date the team name was announced Started by smith03

[oldecapecod11]

date the team name was announced
Started by smith03, Sep 27 2014 11:47 AM

17 replies to this topic

archive

#1 smith03
Forum Visitors
Posted 27 September 2014 - 11:47 AM
Happy "Minnesota Vikings name day"

on Sept 27, 1960 the team name was announced for the 1961 expansion team.

Teams and the NFL and Hall of fame do a good job of letting the fans know the day a team was enfranchised, but most times the team is actually named on a later date, which the exception of the panthers and jaguars. So wondering when other teams announced their names.


#2 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 27 September 2014 - 02:52 PM
One wire report had the Browns name being announced on August 14, 1945, but, ironically, it wasn't noted in the Cleveland paper the next day. Of course, the lack of much mention on that day is understandable, considering there was slightly bigger news: the Japanese surrendered, ending World War II.

The Cowboys were originally the Dallas Rangers, but changed it to Cowboys on March 19, 1960

The Oilers name was announced on 10/30/59, while the Chargers appear to have been announced a few days before that--no definitive answer.

The AFL Dallas Texans were named on 11/9/59, the Broncos on 1/16/60, and the Patriots one month later on 2/16. The Bills name was somewhere between the last week of November 1959 and the first week of December.

Oakland's original name, the Senors, was announced on 4/5/60, and went over like a lead balloon, with Oakland City Council actually adopting a resolution to criticize the choice. Nine days later, Raiders replaced it.

The Falcons were announced on 8/28/1965, while the Saints were named in early January 1967, though again, a definitive date is elusive. The second-most popular choice besides Saints was Crescents.

The Dolphins were named on 10/8/1965, while the Bengals nickname was announced on 10/27/67

#3 smith03
Forum Visitors
Posted 27 September 2014 - 04:15 PM
cool thanks

#4 Mark L. Ford
Administrators
Posted 27 September 2014 - 09:25 PM
Interesting information, BD. I beg to differ on the date of the Saints name, however-- announcement of the franchise and of its name were timed for All Saints Day on November 1, 1966. My understanding is that the owners (including jazz musician Al Hirt) wanted to be able to have "When the Saints Go Marching In" played at the home games when the team came onto the field.

I assume that Max Winter would have called his team the Vikings even if he had kept his franchise in the AFL before getting admission to the NFL, although I don't know whether league or public input made a difference between calling them Minnesota or Minneapolis.

#5 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 27 September 2014 - 11:35 PM
Mark L. Ford, on 27 Sept 2014 - 9:25 PM, said:
Interesting information, BD. I beg to differ on the date of the Saints name, however-- announcement of the franchise and of its name were timed for All Saints Day on November 1, 1966. My understanding is that the owners (including jazz musician Al Hirt) wanted to be able to have "When the Saints Go Marching In" played at the home games when the team came onto the field.
Actually, I think we're both right. New Orleans was indeed officially granted a franchise on 11/1/66 (All Saints Day), but the AP story has this brief paragraph within the article:

"The team may not actually be called the Saints. But that's the name most frequently mentioned." So, it was virtually a given that they would be, but an 11/29 AP article mentioned that "Saints" was "leading" in a newspaper poll, which means it wasn't official. BTW, some of the others that paled next to Crescents, were Buccaneers, Cajuns, Creoles, Dixielanders, Rebels, Sportsmen and Masqueraders.

Amusingly, John Mecom said the strangest nickname suggested was the Orangutans. A woman felt sorry for some of the animals that had been killed in a zoo fire.

#6 smith03
Forum Visitors
Posted 28 September 2014 - 01:23 AM
As to what the name of an AFL team in Mpls might have been. I can't be sure. Officially Bert Rose the first GM ( who had been suggested by Pete Rozelle) recommend the name "Vikings". A different GM maybe a different name . I do think the team would have used "Minneapolis" had it been in the AFL. The 3 Mpls owners had to get additional money for the NFL team (St Paul and Duluth) that might had lead to "Minnesota".

#7 LJP
Forum Visitors
Posted 28 September 2014 - 03:18 AM
The Decatur Staleys football team was organized at a meeting of the A.E. Staley Manufacting Company plant welfare society on the 19th of September 1919.

