Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
100% disagree. The "Commanders" (I hate that name too) have one of the nation's largest fanbases and haven't been relevant since the 80s. The same with the Cowboys but the 90s. Those are national brands because they don't limit themselves regionally. As a matter of fact, the Texans are the *ONLY* brand in any of the three major sports that have a regional nickname. You could maybe throw the Philadelphia Phillies in there but they prove my point - they're not popular outside of the Philly area. I know the NHL has the Montreal Canadiens - are they popular in Canada outside of Quebec?
This may be hard for non-Texans to fathom, but there are a lot of people outside of the state who are vehemently anti-Texas. Even our big national college brands like UT and A&M don't have as large of an out-of-state contingent as schools like UCLA, Michigan, Ohio St. etc. They are big because they are huge schools but even still large amounts of their support come from within the state relative to some of those other schools. Texas and Texans as a brand will always do well inside Texas, outside of the state, it really depends - and often it will be a weakness.
I'm pretty confident that even had the Texans won multiple Super Bowls, they still wouldn't be very popular outside of the state, primarily because of the name. People identify with teams for a variety of reasons. There's no hook for people outside of Texas to identify with the Texans.
In fact, i'm not sure I've EVER in my life met a Texans fan who was not from or had some close association with Houston or Texas (or Mexico, they seem to be fairly popular there too). I can't think of a single encounter otherwise. Not even during their "good" years. Have you? Has anyone in fact? Ever run into a Texans fan from the east coast or west coast or Midwest that didn't originally have some tie to this area?
Texans fans outside of Texas are like the Yeti. There's no evidence that winning would create a bunch of new Texans fans so the owners should just take the L and start over.
No they are absolutely not nationwide fanbases due to “limiting their name to regions”. They are nationwide fanbases because they built a brand during a regional gained a fanbase while doing so. Same as the Steelers and so forth. The Jets don’t have a name that’s specific to a region yet they’re among the smallest fanbases in the NFL. It’s the success that built the fanbase, not the name. What the Texans lack is an era of success.
Anyone who’s stepped foot in USA knows that there’s many anti Texas Americans. Even Texans that don’t want to admit it know it. But guess what. Those people won’t be fans of any team in Texas regardless of name. Anyone who’s anti California won’t be a dodger fan despite the name not having a California reference. People don’t think that way, Clutch smh
To answer your question, yes I have met Texans fans with no relation to Texas. Their reasoning stemmed from being Deshaun Watson fans. There’s more people that followed this route then you think. Obviously, they are no longer Texans fans. Had the Texans built a successful ERA with multiple Super Bowls and consistent success, they would’ve caught a national fanbase. They ruined that chance due to bad management.
Edit: I also suppose you’re excluding Louisiana. In SWLA and Laff there’s actually a sizable Texans fan base.
Last edited by ParaguaneroSwag; 08-29-2022 at 02:07 PM..
Another news flash for the ill-informed. The College Football Championship game will be in the only adequate enough NRG Stadium in January 2024.
Yeah I don’t agree with DabOnEm on this one either. I agree on NRG not being among the best NFL stadiums in the world but definitely not among the worst either. NRG Stadium has consistently proven to have got big games after another whether it’s pro, college, basketball, football or soccer. I believe the area around NRG definitely needs improvement. But the stadium itself is solid.
The one and only blow to NRG is that it had one of the nations hottest music festivals and lost it. There’s rumors that it’s set to return next year, but I won’t factor that in because it’s nothing secured
Considering how close NRG is to TMC and Museum District, it’s a low hanging fruit to build up the NRG area and connect it well to the rest of the area. And with the TMC3 being located where it is, now is a better time than ever. Especially considering the World Cup is on the way
100% disagree. The "Commanders" (I hate that name too) have one of the nation's largest fanbases and haven't been relevant since the 80s. The same with the Cowboys but the 90s. Those are national brands because they don't limit themselves regionally. As a matter of fact, the Texans are the *ONLY* brand in any of the three major sports that have a regional nickname. You could maybe throw the Philadelphia Phillies in there but they prove my point - they're not popular outside of the Philly area. I know the NHL has the Montreal Canadiens - are they popular in Canada outside of Quebec?
