Great quiz! And amazing that you put it together so quickly after I suggested it just last week. :D
Good idea to add the note at the bottom, especially for the A's and the Cardinals. In the case of the Athletics, it makes the quiz much more difficult!
And if you want to get into the forgotten prehistory of some major American teams, then how about the Decatur Staleys (now the Bears), the Portsmouth Spartans (now the Lions), the Fort Wayne Pistons (now in Detroit), the St. Louis Browns (now the Orioles), the Syracuse Nationals (now the 76ers), or the Philadelphia Warriors (now Golden State)? This leaves out, of course, teams such as the Rochester Royals, who became the Cincinnati Royals, then the Kansas City Kings, then the Sacramento Kings and possibly the Seattle whatevers in the near future. Or the Buffalo Braves, who became the San Diego Clippers, then the LA Clippers. The list goes on . . . good excuse for an expansion.
For the Dallas Stars, you really should accept Minneapolis and/or Bloomington (where the NFL Vikings played for years). Those are the actual "places", just as Miami was for the Florida Marlins before they were renamed the Miami Marlins.
I disagree. The stadium was in Bloomington, but that's no different than lots of other teams where the stadium location isn't exactly in line with the team name. The Minnesota North Stars didn't represent Bloomington any more than the NE Patriots represent Foxboro or the SF 49ers represent Santa Clara. Minneapolis is a kinda, sorta acceptable answer, but it's clear that the quiz is looking for the actual nameplace of the team actually in use.
I did horrible on this. Predictably. Even missed the Nationals and my dad has season tickets. I knew they came from somewhere in Canada but I was stuck on Ottawa Senators.
Interesting that the St. Louis Browns (1901-1953) began as the Milwaukee Brewers, a name chosen for several ball clubs through the years in that city before appearing once again as today's National League Brewers, named for the early team which later became the Orioles. I can't imagine why you find that confusing. ;)
Way to nail the Colts' history, not including the original Colts team from 1950 that folded after 1 season after being absorbed from the old AAFC along with the Browns & 49ers.
While the Colts' NFL history officially began in 1953, their lineage, albeit threadbare at points, can be traced back to the Dayton Triangles of the inaugural 1920 season.
* 1920-29 Dayton Triangles
* 1930-43 Brooklyn Dodgers
* 1944 Brooklyn Tigers
* 1945 Brooklyn Tigers & Boston Yanks merge.
* 1946 Brooklyn's franchise revoked and Tigers' players assigned to the Boston Yanks.
* 1947-48 Boston Yanks
* 1949 New York Bulldogs - Owner wants to move to NY, so for tax reasons, Yanks fold and NFL gives him the new New York franchise, using the same players.
* 1950-51 New York Yanks
* 1952 Dallas Texans - with 5 games remaining in season, franchise turned over to NFL.
* 1953 Baltimore Colts added using Dallas Texans' assets & many of their players.
After WWII, my dad played semi-pro baseball in New Jersey and had an offer from the Boston Braves, but he didn't want to go that far away and turned it down. He was a switch-hitting center-fielder who hit for power & average and had tremendous speed. One season he hit over .400 and stole home on straight steals 7 times. By comparison, Lou Brock, who made the Hall of Fame as a base-stealer for the Cardinals, stole home twice in his entire career, both on the front end of double-steals. Different competition, of course, but you still have to be a very alert & fast player to beat the pitch home.
He taught me and my 2 older brothers to play. I was a switch-hitting center-fielder just like my dad, and was almost as fast as him. Almost.
Needless to say, watching "Field of Dreams" absolutely ruins me. :-)
The Rams, of course, are on their second stint in Los Angeles, but the franchise actually started in 1936 in Cleveland. They played there for nine years, won a championship in 1945, and promptly moved to LA, the only franchise in any sport, I believe, to leave town after winning a championship.
Yeah, I don't know if any of their previous nicknames were official, but they were definitely called the Robins at one one point, and also the "Superbas", whatever that is.
Thank you for referring to the Ravens' past as the Browns (even though the NFL refuses to accept it).
Any reason why you didn't include the Rams' other city, like you did with other teams? They started in Cleveland before moving to LA (then St. Louis, and then LA).
Please do to Utah what you did with the Ravens. The league allowed the team to move, but made the decision to consider them an "expansion" team (fans know it's in name only). We all know the Ravens were the Cleveland Browns the year before, and that the Utah HC were the Arizona Coyotes the year before, despite what the leagues try to tell us.
