Does the Texans brand mean anything special to you?

Logo is great for a ****ty name.

 

Well put.

Time + wins = brand.

Small market teams have a larger hill to climb, obviously, but enough wins and enough time nets you the Green Bay Packers... someone else mentioned the Spurs... I expect the Spurs brand to become far, far more popular as time goes on thanks to this decade and a half worth of excellence they've put together.

 

It takes more than 10 years to build a brand from scratch.

Also, winning and losing rarely is a major factor. Look no further than Wrigley Field for proof.

I'm not crazy about our brand, but I hope we never change it. The more often logos/colors/uniforms change, the less likely people will stay on the bandwagon.

The best brands (IMO) are the brands that haven't changed in decades like the Steelers, Cowboys, Raiders, Packers. There's something really cool about going to a game and watching your favorite team play in the same uniforms your father and grandfather watched them in.

How cool will it be to see the Cowboys and Packers playing this weekend in the same uniforms and on the same field as the Ice Bowl was played in 40-something years ago?

Don't get me started on college football unis. I seriously think Oklahoma State has played every game in the last 3 years with different uniforms. OU has had basically the same uniform for decades. Which brand is more popular?

 

Oregon.

 

Then there's Oregon and their revolving door of unis.

 

Don't ignore the power of marketable players and to a lesser extent coaches and owners. Aikman, Smith, Irvin, Haley, and Norton were all nationally recognized players. Having Jerry Jones, and Tom Landry also made the Cowboys marketable.

The oilers had Bum and Warren Moon but not a whole lot after that.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong but I doubt it (about the Spurs). The NBA is a star driving league and despite their excellence they are a boring team. If not for Skip Bayless they would probably get hardly any national attention.

 

I have ALWAYS hated the name. It just seems lame, and yes, it makes it even worse that it came from a Dallas team.

Did we not want the Oilers? Did we not want to pay for the rights? Did he not want to sell us the rights? Oilers > Texans everyday of the week.

 

The Oilers were losers. The name "Oilers" is almost synonymous with "choking loser". I get that nostalgia is a thing and people often see things from the past in a more positive light than they should, but c'mon man.

 

Eagles haven't won any Super Bowls. Their fanbase and brand are strong.

 

In 30 years, you'll look like a senile fool.

Sorta like the people who still want the baseball team to be called the Colt 45's.

 

I love the logo and think it is a homerun as far as design... the name I am not a fan of.

The Dallas Texans preceded us for god's sake... that along should have been enough to cross it off every list.

 

And the Oilers foundation in Houston wasn't as strong (thanks to a jackass of an owner)... and that played a role in them leaving. Their "losing" was a different brand of losing than what other cities had to endure. Its time to get over them... and if you're not over them by now, no modicum of Texans success should sway you.

You guys must all still send gifts to and fantasize about your ex girlfriends who both cheated on you and dumped you...

 

You forgot to add Earl Campbell but your point is well taken.

 

Most NBA brands are wishy-washy as is. Bunch of one-team small cities (San Antonio, Sacramento, Portland), several still newish teams, uniforms that change design every 2-3 years, and an (over) emphasis on marketing/merchandise contribute to why very few NBA brands hold up to the historic brands from the other major sports (hockey included).

 

So what? I never understood why people ever compare one years team to another. Different owner, different GM, different players, different coaches. Nothing but the name would be the same. It's not synonymous with "choking loser," maybe for you, but for a lot of Houstonians, it was a name that at least made sense.

"Texans?" Come on man.

Because I think the name "Texans" is lame?

I couldn't care less about the Astros. Baseball sucks.

 

except the Eagles have a rich history, dating back to 1933. They also been to the Super Bowl twice and have plently of playoff appearances. All those years have built the fanbase into what it is today.

Oilers fans weren't even showing up to games in the final years here.

 

You just declared yourself as lame... and again, brands and team names mean more with increased success and time.

At one point, the following names were declared "lame" as well:
Phillies
Lakers
Knickerbockers
Seahawks
Buccaneers
Bills
Browns
Steelers
Forty-niners

 

I agree with the former, but the latter is just wrong. Oilers fans stopped showing up once it was rumored (then announced) that they would be moving. They were at > than 100% capacity for all the years leading up to that 2-14 season that pushed them out the door.

 

So what? Do you think the name changed everything? Or was it the management/ownership of the team that made it the way it was? If you changed the name to the Oilers, people wouldn't stop coming. They didn't start coming because we became the Texans. They came because they realized they missed having a football team, and were foolish to give up hope on their previous franchise.

A name is a name, it doesn't change the team. But I'd rather have a name that means something, than some generic goofy name that was once the name of a DALLAS franchise that lost to the Cowboys for the rights to play in Dallas.