Dallas, Washington, and other teams are popular all over the country because they've been around for some time, and have been televised forever. Prior to 1973, home games were not shown within 75 miles of the home teams stadium. We lived in Plano back then, and most of our neighbors had "Cowboy antennas" that were tall enough to get the broadcasts from Tyler. Because I like to be different, I was an Oilers fan back then. I've never been a Cowboys fan. I respected Tom Landry and players like Roger Staubach, but overall, the Cowboys have not been a favorite for me.
From 1973 until 2014, home games that were not 85% sold out 72 hours prior to a game were not shown on local TV.
The end result of this was that teams were often more visible on TV outside their home base, and built fans from other areas. The Texans were always sold out, so the games were shown locally.
I don't believe for a second that the name "Texans" makes the team unpopular.
Another news flash for the ill-informed. The College Football Championship game will be in the only adequate enough NRG Stadium in January 2024.
Everyone knew that. It was posted in this forum when it was announced like the World Cup. Not one person said NRG was not hosting the CFB game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch
100% disagree. The "Commanders" (I hate that name too) have one of the nation's largest fanbases and haven't been relevant since the 80s. The same with the Cowboys but the 90s. Those are national brands because they don't limit themselves regionally. As a matter of fact, the Texans are the *ONLY* brand in any of the three major sports that have a regional nickname. You could maybe throw the Philadelphia Phillies in there but they prove my point - they're not popular outside of the Philly area. I know the NHL has the Montreal Canadiens - are they popular in Canada outside of Quebec?
This may be hard for non-Texans to fathom, but there are a lot of people outside of the state who are vehemently anti-Texas. Even our big national college brands like UT and A&M don't have as large of an out-of-state contingent as schools like UCLA, Michigan, Ohio St. etc. They are big because they are huge schools but even still large amounts of their support come from within the state relative to some of those other schools. Texas and Texans as a brand will always do well inside Texas, outside of the state, it really depends - and often it will be a weakness.
I'm pretty confident that even had the Texans won multiple Super Bowls, they still wouldn't be very popular outside of the state, primarily because of the name. People identify with teams for a variety of reasons. There's no hook for people outside of Texas to identify with the Texans.
In fact, i'm not sure I've EVER in my life met a Texans fan who was not from or had some close association with Houston or Texas (or Mexico, they seem to be fairly popular there too). I can't think of a single encounter otherwise. Not even during their "good" years. Have you? Has anyone in fact? Ever run into a Texans fan from the east coast or west coast or Midwest that didn't originally have some tie to this area?
Texans fans outside of Texas are like the Yeti. There's no evidence that winning would create a bunch of new Texans fans so the owners should just take the L and start over.
Preach. And the Montreal Canadiens have won the most Stanley Cup by a long shot (they have 24, Toronto has 13, Detroit has 11) yet still they can not make a dent in America because no American wants to be a fan of a "Canadien" team. It's the same thing that'll happen to Texans even if they become successful. The Saints won a SB and all of a sudden had nationwide fans. Why? Big reason is that Saints brand is universal and can be applied in some many places. The Texans would have to win 3 in a row to even sniff something similar.
100% disagree. The "Commanders" (I hate that name too) have one of the nation's largest fanbases and haven't been relevant since the 80s. The same with the Cowboys but the 90s. Those are national brands because they don't limit themselves regionally. As a matter of fact, the Texans are the *ONLY* brand in any of the three major sports that have a regional nickname. You could maybe throw the Philadelphia Phillies in there but they prove my point - they're not popular outside of the Philly area. I know the NHL has the Montreal Canadiens - are they popular in Canada outside of Quebec?
This may be hard for non-Texans to fathom, but there are a lot of people outside of the state who are vehemently anti-Texas. Even our big national college brands like UT and A&M don't have as large of an out-of-state contingent as schools like UCLA, Michigan, Ohio St. etc. They are big because they are huge schools but even still large amounts of their support come from within the state relative to some of those other schools. Texas and Texans as a brand will always do well inside Texas, outside of the state, it really depends - and often it will be a weakness.
I'm pretty confident that even had the Texans won multiple Super Bowls, they still wouldn't be very popular outside of the state, primarily because of the name. People identify with teams for a variety of reasons. There's no hook for people outside of Texas to identify with the Texans.
