Old news, but I must ask: Can the Dopers of Indianapolis explain what the name “Colts” means to them, and why they didn’t push Irsay to have some common sense and change the name? {Now, why Baltimore didn’t become the Balti 500 instead of the Ravens is beyond me! 
}
Wow, the Admin is sure picky! I think what we have here is a “failure to communicate”!
For in rthe course of “Great Debates”, I can’t think of a better one as this has nothing to do with sports, really! - Jinx
What I wonder about ,is who claims Unitas as their great QB.? He played for Baltimore Colts. Now the Colts are Indianapolis. Does Baltimore have any claim to him? Is he now an Indy hero:?
There’s a lot of animosity between older Baltimore fans and the Colts, but I think this is a better fit for The Game Room than Great Debates.
Anyway teams often don’t change their names when they move. I suppose the owners don’t want to give up any measure of brand recognition. It leads to weird, usually dumb combinations. I saw the Memphis Grizzlies play the other night and couldn’t figure out why they didn’t change their name when they moved from Vancouver years ago. Baseball teams always seem to change their names, but in other sports it’s a tossup.
One exception: I think “Utah Jazz” is so weird it’s inspired.
Indy resident here, but I’m not primarily a Colts fan (grew up in KC, and am a Chiefs fan).
But I can report that after the Super Bowl, there was a lot of talk radio support for “finally being able to release the pre-Indy history back to Baltimore”. I can’t say there’d be much support for returning their name, but there is zero connection to Unitas and friends.
They both “claim” him, but his records belong officially to the Indianapolis Colts. I believe the Cleveland Browns’ records remained in Cleveland, however.
I have always felt that if our basketball team couldn’t change its name it could at least spell it “LAkers”.
A few years back some sports writer suggested the Utah Jazz and LA Lakers should swap team names. Makes sense.
The Jazz name started when the team was in New Orleans, so probably the Utah (Beehive State) team should just swap names with the New Orleans Hornets.
The Ravens was chosen as a nod to Edgar Allan Poe, a famous Balt’more resident who wrote a poem about black birds.
Indianapolis claims Unitas as a member of their organization. Unitas himself (along with many of the other Baltimore Colts players) was a Baltimore guy, and was never happy being associated with Indy. From wikipedia:
I wouldn’t go this far. While Unitas’ numbers and records and such are *associated *with the NFL team in Indianapolis, the team and city don’t make mention of him. I would guess that the NFL requires (if that’s the right term) Indy to stretch their team history back through the Baltimore era because of how the move and Irsay situation played out.
Other than Peyton Manning wearing Unitas-era cleats a few years back after Unitas’ death, I can’t think of a recent instance of the team recalling their Baltimore history.
Fans here think of the Colts having won just one Super Bowl - in 2005. I think Baltimore deserves their legacy, and to be able to claim their rightful records and titles.
Is this attitude unique to football? I’ve never heard anyone suggest that the 1955World Series championsip of the Brooklyn Dodgers doesn’t properly attach to the team in Los Angeles, nor the 1957 Milwaukee Braves World Series championship to Atlanta.
Brooklyn didn’t get a new team. Therefore no conflict. But the difference is that Indy took the Colts name. When Baltimore got a new team they could not become the Colts.
Whether the Colts had changed names when moving to Indy or not, the team’s history and records would (and did) move with the team regardless.
The only exception I’m aware of is the Cleveland Browns, because the city of Cleveland successfully sued to keep the team’s name and history in Cleveland when they moved to Baltimore. As a result, the Baltimore Ravens officially have no history prior to 1996, and the expansion Browns of 1999 are technically the same team as the “old” Browns. (cite) But this is the exception, not the rule. Many, many sports teams have moved and taken their histories with them.
I think the OP was trying to solicit some personal reactions to the Colts’ move from their fans in both cities, which is an interesting topic. But their situation is by no means unique.
Wheelz:
I believe the NBA recently made a similar stipulation regarding the Seattle Sonics/OKC Thunder, in regard to the possibility to a new NBA team in Seattle in the future.
Any more info on that? I wonder what would happen with current players’ stats/records if Seattle got a franchise, say, next year.
I hadn’t heard that about the Sonics/Thunder, though not being a big NBA fan I admit I wasn’t paying much attention.
I wonder if this kind of arrangement may start becoming the norm rather than the anomaly?
Munch:
Apparently the history will be considered “shared,” though heaven only knows exactly what that will mean to any practical effect.
If I recall correctly, there’s a unique situation regarding the Washington Senators. The original Senators eventually packed up and moved to Minneapolis/St.Paul and became the Minnesota Twins. So the Twins have claim to the Senators’ history up until the point of the move. A few years later Washington got a new team, also called the Senators, but their team history began anew, and the Twins still claim the history of the original Senators. Then the second Senators team packed off to Arlington and became the Texas Rangers, and the Rangers claim the second Senators team in their history.
So the Twins get to claim Walter “Big Train” Johnson. I don’t think the Rangers have anybody like that from their Senators days.
No, they don’t. Closest is Frank Thomas (a prior one, not the more recent White Sox slugger). And Ted Williams managed the team for a little while.