Originally, they were. Packers especially. As is/was US steel. Texans is no more exclusionary than Oilers was at its time. Houston football will always be just Houston football since the Cowboys had real tangible success first. Teams get extra regional following because of success, time, and the natural migration of generations of fans (which takes time)…. Not from simply the name. There arent national jaguars or panthers fans either.
Not really. Steel is not exclusive to Pittsburgh. Oil is not exclusive to Houston. Cowboys are not exclusive to Dallas. Packing (meat or otherwise) is not exclusive to Green Bay. Even if you buy into that theory, "Texans" is never going to change in terms of its meaning. It will always be seen as people of and from Texas. That will forever be a liability and not an asset to growing the fanbase. Not that I give a **** how many fans the Texans have. Subjectively I think it's a dumb name, but that's not my point. Objectively it was a bad name for business.
The franchise value highly disagrees with you. They lack success or they’d be as popular as the Buffalo BILLS (yea, a team named after an owner). Or the Browns, who are popular for the opposite reason. Success and time. Generic names don’t equal profit either (jaguars, panthers, titans).
It's too late now but they should have never changed it. Like the LA Chargers, LA Raiders, Vegas Raiders, Arizona Cardinals. Today the masses think of Arizona when they see the cardinal bird logo, not St. Louis. Had Tennessee remained the Oilers that columbia blue oil derrick would be widely associated with Nashville. I'm glad that Bud dropped the ball.
You brought up the possibility of it being a "bad name for business"... even though there's no such study that illustrates that. I do know the Oilers/Titans are worth less in Tennessee than they are in Houston simply due Nashville being a smaller media market and a smaller season ticket base. But, I agree the only thing that is worth discussing in here is if there would have been a financial disparity... otherwise we're just foolishly waxing about nicknames and colors.
And there never will be. I don't feel like it's a wild leap in logic to say that naming your sports team in Oklahoma City the "Oklahomans" isn't going to be the option most conducive to growing your fanbase beyond the borders of Oklahoma.
I don't think it matters either way. If the team is successful and has a long existence of repeated success... and has generations of fans that move to other places and continue to follow the team because of how successful they were... you have an expanded fan base even if their name was the "dumb****s". There's also an entire generation of fans in Houston now who never went to the Astrodome or watched an Oilers game. You, me, and a lot of the old farts in here are now the exception. And every year we become more and more of the exception while the Texans become more and more of the norm/how its always been. And in just 10 more years, the Texans will be as old as the Oilers were when they started the move process. Maybe Stroud will still be slinging it to usher in that graduation of sorts. (and the Astrodome will likely still be there, rotting).
If you dawn a cape, monacle, and keep a dead crow in a bag you could call yourself the Oiler Barons. Get Trumps kid as owner. And start yourself off on a new foot
Team valuation has a lot to do with the stadium Curious how much titans value increases with new stadium
It’s not as important or tied into the value as much as it used to be (for instance when the Oilers moved in the first place). Everybody has new stadiums. Everybody who needs a new stadium or a refurbishment will eventually get it. There’s so much money in the game now that stadium squabbles are no longer the event they once used to be. It’s all about the market size.
