NFL in Austin, TX

[Scott5114]

The New York Jets and Giants play in East Rutherford, New Jersey.  They do now, and they did in the previous stadium.  It's been happening for over 40 years.  I think we can all really get over that one.  Who really cares?  I hate the Giants as a Cowboys fan and I don't even use that lame line of them not playing in New York.  Everyone knows New York city is so densely populated that there is no room for a stadium and the best land for it was in the suburbs...and oh yeah, there happens to be a state line between Manhattan and East Rutherford.  Its not like they play in Vermont, traveled 100s of miles to build a stadium and still called themselves the New York Giants.

They should build a stadium in Orleans County, New York. That way they would be able to actually play in New York State and still have easy access to what I hear are some really great beaches.

[triplemultiplex]

One factor not mentioned yet in whether a team uses a city or a state to identify itself: how does it sound?

"Minnesota Vikings" sounds better than "Minneapolis Vikings"

"Colorado Rockies" sounds better than "Denver Rockies" (especially since Denver isn't technically in the Rockies)

"Indiana Pacers" sounds better than "Indianapolis Pacers" (too many "s" sounds in rapid succession)

"Texas Rangers" sounds better because of historical context than "Dallas Rangers"
(Tonight on Walker: Dallas Ranger... Chuck Norris kicks cartoonish, one-dimensional bad guys in the face.)

Might be six of one/half dozen of the other to some people, but to others, it hits the ear better so that's what people are drawn to.

[ethanhopkin14]

For those so inclined, there's currently an article on MLB.com that speculates what might have happened to the 30 current MLB franchises had the St. Louis Browns moved to Los Angeles for the 1942 season.

Apparently the Browns had proposed the move,  had garnered enough support from the other AL team owners, and the vote was scheduled to take place on December 8, 1941.  Apparently events of the previous day caused the owners to change their minds about moving a team to the West Coast.

Wow.  That was an amazing article.  Some of it was of course for entertainment, but it makes a lot of sense considering what kind of dominoes would have fell had the Browns moved for Los Angeles.  The Dodgers wouldn't be there obviously, and neither would the Giants in San Francisco to start, but to think of the other possibilities that were blocked along the way because the dominoes hadn't fell yet, or maybe would never fall....

[Stephane Dumas]

"Texas Rangers" sounds better because of historical context than "Dallas Rangers"
(Tonight on Walker: Dallas Ranger... Chuck Norris kicks cartoonish, one-dimensional bad guys in the face.)

Ironically, there was a minor league team who was once called the Dallas Rangers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Rangers

[mgk920]

And it would be kind of bizarre changing it from the 'Green Bay Packers' into the 'Wisconsin Packers', especially changing the logos.  The team has an intense fan interest pretty much statewide and in many ways the people in the southeastern part of the state are even more rabidly into them than are those in their Fox Valley home.

Mike

[Bobby5280]

If the NFL were to be in Austin I wanted to pick 49ers or Raiders once their current stadium deal expires given that Ex-Bay Area residents and companies are moving to the Austin Area.

The Raiders just moved into Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas this year. The 49ers moved into Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara in 2014. That's a pretty recent move. Vegas is booming, so the Raiders are staying put there. The SF Bay area has more residents than the combination of the Austin and San Antonio MSAs. The SF Bay area is still doing well, even if some tech firms in California are pulling up stakes and moving to Austin.

The Austin region's best hope to get an NFL team in the near term is seeing an existing team move there. But it has to be a franchise in far more trouble with local market conditions, stadium issues, etc.

They should build a stadium in Orleans County, New York. That way they would be able to actually play in New York State and still have easy access to what I hear are some really great beaches.

Orleans County, New York? That's between Rochester and Buffalo -where the Bills play already. I think Buffalo is going to have a hard enough time keeping the Bills put in Buffalo. That region can't support a second NFL team. As for beaches, there aren't many along the shores of Lake Ontario in that area. There is a very limited window year round when anyone could comfortably swim in Lake Ontario.

If either the Jets or Giants were going to leave the Meadowlands for a site within NY state they would be better off trying to find a site somewhere in Queens or choosing a site upstate from NYC, either in Westchester County or across the Hudson in Rockland County. There are no easy alternatives. The only large patches of open land within the five boroughs are former landfills or swamps. Upstate there is a lot of high dollar properties, state parks, etc.

"Texas Rangers" sounds better because of historical context than "Dallas Rangers"

There is already a Texas Rangers team in Major League Baseball. While the Cardinals and Giants do have teams in both the NFL and MLB those teams used to be located in the same cities. Both Cardinals teams were in St Louis and the San Francisco Giants baseball teams was once in New York. The Dallas Cowboys and Texas Rangers organizations are separate entities and neither is going to be changing team names to copy the other.

