In name, they are and represent New England.
The Golden State of California houses one of its four NBA franchises outside of it's capital city (which has its own team), known as the Golden State Warriors. Perhaps some San Diego basketballers are appeased with this.
The Pats and Warriors have been playing as their family name since the early 1970s.
Would Dallas's basketball team get away with being called the Texas Mavericks? Sure, but just like the Marlins retracted their name to Miami because of the Devil Rays, the Mavs have to compete with the Spurs and Rockets.
All Big Five leagues carry some state named teams. NHL and MLB are missing out on a little more of regional namesake creativity.
|Coverage casts over a larger area with a region inclusive name.|
Big League Hockey and Baseball could do a lot by expanding a name with some creativity and ingenuity, ringing in more of a following. A drumbeat throughout my blog has been the West Coast Raiders, Athletics, Coyotes, Clippers and/or a re-branded Chivas.
Venues could be moved or co-located to the likes of Portland and Las Vegas with such as broadstroke regional name like "West Coast". Imagine the apparel sales. The B-logo of the Bengals seems mobile to me, so me Cincinnati arse best be careful, lest there should be a West Coast Bengals playing in L.A. and Las Vegas. But I bet the Raiders and Rams are more vulnerable for a move (again). Wouldn't two "West Coast" named teams put up some good attendance for 20 baseball games in Portland and Vegas and two NFL games a piece? I bet they would.
Cost of operating facilities and making a profit off of it are a pain in a business's ass indeed, so having a team "simultaneously" laying claim to a stadium in Portland and the City of Sin would be new ground, but something tells me that "West Coast" apparel sales would have a large embrace. It's my whole point: more people with a team. "I'm a Cowboys fan. I live in Portland. I've never been to Dallas. No connection. I'm retarded". Well, I guess most of our pro players are imported mercenaries so that makes us all retarded, but hey.
The way things are now, it's already complicated:
Two teams back in L.A. Why would you want to do that? Is Portland chopped liver?
Let me settle this.
Los Angeles Rams, West Coast Raiders ((maybe in Oakland (who cares?), Portland and Las Vegas) and the San Diego Chargers.
Want the NHL in Milwaukee, Indianapolis, Cleveland and Cincinnati?
I have this notion for a travel home-camp team for the North Coast Lakers. You're welcome NHL.
Seattle, Portland and Arizona? West Coast Snowbirds. You're welcome.
Atlanta? Southern Predators with Nashville. Free up a franchise? Panthers. Florida Lightning or stay Tampa Lightning. If you think hard, you don't have to expand the number of teams. You can expand number of locations or just your brand with a title change.
As far as where these stadiums are to be built, most especially with regional name, and most especially with a weekly venue like football, build slightly off of the beaten or prime-time path and cause a new area of growth.
See more expansion, co-location and relocation talk for football, baseball, basketball, hockey and soccer on my blog ( see table of contents/archive): Major League/Pro Expansion <CLICK> http://prosportsexpansion.blogspot.com/
And please feel free to contribute your two cents with mine.