Question regarding a team moving to L.A.

Sometime in the 90s, the pro sports leagues decided that when a team moves, the name stays in the city and the team gets a new name in their new city.

Would that apply to the Rams or Raiders? They've both previously had those same names in L.A.

I think for the Rams case... they'll keep their name and history. St. Louis has retired players in their ring of honor that played in LA but never in St. Louis. One might wonder though if the St. Louis Super Bowl championship trophy will be relocated as well.

Erebus":266plr5g said:

Sometime in the 90s, the pro sports leagues decided that when a team moves, the name stays in the city and the team gets a new name in their new city.

Would that apply to the Rams or Raiders? They've both previously had those same names in L.A.

Click to expand...

First time I've heard that. I always understood it was a case by case basis. The only reason Browns was left in Cleveland was because they sued Art Modell and it was part of the settlement (Also, Baltimore Browns would have made the team sound like a detective from a children's book). Houston went with the godawful name Texans when they got a new team (completely eschewing the superior Oilers name and uniform in the process).

Brooklyn Nets? New Orleans Hornets ( only recently changed)? Where is this rule for all the sports leagues and why would they all choose to adopt it?
In the modern era its a courtesy so the team names make sense and you don't have confusing names like the Lakers.

Maulbert":1lqyh6zs said:

Erebus":1lqyh6zs said:

Sometime in the 90s, the pro sports leagues decided that when a team moves, the name stays in the city and the team gets a new name in their new city.

Would that apply to the Rams or Raiders? They've both previously had those same names in L.A.

Click to expand...

First time I've heard that. I always understood it was a case by case basis. The only reason Browns was left in Cleveland was because they sued Art Modell and it was part of the settlement (Also, Baltimore Browns would have made the team sound like a detective from a children's book). Houston went with the godawful name Texans when they got a new team (completely eschewing the superior Oilers name and uniform in the process).

Click to expand...

Bud Adams took the name and history of the Houston Oilers with them when they move to Tennessee. When they change the name to the Titans Paul Tagliabue agreed to retire the name and colors of the Oilers and the Titans could retain the history of the Oilers and their records and history. they weren't allowed to call him so if the Oilers even if they wanted to.

I don't follow basketball at all, but I knew teams like the Sonics moved and changed names, so I assumed it applied to all sports. It's not a rule, but more of a courtesy, and the trend did start in the 90s.

It's rare nowadays for a team to move and keep their name. I think in the case of the Nets, they kept their name because they didn't move far and probably kept the entire fan base.

Basis4day":3sblv751 said:

Maulbert":3sblv751 said:

Erebus":3sblv751 said:

Sometime in the 90s, the pro sports leagues decided that when a team moves, the name stays in the city and the team gets a new name in their new city.

Would that apply to the Rams or Raiders? They've both previously had those same names in L.A.

Click to expand...

First time I've heard that. I always understood it was a case by case basis. The only reason Browns was left in Cleveland was because they sued Art Modell and it was part of the settlement (Also, Baltimore Browns would have made the team sound like a detective from a children's book). Houston went with the godawful name Texans when they got a new team (completely eschewing the superior Oilers name and uniform in the process).

Click to expand...

Bud Adams took the name and history of the Houston Oilers with them when they move to Tennessee. When they change the name to the Titans Paul Tagliabue agreed to retire the name and colors of the Oilers and the Titans could retain the history of the Oilers and their records and history. they weren't allowed to call him so if the Oilers even if they wanted to.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and Bud Adams was an a*****e.

Erebus":ta100gzu said:

Sometime in the 90s, the pro sports leagues decided that when a team moves, the name stays in the city and the team gets a new name in their new city.

Would that apply to the Rams or Raiders? They've both previously had those same names in L.A.

Click to expand...

Give me one example of this ever happening in the NFL. I may not know the history that you seem to.

If you say this decision happened in the 90's then it would still be the LA Rams and St. Louis would not own the rights to the name. They moved in the 90's, 1995.

Didn't the Oilers also move in the 90's?

WTH is the "pro sports league"?

I think it's circumstantial, Rams moved with same ownership and kept History and name, Raiders did the same thing. Sonics were bought and contested and an agreement was reached, Browns had a legal situation and worked out an agreement, Vancouver moved to Memphis and kept the name. I think that if the city had a history with the team they can contest and possibly win against the league that left with the promise of a franchise and the name and history like the Browns.

If ownership stays the same and the team was not originally there then history is harder to claim I would think.

The Cardinals moving and Rams moving at the same time or close kept St Louis I think content, they were getting a winner in their eyes I believe at the time and getting rid of the Bidwell's.

chris98251":1dgxuli8 said:

I think it's circumstantial, Rams moved with same ownership and kept History and name, Raiders did the same thing. Sonics were bought and contested and an agreement was reached, Browns had a legal situation and worked out an agreement, Vancouver moved to Memphis and kept the name. I think that if the city had a history with the team they can contest and possibly win against the league that left with the promise of a franchise and the name and history like the Browns.

If ownership stays the same and the team was not originally there then history is harder to claim I would think.

