Sporting team names

[Acido]

Ive been chatting about this on here tonight, and it got me interested to ask this..
How many of us want our Barnsley FC team to have a 2nd name for example, like City or United or Town or Rovers or Athletic or Alexandra or even Argyle lol.
I think this is nonsense to be honest, and surely the only need for a 2nd name is in the case of the Manchester and Sheffield and Bristol clubs, who have two in each.

Rugby league went through this tedious stage some years ago to insist on a pathetic fan grabbing 2nd name, and I think the majority of fans don't like it. Wakefield who are my neighbours for example, are Trinity if they need the 2nd name, and they certainly aren't the Wildcats!!.
And Castleford who are also my neighbours, went further with the garbage Tigers name, and they even tried to change their stadium name to 'The Jungle'. Ohh pass the sick bucket ehh somebody, this is bordering on childish.

[Arblasterfromthepast]

Ive been chatting about this on here tonight, and it got me interested to ask this..
How many of us want our Barnsley FC team to have a 2nd name for example, like City or United or Town or Rovers or Athletic or Alexandra or even Argyle lol.
I think this is nonsense to be honest and this also includes those teams who insist on the City or United tag as well.
I think the only need for a 2nd name is in the case of the Manchester and Sheffield and Bristol clubs

Not for me Acido. Definitely no need for a second name. Like you day, it's only necessary where teams share a name.

[Acido]

Not for me Acido. Definitely no need for a second name. Like you day, it's only necessary where teams share a name.

Tahh for that Arb, Im glad you can see what Im saying there.
Ive added comments and edited comments to my original thread by the way, since or before you replied.

[pass_and_move]

Barnsley Borrowers seen as the consortium dunt use the own wonga to pay fo owt

[MoneyBarnsley]

We spoke about this a bit in the other thread Acido, but to give a bit more detail since this is such an interesting topic:

2nd names are HUGE in America. It truly reflects team identity and is fully ingrained in fan culture, behavior, merchandise, team marketing, etc. It's literally everywhere and is a huge sense of pride (ex. "I'm proud to be a wildcat!", would be a VERY common saying here).

However, that's always been the case with American sports - it's part of the tradition. Since it's so much different than UK/Europe sporting traditions, I'm not sure it would go over as well or be as widely accepted across the pond. I quite like how UK/Europe names are very city-centric. I feel like it creates even more of a sense of pride and passion for the team, which is really cool.

[Acido]

Hey MB, I like talking about the NFL to some other fans on Footymad, whether they are based in the UK or the USA.
But I always try to insist on calling them Dallas, forget about the Cowboys thing ehh lol.
I'd say that the only need for a 2nd name should be with the N.Y and L.A teams, if they have two teams in each city ?.

But why ohh why are Dallas in a so called Eastern division with scumbags like Philadelphia, and Washington, and N.Y Giants, when they are even more southern than New Mexico itself!! ?.

[MoneyBarnsley]

Hey MB, I like talking about the NFL to some other fans on Footymad, whether they are based in the UK or the USA.
But I always try to insist on calling them Dallas, forget about the Cowboys thing ehh lol.
I'd say that the only need for a 2nd name should be with the N.Y and L.A teams, if they have two teams in each city ?.

But why ohh why are Dallas in a so called Eastern division with scumbags like Philadelphia, and Washington, and N.Y Giants, when they are even more southern than New Mexico itself!! ?.

Yeah that makes a lot of sense - just using 2nd names for cities with multiple teams. I personally like 2nd names though just because I've grown up with them. Keeps things fun sometimes!

But oh man don't get me started about some of these divisions. It spans all 4 of our major sports, and college athletics too! There are always multiple teams that don't make sense at all with their respective divisions - LOL!

[Acido]

Dallas should be in the same division as Houston for a start, so then it could be a big regular Texan barbeque roast up lol.
And we could have some other southern nobodies in our division as well, like .... err who else are in the south, Ive got no idea.

Why aren't the N.Y Giants & Jets in the same division (they even play in the same stadium don't they), and when we used to have the L.A Raiders & Rams as well.

I remember when the Cardinals used to play in St.Louis, then they moved to Phoenix, and then Arizona. And meanwhile St.Louis became the Rams, and remember when Baltimore were the Colts, then onto Indianapolis, and now Baltimore are the Ravens.
We used to have the NFC and AFC East and West and Central, now they have got allsorts of divisions.
Confused ehh ?, err yes I am the more I think about it.

[MoneyBarnsley]

Hahaha! you make a lot of compelling arguments, but a lot (read: 100%) of the reason things are the way they are is for money maximization. If the two NY teams were in the same division, only one team (most of the time) could make the playoffs - thus, you'd instantly lose out on that other team's New York big market revenue.

So keeping them separate (among other city examples like LA) ensures that the big market cities all have chances to make the playoffs without impeding on other big cities. All of it is a money grab - shocking, I know

[animallittle3]

I've never understood how US sports fans simply accept clubs teams moving city's .

I've absolutely no idea how the Las Vegas public can adopt The Raiders when it's Oakland's club and it's Super Bowl history will forever be in Oakland .