That was a case of the Pelicans releasing rights to the Hornets name so the city of Charlotte could re-acquire it, right? If the Titans ever released the rights to the Oilers, that's something the league would absolutely allow the Texans to investigate, I'd think. But that's all ultimately tied directly to relocation.
Sure... just fishing for examples. The New Orleans situation is almost exactly like the Texans. Stupid owner foolishly moves to a mediocre market. Takes the name with him. Ends up rebranding anyways. The city they left get an expansion team that is run quite poorly by the previous owner. New owner comes in and things maybe get better, but they do re-brand? Maybe it not exactly the same.
How much of this knowledge of yours is rectum derived? No offense, it just seems like very slim odds than anyone on this BBS would have rock-solid info on this niche subject.
Seems like, for the right price, the owners can do just about anything they want. Yes, there are likely rules, but if they really wanted it, they could get it done. That said,
Didn't Colt Manufacturing have an issue with the name and logo? And the move to the 'Dome was a convenient excuse for the re-brand?
I have repeatedly asked for examples of it happening and, across four major sports, there are almost no examples despite most leagues being ~100 years old. Also, there is no rectum-pulling whatsoever associated with how tightly the leagues manage and police their brands, nor on the idea that 20+ years of a brand has tremendous equity - even if the team associated with that brand has mostly been mediocre. And if you don’t think that’s true, tell that to all the fans that want the Oilers name back, and/or the Texans organization, which, it sure seems, is going to embrace those Oiler colors, which, yes - is part of the Oilers’ brand… which hasn’t been used officially in nearly 30 years. These are not things teams throw around haphazardly. They have incredible value.
Highly possible? I have no idea. Interestingly, had they *not* changed the name then, they almost certainly would’ve eventually because, as stated, the only reasons for name-changes are relocations and protests, and Colt 45s would’ve hit the wall eventually.
In the past 122 years, care to guess how many NFL teams have changed their names? It’s 12. And 9 of those were tied to relocations and protests. Teams can’t change their names on a whim: the league has a vested interest in keeping established brands fans know. This is all Marketing 101. Unless there’s a driving, compelling reason, teams are not going to change their name.
Possibly. The problem is that there’s no financial incentive to change names. Unlike a relocation, which can be an individual financial windfall for owners (even if paying an outrageous league fee/penalty), the NFL splits merchandising equally among the 32 teams. Additionally, the teams have local sponsorships and partnerships based on existing IPs and brands. You can’t imagine the heavy-lift it is. I was working with the Astros when they changed uniforms in whatever-year-it-was, and the depth of changes it brought was mind-blowing. Now imagine it’s not just colors but names, too? It’s a gigantic undertaking. I managed a corporate brand that renamed itself, and the cost was into the billions to change uniforms, signs, marketing, advertising…
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/8878315/new-orleans-hornets-announce-name-change-pelicans Technically a relocation but 10 years after the fact sure seems like a “just because.” But owners not typically changing names doesn't mean there is a rule against it. Like you said, brand equity has tremendous value and quite frankly, most names just don’t need changing. But from a league standpoint, how would changing the Texans to the Apollos negatively affect them so much that they’d say hell no unless you move? Also wouldn’t branding include the logo and uniforms itself? Yet leagues let them change it all the time.
Who cares what it has been in the past? The NFL does not have some kind of giant marketing investment or vested interest in the brand of "Texans." Making money would be plenty enough of a "compelling" reason. If they think there is more money to be made with a new name, then they will make a new name. Rebranding as a "new" thing when you have left a sour taste in the customers mouths is also marketing 101
So... Spoiler Not saying you're wrong, but let's drop this pretense that we have any greater understanding of the workings of the NFL as a business or its rules for owners. I assume name changes have to go through a majority vote process. That's the one limb I can comfortably go out on. You don't want one rogue owner ruining it for everyone. But even then, total guess on my part. That being said, I think the likelihood of them becoming the Oilers again is a lot higher than anything else net-new... and those chances are vanishingly low. But not zero, and certainly not so low due to some yet-to-be-known league by-law.
Are you proposing that we change our team name to the Houston Magic Walnuts? Sorry if no one gets that.
My doctor said I need to lay off caffeine, alcohol, sudafed, and benadryl otherwise my magic walnut is gonna keep acting up. All the things I rely on to get through life
Hold up, sounds like you need a health check up from a professional. Let's begin: How many times per day are you having relations with a woman?
Yes, the Pelicans were mentioned. Their name change was a confluence of several factors: a relocation, new ownership, expansion in the previous home of the Hornets... But, again, it's one example out of 100s of years. They just don't do it. Yes; colors are part of the brand - but much easier to change & not nearly as disruptive. Do you remember when the league, and various outside forces, put overwhelming pressure on Snyder to change the Washington name? And his reluctance to do so for many, many years?... Why do you think that is (beyond him being a prick)? Or look at the Cleveland baseball team - fans threw a fit, first when they eliminated the Chief Wahoo logo and then again when they changed their name, which also took pressure from the league to make happen. There is a tremendous amount of value built into those brands, and owners & the leagues are *very* reluctant to change them
Sure they do. It's been a team name for 21 years now. The success of the franchise is not how they measure the equity of the brand. The Lions have been a doormat for generations, and there would be full-blown outrage if they decided to change their name. You're vastly overrating how much money they would make. The name change would have virtually the same economic impact as a color refresh, ie Texans fans will buy it up, sure - but very few others outside of that circle would. It's not like people in... Wyoming are suddenly going to be interested in buy Houston Apollos gear.
Reluctance to change isn't the same as the NFL prohibiting them from changing as you have been adamant about. If this were an actual rule, wouldn't it be in the bylaws? As you mentioned, the NFL had been pressuring Snyder to change the team name for years but ultimately it was Snyder's call. Isn't that a perfect example of who controls what here?
Texans are #11 in valuation ($4.7 Billion) for NFL franchises, top 17 in the WORLD for sports franchises. You don't change the team name or brand if you have any business sense. You tweak. Change the color scheme and uniforms......fine. Tweak the logo, but the team name will stay the same. Winning really doesn't matter. The Rangers are valued higher than the Astros as are the Angels. Market factors in. Team colors and uniforms don't matter in the grand scheme of things.
