News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Stadium and team naming

Started by Laura, August 28, 2014, 09:21:31 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Laura

[Split from https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13334.0 -S.]
The Ravens stadium was named PSI.net Stadium when it first opened in 1998, and the company went out of business with the dot com bust. For a while it didn't have a name until M&T Bank purchased naming rights.

I hate corporate names for stadiums. I mean, I understand the value of them for money making purposes, but I find them incredibly tacky because it's like slapping advertising on a public good.

(I know, professional sports teams are businesses and not public goods, but they become part of a city like a public good, which is why it's tragic to a city when they move. Honestly, teams shouldn't be allowed to move out of a metropolitan area at all - they should be completely disbanded first and if the owner wants to make a whole new team elsewhere they can. You can clearly tell I'm from Baltimore - we fiercely love our Ravens but the Colts and their move still sting deep down 30 years later - enough said.)


iPhone


Henry

Quote from: Laura on August 28, 2014, 09:21:31 AM
The Ravens stadium was named PSI.net Stadium when it first opened in 1998, and the company went out of business with the dot com bust. For a while it didn't have a name until M&T Bank purchased naming rights.

I hate corporate names for stadiums. I mean, I understand the value of them for money making purposes, but I find them incredibly tacky because it's like slapping advertising on a public good.

(I know, professional sports teams are businesses and not public goods, but they become part of a city like a public good, which is why it's tragic to a city when they move. Honestly, teams shouldn't be allowed to move out of a metropolitan area at all - they should be completely disbanded first and if the owner wants to make a whole new team elsewhere they can. You can clearly tell I'm from Baltimore - we fiercely love our Ravens but the Colts and their move still sting deep down 30 years later - enough said.)


iPhone
Actually, corporate sponsorship is nothing new. The home stadium of the Chicago Cubs is called Wrigley Field, named after the chewing gum company that is based there. Also, a former minor-league stadium in Los Angeles used the Wrigley Field moniker as well; however, the Chicago ballpark was just called Cubs Park at the time.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

spooky

Quote from: Henry on August 28, 2014, 10:10:42 AM
Quote from: Laura on August 28, 2014, 09:21:31 AM
The Ravens stadium was named PSI.net Stadium when it first opened in 1998, and the company went out of business with the dot com bust. For a while it didn't have a name until M&T Bank purchased naming rights.

I hate corporate names for stadiums. I mean, I understand the value of them for money making purposes, but I find them incredibly tacky because it's like slapping advertising on a public good.

(I know, professional sports teams are businesses and not public goods, but they become part of a city like a public good, which is why it's tragic to a city when they move. Honestly, teams shouldn't be allowed to move out of a metropolitan area at all - they should be completely disbanded first and if the owner wants to make a whole new team elsewhere they can. You can clearly tell I'm from Baltimore - we fiercely love our Ravens but the Colts and their move still sting deep down 30 years later - enough said.)


iPhone
Actually, corporate sponsorship is nothing new. The home stadium of the Chicago Cubs is called Wrigley Field, named after the chewing gum company that is based there. Also, a former minor-league stadium in Los Angeles used the Wrigley Field moniker as well; however, the Chicago ballpark was just called Cubs Park at the time.

Didn't the Wrigleys own the Cubs, as well as the chewing gum company? That would suggest that the naming goes slightly deeper than just a corporate sponsorship.

Pete from Boston


Quote from: spooky on August 28, 2014, 10:48:16 AM
Quote from: Henry on August 28, 2014, 10:10:42 AM
Quote from: Laura on August 28, 2014, 09:21:31 AM
The Ravens stadium was named PSI.net Stadium when it first opened in 1998, and the company went out of business with the dot com bust. For a while it didn't have a name until M&T Bank purchased naming rights.

I hate corporate names for stadiums. I mean, I understand the value of them for money making purposes, but I find them incredibly tacky because it's like slapping advertising on a public good.

(I know, professional sports teams are businesses and not public goods, but they become part of a city like a public good, which is why it's tragic to a city when they move. Honestly, teams shouldn't be allowed to move out of a metropolitan area at all - they should be completely disbanded first and if the owner wants to make a whole new team elsewhere they can. You can clearly tell I'm from Baltimore - we fiercely love our Ravens but the Colts and their move still sting deep down 30 years later - enough said.)


iPhone
Actually, corporate sponsorship is nothing new. The home stadium of the Chicago Cubs is called Wrigley Field, named after the chewing gum company that is based there. Also, a former minor-league stadium in Los Angeles used the Wrigley Field moniker as well; however, the Chicago ballpark was just called Cubs Park at the time.