The Cardinals moving and Rams moving at the same time or close kept St Louis I think content, they were getting a winner in their eyes I believe at the time and getting rid of the Bidwell's.

Click to expand...

Rams left LA to go to St. Louis in 1995.

Cardinals left St. Louis to go to Arizona in 1988. St. Louis peeps hate Bidwell.

No way is that either close or the same time or had anything to do with the other. GF was a B. That is why Rams went to St. Louis.

Your comment and info is 100% incorrect.

RedAlice":359bg59r said:

Erebus":359bg59r said:

Sometime in the 90s, the pro sports leagues decided that when a team moves, the name stays in the city and the team gets a new name in their new city.

Would that apply to the Rams or Raiders? They've both previously had those same names in L.A.

Click to expand...

Give me one example of this ever happening in the NFL. I may not know the history that you seem to.

If you say this decision happened in the 90's then it would still be the LA Rams and St. Louis would not own the rights to the name. They moved in the 90's, 1995.

Didn't the Oilers also move in the 90's?

WTH is the "pro sports league"?

Click to expand...

The last NFL teams to move and keep their names were the LA teams in the mid 90s. Before that, no NFL team moved and changed names since the 1940s. Then after 1995, the Browns moved in 1996 and Oilers moved in 1997 and both changed their names, hence why I said the trend started in the 90s.

The last baseball team to move was the Expos in 2005 and they changed their name. Before that, the A's, Braves, Dodgers, Giants, and Orioles all moved and kept their names. The only times a team moved and changed their name were the Washington Senators, because that name wouldn't make sense anywhere else, and the Seattle Pilots, probably because they had no history.

I don't follow basketball or hockey, so I was speaking out of my ass a little bit when I applied that statement to all four major sports leagues. The NBA apparently hasn't taken the same approach. The Sonics seem to be the exception, not the rule. But since I know about the Sonics and not other teams, I incorrectly assumed the NBA did the same thing. It appears the NHL has been doing this longer. Looking through the NHL's history, it looks like every team that has ever moved changed their name.

I read somewhere a long time ago that it was a conscious decision by the NFL to let names stay in a city, but I don't have a link to prove it.

The owner owns the team, name, and history. Unless he makes an agreement of some kind he is entitled to take the name, history, trophies, etc with him when he moves it.

Bud Adams kept the name Oilers when he moved the team to Tennessee for the 1997 season. The name wasn't changed to the Titans until the '99 season.

Erebus":1v2ghtjr said:

RedAlice":1v2ghtjr said:

......Before that, the A's, Braves, Dodgers, Giants, and Orioles all moved and kept their names.......

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You are correct about all those baseball teams except the Orioles. They were the St. Louis Browns from 1902 through 1953 before moving to Baltimore and becoming the Orioles starting with the 1954 season.

A's (Athletics) are one of the few 3 city professional sports franchises having played in Philadelphia, Kansas City and Oakland. Your Rams are another (Cleveland, L.A. and St. Louis). So are the Cardinals (Chicago, St. Louis and Phoenix).
Off the top of my head, I know of only one professional sports franchise that exists today that has been based in 4 different cities. Anyone care to take a crack at that little bit of trivia?

Could be the Cardinals. I know the Cards were in Chicago, St Louis, and now Arizona.

chris98251":283ow8c0 said:

Could be the Cardinals. I know the Cards were in Chicago, St Louis, and now Arizona.

Click to expand...

Nope, see my post above. You have all the cities the Cards have been in. Remember I said professional sports franchise, not necessarily pro football team (hint).
BTW, it's really hard question but not so insanely obscure it isn't legit.

Then the Sacramento Kings, The were in KC before and Cincinnati as the Royals, before that not sure but they have been a traveling teams and if moved to Seattle would have been another stop in their nomadic life as a franchise.

chris98251":328dygzy said:

Then the Sacramento Kings, The were in KC before and Cincinnati as the Royals, before that not sure but they have been a traveling teams and if moved to Seattle would have been another stop in their nomadic life as a franchise.

Click to expand...

You are a winner sir! The were the Rochester Royals before moving to Cincy in like 1957. And yes, they would've been a 5 city franchise had they come to Seattle.

hawksfansinceday1":300va691 said:

chris98251":300va691 said:

Then the Sacramento Kings, The were in KC before and Cincinnati as the Royals, before that not sure but they have been a traveling teams and if moved to Seattle would have been another stop in their nomadic life as a franchise.

Click to expand...

You are a winner sir! The were the Rochester Royals before moving to Cincy in like 1957. And yes, they would've been a 5 city franchise had they come to Seattle.

Click to expand...

Age and a decent memory helps, I was around during two of those moves, Oscar Robinson played for the Cincinnati Royals and was a favorite of mine as a kid, in KC I liked Nate Archibald as a player, he was lighting in a bottle for his size.

chris98251":t1c26lbn said:

Oscar Robinson played for the Cincinnati Royals and was a favorite of mine as a kid,.....

Click to expand...

Likewise. Helluva player.