80 years ago today, New Orleans made pro football history

AsylumGuido · 12-07-2018, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by burningmetal

You're free to have what ever opinion you'd like, of course, but I don't see that there is anything to back up your statements. Teams gain popularity based on the interest the area has in the sport, and by the success of the team in question. If you make a good early impression, you have a chance to catch on.

Professional teams don't copy names of other teams in their city, or even state, anymore, and yet they seem to do just fine... Provided that they win enough games to be relevant.

So, I maintain that it was lazy to copy the name of another professional franchise in your same city. Trying to ride the coat tails of another organization makes you look weak. Not many people (myself included) have even heard of the Boston Braves as a football team. That's probably a good reason why they changed their name and later left. The baseball team is what people remember. So if you're trying to make an argument that this was good marketing strategy by bringing up obscure references, you are kind of defeating your own point. There is no way of being able to prove that those teams gained recognition because of their names. They were recognized because they played in professional leagues. If the name had anything to do with it, they wouldn't have changed it.

Again, if you want to be successful, you have to win. The Pittsburgh and New York teams had some success... Because they won. But it was dumb to have had the same names, imo.

You have to realize that this practice was taking place back in the 1930's - 40's, not today. Professional football was still in its infancy. The only thing to compare it to was college football. It was brand recognition by the expansion football franchises that commonly played in the same confines as their baseball counterparts that the new owners were using. The Pirates (Steelers) played their home games at Forbes field, home of the baseball Pirates, starting in 1933. They remained the Pirates until 1940 when owner Art Rooney grew tired of the copycat name and held a contest to come up with a new name.

In 1925 the New York Football Giants franchise was started by Tim Mara who adopted the name "Giants" because they were to play their home games at the Polo Grounds, home of the baseball Giants. The owner of the baseball team had previously tried to start a professional football team in 1919 with the same name, but it never got off the ground.

The Boston Braves played their first season at Braves Field in 1936, but changed their name to the Redskins a year later when they moved to Fenway Park.

I can see how your "laziness" argument might hold water today, but it did not apply to the marketplace nearly a century ago. People were used to attending baseball games during the spring and summer so it made sense for the off-season professional resident to have the same name. At least back then. I can also see how it could be seen as a convenience, but not truly laziness.

12-07-2018, 08:01 AM	#1
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,492	Re: 80 years ago today, New Orleans made pro football history Originally Posted by burningmetal You're free to have what ever opinion you'd like, of course, but I don't see that there is anything to back up your statements. Teams gain popularity based on the interest the area has in the sport, and by the success of the team in question. If you make a good early impression, you have a chance to catch on. Professional teams don't copy names of other teams in their city, or even state, anymore, and yet they seem to do just fine... Provided that they win enough games to be relevant. So, I maintain that it was lazy to copy the name of another professional franchise in your same city. Trying to ride the coat tails of another organization makes you look weak. Not many people (myself included) have even heard of the Boston Braves as a football team. That's probably a good reason why they changed their name and later left. The baseball team is what people remember. So if you're trying to make an argument that this was good marketing strategy by bringing up obscure references, you are kind of defeating your own point. There is no way of being able to prove that those teams gained recognition because of their names. They were recognized because they played in professional leagues. If the name had anything to do with it, they wouldn't have changed it. Again, if you want to be successful, you have to win. The Pittsburgh and New York teams had some success... Because they won. But it was dumb to have had the same names, imo. You have to realize that this practice was taking place back in the 1930's - 40's, not today. Professional football was still in its infancy. The only thing to compare it to was college football. It was brand recognition by the expansion football franchises that commonly played in the same confines as their baseball counterparts that the new owners were using. The Pirates (Steelers) played their home games at Forbes field, home of the baseball Pirates, starting in 1933. They remained the Pirates until 1940 when owner Art Rooney grew tired of the copycat name and held a contest to come up with a new name. In 1925 the New York Football Giants franchise was started by Tim Mara who adopted the name "Giants" because they were to play their home games at the Polo Grounds, home of the baseball Giants. The owner of the baseball team had previously tried to start a professional football team in 1919 with the same name, but it never got off the ground. The Boston Braves played their first season at Braves Field in 1936, but changed their name to the Redskins a year later when they moved to Fenway Park. I can see how your "laziness" argument might hold water today, but it did not apply to the marketplace nearly a century ago. People were used to attending baseball games during the spring and summer so it made sense for the off-season professional resident to have the same name. At least back then. I can also see how it could be seen as a convenience, but not truly laziness.
	“The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.” — Winston Churchill