80 years ago today, New Orleans made pro football history
 

On Dec. 4, 1938, the first professional football game in the southern U.S. was played in New Orleans.

The Cleveland Rams defeated the Pittsburgh Pirates 13-7 before an estimated crowd of 7,500 fans at City Park Municipal Stadium.

The stadium was opened a year earlier and eventually was named after former Tulane, Loyola and LSU coach Tad Gormley. The facility hosted its first football game on Oct. 24, 1937, when DePaul defeated Loyola 18-7 before 20,000 fans, but city officials were eager to christen it with professional football.

Here’s how the game came about, according to sports historian William Taylor:

“In mid-October 1938, Pittsburgh Pirates owner Art Rooney (the club would become the Steelers in 1940) got NFL permission to move the team’s upcoming (regular season) home game versus the Cleveland Rams to the end of the season in early December and re-locate the game because of low attendance,” Taylor said. “After negotiations with Chattanooga, Tenn. failed, a friend recommended he speak with New Orleans officials on the availability of City Park Stadium. On Nov. 27, Pirates business manager John Maher arrived in New Orleans to present the check to secure the facility. A formal announcement of the game was made eight days later.”

https://i.nola.com/resizer/aQzfhoJDt...A64JICZC7A.jpg

Tickets were priced at $1-$2.50. Programs sold for 10 cents.

The league assigned E.F. “Tommy” Hughitt as the head referee for the game, but used locals for the other officiating positions: umpire Leo Ernest (Warren Easton High School); linesman W.J. “Dutch” Luchsinger (Tulane, longtime Fortier High School coach), and Bill Walmsley (Rugby Academy).

more on NOLA

Re: 80 years ago today, New Orleans made pro football history
 

It's so dumb that Pittsburgh had two professional franchises named the Pirates at that time. What a lack of imagination.

Re: 80 years ago today, New Orleans made pro football history
 

Back in those days there were two New York Giants franchises, as well. What was it about those old teams? You'd think that NOT copying the same name from the other team in your city would be the first priority in naming your team.

Re: 80 years ago today, New Orleans made pro football history
 

I can see what you mean. I give you some other perspective thou. Over here in Europe you have lot of clubs that have teams and individual athletes in more than one sport. Take Swedish team Djurgårdens IF (IF = Idrotts Förening = Athletic Club) That has teams in the major leauge in both Hockey and Soccer, teams in basketball, football, handball. They have boxing and a couple of other sports as well. It makes it quite easy to be a fan since you support your club in just about every sport.
I guess it would differ with the giants thou since that was two different entities as I understand it.

Re: 80 years ago today, New Orleans made pro football history
 

Yeah, I'm talking about completely different franchises. Not like a university where all of the different sports go by the same name, because it's all under the umbrella of the same entity. I'm not familiar with what clubs you're talking about, but I'm guessing it is similar, given your description.

The Pittsburgh Pirates are a Major League Baseball team, and have been around since the 1800's, and have no affiliation with the Pittsburgh Pirates football team who came many years later, and were later named the Steelers, as we know them now. Same with the New York Giants football and baseball (the latter moved to San Francisco in 1957) teams. No connection to one another. Yet they lazily just used the same name.

Re: 80 years ago today, New Orleans made pro football history
 

Using the same team name was not laziness, it was good marketing. Several new professional teams have used the same mascot as an existing professional team in the same city for brand identification. Some of these changed team names once gaining recognition. The Boston Braves, like the Pirates/Steelers, were one of these. After a successful first season the football team changed their name to the Redskins keeping an Indian as their connection. They later moved to Washington DC. The Yankees were one that never caught on. Several Yankees football teams were started in New York, but none survived. The Giants were so successful that they kept the same name. There was also a Brooklyn Dodgers football team through the 1930's and into the early 40's.

Re: 80 years ago today, New Orleans made pro football history
 

Yeah its also the same concelt as say a high school your football team name is the same as the baseball... Why can't a city have the same name for their sports teams that represent the city.

Re: 80 years ago today, New Orleans made pro football history
 

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.

Re: 80 years ago today, New Orleans made pro football history
 

It's not the same thing, because as I mentioned earlier with universities (high school being the same situation), all of the sports are under the umbrella of the same institution. Not unlike family members all having the same last name.

But two SEPARATE, professional franchises using the same name just looks silly and unimaginative.

Re: 80 years ago today, New Orleans made pro football history
 

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.