[minor hijack] where does the name “Browns” come from? there’s the football team, and the old St. Louis Browns in baseball. What does it mean? 
[/minor hijack]
Those teams all kept the same owners they’d had in their earlier cities, and the owners either didn’t want to go through the expense/hassle of reidentifying their businesses, or they thought the existing names had marketing value in their new markets, or they just liked them.
Those names are all evocative of their former locations (that being Boston, not Hartford, for the Whalers), and discordant in their new ones. Which doesn’t explain the Lakers or the Jazz.
To the OP, yes, North American sports teams are entirely part of the entertainment industry, and we fans do use its terms without irony. Our pro teams are all the creations of leagues founded as business franchises in markets
selected for their viability in supporting the businesses. With only few and insignificant exceptions, they simply never had identities founded in their communities rather than their leagues, although in viable markets community support for the team does develop. But if that support fails to develop for whatever reason, we have no difficulty understanding that the business (and the league is the business, not the team) will do what it has to do as a business. The examples above of community outrage over losing their teams has to do with relocations being done *despite * their good markets.
As I understand the British system, your footie clubs were all founded as such, or as activities sponsored by community athletic clubs, with deeply-rooted associations with their communities, and at least originally with all local players, too.
Your leagues were created by the teams; our teams were created by their leagues. Your teams’ identities are based in the communities they wouldn’t consider leaving; our teams’ identities are primarily based in the leagues that created them. Your teams are, or at least are derived from, amateur clubs; our teams are business franchises.
Cleveland Browns: Named for their founder and head coach, Paul Brown.
St. Louis Browns: Uniform trim color. Compare to Reds, Red Sox, White Sox.
I hope this is close to on-topic. Until Tennessee got the team that had been the Houston Oilers, I wasn’t that big an NFL fan. I had had my teams back in the Larry Csonka days of the Dolphins, and then the Terry Bradshaw days of the Steelers, but the nearby teams in Atlanta, New Orleans, and maybe even Cincinnati, never caught my attention or support. At first I didn’t even think much of the Titans. Once they made it to the Super Bowl, I got to be fan enough to watch every game on TV. I have yet to attend a game in person. But I would call myself a fan for at least the last three or four years.
During that time, many Titans have left the Tennessee team to play for other teams. For the most part I still think of them as Titans and will root for them unless they’re playing the Titans. Guys like Kearse, Mason, Rolle, McCareins, McNair, George, Nedney, and many others, are still favorite players of mine since they were so instrumental in the success and team spirit of the “home team” when they were here.
Guys like Robaire Smith who left for a while and have now returned are especially well thought of, and not just by me. There’s something special about these guys, and I get the strong feeling they feel that way, too.
I’m not sure how I would feel if the entire team moved to another locale, but I suspect much of my fanhood would drop off a lot. It’s a hard thing to define and much harder to express in rational terms. But I suspect my feelings are shared by many Titans fans. An indication of that is that the last 80-some-odd games have been sold out. That seems a bit weird when the cameras scan the stadium and see a lot of empty seats. I just guess some tiocket-holders stayed home that day. It hardly matters.
As I see it, the success of this team has been due in large part to the civic-mindedness of the management and players, especially head coach Jeff Fisher. The desire to include the fans in the activities of the NFL franchise in this state and surrounding states has made for a high degree of loyalty. And even though people in Alabama, Mississippi and Kentucky don’t have their own NFL teams, and have to decide whether to support the Falcons, Saints or Bengals, or some Florida team, the fanbase in this market includes some real football fanatics.
I have always wondered if Alabama will ever have its own NFL team. If so, the bitter rivalry between Auburn and Alabama fans would have to be set aside in favor of supporting a common team. For that reason, I don’t look for it to happen.
Won’t happen for the same reason Louisville will never get an NBA team: people wouldn’t pay attention. An NBA team in Louisville would be lucky to outdraw the Cards half the time, and they certainly couldn’t compete with a Kentucky crowd at Rupp.
Although I have to admit that reviving the Kentucky Colonels, formerly of the ABA, would be pretty cool. Especially when the Hornets almost moved to Louisville, because KFC was going to buy the naming rights to the new arena and call it the “KFC Bucket.”
