racers (Instead of Ravens)

But, money talks so we have what we have. There is no reason Arizonans cannot have the Cardinals, just like there are no Lions in Detroit, no panthers in Carolina or no Rams in St. Louis. You just go with it.

Besides Cardinals, as a bird, depicts the team pretty well: They wear red, occasionally make a little noise but are basically harmless.

[guest23]

How is this still going on? The Cardinals are the oldest team in the NFL founded in 1898, they are one of the last teams I would want to see change their name.

Didn't mean to stir up controversy.

I know I don't speak for all natives to AZ, but there are a lot of us (again, not all) that have wondered why the team never got a new identitiy when they moved here.

I just started the thread to see how every one felt about it, that's all.

Here are a few good reasons why.

1. A large portion of az residents are transplants so there's no need to rebrand to something region specific since few residents have ties to the region.

2. Rebranding franchises was still the exception to the rule in the late 80's.

3. The club is the oldest in the nfl and had already moved once without changing the name.

4. The Bidwill family has owned the team since 1932 and judging by their management style over the past several decades, it's abundantly clear the Cards are their franchise and they don't owe their fans or host cities a single thing.

[Gold Pinstripes]

How is this still going on? The Cardinals are the oldest team in the NFL founded in 1898, they are one of the last teams I would want to see change their name.

Didn't mean to stir up controversy.

I know I don't speak for all natives to AZ, but there are a lot of us (again, not all) that have wondered why the team never got a new identitiy when they moved here.

I just started the thread to see how every one felt about it, that's all.

Here are a few good reasons why.

1. A large portion of az residents are transplants so there's no need to rebrand to something region specific since few residents have ties to the region.

2. Rebranding franchises was still the exception to the rule in the late 80's.

3. The club is the oldest in the nfl and had already moved once without changing the name.

4. The Bidwill family has owned the team since 1932 and judging by their management style over the past several decades, it's abundantly clear the Cards are their franchise and they don't owe their fans or host cities a single thing.

Here would be my good reasons for a reboot, but won't likely happen without new ownership:

1. Transplanted fans and natives could embrace a region specific name, that's good marketing. I think you would have seen better merchandise sales as well. It's worked out well for the NFL's Tennessee Titans and MLB's Washington Nationals.

2. Unlike the Colts, the Cardinals brand name was weak in Chicago/St. Louis, due to the on field struggles.

3. Age of a franchise is important when it's in the same city, because those fans experience the memories in that city. How many Arizona fans know anything about Terry Metcalf? Age alone doesn't present value, it's the brand with the accomplishments in the same region or city.

4. The Bidwell family can do whatever they want, and maybe they wanted to save money back when the decision was made to leave St. Louis. Didn't rebrand, didn't really improve the team until Kurt Warner arrived.

[IceCap]

1. Transplanted fans and natives could embrace a region specific name, that's good marketing. I think you would have seen better merchandise sales as well. It's worked out well for the NFL's Tennessee Titans and MLB's Washington Nationals.

Is the District of Columbia known as a transplant heavy region? Sure you have the revolving door of politicians, but is the city as a whole known for its transplant population? If not it's not the best comparison to make here. As for the Titans, I never saw that as a regional name. Yes, yes, "Athens of the South" and all of that, but I don't think "ancient Greek gods" when I think Tennessee. To me the name Tennessee Titans is like Cleveland Cavaliers or Pittsburgh Pirates. The ties between name and location aren't really there, but it's phonetically pleasing so it works.

2. Unlike the Colts, the Cardinals brand name was weak in Chicago/St. Louis, due to the on field struggles.

And despite the strength of the Colts' brand in Baltimore the team still took it with them to Indianapolis. So if the Colts could get away with taking a well-established brand with them to a new city why couldn't the Cardinals take a less established brand with them?

3. Age of a franchise is important when it's in the same city, because those fans experience the memories in that city. How many Arizona fans know anything about Terry Metcalf? Age alone doesn't present value, it's the brand with the accomplishments in the same region or city.

I disagree. With the Cardinals the age of the franchise is one of their biggest selling points. They don't have that on-field success a lot of older teams have. The fact that they are the oldest team in the NFL, and have kept their brand alive through almost all of that history, is the greatest testament to their history. As the Cardinals they're the "Arizona Cardinals, oldest team in the NFL with a history that stretches back over 100 years." As, say, the Arizona Vultures they're a crappy team playing in a soon-to-be bankrupt suburb.

Whether any Arizona fans care about Terry Metcalf? If CWx is any indication there are Cardinals faithful who have taken the initiative to learn their team's history and embrace it. And the team itself has embraced that history, with various callouts to both the Chicago and St. Louis eras throughout their stadium. Which ties in to what I said above. If you're an Arizona football fan it's kind of cool to look at your team and discover their history, which is quite extensive. That's lost if they re-branded to Scorpions or Vultures or something equally as "regional." Had they done that there'd be less of a connection to the Chicago/St. Louis Cardinals, and then Arizona fans would be stuck with a bad team that's not quite as interesting.

4. The Bidwell family can do whatever they want, and maybe they wanted to save money back when the decision was made to leave St. Louis. Didn't rebrand, didn't really improve the team until Kurt Warner arrived.

The Bidwells get a lot of well-deserved flack for how they've run the team, but you get the sense that they actually do care about the team's legacy. They held onto a dated logo longer then they should have, the much needed update was essentially a facelift, and when they did get modern uniforms they insisted on keeping the traditional grey facemask. The Bidwells may be cheap, but I don't think that factored into the decision to keep the team the Cardinals when they moved. I think there was a genuine desire to keep the oldest team in the league named as-is.