In fact, i'm not sure I've EVER in my life met a Texans fan who was not from or had some close association with Houston or Texas (or Mexico, they seem to be fairly popular there too). I can't think of a single encounter otherwise. Not even during their "good" years. Have you? Has anyone in fact? Ever run into a Texans fan from the east coast or west coast or Midwest that didn't originally have some tie to this area?
Texans fans outside of Texas are like the Yeti. There's no evidence that winning would create a bunch of new Texans fans so the owners should just take the L and start over.
It's obvious you're not really a NFL fan. You might be a casual at best if you think the name of team has any deep impact on attracting fans. Like I said, I can see a child using the name of a team or the color of their jersey to be a deciding factor in choosing a team but not the average NFL fan.
You say there's no evidence that winning would create a bunch of new Texans fans but where's your proof that Texan limited fanbase has EVERYTHING or MOSTLY EVERYTHING to do with the name and the name only? Please provide the proof.
Also you said Phillies are not popular because of their name but this site say's otherwise. They're ranked the #11 most popular mlb franchise in the league.
I actually lived outside of Texas before, a large percentage of NFL fans are not anti- Texas like you think. Most nfl fans are not hardcore liberals who are invested in politics. Actually quite the opposite.
When I lived in Atlanta, Deshaun Watson, JJ Wyatt, Deandre Hopkins, Clowney were the superstars of the team and that was probably at the peak of Texans popularity on the national level. That quickly blew up and what little momentum and interest they had was gone once those superstars left.
And I actually ran to a small few Texans fans while living in Atlanta. These were originally Watson fans in college that followed him to the NFL. Wasn't common but I ran into them once they found out I was from Houston. Btw, I'm not a Texan fan I'm a 49er fan.
Btw, starting a new franchise when you're one of the most valued NFL franchises in the league would be the dumbest thing this franchise has ever done. They're the 7th most valuable franchise in the NFL. Despite their local name they're valuable enough to the league to stay in it for a long time to come.
Preach. And the Montreal Canadiens have won the most Stanley Cup by a long shot (they have 24, Toronto has 13, Detroit has 11) yet still they can not make a dent in America because no American wants to be a fan of a "Canadien" team. It's the same thing that'll happen to Texans even if they become successful. The Saints won a SB and all of a sudden had nationwide fans. Why? Big reason is that Saints brand is universal and can be applied in some many places. The Texans would have to win 3 in a row to even sniff something similar.
You pretty much contradicted yourself. You asked the question why did the Saints become popular all of a sudden when they won a SB? UHHHH BECAUSE THEY WON A SB HELLO. The Saints had been a team since the late 60s, where was all the popularity prior to 2010 when they won a SB? Also not only was it the SB win that gained them popularity but it was the fact they won shortly after the whole world jus saw New Orleans decimated by Hurricane Katrina. The nation was pretty much rooting for New Orleans to win after Katrina. Plus they had a superstar roster and a fanbase that embodied that New Orleans spirit. "Who Dat" was big. They had all the makings in the world to appeal to a national audience. Before that SB run, the Saints were a laughing stock and many people nationally didn't even think about them or called them the Aints.
Regardless of whether the Texans are 10th as a fanbase or not, there’s teams with much smaller followings to go around. They certainly aren’t at or near the bottom. The Texans have a sizable market in a football centric state.
I’m also, not a Texans fan, I’m a Ravens fan. I’ve had similar experience as Redlion as far as meeting Texans fans. I didn’t live in Houston during those years and I would see Texans fans elsewhere. They weren’t the most popular team around but they certainly existed during that timeframe. The most common scenario I encountered were those that followed Watson after college. Heck, I even met someone who liked the Texans simply because he hated Bama and Watson was seen as the Bama killer at the time. Not once did I hear any of them think of reconsidering because of the name. Had the success sustained and came with a couple of trophies, those fans would’ve multiplied.
I would say that blaming the name is odd Texans fan logic, but that would be unfair to the other posters in here debunking that garbage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redlionjr
Btw, starting a new franchise when you're one of the most valued NFL franchises in the league would be the dumbest thing this franchise has ever done. They're the 7th most valuable franchise in the NFL. Despite their local name they're valuable enough to the league to stay in it for a long time to come.