Milwaukee isn’t the only one. Baltimore had three teams without having two in the city at the same time: The Balitmore Terrapins of the Federal League played in 1914-1915.
Baltimore also has had three versions of the Orioles – a third team from 1882-1899. Not the modern era, but when the Orioles folded in 1899, it left the city open for the Orioles-Highlanders-Yankees.
The record for a sports franchise is the Sacramento Kings of the NBA, which have gone through five cities and two nicknames in their history:
- Rochester Royals (1949-57)
- Cincinnati Royals (1958-72)
- Kansas City-Omaha Kings (because there already were Kansas City Royals) (1973-75)
- Kansas City Kings (1976-1985)
- Sacramento Kings (1986- )
The Washington Wizards leads in nickname changes with four* (and three city changes: They’ve been:
- Chicago Packers
- Chicago Zephyrs
- Baltimore Bullets
- Capital Bullets
- Washington Bullets
- Washington Wizards
*In the modern era. The Brooklyn Dodgers went by at least six prior to settling on one.
I would argue that none of the nicknames for the Dodgers were “official” until the team adopted Dodgers. Team nicknames were pretty much done on an ad hoc basis for the 19th century.
I would bet that most early correspondence from the Dodgers prior to the 1920s would identify them as something like “Brooklyn National League Club” or some such thing.
Slightly tangential - didn’t he actually just reuse the cladding, on a newly-built concrete structure?
Washington has had three franchises in the modern era: the Senators that moved to Minnesota, the Senators that moved to Texas, and now the Nationals.
The only NFL regular season game I ever saw was Cardinals vs. Eagles in Shibe Park, in 1948 or 49. This was the Chicago Cardinals.
The official history says all the stones were numbered and reassembled, but Wiki’s picture of the construction definitely shows some concrete forms.
When I was nine my beloved Oakland Raiders moved to LA. I swore then that i would never watch another Raider game (unless they made the Super Bowl). I sure as shit will never root for the Raiders while Al Davis owns the team. Never!
You got to understand it just wasn’t fair .
Depending on your definition of franchise, consider the NHL’s ill-fated Oakland Seals, then California Seals, then Cleveland Barons. Then they merged with Minnesota and so became half of the Minnesota North Stars. And then they re-divided, and the old Seals-Barons franchise interest because the San Jose Sharks. Now, THAT is confusing.
Hari, you caught me on the Senators-Senators-Nationals (Christ, what a stupid nickname) trifecta in Washington.
The Washington Wizards leads in nickname changes with four* (and three city changes: They’ve been:
- Chicago Packers
- Chicago Zephyrs
- Baltimore Bullets
- Capital Bullets
- Washington Bullets
- Washington Wizards
*In the modern era. The Brooklyn Dodgers went by at least six prior to settling on one.
[/QUOTE]
Wide Receiver Issac Bruce is the only remaining active Los Angeles Ram. Although he only played his rookie season in L.A.
The AL Senators who later became the Twins started out as the Senators and then decided to change their nickname to Nationals because Senators was associated with some really bad 19th Century NL teams in Washington.
The team was officially the Washington Nationals until the mid 1950s when they officially changed back to Senators.
But hardly anyone ever called that particular Senators team, the Nationals except for headline writers who liked to use “Nats” to save space.
There are reasons this somewhat scurrilous practice happens in the States but not so much in England.
1.) England is a relatively small country with plenty of local teams already. Moving from one place to another would alienate a local fan base, win the team scathing press coverage, and by no means guarantee a new fan base in the new locale.
2.) America has a tradition of “beginning anew”, including moving franchises, businesses and families.
3.) Some sports leagues have both Canadian and American teams, and in theory the States have more people and thus a larger potential fan base.
4.) While certain states are similar, there is a big difference between say the Northeast and the South in terms of weather, culture, etc. Tax laws also differ a lot from state to state, which affects running a business. Cities might be willing to offer big (sometimes ludicrous) incentives to a team that moves as well, which the English may be too sensible to do. There are more similarities between English towns, although much is made of small differences. The same tax laws likely apply in Bolton and Birmingham.