02-02-2017, 09:19 AM
(02-02-2017, 12:18 AM)Beaker Wrote: Exactly my point. The Lakers name should have stayed in Minneapolis, New Orleans should still be the Jazz, there are no Cardinals in Phoenix. The names should stay with the original cities. Team moves, team gets new name. The best example I can think of is when the Dallas Texans moved to KC and became the Chiefs. Texans was left behind. The new franchise had the option to pick it up, but chose Cowboys instead. Houston should have been able to resurrect the Oilers....but ended up the Texans instead because the Oilers name was in Tennessee before they changed it to the Titans.
I bet it's a good feeling that your team is named after an animal that holds great significance for YOUR city, eh?
I agree that keeping the Lakers name didn't make much sense. But that's the owner's call to make, not one that can be legislated.
As for the Texans, your history is wrong. The Texans and Cowboys coexisted in Dallas for a few years before the move to K.C. Besides, why would an NFL franchise want to take on the identity of a team from a rival league? That would just be dumb.
And in Houston's case, it had nothing to do with the Oilers name moving to Tennessee first. The name (just like the team history) belonged to Bud Adams. He could have relinquished it of his own accord, but why would he want his team history to be associated with a franchise he has never had anything to do with? What would be his motivation?
That's what it mostly boils down to: motivation. Modell was uniquely motivated to essentially leave everything in Cleveland and start fresh with the Ravens. Most owners are not.
