Expansion teams

[Lathum]

When does an expansion team stop being thought of as an expansion team. I still think of the Devil Rays, Jaguars, Panthers, and pretty much evey other team post 1990 still as an expansion team.

[yabanci]

The only expansion team I don't think of as an expansion team is the Cleveland Browns.

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by yabanci

The only expansion team I don't think of as an expansion team is the Cleveland Browns.

Going how far back? Do you consider the NY Mets an expansion team in baseball still, or the Bucs/ Seahawks in the NFL? Almost every NHL team is an expansion team.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Lathum

When does an expansion team stop being thought of as an expansion team. I still think of the Devil Rays, Jaguars, Panthers, and pretty much evey other team post 1990 still as an expansion team.

Until there are a big flurry of newer teams coming into the 2000s, those post-1990s teams will probably carry the expansion stigma. I mean, if the Devil Rays (what an awful name, anyway) or say, the Rockies could make the playoffs more than once ever or something, perhaps it wouldn't be so bad.

But then, the Marlins have 2 WS titles and I think people still consider them an expansion franchise.

Or better, how about those Diamondbacks (ugly unis)...

I think it has a lot to do with your market, how you sell the team and whether you're a gimmick or it seems like your team has some sort of "feel" like it belongs with the other teams.

It's an interesting question though.

[tanglewood]

I never even remember the Browns were an expansion team, weird...

I would say that in the NFL only the Texans should still carry the expansion team moniker/excuse when things go wrong. The Browns have now had 5 seasons worth of drafting and FA since expansion, which is plenty of time to mould a competetive team if you a) have stability of staff and b) draft well. Obviously they failed at both of those, but that is the fault of the owner for employing dud coaches and GMs just like it is the fault of the Lions owner that they have sucked for the last 5 years.

By that rule, the Texans have this coming year and the one after still with the expansion excuse. They currently look like being a playoff contender by 2007 if not earlier, so they look to be on course for a successful expansion period.

[Kodos]

I still think of the Cowboys as an expansion team. Please contract them!

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I still think of the Cowboys as an expansion team. Please contract them!

Agreed. It would have been worth losing the copyright on "Hail To The Redskins" to keep them out of the league.

[vtbub]

I still think twice when I hear, "Indianapolis" Colts. 22 years later, it still does not sound right.

Ten seasons usually enough for me to not double take for me, unless it's the NHL.

[Deattribution]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

just like it is the fault of the Lions owner that they have sucked for the last 5 years.

Hey now, that's insulting. the suckitude of the Lions extends way past 5 years

[Ben E Lou]

Blue Jays/Mariners and Bucs/Seahawks, and every new team since then, (with the exception of the Cleveland Browns) I think of as expansion teams. It probably just bottoms out to a simple question: do you remember the league without those teams?

[Maple Leafs]

I seem to have stopped thinking of the Sens and Lightning as expansion teams, yet oddly enough still think of the Panthers and Ducks that way.

So apparently, the cutoff is 12 years.

[st.cronin]

I think it depends on when you were born. Teams that came around in my lifetime, I think of as expansion teams.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I seem to have stopped thinking of the Sens and Lightning as expansion teams, yet oddly enough still think of the Panthers and Ducks that way.

So apparently, the cutoff is 12 years.

The Sens and Lightning came into the league in the same year? I really don't remember Ottawa joining. The Senators seem like a team that's been around a lot longer (more conservative uni's, Canadian team, etc). Heck, I even think of the Sharks kindof as an expansion team but I don't really feel like the Senators are.

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Until there are a big flurry of newer teams coming into the 2000s, those post-1990s teams will probably carry the expansion stigma. I mean, if the Devil Rays (what an awful name, anyway) or say, the Rockies could make the playoffs more than once ever or something, perhaps it wouldn't be so bad.

The Stingrays? What was so hard about that? It sounds like a good sports name. Animal, not too out there and crazy (like Diamondback or Devil Ray). But, no, they had to be *Devil* Rays.

SI

[JeffR]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

The Sens and Lightning came into the league in the same year? I really don't remember Ottawa joining. The Senators seem like a team that's been around a lot longer (more conservative uni's, Canadian team, etc). Heck, I even think of the Sharks kindof as an expansion team but I don't really feel like the Senators are.I

The Senators were an original NHL team in 1917. They just took a break for 60 years or so.

[Ragone]

I think winning a championship pulls the expansion tag away from a team.. i find it hard to call the marlins or lightning expansion at this point..

so as far as the big 4 go.. i'd say Bobcats,Texans,Blue Jackets,Devil Rays

and throw in the Predators for good measure

[Honolulu Blue]

I only consider expansion teams as such in their first season. After that they're just a (usually) bad team.

[cuervo72]

I am just now starting to think of the Miami Heat and the Orlando Magic in a non-expansion light (but not completetly - it surprises me how long they've been in the league), but then I don't pay attention to the NBA much.

I'd say every team back until 1980 or so. I was only 3-4 when TB/SEA and TOR/SEA came into existence, so I don't really remember before then. I pretty much agree with SD's assessment.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

The Sens and Lightning came into the league in the same year? I really don't remember Ottawa joining. The Senators seem like a team that's been around a lot longer (more conservative uni's, Canadian team, etc). Heck, I even think of the Sharks kindof as an expansion team but I don't really feel like the Senators are.


The Stingrays? What was so hard about that? It sounds like a good sports name. Animal, not too out there and crazy (like Diamondback or Devil Ray). But, no, they had to be *Devil* Rays.

SI

You joke, but that was a huge issue in the TB area among a core group of nutcases, who protested the name because of the word "devil," and also because "ray" spelled backwards is "yar," the name of the devil's dog.

Of course, if that had any real significance, they wouldn't have to sell their souls for a winning team...

[judicial clerk]

ray" spelled backwards is "yar," the name of the devil's dog.

I didn't know that the devil had a dog.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by judicial clerk

I didn't know that the devil had a dog.

And the only devil dog I can think of is Cerberus.

SI

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by vtbub

I still think twice when I hear, "Indianapolis" Colts. 22 years later, it still does not sound right.

Ten seasons usually enough for me to not double take for me, unless it's the NHL.

Agreed, VTbub. I grew up in Baltimore and was a huge Colts fan. I was in Indianapolis for this first time in my life about a month ago. We drove right past the RCA Dome and there was a HUGE mural with the Colt's horseshoe and the word "Believe" written under it. I said to the guy I was with, "What the hell is that? It's not your team!"

21 years and counting...someday I'll let it go.

[Franklinnoble]

I think by the time they start playing again, every team in the NHL will be considered an expansion team.

[Bubba Wheels]

The perfect world: Original 6 NHL, 26 baseball teams in 1990s alignment, NFL is ok as is, but swap Ravens and Colts, NBA split into 2 and make call half ABA again.