texas rangers (baseball team): ok with the name? (Houston, Dallas: relocate, transplants)

[pbergen]

kind of an offbeat question here, but i've been wondering about this for a while and was hoping some of you could give me a few thoughts on this matter:

do you guys (dallas-area sports fans) ever wish that your baseball team were named the "dallas rangers" rather than the texas rangers? has there ever been a groundswell of support or a grassroots campaign in the DFW metroplex to officially rebrand the franchise as being from dallas, given that it's the core city of the region?

the reason i ask is because unlike colorado, arizona, or minnesota, the state of texas has multiple large, major league-caliber cities (dallas, houston, san antonio), each with its own distinct identity and culture. and every major league (mlb, nfl, nba, nhl) franchise currently playing in the state identifies with one of the big three cities - except for the rangers.

for whatever reason, i've always found that to be odd. in fact, when i first started following baseball as a little kid in the early '80s, it took me several years to figure out that the rangers represented the dallas area, whereas there was no such problem with the astros. and knowing they were from houston, i always associated them with the oilers, the rockets, the astrodome, and that bad news bears movie. but i could never "place" the rangers in any specific location because the "texas" moniker wasn't specific enough. even after learning that they're a dallas-area team, i still had trouble associating them with the cowboys, mavericks, or (later) the stars.

for me, having a team identified with a specific city is much more meaningful than simply saying it's from texas; after all, texas is a huge state. besides, dallas is a well-known city with a reputation for being upscale, so why not capitalize on the cachet of being a dallas team? the cowboys have long been one of the nfl's glamour franchises, which IMO is at least partly due to the dallas name.

and yet, the cowboys don't even play in the city of dallas; as with the giants, jets, and redskins, they've played in a suburb outside of the city proper for years while retaining the core city/metropolitan area designation in their moniker. even after they move into their new stadium in arlington, the cowboys won't be dropping the "dallas" part of their name, despite being closer to fort worth than dallas. so proximity to one city over the other isn't an issue.

if the 'boys can do this, why don't the rangers consider it as well, considering that they'll be playing next door? would they genuinely offend a large part of their arlington and fort worth fanbase by doing so? because i feel that the benefits of identifying as a dallas team would outweigh the potentially hurt feelings of a few suburban and fort worth residents - but then again, i don't live in texas so i could be totally wrong on this. just my opinion as an outsider.

if the florida marlins can rebrand themselves as the miami marlins, why not the dallas rangers? the dallas area won't be getting a second mlb franchise (a la ny, chicago, la, or dc/baltimore), so it seems to me that the one baseball team in the region should identify with its largest and most famous city. and don't forget, there was a minor league team called the dallas rangers back in the day before the senators moved to town from d.c., so the name has a precedent.

thanks for any responses!

[Debsi]

I'm sure it's because they are named after the actual Texas Rangers.

Texas Ranger Division - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I only know a few native Dallasites that support the team anyway. Most of my friends disparage them every time their name is mentioned and hoot and holler about how they are losers who've never even won a playoff game. I get a lot of flack for being a baseball fanatic.

I've heard it said on the Ticket (1310 AM) that they are more of a Ft. Worth team, that you see a lot of people walking around Ft. Worth wearing Ranger caps.

[stargazer]

I have never had a problem with the name.

[pbergen]

Originally Posted by Debsi

I'm sure it's because they are named after the actual Texas Rangers.

Texas Ranger Division - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

yup, i'm aware of where the name comes from.
and i know that the name "texas rangers" works, in that it's a direct homage to that law enforcement group.

but i was wondering if fans of the team and/or residents of the region ever wanted the team name to specifically reference the city of dallas, as with the cowboys, mavs, and stars. because as i mentioned, there once was a minor league baseball team with the name "dallas rangers" - so there's precedent for that name. heck, even the new york nhl team is called the rangers, which in a roundabout way is a reference to the texas rangers law enforcement group as well: because the original owner was named tex rickard, the ny media referred to his team as "tex's rangers", pun intended.

so if a team in the northeast can be called the new york rangers, why can't a team in the dallas metropolitan area be called the dallas rangers? i just like the idea of teams - especially teams in a big state like texas with a number of large cities - identifying themselves with their anchor city rather than the entire state. to me, it just makes sense and gives the team more of an identity. because even though the name "texas rangers" works as a reference to the law enforcement group, it doesn't convey that the team is based in big D, which i feel would be much more powerful.

but of course you guys may feel very differently, so i wanted to see what you guys thought.

I only know a few native Dallasites that support the team anyway. Most of my friends disparage them every time their name is mentioned and hoot and holler about how they are losers who've never even won a playoff game. I get a lot of flack for being a baseball fanatic.

from everything i've heard, it seems that the astros are far more popular in the state of texas than the rangers. a friend from ut austin even told me that as far as he knows, most of austin and san antonio, as well as the smaller cities scattered throughout the state, support the 'stros (if they follow baseball at all). why is this? i know the astros had a 10 year head start and have been more successful, but the rangers have also had some great teams with marquee players (lack of playoff series wins notwithstanding). so why wouldn't they have made any inroads with the fans of other cities like austin or san antonio? is there a reason i'm not aware of for the indifferent response to this team (even in the DFW area)?

i've heard that the intense summer heat at the ballpark keeps away some of the crowds, but in theory that shouldn't reduce the tv audience or general interest in the team.

I've heard it said on the Ticket (1310 AM) that they are more of a Ft. Worth team, that you see a lot of people walking around Ft. Worth wearing Ranger caps.

is there any reason for this other than the simple fact that fort worth is closer to arlington? because as there's only one team in the area, i would think that baseball fans would come out and support their team, no matter where they live in the metroplex.