[hotdogPi]

They should build a stadium in Orleans County, New York. That way they would be able to actually play in New York State and still have easy access to what I hear are some really great beaches.

Orleans County, New York? That's between Rochester and Buffalo -where the Bills play already. I think Buffalo is going to have a hard enough time keeping the Bills put in Buffalo. That region can't support a second NFL team. As for beaches, there aren't many along the shores of Lake Ontario in that area. There is a very limited window year round when anyone could comfortably swim in Lake Ontario.

If either the Jets or Giants were going to leave the Meadowlands for a site within NY state they would be better off trying to find a site somewhere in Queens or choosing a site upstate from NYC, either in Westchester County or across the Hudson in Rockland County. There are no easy alternatives. The only large patches of open land within the five boroughs are former landfills or swamps. Upstate there is a lot of high dollar properties, state parks, etc.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28049.175 (this is just one page in the multi-page discussion)

[ethanhopkin14]

"Texas Rangers" sounds better because of historical context than "Dallas Rangers"

There is already a Texas Rangers team in Major League Baseball. While the Cardinals and Giants do have teams in both the NFL and MLB those teams used to be located in the same cities. Both Cardinals teams were in St Louis and the San Francisco Giants baseball teams was once in New York. The Dallas Cowboys and Texas Rangers organizations are separate entities and neither is going to be changing team names to copy the other.

I think triplemultiplex was not referring to the proposed NFL team as the Texas Rangers, but was commenting on my comment on Texas Rangers vs Dallas Rangers for the baseball team. I was asking if a person outside the metroplex identifies more with the team since they are the Texas Rangers instead of the Dallas Rangers.

Also, contrary to popular belief, the current Arizona Cardinals history is not like the New York Giants history.  The football Giants of New York were indeed named after the baseball team of the same name that used to play in New York to build a big fan base as baseball was way more popular than pro football at the time.  The St. Louis Football Cardinals were based in Chicago before that and were the Chicago Cardinals for a while.  The fact that they moved to share the city of St. Louis with the baseball team of the same name is mostly coincidence. 

A side project:  How many mascots are shared by teams of different sports in the big four North American sports, and of them, which ones are not named for the other.  IE: The baseball and football versions of the Giants are named alike intentionally.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

The Minneapolis Lakers departed for LA shortly before the Vikings were founded and the Twins arrived from DC. Despite being one of the NBA's top teams in most of the 1950s, attendance plummeted by the end of the decade. Supposedly, people in St. Paul had little interest in supporting a team named "Minneapolis" , and when the Twins arrived Calvin Griffith wanted to title the team the "Twin Cities Twins"  which was rejected by MLB, so he settled on "Minnesota"  which was unprecedented in pro sports at the time. The Vikings followed suit. Part of that was also probably that both teams played in Bloomington for their first 20 seasons before the Metrodome was built.

[1995hoo]

"Texas Rangers" sounds better because of historical context than "Dallas Rangers"
(Tonight on Walker: Dallas Ranger... Chuck Norris kicks cartoonish, one-dimensional bad guys in the face.)

Ironically, there was a minor league team who was once called the Dallas Rangers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Rangers

As that article mentions, Clint Murchison considered naming his NFL team the Dallas Rangers but chose not to do so because of that baseball team. Later, after they moved, he polled the fan base on whether to keep the name Cowboys or change the name to Rangers. A number of fans gave the unsolicited answer "Murchison is stupid." (Source: When we were kids my brother loved to read books about football teams' history and one of them was about Dallas and mentioned it.)


(Edited to fix a typo)

[NWI_Irish96]

A side project:  How many mascots are shared by teams of different sports in the big four North American sports, and of them, which ones are not named for the other.  IE: The baseball and football versions of the Giants are named alike intentionally.

NFL Carolina and NHL Florida Panthers
NHL Ottawa and MLB (moved and renamed) Washington Senators
MLB Texas and NHL New York Rangers
NHL Edmonton and NFL (moved and renamed) Houston Oilers
NBA Sacramento and NHL Los Angeles Kings

None of these have one named for the other as far as I know.

One example of a team named for another, though the name not being exactly the same: When the NFL Decatur Staleys relocated to Chicago, the were named the Bears as an homage to the MLB Cubs, whose stadium they used for 50 years.

[ilpt4u]

A side project:  How many mascots are shared by teams of different sports in the big four North American sports, and of them, which ones are not named for the other.  IE: The baseball and football versions of the Giants are named alike intentionally.

NFL Carolina and NHL Florida Panthers
NHL Ottawa and MLB (moved and renamed) Washington Senators
MLB Texas and NHL New York Rangers
NHL Edmonton and NFL (moved and renamed) Houston Oilers
NBA Sacramento and NHL Los Angeles Kings

None of these have one named for the other as far as I know.