The agreement between Mr. Staley and Halas & Sternaman called for the team to be known as the Staley Football Club when they moved to Chicago in 1921. They were never the Chicago Staley's.

Whilst the Staleys became the Bears at the 1922 owners meeting, the Chicago Bears Football Club, Inc. was actually incorporated on the 2nd of May 1922, with Halas, Driscoll and Sternaman the named parties. Driscoll had to later remove himself as he was under contract with the Cardinals.

#8 luckyshow
Forum Visitors
Posted 29 September 2014 - 12:30 PM
"New York Football Giants" was incorporated in 1929. (founded 1925 as simply Giants).
The first New York Giants football team was so called in 1919, but played no games due to Sunday "blue laws", did play under this name (as well as non-NFL games as the Brooklyn Giants) in 1921.

8/22/1959 seems the first day the "Titans of New York" was used for the new AFL franchise.
4/19/1963 name changed to Jets. New ownership, moving into new stadium near World's Fair and LaGuardia Airport Other name possibilities were Dodgers, Gothams and Borros (would their mascot have been a burro, donkey or mule?)

In 1966, when a Continental Football League team joining that league in its second season, was called the Brooklyn Dodgers, the carpetbagging Los Angeles Dodgers sued them for use of that nickname.

The Staten Island Stapletons/Stapes had a direct lineage back to 1915 where they began as the Stapleton Football Club. Stapleton being the location on Staten Island where they played. By the time of their joining the NFL they had been called the Staten Island Stapletons for years, even sometimes in 1915. Their home field, Thompson Field opened in 1924. In 1929, they officially changed their name to the Stapes, but had informally been called this at least as early as 1919.

In 1930, the NFL Dayton Triangles franchise was bought and moved to Brooklyn and renamed the Dodgers. I don't have an exact date. In 1944 (the last year elevated trains went over the Brooklyn Bridge) they became Brooklyn Tigers. There had been an amateur (possibly semi-pro) football team called the Brooklyn Tigers from at least 1919, through the 20s. In 1936, there was a Brooklyn Tigers entry in the AFL. There had also been a Long Island Tigers who played in Brooklyn in the 1920s, a New York Tigers that played in Stapleton in 1937.

The Boston Yanks of 1944 were so named because Ted Collins wanted a team for Yankee Stadium but were denied by the Giants and perhaps the Dodgers/Tigers as well They did play one game in New York in 1945 in a strange "merger" with Brooklyn. I have little information on why they picked Bulldogs in 1949 when they began playing in NY. They claimed to be a new franchise and not just one that moved from Boston, so that must be the reason. Why the Bulldogs? It is Yale's nickname/mascot, and New Haven is halfway between Boston and New York, but this probably had nothing to do with the name.After the AAFC folded/merged, they went back to Yanks (never Yankees) in 1950.
See Bob Carroll's excellent article for better clarity:
https://www.profootb...r/17-05-621.pdf

That article also notes that in 1940, the Pirates became the Steelers.

The AAFC Brooklyn Dodgers were first referred to in December 1945.

#9 Teo
PFRA Member
Posted 29 September 2014 - 05:05 PM
According to this page, the Seattle Seahawks name was chosen on June 17, 1975. Two interesting facts: When I was much younger I try to figure what was the actual bird of prey it was based, I didn't imagine it was an osprey (much closer to the eagles than to the hawks or falcons). Another curiuos fact: in Spanish (my main language) hawk and falcon usually is named the same: "halcón". So the Seahawks are "Halcones marinos".

http://www.fieldgull...about-the-hawks

#10 Mark L. Ford
Administrators
Posted 29 September 2014 - 05:37 PM
As an aside to that, it's surprising that the owners of major league baseball teams had no problem with NFL teams co-opting the nickname. Even as late as 1960, a team could move from Chicago and get away with calling itself the St. Louis Cardinals. At one time or another, the majority of the National League teams saw an NFL team with the identical name (the press would call Big Blue the "New York football Giants" to distinguish them from the ball team that would later move to San Francisco).