[Big G]

No one cares about the Texas Rangers, and changing their name to make it meaningless won't help matters. If anything, it would hack off whatever fans the team has across the state. Dallas isn't always looked upon kindly by the rest of the state.

This is a jinxed team - Google "David Clyde" for the very first of a long line of bad personnel moves. The Rangers seem guaranteed to come up on the short end of any trade they are part of.

In the present day, they're a crummy team in a crummy division in the crummier league, with a nice ballpark (I'll give them that) in a crummy location (for those in Dallas and especially the north suburbs, where the $$$ is concentrated).

Some days I think the Dallas Stars hockey team has more fans than the Rangers.

[smuboy86]

I'm from San Antonio, and most of myself and my friends growing up were Ranger's fans. I always felt I could root for the Texas Rangers over the Houston Astros...I mean who would want to root for something outside your own city.

[pbergen]

Originally Posted by Big G

No one cares about the Texas Rangers, and changing their name to make it meaningless won't help matters. If anything, it would hack off whatever fans the team has across the state. Dallas isn't always looked upon kindly by the rest of the state.

really? that's interesting.

having never been to texas, my impression of dallas is that it's relatively upscale. so do the haters think that dallas residents are snobbish or elitist?

regardless, i hear ya about why a name change wouldn't sit well with people outside of the region. but as you know, the cowboys identify themselves as a dallas team despite playing in the suburbs, and from what i've been told they have a HUGE following throughout much of the state (san antonio, austin, el paso, etc) other than in houston. the houston texans might be houston's team, but the cowboys are texas' team, despite being identified with dallas. is this a fair assessment? i'm only going on hearsay with this, so forgive me if i'm wrong.

oh and btw, you might find it interesting that there are a ton of cowboy fans up here in the northeast - ny/nj, philly, dc, boston, etc. i probably know almost as many cowboy fans in ny as giant fans, which is crazy.

This is a jinxed team - Google "David Clyde" for the very first of a long line of bad personnel moves. The Rangers seem guaranteed to come up on the short end of any trade they are part of.

yup, i'm well aware of the sad story of david clyde. it's a shame that he was rushed to the big leagues - he could've and should've been the franchise pitcher for a decade or more if management and ownership hadn't screwed things up. from what i've read, owner bob short was the one who pressured the manager to keep throwing clyde out there to draw crowds until he ended up injuring his arm and losing his confidence.

In the present day, they're a crummy team in a crummy division in the crummier league, with a nice ballpark (I'll give them that) in a crummy location (for those in Dallas and especially the north suburbs, where the $$$ is concentrated).

Some days I think the Dallas Stars hockey team has more fans than the Rangers.

i've heard mixed reviews about the ballpark, with the main objection being that the heat becomes stifling and unbearable during the summer. but yeah, it looks nice from what i've seen.

the dallas stars seem to have a pretty big fanbase. at the very least, they're always propped up by the nhl as an example of why the sport can succeed and be popular in the sunbelt.

[KantLockeMeIn]

The New England Patriots seem to do pretty well for not being called the Boston Patriots, or even the Foxboro Patriots.

[pbergen]

Originally Posted by twojciac

The New England Patriots seem to do pretty well for not being called the Boston Patriots, or even the Foxboro Patriots.

sure, right now the pats are wildly popular and are indisputably the nfl's big ticket team; those are the spoils of being the league's most recent dynasty and having one of the greatest quarterbacks ever. but for much of their history - other than the 1985 season and the bledsoe/brady era - they were largely ignored in the boston area and utterly invisible on the national radar. boston's always been a baseball town first and foremost, with the celtics perennially popular as well and the bruins with a great tradition of their own.

but the pats? they were bumbling, stumbling losers for the most part, and even as their fanbase grew during the bledsoe playoff years, they never reached their current performance and popularity levels until brady came along in 2001. in fact, for many years pro football barely registered on the new england sports landscape. we're talking 40 years of being an afterthought, other than those brief upticks of fairweather popularity.

did you know that the pats very nearly moved to st. louis after the 1993 season? the only reason they didn't relocate is because robert kraft, who at the time owned the stadium but not the franchise, would not let the pats' owner out of his stadium lease, effectively blocking the move. kraft then bought the team and the rest is history. not surprisingly, the franchise has been much more stable and profitable since kraft took over.

there are a lot of new england transplants where i live, and to a man, they've told me how the pats were never, ever this big until 2001. of course, rooting for the pats is the trendy thing to do right now and everyone claims they've been a fan since the bad old days way back when. but the reality is that many of these fans are new to the bandwagon.

moral of the story? i don't think the patriots' identification as a new england team added much, if anything, to their popularity. don't forget, they were called the boston patriots for their first ten seasons (1960-1970), and were ignored both before and for years after their name change due to lousy/mediocre teams. it took good ownership, good drafts, and a little luck (getting brady in the 6th round) to finally become popular.

conversely, had the franchise never renamed itself, i seriously doubt that the moniker "boston patriots" would've hindered attendance, tv ratings, or general bandwagon popularity, during the good years and bad. after all, the entire region from maine to connecticut has absolutely no problem rooting for the red sox, celtics, and bruins despite the fact that they all play in and identify as boston teams. there's no fractionalized sentiment along the lines of, "hey, i'm in rhode island, darnit, so i can't root for boston." boston is clearly the core city of the new england region, so all of new england will pull for boston teams no matter what. new england is very unified in that sense.

i'd even go so far as to say that if the pats changed their name back to "boston patriots", it wouldn't damage their fanbase whatsoever. i'm sure of it, in fact.

[Spree]

I haven't even thought twice about the name. The Tampa Bay Devil Rays are in St Petersburg FL.