Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Prime

Does it agitate anyone else?

25 posts in this topic

I'm still annoyed by the fact that Houston decided to forego the "Oilers".

I get the fact that when they moved to Nashville they brought the team colors with them, but still, I miss the old Oilers.

 

I wasn't even a fan of the franchise per se, but I just miss them from a "fan of the NFL" standpoint.

 

 

 

Thoughts?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prime said:

I'm still annoyed by the fact that Houston decided to forego the "Oilers".

I get the fact that when they moved to Nashville they brought the team colors with them, but still, I miss the old Oilers.

 

I wasn't even a fan of the franchise per se, but I just miss them from a "fan of the NFL" standpoint.

 

 

 

Thoughts?

 

you could say that with a lot of the teams including the Eagles   aka  Yellow Jackets  aka Steagles  . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were they able to?

 

When the Browns went to Baltimore and then a new Browns franchise started, there was some sort of stipulation\agreement\etc that all the name\records\history\etc would all stay in Cleveland for when the Browns returned.  I'm not sure the same applies for Houston.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Prime said:

I'm still annoyed by the fact that Houston decided to forego the "Oilers".

I get the fact that when they moved to Nashville they brought the team colors with them, but still, I miss the old Oilers.

 

I wasn't even a fan of the franchise per se, but I just miss them from a "fan of the NFL" standpoint.

 

 

 

Thoughts?

Loved watching those early 90's Oilers teams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Prime said:

I'm still annoyed by the fact that Houston decided to forego the "Oilers".

I get the fact that when they moved to Nashville they brought the team colors with them, but still, I miss the old Oilers.

I wasn't even a fan of the franchise per se, but I just miss them from a "fan of the NFL" standpoint.

Thoughts?

Get over it . . . it's not even remotely relevant to your 'real life'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Browns/Ravens is the exception, not the rule. Usually the franchise goes when the team moves:

When the Cardinals moved from St. Louis, they took the name with them.
When the Rams moved, the name went with them. (from Cleveland to LA to St. Louis back to LA)
Same with the Raiders (Oakland to LA back to Oakland, and to Las Vegas?)

Baltimore lost the Colts to Indianapolis about 20 years before Modell moved the Browns. They struck a deal so the Browns name could stay in Cleveland, since Baltimore only wanted the NFL team. They didn't care if they took the franchise.

I remember back in the 1980's there were rumors the Eagles could have moved out of Veterans Stadium to Phoenix instead of the Cardinals. I am sure Philadelphia would have another franchise by now... Just think, we could be rooting for the Philadelphia Rams, or an expansion team like the Quakers or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 0:52 PM, paco said:

Were they able to?

 

When the Browns went to Baltimore and then a new Browns franchise started, there was some sort of stipulation\agreement\etc that all the name\records\history\etc would all stay in Cleveland for when the Browns returned.  I'm not sure the same applies for Houston.

No, they weren't able to. The Oilers moved to Tennessee as the Oilers, it was 2 years later that they changed their name to the Titans. I believe they even had to get permission from the Jets to use 'Titans', because the Jets used to be the Titans and still owned the name.

With the Browns, they came to an agreement that they would completely vacate the franchise and leave it in Cleveland. All employees and the owner would then move to Baltimore where they were awarded an expansion franchise, and they named it the Ravens.

The Browns franchise still existed, it was just dormant (much like it's STILL dormant even now lol). When the Browns came back into being, in 1999, the franchise was just re-populated with an owner, a staff and players. Bringing it back to life.

The Titans still owned 'Oilers' when the Texans came into being, and would never have agreed to give it up. That would (or could) have meant giving up the team history as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

No, they weren't able to. The Oilers moved to Tennessee as the Oilers, it was 2 years later that they changed their name to the Titans. I believe they even had to get permission from the Jets to use 'Titans', because the Jets used to be the Titans and still owned the name.

With the Browns, they came to an agreement that they would completely vacate the franchise and leave it in Cleveland. All employees and the owner would then move to Baltimore where they were awarded an expansion franchise, and they named it the Ravens.

The Browns franchise still existed, it was just dormant (much like it's STILL dormant even now lol). When the Browns came back into being, in 1999, the franchise was just re-populated with an owner, a staff and players. Bringing it back to life.

The Titans still owned 'Oilers' when the Texans came into being, and would never have agreed to give it up. That would (or could) have meant giving up the team history as well.

That's what I thought, making the topic moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more agitated that the Houston Texans have such a lame name.  They have nearly everything to pick from and they go the least creative route possible.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 7:48 AM, Gmen4ever said:

Loved watching those early 90's Oilers teams

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Oilers name fit the city of Houston, like the Packers in Green Bay and Steelers in Pittsburgh. Unlike the Detroit Lions or Cincinnati Bengals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tennessee Oilers just wouldn't sound right. But I understand the OP's sentiment. And although the Titans' uniform and logo is pretty cool, that Oilers' uniform was a gem, and that oil derrick was pretty iconic.