#11 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 29 September 2014 - 09:53 PM
It is odd that people tend to avoid mentioning that the Cleveland Browns stole their name from the 1924 Negro National League ( I ) team.
It seems a tad more romantic than the "named the team for Paul Brown" story although Brown was 16 at the time and may have realized the potential of the black athlete as a fan of the original Cleveland Browns?

#12 Mark L. Ford
Administrators
Posted 29 September 2014 - 10:49 PM
I imagine that that's an ironic, jocular (and throughly researched) response to my joke about the baseball teams getting "ripped off" by the NFL. It's interesting that there was a Negro Leagues team called the Cleveland Browns, but I see that they existed for one season back in 1924. Hard to call that stolen, or even grave robbery for that matter. I doubt that Art McBride had even heard of them. The St. Louis Browns would be less unlikely, and although I don't think their name was an inspiration either, their act of moving to Baltimore may have been an inspiration to Art Modell.

#13 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 29 September 2014 - 10:50 PM
oldecapecod 11, on 29 Sept 2014 - 9:53 PM, said:
It is odd that people tend to avoid mentioning that the Cleveland Browns stole their name from the 1924 Negro National League ( I ) team.
It seems a tad more romantic than the "named the team for Paul Brown" story although Brown was 16 at the time and may have realized the potential of the black athlete as a fan of the original Cleveland Browns?

FWIW, the other story is that then-heavyweight boxing champion Joe Louis was the reason behind the choice, based on his nickname, "The Brown Bomber"

#14 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 29 September 2014 - 11:31 PM
BD Sullivan
Posted Today, 10:50 PM
"FWIW, the other story is that then-heavyweight boxing champion Joe Louis was the reason behind the choice, based on his nickname, 'The Brown Bomber'"

Some say that but it seems like a bit of a fairy tale.
More likely is that the Chicago Brown Bombers were named in honor of Joe. It was an independent Negro barnstorming baseball team that played in 1943 which was Joe Louis' second baseball season in the Army having enlisted in January 1942.
Even more likely is that it was a team named by some clever promoter looking to capitalize (a la AAGPBL) on the watered-down baseball teams of the war years. The life of one season indicates this might be true?

#15 luckyshow
Forum Visitors
Posted 01 October 2014 - 12:31 PM
The Chicago Cardinals did not take their name from the St. Louis team. The Chicago team's name which predates the NFL was due to their borrowing faded University of Chicago Uniforms which had been maroon. It is a coincidence or irony, if you will, that they moved t St. Louis where Cardinal stood for a bird. So St. Louis Cardinals (baseball) could hardly sue the carpetbagger St. Louis Cardinals (football).

The Browns of St. Louis is probably where the Negro League baseball team took their name. They predate Joe Louis, the boxer. Fritz Pollard began the Brown Bombers in 1935. In honor of Joe Louis (who became heavyweight champ in 1937).

The Cleveland Browns were not named after the St. Louie Browns, also referred to as the Brownies at times.

They moved to Baltimore. This was two years after the Boston Braves moved to Milwaukee. Also maybe a year before the As left Philadelphia for Kansas City.

Baltimore was a 1890s National league baseball team, and in the major league American Association in the 1880s. and an original member of the American League. (they moved to New York). There were two minor league Orioles, split by the Federal League team before the Great War (not called Orioles). They won seven straight pennants in the International League in the 1920s, then two more after WWII,. They also twice won the IL league title in the post season playoff series called the Governors Cup. They won two Junior World Series and were in three others. Moving to Baltimore was not just a good move for the Browns, but a rare franchise shift eastward. It was an untapped market eager for major league baseball.

Didn't Modell skedaddle to Baltimore because the Colts had ran off to Indy? And Cleveland Browns were not named for St. Louis Browns. The Panthers name (the first chosen by fans) would have cost them money to compensate the former owner of the AFL team franchise with that name. Maybe. A fan vote picked Browns, not for the Negro National League team that played for just one year 20 years previous (to 1944), but for Brown's last name.