One example of a team named for another, though the name not being exactly the same: When the NFL Decatur Staleys relocated to Chicago, the were named the Bears as an homage to the MLB Cubs, whose stadium they used for 50 years.

Is the Detroit Tigers and the Cincinnati Bengals pushing it?

Along those same lines, the Chicago Bears/Cubs and the Memphis Grizzlies

Las Vegas Raiders, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and Pittsburgh Pirates

Pushing it even further: Utah Jazz and St Louis Blues (music savants will point out Jazz and Blues are separate things)

Washington (formerly known as) Redskins, Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, Kansas City Chiefs, Chicago Blackhawks

New Orleans Saints and Los Angeles Angels is maybe pushing it too far

[DTComposer]

I also hate it when teams try to actually brand themselves with a stupid move like that.  When the Angels moved to Anaheim Stadium, they became the California Angels, then the Anaheim Angels, and now they are back to the Los Angeles Angels!!!  The whole time they didn't move an inch!  Its because smarter heads prevailed and saw that having Los Angeles in their name was more correct (and $$$ beneficial) as that's the big city in the area. 

Was it, though? Adjusted for inflation: the Angels' revenue increased by 69% from 2005 (the year of the change from Anaheim to Los Angeles) to 2019; the Dodgers' revenue increased by 118%.

The Angels' revenue was 87% that of the Dodgers in 2005. In 2019, the Angels' revenue was 68% that of the Dodgers.

The value of the Angels in 2005 was 69% that of the Dodgers. In 2019, it was down to 58%.

Certainly, having a better on-field product contributes to this, but basically the Angels have lost ground in the market since the name change. If the other team were not as iconic as the Dodgers, perhaps the move would have made more sense. But trying to make inroads against one of the two most popular teams in any sport in town, and one of the most iconic teams in baseball, when they're in the heart of the city and your team is located 30 miles outside of the center of town, seemed like a fool's errand to me at the time and still does.

The Angels have Orange County (3.2 million people), and from a distance and convenience factor, could easily lay claim to Long Beach (where they were recently considering building a new stadium) and a big chunk of the Inland Empire, giving them a top-third market.

It should be noted that the Angels don't even put "Los Angeles" on their road uniforms (Tampa Bay is the only other team that doesn't have their location on some variant of their uniforms).

[DTComposer]

NBA Sacramento and NHL Los Angeles Kings

Interestingly, the NBA Kings were originally the Rochester Royals who, when they moved to Kansas City, changed to the Kings specifically to avoid confusion with the MLB Royals.

[ilpt4u]

NBA Sacramento and NHL Los Angeles Kings

Interestingly, the NBA Kings were originally the Rochester Royals who, when they moved to Kansas City, changed to the Kings specifically to avoid confusion with the MLB Royals.

One could claim that Kings/Royals is a related/similar/same mascot anyway

[TheHighwayMan3561]

It should be noted that the Angels don't even put "Los Angeles" on their road uniforms (Tampa Bay is the only other team that doesn't have their location on some variant of their uniforms).

I don't believe the Phillies do either, unless they have an alternate I'm not aware of.

[ethanhopkin14]

It should be noted that the Angels don't even put "Los Angeles" on their road uniforms (Tampa Bay is the only other team that doesn't have their location on some variant of their uniforms).

I don't believe the Phillies do either, unless they have an alternate I'm not aware of.

The Phillies do not.  I am willing to put the Cardinals on this list because I don't count that stupid faux back uniform they wear on Sundays recently because, I think it will be ditched in the next few years. 

[ethanhopkin14]

A side project:  How many mascots are shared by teams of different sports in the big four North American sports, and of them, which ones are not named for the other.  IE: The baseball and football versions of the Giants are named alike intentionally.

NFL Carolina and NHL Florida Panthers
NHL Ottawa and MLB (moved and renamed) Washington Senators
MLB Texas and NHL New York Rangers
NHL Edmonton and NFL (moved and renamed) Houston Oilers
NBA Sacramento and NHL Los Angeles Kings

None of these have one named for the other as far as I know.

One example of a team named for another, though the name not being exactly the same: When the NFL Decatur Staleys relocated to Chicago, the were named the Bears as an homage to the MLB Cubs, whose stadium they used for 50 years.

Ottawa and Saskatchewan Rough[]R(r)iders 

[ethanhopkin14]

A side project:  How many mascots are shared by teams of different sports in the big four North American sports, and of them, which ones are not named for the other.  IE: The baseball and football versions of the Giants are named alike intentionally.

NFL Carolina and NHL Florida Panthers
NHL Ottawa and MLB (moved and renamed) Washington Senators
MLB Texas and NHL New York Rangers
NHL Edmonton and NFL (moved and renamed) Houston Oilers
NBA Sacramento and NHL Los Angeles Kings

None of these have one named for the other as far as I know.