In a way, I like what Cleveland did - by keeping the Browns' team name, colors, and history in Cleveland, they are still the Cleveland Browns, albeit it a sort of 2.0 Cleveland Browns. But they have the identity tied with the city.

But I can also see the value of taking the team name, colors, and history with a franchise when it moves. I'm perfectly fine with the Cardinals as the Arizona Cardinals, for example.

Interestingly, had every team done what Cleveland did, the Rams could have become the Cardinals when they moved to St. Louis, then become the Rams again when they recently moved back to LA. That would seem silly, not to mention confusing. Luckily for the Browns (and us), the NFL expanded back to Cleveland, instead of some other team moving there. My guess is that Cleveland retained the team's identity only because of the possibility of getting a new franchise. In other words, had, say, the Rams moved there, my guess is that they'd have been the Cleveland Rams*, not the Cleveland Browns, and would have worn blue/gold and kept the emblem.

* The Rams did in fact start out as the Cleveland Rams, playing there from 1936-45 before moving to LA. They took the name, colors, and history with them, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, toolg said:

The Oilers name fit the city of Houston, like the Packers in Green Bay and Steelers in Pittsburgh. Unlike the Detroit Lions or Cincinnati Bengals.

Not exactly a lot of eagles flying around the city of Philly either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bwestbrook36 said:

Not exactly a lot of eagles flying around the city of Philly either

But the Eagle is the national bird/national animal of the United States and Philadelphia is considered the birthplace of the United States. So there is a logical connection there.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the fans, I think I'd prefer the Browns solution. If a team moves, the name, colors, logo, history, and stats stay behind for any team that starts or moves into that city. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

For the fans, I think I'd prefer the Browns solution. If a team moves, the name, colors, logo, history, and stats stay behind for any team that starts or moves into that city. 

I can understand that, from the standpoint of hometown fans. If the Eagles moved to Virginia Beach, those in Philadelphia would demand that the team history stay in Philadelphia, along with logos, and names. In the age of the Internet and Sunday Ticket, etc... I'd think that 'out of town' fans would care less about that issue.

For me, I've never been to Philadelphia, so I don't have that 'hometown' connection, but as much as I'd LOVE to have season tickets to the Virginia Beach Eagles... I really would prefer the team remain in Philadelphia. But wherever the "Eagles" call home, I'm with them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

But the Eagle is the national bird/national animal of the United States and Philadelphia is considered the birthplace of the United States. So there is a logical connection there.

 

That is true.... Ok I take my statement back lol. I was at a game when they had the eagle fly down it was awesome! I'm a huge animal fan so I thought was just as great as the Jets flying over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

 

There is no doubt that the '91 and '92 Eagles' defense was pretty sick in its own right. I remember that game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, toolg said:

The Oilers name fit the city of Houston, like the Packers in Green Bay and Steelers in Pittsburgh. Unlike the Detroit Lions or Cincinnati Bengals.

Still an odd one for me as well. Not sure why the "Lions" as a name

In fact, if Denver had the Lions, then I could see how they may leverage the idea of a Mountain Lion. Would have liked if Detroit maybe used Mustangs. Would have made better sense to me with the Ford connection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, bwestbrook36 said:

Not exactly a lot of eagles flying around the city of Philly either

There's not a lot of wildlife inside any city.  But (bald) eagles do nest in the less populated areas.

 

Hell, I saw a bald eagle flying along a highway outside of St. Louis a few years back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2017 at 10:41 AM, toolg said:

I remember back in the 1980's there were rumors the Eagles could have

moved out of Veterans Stadium to Phoenix instead of the Cardinals. 

It wasn't a rumor! Our owner, Leonard Tose, was a drunk and a lush and squandered all his dough on booze, women & gambling. He was attempting to sell the team to Az until Norman Braman stepped in and bought the team, thus keeping our Eagles in Philly. It's prolly the only good thing he ever did for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what agitates me? Non-specific topic titles. If you want to start a topic, start a topic. Enough with this beating around the bush BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2017 at 9:21 PM, ShakeThatMonkey said:

Still an odd one for me as well. Not sure why the "Lions" as a name

In fact, if Denver had the Lions, then I could see how they may leverage the idea of a Mountain Lion. Would have liked if Detroit maybe used Mustangs. Would have made better sense to me with the Ford connection.

The Lions as a counterpart to the other pro team in Detroit, the Tigers. Lions & Tigers as it were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pape said:

The Lions as a counterpart to the other pro team in Detroit, the Tigers. Lions & Tigers as it were.

Good point, forget about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ShakeThatMonkey said:

Good point, forget about that.

Its the same way the Bears got their name as well. Halas moved the team to Chicago. and wanted to change the nickname, the Staleys. They were playing in Wrigley at the time, the home of the Cubs, so Halas rolled with the theme and went with the Bears.

The Bengals were named by owner/coach Paul Brown, who picked the name the Bengals, in honor of a team who played in Cincy in the 30's and 40's. Don't know why the original Bengals were named the Bengals though.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0