Is Moving Franchises Okay?

by FWColts on Sep 23, 2008 4:25 PM EDT Comment 6 comments

This was brought on by something that happened yesterday. A bunch of my friends and I were out getting a bite to eat, and moaning about our season so far. An older guy at the restaurant happened to overhear us, and sat down to talk football.

The guy was from Baltimore, and gave us some good-natured grief about how the Colts were stolen from Baltimore, and how good the Ravens were now. But we also had a really interesting conversation about the old Colts against the new ones(Side note:He got to shake Johnny Unitas' hand and watch him play, which is just extremely cool). He said that he was hurt when Bob Irsay moved the Colts out, but not outraged-He understood that it was a business decision. The same with the Browns moving to Baltimore and becoming the Ravens-It was business. The one thing he did disagree with was the name being moved-The Colts name should have stayed in Baltimore.

Now, I understand that the NFL is a high-profile corporation, and it needs to protect it's interests. But it also has an emotional investment from the cities it has clubs in, and that needs to be weighed as well. So, for example, if the Jags were to be sold, and moved to LA, should the Jaguars name stay in Jacksonville? The Rams-another team likely to be sold-are a different story. They were from Los Angeles at one time, and I think would be okay going back with that name.

What do you think? Do teams belong to the owner, meaning he/she can take the team name with them if they move? Or does it belong to the community, and if the team is moved its name should stay?

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Stampede Blue's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Stampede Blue's writers or editors.

0 recs | Comment 6 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Simply put the NFL owns the name of the franchise not the city or state.

If you’re talking about emotions yes I could see the argument, but it’s a business and like most they don’t care about emotions unless it’s in their favor.

by Ufanforreal on Sep 23, 2008 4:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think the names should stay in a lot of cases

just because the names don’t make sense in the new city. The LA Lakers? The Utah Jazz? Our Indianapolis Colts?

Though the alternative can be ugly too, the Oklahoma City Thunder?

I ain't tryin' do you, I'm just tryin do me
Last album did two, I'm just tryin' do three
-Young Jeezy "I Luv It"

by shake n bake on Sep 23, 2008 5:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agree/Disagree

It depends on the circumstances. The “Colts” is obviously a reference to Baltimore’s horse racing heritage, but the mascot is generic enough that it works. Same with the Colors. I actually think that we should be proud of the SB V victory and have the Lombardi on display here in Indy. If I had been older than 1 year and 11 months when the Colts came to town, I would probably have wanted something more Indy-specific. But think of the alternative – if we don’t keep the Colts name, then one of the most proud names in pro football history would not have seen the light of day until 1999(or maybe 95 if bringing back the Colts gives Baltimore an edge over CAR/JAX). That’s at least 11 maybe 15 years without that franchise.

But yes, sometimes moving a team name makes no sense, as in the Lakers’ case. Hopefully the Jags will die and the reign of teal in the league will die too and we’ll get something totally new(and hopefully more sensical than the Californians).

I also blog at Speed Blue Nation

by Bullard47 on Sep 23, 2008 8:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Silly

Other than it makes no sense in another city, bc the name may be specific to the former town, it really doesn’t matter. I think the fans are more upset about losing their actual team, then some stupid name.

by Scooty4422 on Sep 23, 2008 10:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Name belongs to the franchise

If the owners want to keep a local name that does not fit the new locality rather than creating a new identity for an excited new fan base, that’s their choice. As for the Colts, Baltimore certainly does have a horse racing heritage, but I’m not sure how many people really know that. I think the vast majority of the country probably associates horse racing with Kentucky or their own local OTB. And animal names are usually pretty generic, with a few obvious exceptions (i.e. many states have Bears, but the Indianapolis Seahawks would sound kind of stupid).

by ctnyc on Sep 23, 2008 11:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The Seattle Seahawks sounds stupid, as there aren’t any actual seahawks in Seattle, so take that for what you will.

For a team like the Colts, that had a rich history in Baltimore pre-1984, it might have made sense to leave the colors, history, and records with the city, and treated the new franchise as an expansion team.

I think that Art Modell actually got this one right. He left the Browns name, colors, and history in Cleveland, because the Baltimore Browns would have been ridiculous. At this point, the Colts have been in Indianapolis for 24 years, and have won a Super Bowl title. They’re the Indianapolis Colts now.

However, I would be in favor or relinquishing all of our records pre-1984 to the Ravens. Johnny Unitas never played a game in Indianapolis. He’s an integral part of the Baltimore sports tapestry. It’s not right that he’s listed as an Indianapolis Colt, and I think it would go a long way toward healing any hard feelings between the Colts and Ravens fanbases.

Bob Sanders eats a forest on Friday so he can lay the wood on Sunday.
http://sportscircuits.wordpress.com
http://monkeybiziu.deviantart.com

by MonkeyBusiness on Sep 24, 2008 8:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs