|
Post by sayne on Dec 21, 2015 13:02:35 GMT -5
You sports fans know that the San Diego Chargers may be moving to Los Angeles. I think the name "Chargers" should not be part of the move. I have a few questions.
For those of you who got teams, what were your thoughts about getting a team AND the name?
For those of you who lost a team, what were your thoughts about the name going with the team? Did you remain a fan of that team? I imagine if you got a new team you would be following them, but if you are now team-less, do you still follow the old team - even if they changed names?
Do you know why some teams change names and others don't? There does not seem to be a rhyme or reason. Change of ownership doesn't seem to be the reason for the Oilers changed to the Titans and it's the same owner. A name not making sense in the new location does not always cause a change, for example, there are no significant "lakes" in Los Angeles. I know why the Browns changed their name (Paul Brown), but in all other cases, there seems to be no "rule."
I don't know if I would follow the LA Chargers or even if they became something like the Los Angeles Earthquakes or the Los Angeles Shallow Narcissists.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Dec 22, 2015 12:24:10 GMT -5
You sports fans know that the San Diego Chargers may be moving to Los Angeles. I think the name "Chargers" should not be part of the move. I have a few questions. For those of you who got teams, what were your thoughts about getting a team AND the name? For those of you who lost a team, what were your thoughts about the name going with the team? Did you remain a fan of that team? I imagine if you got a new team you would be following them, but if you are now team-less, do you still follow the old team - even if they changed names? Do you know why some teams change names and others don't? There does not seem to be a rhyme or reason. Change of ownership doesn't seem to be the reason for the Oilers changed to the Titans and it's the same owner. A name not making sense in the new location does not always cause a change, for example, there are no significant "lakes" in Los Angeles. I know why the Browns changed their name (Paul Brown), but in all other cases, there seems to be no "rule." I don't know if I would follow the LA Chargers or even if they became something like the Los Angeles Earthquakes or the Los Angeles Shallow Narcissists. Generally, all records remain within "the franchise" regardless of city or nick name. The exception is the Cleveland Browns, where the city, name and all records remain with what was essentially an "expansion" team from scratch, while the Baltimore Ravens records start from day 1 as the Baltimore Ravens, though many remained on the team after the move. Not really answering your question, but just a few points.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Dec 22, 2015 22:05:44 GMT -5
Generally, all records remain within "the franchise" regardless of city or nick name. The exception is the Cleveland Browns, where the city, name and all records remain with what was essentially an "expansion" team from scratch, while the Baltimore Ravens records start from day 1 as the Baltimore Ravens, though many remained on the team after the move. Not really answering your question, but just a few points. Thanks. Actually, I knew how it worked about teams records and statistics. Charger stats go back to when they were first in LA, Colts records go back to their Baltimore days, Clippers records go back to when they were the Buffalo Braves.
|
|