I don't care for the all-too-common practice of giving professional sports franchises the name of an entire state, or even in one case, an entire region of the country. Here is a list of some of the most notable culprits:
Minnesota Vikings (football/NFL)
Minnesota Twins (baseball/AL)
California Angels (baseball/AL)
New England Patriots (football/NFL)
Colorado Rockies (baseball/NL)
Utah Jazz (basketball/NBA)
New Jersey Nets (basketball/NBA)
New Jersey Generals (football/USFL)
Michigan Panthers (football/USFL)
Kentucky Colonels (basketball/ABA)
Indiana Pacers (basketball/ABA,NBA)
Texas Rangers (baseball/AL)
Florida Marlins (baseball/NL)
Florida Panthers (hockey/NHL)
The Floridians (basketball/ABA)
Teams like the Texas Rangers, Florida Marlins, Florida Panthers, and the old California Angels (now corrected to be the Los Angeles Angels) all have competing franchises in the same states (Houston Astros, Tampa Bay Rays, Tampa Bay Lightning, Los Angeles Dodgers, San Diego Padres, Oakland Athletics, and San Francisco Giants). The Marlins are moving into their new baseball stadium next year in downtown Miami and will change their name to the Miami Marlins, a much more pleasant-sounding name that actually was the former minor league team's name before Miami was awarded a major league franchise.
I don't understand why the Patriots felt the need to change their name from Boston to New England: it is almost a "given" that Boston major league sports teams are naturally followed in New England states anyway.
Perhaps the Denver franchise called itself "Colorado" because "Denver Rockies" sounds a lot like the old ABA team "Denver Rockets" (which changed their nickname to "Nuggets" when accepted into the NBA in order to avoid conflicts with that league's already-established San Diego/Houston Rockets franchise). Besides, Colorado + Rockies makes sense.
I also get the fact that "Texas" is indispensable to its nickname "Rangers". But the name still implies some following even in the Houston area. On the other hand, Houston's NFL franchise did a payback of sorts when it was nicknamed "Texans".
And although I'm not cool with the Vikings, I can understand using "Minnesota" in conjunction with its nickname "Twins", which refers to the "twin cities" of Minneapolis and St. Paul. If you're going to identify yourself with TWO cities, then I suppose you might as well bring in the rest of the state!
Perhaps the strangest of all these was the old ABA franchise The Floridians. Formerly called the Miami Floridians (still an awful name), they sought to survive as a viable franchise by playing a handful of games in the Tampa area. Hence the strange name change.
Back before there were any Florida teams in Major League Baseball, the general regional team that fans supported was the Atlanta Braves. Now there was no need for the Braves to call themselves the "Deep South Braves". Just as virtually all of the state of Wisconsin follows its Green Bay Packers in football and doesn't need or want them called the "Wisconsin Packers", naming a franchise for a vast region or state is meaningless, and often a bit arrogant if other teams are located in the area.
Naturally, in college sports it is different because state universities go by the name of the institutions and not a specific location (unless the school in question is a branch). Hence, "Florida Gators" (for the University of Florida) is appropriate, not "Gainesville Gators" (although that sounds cooler).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment