Select and name an expansion team in one of the 4 major leagues

[Ludovic]

MLB - Vancouver Beavers.

[Wheelz]

A bit of trivia: Austin, Texas is the largest U.S. city with no major sports teams. So I say let’s give 'em one.

Local boy Nolan Ryan is part owner of the nearby minor league Round Rock Express, a name taken from one of Ryan’s nicknames. If he were involved in bringing in an MLB franchise, the Express would be a fine name.
Otherwise, since Austin is ahead of the curve in ecological efforts and was recently named the “greenest city in America,” I suggest the Green Sox.

Austin once had a minor league hockey team called the Ice Bats; I can’t improve on that.

Other team names could be the Highlanders, owing to the nearby Texas Highland Lakes, or the Armadillos, just because.

I tried to restrain myself from suggesting the Austin Powers.

[pancakes3]

Dave Dameshek continuously pimps the “hollywood knights” as the name for the LA football team if it ever comes.

in a vacuum i like the Washington Justice but i also like it when cities coordinate their teams both in endings or first letters - nets/mets/jets. pirates/penguins. ideally the wizards name would be changed to something that’s patriotic and can be shortened to one syllable like the caps and nats. can they pull off being the patriots?

philly should get a wnba team named the bells.

baltimore rockets

[zamboniracer]

[quote=“RickJay, post:35, topic:549396”]

@BomTek

No, it doesn’t.

Metropolitan New York has nineteen million people in it. The borough of Brooklyn, by itself, would be the fourth largest city in the United States if it were an independent incorporated municipality.

<snip>

Instead, why not put teams in New York, where there is a surplus of baseball fans, thereby biting into the Yankees’ market? I know everyone says bah, Yankee fans wouldn’t buy into a new team. Sure they would. They did when the Mets showed up; Yankee attendance dropped 20% despite the team winning the World Series again, and did not recover to pre-Met levels for 15 years. Why does every city have to have one or two teams? Why not put teams where fans are?

<snip>

I’m with you, but as I’m sure you know, NYC had 3 teams and the Mets really just filled the Dodgers/Giants NL team void.

[Duke]

@Omniscient

NBA: Brooklyn Knights - My vote for the name after the Nets move. Just sounds awesome and Knights is an underused name in sports.

Sounds like you might get your wish. Or, at least, they’re changing their name to something–and “Knights” would be a great choice.

[Heropsychodreamer]

Las Vegas Aces
LA Stars
Fargo Freeze
Honolulu Volcanoes
Maine Lobstahs
Specifically for MLB: Boise Taters

[Chessic_Sense]

MLB: Miami Sailors. Waders? Surfs? Pina Coladas?

[zamboniracer]

@Chessic_Sense

MLB: Miami Sailors. Waders? Surfs? Pina Coladas?

Are you renaming the Marlins, or proposing that South Florida get an expansion team when it doesn’t support the team it has now.

[El_Nene]

@Omniscient

NHL: Seattle Sounders - Let’'s move the Panthers to Seattle and give the new Sonics a tenant to share a updated Arena with.

Too late

[El_Presidente]

[quote=“RickJay, post:35, topic:549396”]

@BomTek

No, it doesn’t.

Metropolitan New York has nineteen million people in it. The borough of Brooklyn, by itself, would be the fourth largest city in the United States if it were an independent incorporated municipality.

It’d be great if Indianapolis got a baseball team, but they’d have trouble supporting it. It would instantly be the smallest metropolitan area with a baseball team; there are under 2 million people in the census metro area, something no other city with an MLB team can say, and the entire state of Indiana has fewer people than the City of New York and a third of the people of metro New York. What you’d be doing is simply creating another small market team to get hammered by the Yankees.

Instead, why not put teams in New York, where there is a surplus of baseball fans, thereby biting into the Yankees’ market? I know everyone says bah, Yankee fans wouldn’t buy into a new team. Sure they would. They did when the Mets showed up; Yankee attendance dropped 20% despite the team winning the World Series again, and did not recover to pre-Met levels for 15 years. Why does every city have to have one or two teams? Why not put teams where fans are?

While I would agree that New York is a baseball mad market, and could support a third (maybe a fourth and even a fifth team) at this point it would be at the expense of trying to pull loyal Yankees and Mets fans away from their teams. The reason the Mets gained so many fans so quickly is because when the Dodgers and Giants left the city, it left millions without a team to root for, and Giants and Dodgers fans sure as hell werent going to root for the Yankees. Besides, I doubt either team is going to give away such a lucrative chunk of territorial rights.

