Kosher Ham Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 But his question was specifically NFL teams. Teams change logos all the time. The name is the rare situation in the NFL to stay in the same city. Hell, the Colts stole that name from Baltimore. The owner of the Pelicans, held on to the name and colors for recognition and consistency. Once he realized that throwback Hornets gear was outselling N.O. Hornets gear...it made sense to change. Bobcats gear was never a top selling item ( for many reasons) , The Charlotte franchise saw this as an opportunity to re-brand and draw in some of those fans they lost because the team was taken from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 But his question was specifically NFL teams. Teams change logos all the time. The name is the rare situation in the NFL to stay in the same city. Hell, the Colts stole that name from Baltimore. The owner of the Pelicans, held on to the name and colors for recognition and consistency. Once he realized that throwback Hornets gear was outselling N.O. Hornets gear...it made sense to change. Bobcats gear was never a top selling item ( for many reasons) , The Charlotte franchise saw this as an opportunity to re-brand and draw in some of those fans they lost because the team was taken from them. Like I said above, the only NFL team was the Titans/Oilers who changed after 2 years, so that doesn't really count. As far as many sport, it really doesn't happen. Teams don't usually change names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 We agree here. My previous post was to point out the reason the Titans continued to be the Oilers. They had no home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 We agree here. My previous post was to point out the reason the Titans continued to be the Oilers. They had no home. I wasn't disagreeing with Cali's OP. I was just pointing out the few times teams have changed names. And the most recent ones were teams that had moved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audible_Red40 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Peter Queen, I think I think... http://mmqb.si.com/2014/07/21/buffalo-bills-training-camp-opens/4/ 7. I think the Washington franchise will have a new team name by 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 PFT posted a the same item Audible_Red40 just posted. Want to think this isn't a media cause? I posted three factual comments with evidence showing how much is ignored in the main media discussion. Nothing inflammatory, offensive, or derogatory--just simple facts. All 3 were deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 I wasn't disagreeing with Cali's OP. I was just pointing out the few times teams have changed names. And the most recent ones were teams that had moved. I realize that. The two instances are not the same based on the question he asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Peter Queen, I think I think... http://mmqb.si.com/2014/07/21/buffalo-bills-training-camp-opens/4/ He also said the team changed their named when they moved to Washington in 1937, which is not true at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 SI asked a panel about the name, one responded about it being a "clear negative connotation," two said they were conflicted about it. However, Adam Schefter gets it: Schefter: Not my job to make a stand on their name. If they're keeping the name, I'll keep using the name. If they're not, I won't. I'll call them whatever the team calls itself. It's Dan Snyder's decision, not mine. As far as I can tell, he has as much interest in changing the Redskins name as I do in changing mine. So to me they remain the Washington Redskins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 New York Titans became the New York Jets. In baseball, the Houston Colt 45s became the Houston Astros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 New York Titans became the New York Jets. That was more than 50 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 SI asked a panel about the name, one responded about it being a "clear negative connotation," two said they were conflicted about it. However, Adam Schefter gets it: Link to article: http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/07/20/media-circus-nfl-media-roundtable-johnny-manziel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 PFT posted a the same item Audible_Red40 just posted. Want to think this isn't a media cause? I posted three factual comments with evidence showing how much is ignored in the main media discussion. Nothing inflammatory, offensive, or derogatory--just simple facts. All 3 were deleted. What were the three things you posted that were deleted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 That last paragraph is wrong on both fronts. Wait..so you accuse half of the Braves fan base of being "band wagoners" (even though they haven't won a title since 1995), yet you would possibly stop rooting for the Redskins if they change the name? Makes sense. /sarcasm Bubble, you realize that you're using the same argument that a Cowboys fan would use when arguing that the Cowboys fan base isn't populated by bandwagoners, right? Anyhow, the Braves are a baseball team from Atlanta. The Warriors are a basketball team from Golden State. The Redskins are a football team from Washington. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 As for me, if the team did change the name in 2015 or whenever, it would be a brand new team in my eyes, heart and mind. To me, it would mean the Redskins ceased to exist. Washington Redskins 1933-2014. R.I.P. The new name would mean a new team to me...the Washington "Marshalls", let's call them. It's not the Redskins just with a different name, emblem and uniform, because changing all of that IS changing the team. It's a completely new team representing the area. Would I root for them? Sure, for two reasons: 1) as I said, they are now the team representing the D.C. area, and 2) I am a fan of a lot of the players on the new team. But unlike the current state of the Redskins, the Washington Marshall are gonna have to do a ****load to earn my loyalty and money. The reason I remained a die-hard Redskins fan through thick and thin is because they earned my loyalty over the past 40+ years. However, if the Washington "Marshalls" start off 5-11, 6-10 and 3-13, I'm not gonna utilize the Redskins' history and success to bolster my loyalty to this new team. In fact, if the "Marshalls" did start their first three seasons in such an ugly fashion, I'm probably checking out emotionally midway through each season, turning games off...the Redskins would have me watching every ugly second of a terrible season. But the Marshalls don't have a resevoir of history and tradition for me to draw upon. The new team would have to build successful season on top of successful season before they can hold my loyalty and attention the way the Redskins have been able to do for the past 20 years of overall mediocrity. The "Marshalls" don't get to piggy-back off of the Redskins' success and history in my eyes. So, yeah...to me the Redskins would no longer exist, not just as a name but as a franchise. I would root for this new team almost by default in the beginning. It won't be nearly as enjoyable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 New York Titans became the New York Jets. In baseball, the Houston Colt 45s became the Houston Astros. the boston braves became the boston redskins.