Didn't the Wrigleys own the Cubs, as well as the chewing gum company? That would suggest that the naming goes slightly deeper than just a corporate sponsorship.

William Wrigley, Jr., owned both.  This was not a naming-rights deal.

SteveG1988

Green bay packers were named as part of a deal.

"Lambeau solicited funds for uniforms from his employer, the Indian Packing Company. He was given $500 for uniforms and equipment, on the condition that the team be named for its sponsor."
Roads Clinched

I55,I82,I84(E&W)I88(W),I87(N),I81,I64,I74(W),I72,I57,I24,I65,I59,I12,I71,I77,I76(E&W),I70,I79,I85,I86(W),I27,I16,I97,I96,I43,I41,

Pete from Boston


Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 30, 2014, 01:19:37 PM
Green bay packers were named as part of a deal.

"Lambeau solicited funds for uniforms from his employer, the Indian Packing Company. He was given $500 for uniforms and equipment, on the condition that the team be named for its sponsor."

My understanding is that pro football teams in those days often were sponsored by local businesses, my favorite example being the NFL's Tonawanda Kardex, named for the filing-card company that sponsored them. 

mrsman

Quote from: Laura on August 28, 2014, 09:21:31 AM
The Ravens stadium was named PSI.net Stadium when it first opened in 1998, and the company went out of business with the dot com bust. For a while it didn't have a name until M&T Bank purchased naming rights.

I hate corporate names for stadiums. I mean, I understand the value of them for money making purposes, but I find them incredibly tacky because it's like slapping advertising on a public good.

(I know, professional sports teams are businesses and not public goods, but they become part of a city like a public good, which is why it's tragic to a city when they move. Honestly, teams shouldn't be allowed to move out of a metropolitan area at all - they should be completely disbanded first and if the owner wants to make a whole new team elsewhere they can. You can clearly tell I'm from Baltimore - we fiercely love our Ravens but the Colts and their move still sting deep down 30 years later - enough said.)


iPhone

And given that teams do get moved, I also believe that the team name should stay with the old city.  Colts are associated with the horse racing that Baltimore's Preakness is famous for.  Not such a good name for a team in the home of the Indy 500.

And it's a good thing that the Oklahoma City Thunder left the Supersonics name for Seattle.  If Seattle ever gets a basketball team again, they can become the Supersonics.

Brian556

Remember when the Houston Oilers moved to Tennessee, and kept the name for a few years?

1995hoo

Quote from: mrsman on September 05, 2014, 11:34:58 AM
....

And it's a good thing that the Oklahoma City Thunder left the Supersonics name for Seattle.  If Seattle ever gets a basketball team again, they can become the Supersonics.

I find that whole thing amusing because Oklahoma City was the municipality selected for the controversial sonic boom tests in 1964 to examine what effects supersonic passenger flights might have on a city. A sonic boom can sound quite like an extremely loud thunderclap, which makes me find it amusing that a team called the SuperSonics changed its name to "Thunder" when moving to a city that had been subjected to eight sonic booms per day for a roughly six-month period.

(Of course, the name "SuperSonics" represented one of Boeing's biggest debacles, the failed effort to build the Boeing 2707 SST that would have competed with Concorde, but when the franchise was founded everyone assumed there would be an American SST at some point.)

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a franchise keeping the team name when it moves unless the name would be utterly illogical–for example, it would have made no sense at all for the Quebec Nordiques franchise to continue to use the name "Nordiques" after the team moved to Denver, and it would have been silly for the Montreal Expos franchise to continue to use "Expos" after moving to Washington DC because "Expos" referred to the 1967 World's Fair in Montreal. (The Houston Oilers maintaining their name for two years after moving is an example of absurdity.) Realistically, it's kind of silly for the NFL to view the Baltimore Ravens as an "expansion franchise" when in all ways that mattered the club was the relocated original Cleveland Browns.

