Do you like the sound of 'The Boston Patriots'? - New England Patriots Forums

zoostation · 09-13-2009, 03:31 AM

Obviously most of the success was achieved as the New England Patriots, but how would you feel if the team changed back to the original name?

For a few games, Patriots’ given name will be given back - The Boston Globe

***Pats Fanatic*** · 09-13-2009, 03:37 AM

I don't, I love the name "new England" it's unique, it represents all six states and the one I grew to love. It's as simple as that to me.

moonpie · 09-13-2009, 03:39 AM

I think New England has a better ring to it, but I do like how the Pats, and other AFL teams, are going retro this season.

***dalero*** · 09-13-2009, 04:04 AM

As a Rhode Islander I much prefer NE. It makes them feel more my team.

***NEGoldenAge*** · 09-13-2009, 04:11 AM

I love Boston, but Boston isn't deserving of the Pats. We can all thank Finneran for that... that prick should have gone to jail. After what MA did to the Pats when trying to build a new stadium, we're lucky Kraft even stayed in the state.

***shmessy*** · 09-13-2009, 04:14 AM

I did (for 4 games only)........until Shaughnessy wrote about it and convinced me otherwise.

TrueBeliever · 09-13-2009, 04:16 AM

I had been thinking of starting a thread about this myself with a poll for some time now, but never got around to it.

On the one hand, part of the reason I picked the Patriots as my "other favorite team" years ago was because I liked that their name represented a whole region rather than just a city. (Or in some cases, a state. Not sure what the Carolina Panthers represent, but I digress...)

On the other hand, I have to admit it's kinda jarring when you have the Boston Red Sox, Boston Celtics, and Boston Bruins but the New England Patriots. Almost like they're the ones that don't really count or fit in or something.

But when you look at it, the name makes sense. During the 11 years they were called the Boston Patriots, the team was nomadic, playing in five different stadiums (six if you count the "home game" played in Alabama, fer cryin' out loud). Being from a small town, I've never been able to understand how you can have these big cities that never have room for a stadium. I mean take the Giants and Jets, who represent the largest city in the country (and the world, if I'm not mistaken) but they don't play in that city or even that state. A city that huge and there's nowhere to put a new stadium??? Same with Boston, not near as big as NYC but still, you think they could find someplace for a ballpark.

And then there's the fact that when Sullivan moved the club to Foxborough, he and his staff looked at the season ticket list and realized that half the people on it didn't live in the Boston area, and many of those were from other states. I don't know a lot about Boston, but it seems to me it just isn't a football town per se. If it was, why did so many other teams play there and move or fold? Why did Boston U abandon its football program? And why was it so important to identify the team with a city that didn't seem that interested anyhow?

Granted, a lot of teams pull fans from surrounding states. A number of Minnesota Vikings' ticket holders live in Iowa; and the Denver Broncos pull in fans from all over Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, etc. If the Broncos were established in the last 20 years or so, they probably would've been the "Colorado Broncos", like the Rockies and the Avalanche.

Finally, I have to wonder how much of the author's disdain for the "New England Patriots" name has to do with the team actually being really good now, while through most of the "Boston" years they were mediocre at best.

Oh, and one other thing - 10 or so years ago, when the Milwaukee Brewers were seeking public funding for their new park, one state pol here suggested that if they were getting money from outside of Milwaukee (it was mainly from the surrounding counties, not the whole state) they should change their name to the "Wisconsin Brewers" to reflect that. It never went anywhere, thank goodness. "Wisconsin Brewers" just doesn't sound right like "New England Patriots" does.

***fgssand*** · 09-13-2009, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEGoldenAge

I love Boston, but Boston isn't deserving of the Pats. We can all thank Finneran for that... that prick should have gone to jail. After what MA did to the Pats when trying to build a new stadium, we're lucky Kraft even stayed in the state.

I agree 100% - being an original Pats fan as you appear to also be, NO WAY does Boston deserve to have this team named after them. This is truly New England's team, Boston would not give them the time of day,from the aforementioned Finneran stunts, right up and including the final slight when they dicked the Krafts around over the waterfront stadium.

NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS all the way......winners baby!!

WelcometotheRazor · 09-13-2009, 04:51 AM

If there was no Boston, there would be no Patriots. What - people in the rest of NE don't root for the C's, B's, and Sox just because they don't have NE in their name???

It really is the Boston Patriots - whether Boston is in the name or not....

DSal · 09-13-2009, 04:53 AM

Nobody in Boston embraced the team. Not only did the city politicians dick them around, but the fans didn't want much of anything to do with them either. It's interesting that a member of the media is leding a cry for the "Boston Patriots". The media, was certainly part and parcel to the Patriots not being embraced as well. Billy Sullivan made the right move by renaming them New England Patriots.

That said, I wouldn't mind seeing Pat Patriot back on the helmets permanently and, while we're at it, back to the red, white and blue colors.