Off topic : How many frickin Tammany Halls were there in America? I just thought it was specific to NYC?
I think it is the Wizard of Oz thing, whether they actually play in KS or MO. They DID have rainbows on their uniforms at one point. If it isn't WofOz how do you explain the rainbows?
I can agree that the Blue Jackets name stinks, but it is easier to swallow when you find out that they were named for Union soldiers in the Civil War. (they wore blue jackets...) I didn't say it made the name any better. And there is always the cognitive dissonance about why the actual mascot is a bug with a blue butt (something like a yellow jacket but that doesn't actually exist or have anything to do with the reason for the name, according to management) and the insect thing is on the primary home and away sweaters while the only visible reference to the CW reasoning is a star on the alternate sweater. As for The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, if they don't want to be primarily associated with Anaheim (which I don't understand-it isn't a bad place) they should just go back to being the Cali Angels. And one of my worst that hasn't already been mentioned is the Cleveland Crunch. Thankfully they went back to being the Force a couple years ago.
No, regional names are annoying and don't give teams enough of an identity. The New England Revolution should change the name to the Boston Revolution. Same with the Colorado Rapids. They just don't sound right for some reason. Then again, there are probably a lot of fans that like state names more than city names, so not everyone can be happy.
Yes, it is appropriate. The history behind the name is very important. It isn't the nickname itself, but the history behind it that makes it very appropriate.
There's something that many of you are overlooking - these old clubs' names and nicknames originated in the days of amateurism. This was well before the days of professionalism; before anything needed to be packaged, marketed, etc. Nobody was concerned about image - they were just some guys playing a game. This is true for all the old soccer, baseball, American rules football clubs. E.g. - Arsenal were just some guys who worked at the Woolwich Arsenal Armament Factory in London who formed a team to play on the weekends. Nobody said "Hey, Royal Arsenal sounds like a cool name!" They didn't "pick" it out of a hat to package it and market it. Arsenal was just who they were. Green Bay were some guys who worked at some meatpacking plant in Green Bay and people gave them the "Packers" moniker. Over time, professionalism set in and clubs just kept the name they had been using for years before. The thing these days is that expansion teams in the US have to be marketed from the start, and part of that is having some "catchy" name. It's my opinion that no matter what they do, a new name will always sound stupid and contrived. "Dodgers" didn't sound cool to anybody. They were just some amateur Brooklyn team who had to dodge trolleys in order to play their game. Nobody thought that up in some office, they actually WERE dodgers in every sense of the word. That's a true nickname, and a true nickname is something now almost impossible to replicate with some expansion team created out of thin air. After a while the nicknames in America (Packers, Dodgers, etc.) just became the official names when they needed to retool and organize into professional leagues.