Returning to the issue of naming roads for businesses or the like, the issue of naming rights, or of relocated franchises, poses the same issue as to roads that it does as to subway stops, as I mentioned in post #22 in this thread. It makes a lot more sense to name a street running past a stadium "Stadium Way" (or Drive, or Street, or whatever) than it does to name it, say, "PSI.net Street." Of course, even a neutral name isn't perfect: Over in Prince George's County, Maryland, the most direct route between the Capital Beltway and the Redskins' FedEx Field is a street named "Arena Drive." The name dates back to the old Capital Centre arena built by the late Abe Pollin, longtime owner of the NBA's Bullets and the NHL's Capitals, both of whom played at the Capital Centre from 1973 and 1974, respectively, through 1997. The Capital Centre was demolished in 2002 and replaced by a shopping center, but the name "Arena Drive" remains. I suppose having a stadium at one end would theoretically maintain some level of logic, even though a football stadium isn't normally considered an "arena," but technically the "Arena Drive" name doesn't run all the way up to the Redskins' stadium–the street changes name to "Bishop Peebles Drive" partway between the Beltway and the stadium, referring to a pastor (not a real bishop) at a nearby "megachurch" who himself wound up in protracted litigation over who was in charge of the congregation.

.....speaking of which, there used to be a road leading to FedEx Field called "Raljon Road" because the late Redskins owner Jack Kent Cooke had prevailed upon the US Postal Service to give FedEx Field a postal address in "Raljon, Maryland" (a name derived from the names of his sons, Ralph and John). After Dan Snyder bought the team, the franchise stopped using the "Raljon" address and the road was later renamed to "FedEx Way" after Snyder sold the stadium naming rights. Perhaps a fine all-around example of the absurdity of naming roads in this manner?!!!

The road leading north from FedEx Field is named "Redskin Road." If the agitators have their way as to the team name, or else when the team moves to a new stadium located elsewhere, that name will be outdated too.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

bugo

Another thing that pisses me off is when rich benefactors basically pay to put their names on the stadium. Bud Walton Arena is a good example. Razorback Stadium is another. The guy Razorback Stadium is named after had nothing to do with the Razorbacks (there is a building at TU in Tulsa named after him too.)

jbnv

Quote from: 1995hoo on September 05, 2014, 12:22:12 PM
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a franchise keeping the team name when it moves unless the name would be utterly illogical.

Absurd: Utah Jazz.
Not absurd: New Orleans Hornets.
Geographically appropriate but absurd for the NBA: New Orleans Pelicans.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

hbelkins

Quote from: jbnv on September 05, 2014, 07:23:50 PM
Absurd: Utah Jazz.

The Jazz used to be in New Orleans, didn't they?

Regarding the OKC Thunder, I thought the name was because of Oklahoma's reputation for stormy weather.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

formulanone

Quote from: bugo on September 05, 2014, 06:39:46 PM
Another thing that pisses me off is when rich benefactors basically pay to put their names on the stadium. Bud Walton Arena is a good example. Razorback Stadium is another. The guy Razorback Stadium is named after had nothing to do with the Razorbacks (there is a building at TU in Tulsa named after him too.)

University of Florida's stadium is named for Ben Hill Griffin; a wealthy benefactor from the state's citrus and cattle industry in Central Florida. He was neither a student nor  an athlete at UF. He donated a staggering sum to the university, from what I've heard.

1995hoo

Quote from: hbelkins on September 05, 2014, 08:37:29 PM
Quote from: jbnv on September 05, 2014, 07:23:50 PM
Absurd: Utah Jazz.

The Jazz used to be in New Orleans, didn't they?

Regarding the OKC Thunder, I thought the name was because of Oklahoma's reputation for stormy weather.

That is correct as to "Thunder," but it's still an amusing name for those of us with a sense for aviation history.

Regarding the comments from jbnv, that's why I said there's nothing "inherently" wrong with a team keeping its name following a move unless it'd be utterly illogical. "Utah Jazz" is one I think is silly, whereas "New Orleans Jazz" was an excellent name. Then you have the NFL Rams, who started as the Cleveland Rams, became the Los Angeles Rams, and are now the St. Louis Rams. There's nothing about "Rams" that'd make it inappropriate to keep that name when moving. (You could say the same about the Chicago/St. Louis/Phoenix/Arizona Cardinals.)
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Pete from Boston


Quote from: jbnv on September 05, 2014, 07:23:50 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 05, 2014, 12:22:12 PM
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a franchise keeping the team name when it moves unless the name would be utterly illogical.

Absurd: Utah Jazz.
Not absurd: New Orleans Hornets.
Geographically appropriate but absurd for the NBA: New Orleans Pelicans.

Isn't jazz illegal in Utah?

LA Lakers, anyone?  In a region so dry it couldn't be settled without taking water from hundreds of miles away?  Minneapolis called and wants its common sense back.

