The Angels added “Los Angeles” to their name since they are trying to attract fans throughout the L.A. metropolitan area. I believe the city of Anaheim is suing the Angels over their new name, since it breaks an agreement the two had or something.
The Los Angeles Angels were named after the former Pacific Coast League team of the same name, and even played in their old park (LA’s Wrigley Field) at first. So what if they’re out in the suburbs now, it’s still the LA metro area, and the name has history behind it.
The worst logo just might be that of the NHL/WHA’s Quebec Nordiques - a small-case letter n with a hockey stick for a serif.
The worst unis ever could be the all-powder-blue road uniforms of the 1980’s Kansas City Royals, or they could be the 1970’s Houston Astros ones with the multi-hued horizontal stripes that looked like Tequila Sunrises.
And all teams names consisting of singular nouns, especially those referring to abstract concepts instead of actual objects or predatory animals, should be illegal.
What attendance? And if a team wants to artificially limit their player pool, that’s their business. I doubt the other clubs mind at all. I suspect this won’t last long.
I believe they’re trying to inject some MFL style passion into the league. I don’t think you can take the rhetoric seriously.
And punishable by death, I might add.
Nope. So far as baseball is concerned, there have always been teams called the Athletics. There was a Philadelphia Athletics in the National League in 1876. And I think there was one in the National Association in 1871.
Athletics was a very common name for baseball clubs, because in the pre-professional days, baseball clubs were really just fraternal clubs and the teams took on the name of the clubs. So if a club called the “X Athletic Club” fielded a baseball team, they would be called the “X Athletics.”
This kind of think happened all over the country –
Athletic Club of Philadelphia → Philadelphia Athletics
Mutual Club of New York–> New York Mutuals
Olympic Club of Washington → Washington Olympics
Forest City Club of Cleveland → Cleveland Forest Citys
Western Club of Keokuk (Iowa) → Keokuk Westerns
etc.
Speaking of silly logos, take a look at Wright State University (Fairborn, Ohio). Their teams are called the Raiders and their logo was originally Rowdy Raider, a Viking with a horned helmet dressed in green and yellow (oh, okay, gold). That kind of made sense. But over the last few years, they decided they wanted a non-gender-specific logo and switched to a green wolf. Eh? What?
The fan base for the M.L.S. is heavily Hispanic. Knowing that, it doesn’t seem silly to make references to Latin American or Spanish football by putting “F.C.” first or using names like Chivas and Real.
Oh, wait, what about the most offensive logo in America? Chief Wahoo. Good grief, even his name is offensive.
Except Real tended to be for teams that had some sort of Royal sanction or charter. And teams with FC actually names are something like Fubol Club de Barcelona. FC Dallas is exactly that, FC Dallas.
Traditionally, the news media don’t just accept whatever name some corporate committee wants to give to a team. Newspapers always treated a sports club as belonging to the people of the city, especially since they purported to represent the city.
In the past, the newspapers put the kibosh on several attempts by team owners to change to unpopular names – it was the press that named the New York Yankess (who were originally the Highlanders). The press pooh-poohed attempts to change the Boston Braves to the Bees, the Philadelpha Phillies to the Blue Jays, the Washington Senators to the Nationals. For several years, there was a disparity between the “official” names of these teams at the names that the press used. I don’t consider that that means “they weren’t doing their job.” It’s just that there was a different idea about what their job was – bowing to some corporate propaganda or calling a spade a spade.
And many nicknames are traditionally considered to belong to the community, even if legally they belong to some corporation – for example, Baltimore newspapers had been calling their home teams “the Orioles” for years before the St. Louis Browns moved there in the 1950s. Similarly Philadelphia Athletics, Cincinnati Red Stockings, St. Louis Brown Stockings. Any team that made their home in these cities had the right to claim the traditional local name.
Let’s not forget the Braves’ Chief Knockahoma.
On second thought, let’s.
Ah yes, that old canard.
In rebuttal I refer you to the March 4, 2002 edition of Sports Illustrated magazine, “The Indian Wars” by S.L. Price with a sidebar by Andrea Woo, pp 66-72. The article reported that according to a poll by the Peter Harris Research Group, that with a margin of error of plus or minus 4%, 83% of the Indians polled said that professional teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots or symbols. When pollsters asked Native Americans about the Washington Redskins, the Cleveland Indians and Atlanta Braves they found no great resentment toward the names. Putting it charitably, the authors said that there’s a near total disconnect between Indian activists and the rank and file Native American population on this issue.
Enjoy the logo of my local hockey team: The Lubbock Cotton Kings!
Actually, that’s the earliest logo, which I kinda liked. That was followed by a second logo (an attempt to make a cotton ball look even meaner) and finally changed to the current logo, which is much plainer and rather lame in my opinion. A shield and some sticks? That could be any team’s logo!
I object because Chief Wahoo and the name "Redskins"offend me. I’m not posing as offended on someone else’s behalf. Just because I’m not a Native American means that this objection is a canard? I don’t think so.
There is & there is… or there was in any event. www.philadelphiabelles.com is gone…
That’s fine, ascenray, you can be offended about a sports logo if you choose, just like you can be offended by a haircut if you choose to be. Be advised though that if we ever meet at a Dope-fest, I’ll be the one in the Cleveland Indians Chief Wahoo hat, which I wear not to offend you or anyone else, but because it is my favorite baseball team.
And that’s the last I’ll have to say on this hijack in this thread. You may now resume the conversation about silly logos and/or the history of the Philadelphia Athletics.
Another hockey winner! (Althoughif I really wanted to torture you all, I’d dig up roller hockey logos.) Presenting the Macon Whopee! The leaf is supposed to be a fig leaf. They must like puun names in Georgia, since Macon’s current team is called the Trax.
I’m a bit taken aback by this analogy. A haircut is just a reflection of personal taste. Whereas a beet-red faced grinning goofball represents a team called the “Indians.” I’ll only add that I have no problem with the name “Indians.” It’s just a word. If we can have Irish and Scotsmen and other ethnic team names, why not Indians? “Redskins” is on a completely different level. Hey, how about “Darkskins,” “Brownies,” “Blackies,” “Darkies” anyone? Topped of with a goofy grinning mascot? Saheeb Dirty Wog?
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves
And all teams names consisting of singular nouns, especially those referring to abstract concepts instead of actual objects or predatory animals, should be illegal.
Amen, brother.
One of my favorite teams has my least favorite (and world’s stupidest) name - The Indiana Fever.
When asked about the odd choice, their GM (who thought up the name all by herself) said that it wasn’t meant to invoke sickness or a high body temperature, but was referring to the “other meaning of fever.” AAAAK.
After following the team for it’s 6 years as an entitiy, I find that it’s sort of like dating a person with a horrid name - like Anita Hardick. After a while you get used to it, but you never stop realizing that it’s an unfortunate choice.
No mention of the recently new “Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim?” :dubious:
Gotta read the whole thread … copious mentions of the LAA of A above.