If tradition was really more powerful than $$$ we would have:

The St. Louis Cardinals

Again, why? Everyone who likes to say "X team should be in location Y" always pairs the Cardinals with St. Louis. While I may disagree with giving the Jazz name back to New Orleans I can at least see the logic there. The team started in New Orleans and has a New Orleans-y name. The Cardinals though? St. Louis wasn't even their original home. So why does everyone present St. Louis as where they "should" be?

[guest23]

How is this still going on? The Cardinals are the oldest team in the NFL founded in 1898, they are one of the last teams I would want to see change their name.

Didn't mean to stir up controversy.

I know I don't speak for all natives to AZ, but there are a lot of us (again, not all) that have wondered why the team never got a new identitiy when they moved here.

I just started the thread to see how every one felt about it, that's all.

Here are a few good reasons why.

1. A large portion of az residents are transplants so there's no need to rebrand to something region specific since few residents have ties to the region.

2. Rebranding franchises was still the exception to the rule in the late 80's.

3. The club is the oldest in the nfl and had already moved once without changing the name.

4. The Bidwill family has owned the team since 1932 and judging by their management style over the past several decades, it's abundantly clear the Cards are their franchise and they don't owe their fans or host cities a single thing.

Here would be my good reasons for a reboot, but won't likely happen without new ownership:

1. Transplanted fans and natives could embrace a region specific name, that's good marketing. I think you would have seen better merchandise sales as well. It's worked out well for the NFL's Tennessee Titans and MLB's Washington Nationals.

2. Unlike the Colts, the Cardinals brand name was weak in Chicago/St. Louis, due to the on field struggles.

3. Age of a franchise is important when it's in the same city, because those fans experience the memories in that city. How many Arizona fans know anything about Terry Metcalf? Age alone doesn't present value, it's the brand with the accomplishments in the same region or city.

4. The Bidwell family can do whatever they want, and maybe they wanted to save money back when the decision was made to leave St. Louis. Didn't rebrand, didn't really improve the team until Kurt Warner arrived.

Here's the thing that most pro sports fans don't undertstand about the relationship between the franchise and their host city: The vast majority of ownership acroos all leagues has Zero connection to the area and sees the franchise as 100% Theirs to do with as they please. This has been the case for over 100 years, whether it's a family legacy that's been living off the TV money since the 70's with little interest in the on field product, recent owners that are looking to flip a team off of equity gain, or the newest billionaire that wants a new toy to play with and show off to his friends. The bottom line is that the fans and municipality are more often a cost of doing business and rarely an asset to a franchise in the eyes of an owner. Of course there are exceptions.

Back to the Cards. The other reasons that may have been behind the move to Phx was the fact that they were in the NFC East and Phx was already a huge cowboys town so the Bidwills knew at minimum they had at least one sell out a season and two highly rated games on TV. Then also combine that with the transplants from Chicago and other locales you had a good chance of attracting visiting team fans for a few more games each season. Why would they go through the effort to rebrand when they've already carved out a sweet deal for themselves?

[themightyspitz]

Yeah, bringing up the "lets have three teams swap names!" argument makes even less sense here then it does in the NBA threads.

Honestly a 2x three team swap makes PERFECT sense!

-New Orleans Jazz

-Charlotte Hornets

-Utah Bobcats

THEN

-Minnesota Lakers

-Memphis Bucks

-Los Angeles Grizzlies

There, all fixed!

</obvious troll>

[tBBP]

2. Unlike the Colts, the Cardinals brand name was weak in Chicago/St. Louis, due to the on field struggles.

And despite the strength of the Colts' brand in Baltimore the team still took it with them to Indianapolis. So if the Colts could get away with taking a well-established brand with them to a new city why couldn't the Cardinals take a less established brand with them?

Folks...take out your red pills and get a glass of water. Now...take the pill.

To dig this particular rabbit hole a little deeper...the great irony in this comparo is that both franchise's identities actually DID end up making some level some sense in their new locales. As has previously been mentioned in this very thread, the pyrrhuloxia is a type of cardinal native to the southwestern U.S., where Arizona just happens to be. (Now in hindsight, maybe they might've explored basing their updated look around the look and colors of that particular cardinal, to make it more "local" and appease some of the local crowd? Maybe, maybe not.) In the case of the Colts, well, via their own website, the Indiana Pacers say their name came from combining the city's history of both auto racing (pace car for the Indy 500) AND--watch this one--horse racing (harness racing pace horses), so right there one can see how the nickname "Colts" can fit right in. Furthermore, blue is one of Indiana's two state colors, AND...Indy's civic flag is primarily blue and white, so damn if that didn't work out just perfect for the Colts!

Do we need to take this red pill thing any further?

(Oh and...I remember Terry Metcalf. Of course, I also remember Dan Dierdorf, Larry Centers, Seth Joyner, Aeneas Williams, and some guy by the name of Dave Brown...and I'm not even a Cardinals fan. )

[rams80]

To have a mascot that has nothing to do with a city or region just emphasizes that fact that they were a moved team that had nothing to do with Phoenix or Arizona. Not really "their" team.

In my perfect world the team would have changed the name when they originally moved, and the league would have saved the Cardinals name for a new city in the future that has an actual connection to the mascot.

Too late now and thus we have this odd but all too common issue.

All of the negative traditions in the MLS started in your perfect world. And most of the country has an actual connection to the goddamn bird. Including Arizona.

[wonderbread]

Also we are forgetting the team isnt named after the bird, but the fact that they wear cardinal red, and later adopted the bird as their mascot and logo