All the Minneapolis teams
Arizona Cardinals
Tennessee Titans
Florida Marlins
Is it just to get a statewide appeal, rather than just the city folks to follow them? But then, I’m sure people all over the state pull for the Chicago Bears and Green Bay Packers. Did the Carolina Panthers get more love than the just Charlotte Hornets?
Okay, we’ll leave the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim in California out of the discussion. But why, oh, why is it the “Golden State” Warriors?
I think it has to do with states that have little chance of getting more than one NFL franchise; i.e., states with only one large metropolitan area. Instead of Minneapolis hogging all the glory (boy that’s a funny word to use whilst discussing the Vikings these days) the whole state gets to share. Texas, OTOH, has several major metro areas so the teams can be identified with their cities.
Of course the Green Bay Packers pretty much blow my theory all to hell.
You left off the New Jersey Nets, Devils, and beyond merely the state level, Carolina Panthers and the New England (nee Boston) Patriots, both of which took the next logical steps to going regional. My guess it is it identify with a larger pool of fans.
Actually, I think the whole “Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim” is a valid and useful example. Some suit decided that there wasn’t enough of a fanbase in Anaheim and tried to appeal to the LA area. How that was supposed to do anything, considering LA has the Dodgers (and look at how the fans often treat the Dodgers) I have no clue. Besides, at one point, they were called the California Angels.
Prior to that they were the Los Angeles Angels. Their name was changed from the California Angels to the Anaheim Angels when Disney bought them for obvious reasons.
It’s all about marketing. They’ll name them whatever they think will make them more money. There is no secret code.
My WAG re: Minnesota Vikings is that you have a situation where there are two neighbouring cities with a pseudo-rivalry. Calling them the Minneapolis Vikings woud alienate the people of St Paul who would then demand their own team, and out of spite would refuse to support the Vikings… I don’t know enough about the other states, but I’m sure you’ll find it has more to do with the local environment.
I’ve also found that there is a tendency to put the stadiums in places that are convenient, but not necessarily in the host city. The Ottawa Senators play in a stadium built in the neighbouring city of Kanata.
Bit o’ sports trivia: Minnesota is the only state to have a sports team in each of the four major sports to be named for the state and not a city.
To the OP’s question: It’s for a broader appeal. It’s my understanding that in the markets that don’t already have a team (like the Panthers, but not the Jaguars), it is believed that naming a team for the state appeals to a larger fanbase than if it were named for just one city. They even named the newest Texas team the Texans.
Your guess is as good as mine as to where that line of thinking came from.
Couldn’t guess about the Warriors. With L.A. x2 and Sacramento, maybe they thought Cali had too many teams and decided to be coy.
I highly suspect you’re right. Not necessarily about the demanding their own team part, but with the basic idea: by calling them the “Minnesota Vikings” (or “… Twins”), the people in St. Paul can feel like they’re their team too.
The Golden State Warriors were the San Francisco Warriors before they moved across the bay to Oakland. Many people in San Francisco think of Oakland as a backwater, so my guess is they were trying to avoid losing part of their fan base when they chose the name Golden State. Still, they could have at least called the team the California Warriors.
The Minneapolis/St. Paul rivalry was more than just a friendly competition: two cities did not like each other. Minneapolis didn’t like the fact that St. Paul was the state capital; St. Paul didn’t like the fact they were the smaller city.
There was also a longstanding minor league baseball rivalry between the Minneapolis Millers and St. Paul Saints the fed into it. Things could get ugly between the fans of the two teams, since they were the two best teams in the AA and thus were often fighting for the pennant. There were riots and players confronting fans with bats.
There was also the story, perhaps apocryphal, of the Minneapolis minister who started a sermon based on St. Paul, and had his congregation leave.
So when the Washington Senators moved to Minneapolis, there were still plenty of Saints diehards would avoid anything to do with a team with Minneapolis in their name. Thus, the Griffiths named the team after the state. When the Vikings were founded later that year, they followed suit.
Interestingly, the newspaper Newsday on Long Island refused to call the team by the name of the state at first, and had “Minneapolis Twins” in all articles.
The California Angels changed their name to cover the state when they moved to Anaheim in 1965. Then the ABA came into being in 1967, with teams named for Kentucky (Colonels), Indiana (Pacers), and Minnesota (Muskies, the only team named after a losing presidential candidate ;)). In 1969, they added the Carolina Cougars, whose name made sense, since they played in five different cities within the states (this was supposed to be the wave of the future, but never caught on). The ABA also had the Utah Stars, Texas Chapparals, The Floridians, and the Virginia Squires.
That’s pretty much the case. When the original Washington Senators moved to the Twin Cities in 1961, they renamed themselves the Minnesota Twins to avoid slighting either Minneapolis or St. Paul and because calling them the “Minneapolis-St. Paul Twins” would be too much of a mouthful. Also, the fact they originally played in Bloomington meant that affixing Minneapolis and/or St. Paul to the franchise’s name would be technically inaccurate. Thus, when the NFL put a franchise in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area a few years later, they followed the precedent established by the Twins (even to the point of playing in Bloomington).
Actually, Kanata is now a part of the city of Ottawa. And calling it a neighbouring city is a bit of a misnomer, as Kanata really is only a suburb of Ottawa.
The Titans are Tennessee instead of Nashville to sooth the feelings of the people of Memphis, and to help with the vote to get the team here. Memphis is a bigger city, and had been rumored to be getting an NFL team several times, after the USFL folder up and closed their team. There were hurt feelings when it was announced the team was planning to move to Nashville.
It’s a dual Metro area. The entire metro areas of both Minneapolis and St. Paul support those teams. Naming a team after only one or the other city would alienate fans and hurt ticket sales.
Not to mention that many Memphians consider themselves isolated way out here in the corner of the state, several hours away from the state capital. Most native Memphians (of which I am not one) are more likely to root for a “Tennessee” team than a “Nashville” team.
At least that’s the thinking. I don’t see a lot of Titans support here, especially now that they’re 2-5. Tiger football/basketball (the University of Memphis) is tops in most people’s minds.