Perhaps the one and only case where a rebranding would be benefitial would be if it was a return of the Oilers. If Oilers naming rights were bought or won in a legal contest or something, this is the only rebrand that would be a net positive. The Astros didn’t exactly rebrand but bringing back the H-Star hats and colors is a good example of how going back to roots can work in your favor as far as sports franchises go.
Last edited by ParaguaneroSwag; 08-30-2022 at 01:45 AM..
You pretty much contradicted yourself. You asked the question why did the Saints become popular all of a sudden when they won a SB? UHHHH BECAUSE THEY WON A SB HELLO. The Saints had been a team since the late 60s, where was all the popularity prior to 2010 when they won a SB? Also not only was it the SB win that gained them popularity but it was the fact they won shortly after the whole world jus saw New Orleans decimated by Hurricane Katrina. The nation was pretty much rooting for New Orleans to win after Katrina. Plus they had a superstar roster and a fanbase that embodied that New Orleans spirit. "Who Dat" was big. They had all the makings in the world to appeal to a national audience. Before that SB run, the Saints were a laughing stock and many people nationally didn't even think about them or called them the Aints.
How do I contradict myself? I said the Texans would have to win 3 in a row in order to match the popularity the Saints received from one. The Saints were never popular prior to 2010. And lol at superstar roster. They had Drew Brees and Reggie Bush, and an old Shockey. Stop it. People hardly cared about the Saints for those 5 seasons after Katrina but they were still gaining fans.
But I like how you brought up that NO spirit. You can do that when you name your team after something that has meaning with the city, not some generic BS name like Texans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParaguaneroSwag
Regardless of whether the Texans are 10th as a fanbase or not, there’s teams with much smaller followings to go around. They certainly aren’t at or near the bottom. The Texans have a sizable market in a football centric state.
I’m also, not a Texans fan, I’m a Ravens fan. I’ve had similar experience as Redlion as far as meeting Texans fans. I didn’t live in Houston during those years and I would see Texans fans elsewhere. They weren’t the most popular team around but they certainly existed during that timeframe. The most common scenario I encountered were those that followed Watson after college. Heck, I even met someone who liked the Texans simply because he hated Bama and Watson was seen as the Bama killer at the time. Not once did I hear any of them think of reconsidering because of the name. Had the success sustained and came with a couple of trophies, those fans would’ve multiplied.
I would say that blaming the name is odd Texans fan logic, but that would be unfair to the other posters in here debunking that garbage.
Perhaps the one and only case where a rebranding would be benefitial would be if it was a return of the Oilers. If Oilers naming rights were bought or won in a legal contest or something, this is the only rebrand that would be a net positive. The Astros didn’t exactly rebrand but bringing back the H-Star hats and colors is a good example of how going back to roots can work in your favor as far as sports franchises go.
You're describing surface level fandom or "onlyfans" though. You were talking to WOFs (Watson Only Fans). People just liking a player then splitting once that player leaves the team. Sounds like they dont like the name afterall. So far nothing has been debunked. The Texans name has been a debate among Texans fans for over 15 years. Teams do rebrand and I gave several examples of that already. Why do they rebrand? To better connect to their city and grow a stronger fanbase.
It's obvious you're not really a NFL fan. You might be a casual at best if you think the name of team has any deep impact on attracting fans. Like I said, I can see a child using the name of a team or the color of their jersey to be a deciding factor in choosing a team but not the average NFL fan.
You say there's no evidence that winning would create a bunch of new Texans fans but where's your proof that Texan limited fanbase has EVERYTHING or MOSTLY EVERYTHING to do with the name and the name only? Please provide the proof.
Also you said Phillies are not popular because of their name but this site say's otherwise. They're ranked the #11 most popular mlb franchise in the league.
I actually lived outside of Texas before, a large percentage of NFL fans are not anti- Texas like you think. Most nfl fans are not hardcore liberals who are invested in politics. Actually quite the opposite.
When I lived in Atlanta, Deshaun Watson, JJ Wyatt, Deandre Hopkins, Clowney were the superstars of the team and that was probably at the peak of Texans popularity on the national level. That quickly blew up and what little momentum and interest they had was gone once those superstars left.