There was no expansion draft. Utah acquired all of the assets of the Arizona Coyotes, including the players. Calling them an expansion team is absurd. The NHL can call it what it wants, but everyone else knows that if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
In the UK, the fact that teams can up sticks and move to a different city / state is somewhat puzzling. The one example that I am aware of in this country was Wimbledon moving to Milton Keynes, but that caused an outcry and was heavily criticised.
English football clubs have longstanding and tangible links to fans and the local community, and this smacks of soulless commercial interest winning out over loyal sports fans.
Yes, soulless commercial interest wins out over loyal sports fans, but it's also a consequence of another difference in North American sports.
As I understand it, Europe has different divisions and teams can move up or down. So, if a city isn't big enough to support a Premier League team, they eventually drop to Division I and continue on, and another city that is big enough to support a Premier League team moves up. In the NBA, NHL, NFL, MLB, etc, there's ~32 teams, and there's no lower division to get relegated to. If Atlanta can't support an NHL team, it can't just be relegated and then Calgary's Division I team gets promoted; the Atlanta team has to move to Calgary.
Doing it this way has been a disaster for Canada. Southern Ontario is the largest hockey market in the world, with over 10 million people in a country where hockey is the most popular sport, and they have only one NHL team (the Toronto Maple Leafs). Demand for tickets so far exceeds supply that the Leafs can have the most expensive tickets in the league and sell out every game even if they're the worst team in the league.
Quebec City desperately wants it NHL team back, and southern Ontario could easily support another team in Hamilton or London, but the NHL has made its position clear that adding another team in Canada will do nothing to "grow the game", so they prefer to add teams to new markets like the Arizona desert, even if the teams are going to play in front of empty seats.
The NHL is also steadfast that it doesn't want to be the first league to have 34 teams, despite wanting to have a team in every American major league city, and also having to have teams in the major Canadian cities. Most leagues have 31 American teams, and there could easily be 9 Canadian teams in the NHL, so it would take 40 teams to meet demand. That will never happen.
If, on the other hand, there were two 20-team leagues, with relegation and promotion between them, then every city that deserves a team could have one, and there would be incentive to actually put a good team on the ice to maintain their position in the top division.
Good idea to add the note at the bottom, especially for the A's and the Cardinals. In the case of the Athletics, it makes the quiz much more difficult!
ETA: I see Quizmaster has made the same point. The Quizmaster is always right!
nevermind I looked it up.
While the Colts' NFL history officially began in 1953, their lineage, albeit threadbare at points, can be traced back to the Dayton Triangles of the inaugural 1920 season.
* 1920-29 Dayton Triangles
* 1930-43 Brooklyn Dodgers
* 1944 Brooklyn Tigers
* 1945 Brooklyn Tigers & Boston Yanks merge.
* 1946 Brooklyn's franchise revoked and Tigers' players assigned to the Boston Yanks.
* 1947-48 Boston Yanks
* 1949 New York Bulldogs - Owner wants to move to NY, so for tax reasons, Yanks fold and NFL gives him the new New York franchise, using the same players.
* 1950-51 New York Yanks
* 1952 Dallas Texans - with 5 games remaining in season, franchise turned over to NFL.
* 1953 Baltimore Colts added using Dallas Texans' assets & many of their players.
He taught me and my 2 older brothers to play. I was a switch-hitting center-fielder just like my dad, and was almost as fast as him. Almost.
Needless to say, watching "Field of Dreams" absolutely ruins me. :-)
Thank you for referring to the Ravens' past as the Browns (even though the NFL refuses to accept it).
Any reason why you didn't include the Rams' other city, like you did with other teams? They started in Cleveland before moving to LA (then St. Louis, and then LA).
But we're still not adding them to the quiz as this is not meant to be an exhaustive list.
English football clubs have longstanding and tangible links to fans and the local community, and this smacks of soulless commercial interest winning out over loyal sports fans.
As I understand it, Europe has different divisions and teams can move up or down. So, if a city isn't big enough to support a Premier League team, they eventually drop to Division I and continue on, and another city that is big enough to support a Premier League team moves up. In the NBA, NHL, NFL, MLB, etc, there's ~32 teams, and there's no lower division to get relegated to. If Atlanta can't support an NHL team, it can't just be relegated and then Calgary's Division I team gets promoted; the Atlanta team has to move to Calgary.
Quebec City desperately wants it NHL team back, and southern Ontario could easily support another team in Hamilton or London, but the NHL has made its position clear that adding another team in Canada will do nothing to "grow the game", so they prefer to add teams to new markets like the Arizona desert, even if the teams are going to play in front of empty seats.
If, on the other hand, there were two 20-team leagues, with relegation and promotion between them, then every city that deserves a team could have one, and there would be incentive to actually put a good team on the ice to maintain their position in the top division.