The continuing rumor is that Nike wanted the Chicago-based team to be nicknamed the "Rhythm". The management group (and the fans) much preferred "Fire", and ultimately got their way. Nike decided to be bastards by not producing enough apparel for fans the first couple of years, but it basically backfired on them and the name stuck. And of course the Fire had the last laugh by dumping Nike and moving on to Puma.
Re: There's no such thing as bad publicity. Last season south carolina football team played with beavers from oregon state. You wanna hear a great name for a soccer team: portland TIMBERS.
Please. Those folks in cowboy hats in Dallas are just enjoying a team full of superstars that won the Stanley Cup and has always been a top tier club. Just wait until they winning. There can be no passion for a losing hockey team in the South because it's virtually impossible to have the same passion for the game if there are no means to play and no hockey culture. The North Stars should have stayed in Minneapolis. Dallas stole them. Regardless of the ethical implications, the team won't draw squat once they lose. See: Carolina, Nashville, Florida, Atlanta, Phoenix, etc.
The Stars have drawn more fans for their mediocre non-playoff teams in Dallas than they did for a Stanley Cup finalist in Minnesota.
Different years. It makes a huge difference. Not to mention, Dallas still has some marque players to draw support from.
They weren't told to take a hike. We'd rather put our money into things that seem a little more important than sports, like education, than spend 1/4 billion for a stadium that gets used 20 years before the beggin' for a new one starts all over again. So? We're talking apples and oranges. When the Stars first moved to Dallas, their ticket prices were lower than the norm for the NFL at the time. It was a different team in a different league. The NHL changed A LOT in the 90s. Look at how the MN Wild have been supported and they've been a mediocre team; 3 years of sell outs of 18k+ for 41 home games. Plus, the MPLS / STPL metro area even today is still only 2.75million people. That's a considerable smaller market to draw upon to get butts in those seats than Dallas / Ft. Worth. I'm not saying that Dallas hasn't been successful after the move. But it wasn't MN's fault. The organization needed something to shake it up & the move to Dallas did that. It could've happened without the move. Plus, Dallas is a bigger market with more upside for revenue (especially on the TV side being able to market to all of Texas). Nothing wrong with Norm wanting to maximize his revenue. I'll just be damned if I let the schmuck make it out to be anything other his decision to move.
Exactly, the whole move worked out for both markets. The Stars are a success in Dallas and Minnesotans love the Wild. Add to that the gorgeous new facility in St. Paul (built with tax-payer money), and it really is a win-win. Except for that Stanley Cup. There was a hockey team, possibly in the CHL, called the Houston Apollos. Great logo. Old school. My boss is from West Virginia and his favorite logo is that of the Roanoke Valley Rebels of the Southern Hockey League. Of course, he is a redneck.
They have now been changed to the Macon Trax. Our hockey team here in Huntsville has recently been changed, after new ownership took over, to Huntsville Havoc from the Channel Cats. I love both names, logos, and uniforms. I wish Macon was still named the Whoopie. We get to play them this year in the Southern Hockey League. -Von
Dang it, Kenn, you beat me to it. I didn't read the whole thread before letting everyone know about the Macon name change. What is even more confusing is that with the EHL becoming the Southern Hockey League is that our Huntsville team used to play in the SHL back in like 96 or 97 and there is talk that the Southeast Hockey League might combine with the SHL before the coming season if they can not find enough teams. I wish minor league hockey was more stable like minor league baseball. -Von
Re: There's no such thing as bad publicity. I am goddamnit! My f'ing city stole my univeristy's logo! And what kinda ridiculous name is Texans? YEEHAW WE'RE TEXANS! But the Dallas Texans were indeed the original NFL team in Dallas, so the name has some historical significance which most ppl are unaware of
Re: There's no such thing as bad publicity. WRONG!!!! The Dallas Cowboys joined the NFL in 1960. The Dallas Texans joined the AFL in 1960, moved to KC and became the Cheifs in 1963. You are the weakest link, goodbye! Thx, Jay!
Re: There's no such thing as bad publicity. Including Jay, apparently. The original Dallas Texans played in the NFL in 1952. They were an artistic and financial disaster, and the franchise landed in Baltimore in 1953 as the Colts. And that was some 8 years before the Cowboys and Hunt's Texans arrived in Big D.
From their book The Big Show, it's not credited to either... "As been pointed out, a game between the Wiz and the San Jose Burn is a urologist's delight." No need to point out the obvious... Thx, Jay!
Re: There's no such thing as bad publicity. According to the book I am reading you are partially correct. The Dallas Texans joined the league in 1952 and folded. The new Baltimore Colts (as opposed to the 1950 Colts) joined the league in 1953. It makes no mention of the Texans moving to Baltimore. I was completely and utterlywrong in my previous post and I apologize for it. The Indy Colts trace their roots to the 1953 NFL Colts. The Cheifs trace to the 1960 AFL Texans. The 1952 Texans have no legs, as far as I can tell. But they were an NFL team. My mistake. Thx, Jay! more here.... Indy's website acknowledges a tie to the Texans, while another reference book I just read makes no mention of it. Maybe just the franchise was moved, but not the legacy (a la the Browns to Balto in in 1996). I give up. I'm confused!
Re: There's no such thing as bad publicity. It wasn't a move so much - it's complicated. Basically the Texans' owners threw in the towel and the league operated them as a barnstorming team (more or less) for the rest of the 1952 season. Their only win came over George Halas' Chicago Bears 27-23 in Akron, Ohio of all places (Halas was livid, obviously). NFL Commissioner Bert Bell gave Baltimore, which wanted a team back after the demise of the "original" (AAFC>>merged into NFL in 1950) Colts, the task of selling a bunch of season tickets to get back in the league. When they did that, Bell basically gave them the Texans' spot in the league, if not their franchise per se. There's not much of a connection between the 1952 Texans and the 1953 Colts except for a couple of players (including Hall of Famer Art Donovan). The Colts acknowledge that that franchise goes back a bit farther, even, to the Boston Yanks (owned in part by singer Kate Smith), though they don't make a big deal out of it. Luckily, they've been in Indianapolis 20 years now, so they have a bit of their own history, but they really don't embrace much of the Baltimore history, much less the Dallas/Boston history.