I feel like the name of a team following a relocation is actually a kind of dumb tradition. I mean it maybe works for the Raiders, who have had a long-time national following and identity, so it makes sense for the name to follow them from Oakland to LA to Oakland to Vegas.
The Raiders' branding is ingenious when you think about it: being outlaws that could leave your town at a moment's notice is kind of part of what makes the brand tick.
That may not be up to them.
I mentioned before - the Jets get around it by citing "Winnipeg NHL history" rather than "franchise history" - and everyone understands it and goes along with it.
This is always where I've landed with it. I'm all for "let fans remember the history THEY associate with." Have ceremonies for whoever you want, I could care less where it falls in the "official history" pantheon. Ceremonially, so to speak, the history should be that that the fans care about.
What I'm
less about is retroactively pretending something happened that didn't. The current Jets are not a reactivation of the old ones. That's not a troll or anything else other than a simple statement of fact.
I feel like when people get a team back and give it the same name, for
some fans, there's a touch of "let's replace our dog that ran away with another one that ran away from their home. They're the same breed so what's the difference?: Just give this dog the same name so we don't have to tell the kids the dog ran away, he was just lost for a minute." But I'm sorry: your dog
did in fact run away from home no matter how you tell the story and the dog you have now
did in fact run away from someone else's home.
That Simpsons episode everyone hates is actually a lowkey brilliant commentary on this phenomenon.
It should always be about recognizing the players…. not which uniform they wore.
This is ultimately why the "what of history?" question gets posited: because there are some players that ought to be recognized but their time for recognition falls in a vacuum where their accomplishments largely reside in a city where the league *might* return but no one knows for sure.
For e.g., it's easy to look back on the tepid reception of the Dale Hawerchuk ceremony of 2007 and say "what a stupid idea." But did anyone have any confidence then that the NHL would return to Winnipeg for such an event? So you default to the franchise, not the city, that he played for because it's the path of least resistance.
You can’t convince me the Atlanta Flames existed. I don’t care how much photographic evidence you show me.
This is my attitude about the entire state of Montana. They say it's a real place but I've never been there and I'm not convinced.