As for some of the more serious entires, Louisville KY is way too small to support MLB, and I have my doubts about Salt Lake or New Orleans. Halifax Nova Scotia may be hockey mad, but so is Quebec City, Hamilton and Winnepeg, all too small to successfully support a franchise.

My entries are:

NFL- Los Angeles Gladiators

MLB- San Juan Estrellas (Spanish for Stars)

NBA- Screw the NBA, I’m starting the BLA, or Basketball League of America, with the rules being the teams win based who wins the most quarters, therefore eliminating the “you only have to watch the last 5 minutes” argument. Plus there will be a parity draft, so shitty teams have a chance to compete, too:

New York Skyscrapers (playing at Nassau Coliseum)
Baltimore Baskets
Pittsburgh Pythons (I like Bricklayers though)
Cincinatti Sentinels
St. Louis Spirits (I know, there was an ABA team)
Buffalo Buckets
Tampa Bay Titans
Jacksonville Giraffes (the team will fail in that market but I love the name :))
Seattle Rockstars (Im sure the NBA wont let me take the Sonics name without a legal fight)
Las Vegas High Rollers
San Diego Sails (another ABA throwback)
Kansas City Sky

.
.
and in an opening shot across the NBAs bow:

California Gold (playing in Anaheim)
Chicago Tornados

NHL-
Portland Polar Bears
Seattle Skates

[Love_Rhombus]

I like the Las Vegas Aces, or the Roswell Grays.

If “Gila Monster” wasn’t two words I’d try and use it.

San Francisco Kestrels? Can’t think of an NFL name for them.

[Tapioca_Dextrin]

The San Fancisco Screaming Benders, surely? <Flees thread>

[Troy_McClure_SF]

@Omniscient

NFL: Los Angeles Legends - Kinda works with the Hollywood stuff, both with the famous people and stories. Doubt the NFL wants to embrace the illegal immigration issue by going Spanish.

That’s fine, they could just embrace the millions of legal Spanish-speakers in the LA area, along with the non-Spanish speakers who don’t care. (Seriously, what was that about?)

[ducky87]

NFL: Los Angeles Earthquake Toronto Ice birds
nba: St. Louis Archers & Pittsburgh RiverRats
MLB: Orlando Hammerheads & Omaha Twisters
NHL: Pensacola BattleShip & Seattle Lava

[JKellyMap]

It seems that Monterrey, Mexico is ripe for either an MLB team, an NBA team, or both. It’s a modern city and a very easy flight from several US cities – no more of a schlep overall than, say, Seattle.

MLB: Cabritas (means “little goats” – is that too diminutive for a sports team? – and is the regional tasty meal)
NBA: Centauros (the “Centaurs of the North” were soldiers in Pancho Villa’s army during the Mexican Revolution)

[antonio107]

The Mexico City Cabailleros (sp?) in the NHL.

[Ike_Witt]

@antonio107

I presume you’d have a problem from whomever owns the rights to the “Cleveland Barons” name. Since the AHL franchise would all but die after that, I say call them the Admirals. The AHL already has two of them by virtue of the death of the IHL, I think that’d be a welcome change to have one “Admirals” as an NHL team!

I hate addressing things from a three year old thread, but why not?

I don’t think that the use of the name Barons would pose any difficulty. The Barons, the last team from a major sport to go out of business, were owned by George and Gordon Gund. When the franchise was shut down the players were merged with the North Stars roster. So the Barons name is either owned by the Gunds, who I think are both deceased, or one of the 4 ownership groups that have owned the Stars since the Gunds or, more likely, the name is ‘dead’ and available for use. If it is ‘owned’ by somebody it has no real value at this point.

[zamboniracer]

There is a pee-wee team that uses the name Cleveland Barons but I’m guessing the naming rights could be obtained for a song, or at most a short medley.
www.baronsaaahockey.com

[Bullitt]

NFL: The Albuquerque Outlaws

[antonio107]

@Ike_Witt

I hate addressing things from a three year old thread, but why not?

I don’t think that the use of the name Barons would pose any difficulty. The Barons, the last team from a major sport to go out of business, were owned by George and Gordon Gund. When the franchise was shut down the players were merged with the North Stars roster. So the Barons name is either owned by the Gunds, who I think are both deceased, or one of the 4 ownership groups that have owned the Stars since the Gunds or, more likely, the name is ‘dead’ and available for use. If it is ‘owned’ by somebody it has no real value at this point.

I don’t remember making the post which you are quoting, haha. But yes. I stand by my original assertion that Admirals would be better.