Hornets made much more sense in Charlotte, the "Hornets' nest of insurrection" during the Revolution.

Some teams were paired nicely with another but are no longer, like the two St. Louis Cardinals, two New York Giants, Kansas City Royals & Kings, or Boston Braves & Redskins.

The best-traveling name was, of course, the Fort Wayne Pistons moving to Detroit (honorable mention for Baltimore Bullets' move to Washington).

Laura

#15
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 05, 2014, 12:22:12 PM
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a franchise keeping the team name when it moves unless the name would be utterly illogical–for example, it would have made no sense at all for the Quebec Nordiques franchise to continue to use the name "Nordiques" after the team moved to Denver, and it would have been silly for the Montreal Expos franchise to continue to use "Expos" after moving to Washington DC because "Expos" referred to the 1967 World's Fair in Montreal. (The Houston Oilers maintaining their name for two years after moving is an example of absurdity.) Realistically, it's kind of silly for the NFL to view the Baltimore Ravens as an "expansion franchise" when in all ways that mattered the club was the relocated original Cleveland Browns.

Lol, yeah, that's a load of crap. Technically the "new" Cleveland Browns is an expansion since the players and personnel came from Cleveland to Baltimore. The NFL (particularly Paul Tagliabue) was a huge dick to Baltimore by intentionally denying us an expansion team in the early 1990's and giving teams to Charlotte and Jacksonville instead. Without Art Modell moving the team when he did, we still would not have a team.

Anyway, I can see where the Ravens are "technically" an expansion team because we did not take Cleveland's name and history with us, which was so critical and such a turning point for the professional sports industry. We don't deserve to claim Cleveland's history any more than the Colts have to claim Baltimore's history. (That said, I'm glad the Colts have had success in Indy solely so that they have their own heroes and history - Thank you Peyton Manning.) Also, Modell purposely went out of his way to connect the Baltimore Colts history with the Ravens history, which we still cling to furiously.

I know I'm looking at this from the sociological standpoint, but a team's identity is tied in with a city, so the franchise name and history should never move even if the personnel does. The only exception I'd make is if a team moves back to a city they were previously in (like if the raiders move back to LA). Ideally, teams would never move at all and would just stay put. The Colts moved to Indianapolis because they wanted a shiny new stadium, and Indiana lured them with one...that lasted 24 years!! Indiana got what they deserved on that one -taxpayers were left with a $69 million dollars debt that was still owed on the RCA dome.

iPhone

Pete from Boston

#16
Quote from: Laura on September 06, 2014, 08:45:36 AMLol, yeah, that's a load of crap. Technically the "new" Cleveland Browns is an expansion since the players and personnel came from Cleveland to Baltimore. The NFL (particularly Paul Tagliabue) was a huge dick to Baltimore by intentionally denying us an expansion team in the early 1990's and giving teams to Charlotte and Jacksonville instead. Without Art Modell moving the team when he did, we still would not have a team.

Anyway, I can see where the Ravens are "technically" an expansion team because we did not take Cleveland's name and history with us, which was so critical and such a turning point for the professional sports industry. We don't deserve to claim Cleveland's history any more than the Colts have to claim Baltimore's history. (That said, I'm glad the Colts have had success in Indy solely so that they have their own heroes and history - Thank you Peyton Manning.) Also, Modell purposely went out of his way to connect the Baltimore Colts history with the Ravens history, which we still cling to furiously.

I know I'm looking at this from the sociological standpoint, but a team's identity is tied in with a city, so the franchise name and history should never move even if the personnel does. The only exception I'd make is if a team moves back to a city they were previously in (like if the raiders move back to LA). Ideally, teams would never move at all and would just stay put. The Colts moved to Indianapolis because they wanted a shiny new stadium, and Indiana lured them with one...that lasted 24 years!! Indiana got what they deserved on that one -taxpayers were left with a $69 million dollars debt that was still owed on the RCA dome.

iPhone

I get it, but it is part of the "Don't worry, the NFL will come up with a ruling that creates a reality that enables people to calm down and return to spending happily on football."  It's the same real-world-defying PR it uses on things like criminals and head injuries. 

It would matter less if it were just "The Browns never held Cleveland hostage for hundreds of millions of dollars then stuck it to you.  Instead, the money, owner, players, coaches, and everything they own simply left the Browns and moved to Baltimore.  The Browns are still here and they love you (*cough* fork over the stadium dough if you ever want to see football again), and look, Hero Art Modell returned football lovingly to Baltimore." But it seems the NFL can write away any inconvenient truth it wants. 