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PigSkins Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 I don't think the name Redskins will be changed. I hope not. But *IF* it does happen, I will would throw all my resources behind changing the name to the Washington Rednecks and the changing the color scheme to Camo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 But his question was specifically NFL teams.It was also specifically "in the last 50 years," otherwise the obvious answer would be, "We did actually, in 1933."It's easier to get the answer you want by asking such a specific question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 It was also specifically "in the last 50 years," otherwise the obvious answer would be, "We did actually, in 1933." It's easier to get the answer you want by asking such a specific question. What does that mean? lol My "specific" question left off all the name changes that occurred while the NFL was still starting and growing. It focused on the time frame in which pretty much all the NFL franchises had established brands. I wanted to iknow if, during THAT timespan and those circumstances, any team decided that "it's just a name" and that fans would remain loyal no matter what, and re-branded their product. Everyone understood this, right? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 With global marketing being what it is now as compared to any other time in history there is no other team name change to look at that compares, especially when you factor in that the Washington Redskins brand is one of the most profitable sports team brands on the planet. it's like Betty Crocker or Coca cola changing it's name.. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Bubble, you realize that you're using the same argument that a Cowboys fan would use when arguing that the Cowboys fan base isn't populated by bandwagoners, right? Anyhow, the Braves are a baseball team from Atlanta. The Warriors are a basketball team from Golden State. The Redskins are a football team from Washington. You realize that there are Braves fans across the nation, because of TBS, right ? It has nothing at all to do with being a bandwagoner. And fans that ARE considered bandwagoners are ones that latch on to teams that win titles (Heat, Bulls, Lakers, Cowboys, Yankees). Again, the Braves have won only one title, and it came almost 20 years ago. And most Braves fans, outside of Atlanta, became fans mainly because of TBS. And the Braves were horrible when they first started carrying the them on that station. I like you man, but calling all or most Braves fans bandwagoners is a ridiculous comment. So is saying the Warriors stink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 You realize that there are Braves fans across the nation, because of TBS, right ? It has nothing at all to do with being a bandwagoner. And fans that ARE considered bandwagoners are ones that latch on to teams that win titles (Heat, Bulls, Lakers, Cowboys, Yankees). Again, the Braves have won only one title, and it came almost 20 years ago. And most Braves fans, outside of Atlanta, became fans mainly because of TBS. And the Braves were horrible when they first started carrying the them on that station. I like you man, but calling all or most Braves fans bandwagoners is a ridiculous comment. So is saying the Warriors stink. I grew cheering for: Ozzie Virgil, Jeff Blauser, Jeff Treadway, Glen Hubberd, Zane Smith, Dale Murphy, Ron Gant (i have no idea if I spelled any of these right) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 With global marketing being what it is now as compared to any other time in history there is no other team name change to look at that compares, especially when you factor in that the Washington Redskins brand is one of the most profitable sports team brands on the planet. it's like Betty Crocker or Coca cola changing it's name.. ~Bang Agreed. The Washington Redskins have been around since 1937. The team name Redskins has been around since 1933 I believe. All the other teams in sports that have had a name changed have been around for far less time than the Skins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Section106 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 I'm naive. Tell me what a name change would do to the bottom line of the Redskins as a profitable organization. And as I asked at the beginning, give me specifics. Are you proposing to personally absorb the costs of a re-branding? Why do you need specifics? Is it your decision? Do you have an example of a company willingly changing a trademark when it's at its most profitable in the company's history? I can't think of one. The Washington Redskins can basically print money not because they play in the NFL. They can print money because they have been in the DC area for ~80 years, have marketed their brand to their fanbase, and have created a relationship with that fan base that is generational. I was born a Redskins fan. My mother put me in a Redskins bib when I was a baby. I went to school with Redskins lunchboxes, shirts, coats, hats, ponchos, backpacks, etc... We rushed home from Church every Sunday to watch the 'Skins play. We bonded as a family over the Redskins. We now go to the games together as a family. This little story has been repeated millions of times over with every family that loves the Redskins. If Dan Snyder changes the name then he is voiding that generational connection. That is business suicide. Moreover, if Snyder is forced to change the name then I can guarantee you that the loyal Redskins fans out there will vow to never buy anything from the new team and they will follow through on that vow. If Dan Snyder is forced to change the name then the team that basically saved the NFL from folding in the early days will become an expansion team. The NFL might as well buy it from Snyder and move it to LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 What were the three things you posted that were deleted? Twice mentioned the vocal minority. It was more of a media creation than anything else. Mentioned the 20 reservations proudly using the Redskins mascot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.