One example of a team named for another, though the name not being exactly the same: When the NFL Decatur Staleys relocated to Chicago, the were named the Bears as an homage to the MLB Cubs, whose stadium they used for 50 years.

The Rangers kinda have a slight connection.  George Lewis "Tex" Rickard was the founder of the New York Rangers, who, when looking for a mascot, everyone called the hockey team "Tex's Rangers", of course a play on the lawmen Texas Rangers, from whom the baseball team with the same name was named after.  So while both the New York and Texas Rangers were not named after one or the other, both names came from the same source. 

As mentioned before, technically the Arizona and St. Louis Cardinals are not named after each other. 

[ethanhopkin14]

A side project:  How many mascots are shared by teams of different sports in the big four North American sports, and of them, which ones are not named for the other.  IE: The baseball and football versions of the Giants are named alike intentionally.

NFL Carolina and NHL Florida Panthers
NHL Ottawa and MLB (moved and renamed) Washington Senators
MLB Texas and NHL New York Rangers
NHL Edmonton and NFL (moved and renamed) Houston Oilers
NBA Sacramento and NHL Los Angeles Kings

None of these have one named for the other as far as I know.

One example of a team named for another, though the name not being exactly the same: When the NFL Decatur Staleys relocated to Chicago, the were named the Bears as an homage to the MLB Cubs, whose stadium they used for 50 years.

Is the Detroit Tigers and the Cincinnati Bengals pushing it?

Along those same lines, the Chicago Bears/Cubs and the Memphis Grizzlies

Las Vegas Raiders, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and Pittsburgh Pirates

Pushing it even further: Utah Jazz and St Louis Blues (music savants will point out Jazz and Blues are separate things)

Washington (formerly known as) Redskins, Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, Kansas City Chiefs, Chicago Blackhawks

New Orleans Saints and Los Angeles Angels is maybe pushing it too far

Denver Broncos and Indianapolis Colts would make the list albeit same league and different type of horse, but a horse none the less. 

The New York Titans were named after the New York Giants, because owner Harry Wismer said,"What's bigger than a Giant?  A Titan!" Of course Sonny Werblin bought the team from Wismer and changed the name to the Jets, and that's the end of that....but the Houston Oilers moved to Menp...Nashville and played a few seasons as the Tennessee Oilers before becoming the second team in NFL history to be the Titans, so indirectly....

[triplemultiplex]

Denver Broncos and Indianapolis Colts would make the list albeit same league and different type of horse, but a horse none the less. 

Chargers is a horse reference as well.



I'll stir the pot: move the Jets to SA/Austin.  They've been terrible forever and no city needs two football teams.  Yeah, yeah, New York can support two teams economically, but whatever, man.  They've always been second fiddle to the Giants anyway.  Give the Jets a fresh start in Texas.

[ethanhopkin14]

Denver Broncos and Indianapolis Colts would make the list albeit same league and different type of horse, but a horse none the less. 

Chargers is a horse reference as well.



I'll stir the pot: move the Jets to SA/Austin.  They've been terrible forever and no city needs two football teams.  Yeah, yeah, New York can support two teams economically, but whatever, man.  They've always been second fiddle to the Giants anyway.  Give the Jets a fresh start in Texas.

Actually, Barron Hilton was the original owner and named the team the Chargers after the charging of a credit card.  After all, what else would the Hilton family think about?

I would also go as far as to say New York could easily handle a third NFL team.  You could build a stadium on the fringes of Queens on Long Island and they would prosper.  In their inaugural year, they would still play better than the Jets. 

[DTComposer]

It should be noted that the Angels don't even put "Los Angeles" on their road uniforms (Tampa Bay is the only other team that doesn't have their location on some variant of their uniforms).

I don't believe the Phillies do either, unless they have an alternate I'm not aware of.

The Phillies do not.  I am willing to put the Cardinals on this list because I don't count that stupid faux back uniform they wear on Sundays recently because, I think it will be ditched in the next few years. 

I stand corrected. I just scrolled quickly through the uniforms and saw Phil... and didn't think it through.

[ilpt4u]

i forgot to add the Boston Bruins to my Chicago Bears/Cubs and Memphis Grizzlies list

[RobbieL2415]

If either the Jets or Giants were going to leave the Meadowlands for a site within NY state they would be better off trying to find a site somewhere in Queens or choosing a site upstate from NYC, either in Westchester County or across the Hudson in Rockland County. There are no easy alternatives. The only large patches of open land within the five boroughs are former landfills or swamps. Upstate there is a lot of high dollar properties, state parks, etc.

Long Island might be a good spot.