Hell of a team of scriptwriters down there.  Reminds me of the Simpsons plot so implausible that the judge had to rule at the end that no one ever question it openly again.

bugo

I was born in 1973, and names like "Indianapolis Colts", "Saint Louis Rams", "Arizona (nee Phoenix) Cardinals", the former "Tennessee Oilers" have never sounded right to me.

Pete from Boston


Quote from: bugo on September 07, 2014, 09:21:09 AM
I was born in 1973, and names like "Indianapolis Colts", "Saint Louis Rams", "Arizona (nee Phoenix) Cardinals", the former "Tennessee Oilers" have never sounded right to me.

I felt the same way about "Los Angeles Raiders," but sometimes the universe rights itself.


bugo

Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 07, 2014, 09:38:15 AM

Quote from: bugo on September 07, 2014, 09:21:09 AM
I was born in 1973, and names like "Indianapolis Colts", "Saint Louis Rams", "Arizona (nee Phoenix) Cardinals", the former "Tennessee Oilers" have never sounded right to me.

I felt the same way about "Los Angeles Raiders," but sometimes the universe rights itself.

I did too.

1995hoo

Quote from: bugo on September 07, 2014, 03:42:31 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 07, 2014, 09:38:15 AM

Quote from: bugo on September 07, 2014, 09:21:09 AM
I was born in 1973, and names like "Indianapolis Colts", "Saint Louis Rams", "Arizona (nee Phoenix) Cardinals", the former "Tennessee Oilers" have never sounded right to me.

I felt the same way about "Los Angeles Raiders," but sometimes the universe rights itself.

I did too.

I've lived in the DC area for years and "Washington Wizards" still doesn't sound right (I still call them the "Bullets"). I've always found it amusing that they chose "Wizards," actually, given the racial demographics of Washington DC.

A few months ago I saw a political cartoon in which Donald Sterling had bought the Wizards and dressed them in Klan regalia, though I can't find that cartoon online now.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

1995hoo

Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 05, 2014, 11:44:53 PM

....

Some teams were paired nicely with another but are no longer, like the two St. Louis Cardinals, two New York Giants, Kansas City Royals & Kings, or Boston Braves & Redskins.

....

Don't forget the football Cardinals were the Chicago Cardinals until 1960. The move to St. Louis was originally opposed by the NFL until the AFL started up, at which time the NFL realized allowing the almost-bankrupt team to move could block the AFL from putting a team in St. Louis. So that situation is a bit different from many of the others. The story is the football team got their name because someone was disparaging their jersey color and the owner retorted it was "cardinal red."

The Redskins were called the "Boston Braves" during their first season (and shared a ballpark with the baseball Braves) but changed their name to "Redskins" when they moved to Fenway Park the next year.

I believe there used to be an NFL team named the Brooklyn Dodgers (they played at Ebbets Field) and later an AAFC team of the same name (also played at Ebbets). There were a bunch of other team names "borrowed" from baseball in earlier years.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Henry

Even today, there are nice pairings in sports, like the following examples:


  • Atlanta Falcons/Hawks
  • Baltimore Orioles/Ravens
  • Chicago Bears/Chicago Cubs
  • Chicago Bears/Chicago Bulls
  • Colorado Avalanche/Rockies
  • Dallas Cowboys/Mavericks/Texas Rangers
  • Detroit Lions/Tigers
  • Houston Astros/Rockets
  • Los Angeles Clippers/Lakers
  • New York Knicks/Yankees
  • New York Mets/Jets/Brooklyn Nets
  • Philadelphia Eagles/76ers
  • Washington Capitals/Nationals

Honorable mention goes to the Carolina Panthers/Charlotte Bobcats; of course this pairing no longer exists because the latter team is now known as the Charlotte Hornets. And back in the 1980s I even made a grouping with three Los Angeles sports teams: Dodgers, Rams and Raiders, because back then, the Ram and Raider were both made by Dodge. However, Ram has become its own division, and the Raider is now a Mitsubishi truck.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

bdmoss88

Is it weird that two different franchises called the Browns moved to Baltimore and neither kept the Browns name? The Cleveland Browns became the Ravens and the St. Louis Browns became the Orioles. Both birds.

Pete from Boston

It's weirder that the Cleveland Browns were named after their first head coach.  Then again, "New York Stengels" would have been a much cooler name than "Mets." 



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.