Supposedly Paul Brown had rejected the Browns name when he first was chosen coach in 1946, but if true, why Browns was chosen is unclear. Other histories say it was for the barnstorming Pollard team out of Chicago, which is odd. Name another team named after a coach, or even a manager.. Now he had brought Ohio State the national championship, but still... Not sure any histories point to the baseball team even as it did use that name and was from Cleveland.

Before the Brown Bombers football team, there had been other such barnstorming all-black football teams. In the early 30s, there was one out of New York, called the All-Southern Collegiates.

I do think the Browns name came from Paul Brown's last name, as it seems unlikely it was named for a black team, whether baseball or football. No matter how integrated the Browns may have become, it just wasn't the era where that would happen. The polls or fan votes probably weren't held by the black newspaper, the Cleveland Gazette. White fans would not have done that at the time. In my opinion. Joe Louis had been the "GM" of a military team that played out of Manhattan Beach (next to Coney Island) in early 40s, but otherwise had no association with football other than the barnstorming team having used his nickname in mid 30s. And they were no where near Cleveland.

#16 luckyshow
Forum Visitors
Posted 01 October 2014 - 12:52 PM
The New York Football Giants was the original name in 1924. Certainly because of the baseball team which played in the same Polo Grounds, the same city. They weren't Big Blue for a long time as they wore red uniforms until the mid 1950s.

It was their official name, and still is. The NFL Dodgers never used Brooklyn Football Dodgers. Some of those other NFL and AFL teams with similar names to the earlier baseball teams, had the same ownership, though not most.

They weren't "ripping off" anyone, especially as few nicknames were actually copyrighted that early.

I don't think the Boston Celtics bought their name from the Original or New York Celtics, who were owned for a while by Kate Smith, and later by Abe Saperstein. When the Knicks or Knickerbockers were named, I doubt they much recalled the semi-pro football team that played at turn of the century. That Panthers owner was unusual, I don't remember any other such complaint or claim of ownership. The powerful baseball Yankees never seemed to care about the half dozen or so football teams named the Yankees or Yanks over the decades. The LA Dodgers did threaten that Continental team named Brooklyn Dodgers (who never planned to play in Brooklyn., so did resemble the baseball team which played some home games their last season in Brooklyn, in Jersey City before running off to Chavez Ravine)

The Cleveland Rams were named oddly for the Fordham Rams.

#17 Mark L. Ford
Administrators
Posted 01 October 2014 - 12:53 PM
luckyshow, on 01 Oct 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:
The Chicago Cardinals did not take their name from the St. Louis team. The Chicago team's name which predates the NFL was due to their borrowing faded University of Chicago Uniforms which had been maroon. It is a coincidence or irony, if you will, that they moved t St. Louis where Cardinal stood for a bird. So St. Louis Cardinals (baseball) could hardly sue the carpetbagger St. Louis Cardinals (football).

Fair to say that all of us NFL history buffs are aware that they were called the "Chicago Cardinals" (named, as you point out, for a different reason than the baseball Cards) before they moved to St. Louis. They "got away" with rebranding themselves as the "St. Louis Cardinals" when they moved to St. Louis, though the baseball club would have had every right to object to trademark infringement. No federal court would have bought the argument that there was no problem because it was a different kind of cardinal. I wouldn't be surprised if there had been a deal behind the scenes between the Violet Wolfner and Gus Busch worked out a deal of some sort. Arguably, if the football team had kept the name "Chicago Cardinals" and played in St. Louis, that would have been a case of two existing trademarks.

Ten years later, when the NBA's Cincinnati Royals moved to another Missouri locale, baseball's Kansas City Royals weren't as accommodating, and they became the Kansas City Kings, who later continued their westward trek to become today's Sacramento Kings.

#18 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 01 October 2014 - 01:58 PM
When the Cardinals move was announced in March 1960, it was stated that, "A new name will have to be chosen for the team, to avoid confusion with the baseball club." Interestingly, the same article mentions that the Cardinals were "forced" to move after the AFL's Television Committee (headed by Harry Wismer, no less) announced they would broadcast games in the Chicago market, given the virtual non-exitence of NFL games on TV there. Of course, given the already-floundering fortunes of the franchise, I doubt that was the true impetus to pack up and go.