And I actually ran to a small few Texans fans while living in Atlanta. These were originally Watson fans in college that followed him to the NFL. Wasn't common but I ran into them once they found out I was from Houston. Btw, I'm not a Texan fan I'm a 49er fan.
Btw, starting a new franchise when you're one of the most valued NFL franchises in the league would be the dumbest thing this franchise has ever done. They're the 7th most valuable franchise in the NFL. Despite their local name they're valuable enough to the league to stay in it for a long time to come.
Lol. Look at the methodologies of those sites you linked. They are based off of things like Facebook likes. Now, that probably isn't the best or the worst metric out there, but it doesn't prove anything about the actual distribution of fans. Even, assuming that the site is 100% true, and Houston is the tenth most "popular" team in the NFL, how many of those fans are outside of Houston and Texas? Very few. Houston is the 5th largest metro in the country in a football crazy region so the 10th largest fanbase is unimpressive and doesn't really prove anything. Same with the Phillies - ridiculously historic team, top ten metro - #11 seems underwhelming and there's no discussion of the geographical distribution of their fans.
I've lived outside of Texas the majority of my adult life and still can't think of a time I've met an actual Texans fan (not a player-only fan) that had no connection to Houston or Texas, outside of trips to Mexico. Most other teams have fans from random places that jumped onto a team early in life based on a variety of reasons. Not the Texans. Our fans are nearly exclusively from Houston and Texas, because the name doesn't appeal to anyone outside of that area. Any fans that the Texans *DO* have outside of that are few and far between.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DabOnEm
How do I contradict myself? I said the Texans would have to win 3 in a row in order to match the popularity the Saints received from one. The Saints were never popular prior to 2010. And lol at superstar roster. They had Drew Brees and Reggie Bush, and an old Shockey. Stop it. People hardly cared about the Saints for those 5 seasons after Katrina but they were still gaining fans.
But I like how you brought up that NO spirit. You can do that when you name your team after something that has meaning with the city, not some generic BS name like Texans.
You're describing surface level fandom or "onlyfans" though. You were talking to WOFs (Watson Only Fans). People just liking a player then splitting once that player leaves the team. Sounds like they dont like the name afterall. So far nothing has been debunked. The Texans name has been a debate among Texans fans for over 15 years. Teams do rebrand and I gave several examples of that already. Why do they rebrand? To better connect to their city and grow a stronger fanbase.
Agree 1000%, wish I could rep you again lol. Fans of players aren't fans of teams. I give my girlfriend the business over this because she's one of those player-only fans - she only likes teams when they have players on there she likes. She doesn't care about any actual team. There's a lot of fans like that in every sport. Those Watson fans aren't Texan fans and have followed him to Cleveland just like the Hopkins/Watt fans followed them to Arizona.
And the point you made about the Canadiens seemed to be ignored by those arguing that the Texans have some sort of latent marketing potential we haven't seen - the Canadiens (and Phillies) experiences seem to suggest they don't. I used to run into Phillies fans all the time in DC - and I don't recall any that didn't have some direct connection to Philly. Philly just happens to be close to DC so you would run into them. Those regional names create regional teams.
By the way, that's not a death sentence or anything - our region is so large the Texans very well may have more fans than teams like the Bengals or Bills though even though fans of those teams have fans that are better distributed. My only point is that the Texans could be super popular around here (and be very successful financially based on that alone) and still have artificially limited their growth because they nerfed themselves with the stupid, generic, goofy name that screams "regional team" in the first place.
A good team with a good name would have unlimited growth potential in a market like Houston. Unfortunately, we've gotten neither.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now, that probably isn't the best or the worst metric out there, but it doesn't prove anything about the actual distribution of fans. Even, assuming that the site is 100% true, and Houston is the tenth most "popular" team in the NFL, how many of those fans are outside of Houston and Texas? Very few. Houston is the 5th largest metro in the country in a football crazy region so the 10th largest fanbase is unimpressive and doesn't really prove anything. Same with the Phillies - ridiculously historic team, top ten metro - #11 seems underwhelming and there's no discussion of the geographical distribution of their fans.
