Site Forum

Apologies in advance if this has been discussed before.   If there is a way of searching the forums, I am not aware.

The Ottawa Senators team page https://www.tcdb.com/Team.cfm/tid/309/Ottawa-Senators includes players from the 1917-35 team and the current  (1992-present) team.  These are two DIFFERENT teams that have the same name.   

Similar for the Winnipeg Jets 1972-79(WHA) and 1979-96(NHL) are the same team but the current (2011-present) is a DIFFERENT team. 

Shouldn't there be separate team pages ?  Obviously, when two players have the same name there are separate pages for them.

I have always thought they should be. That would also be the case for the Washington Senators (until 1960; became the Minnesota Twins) and the second version (1961 -1972; became the Texas Rangers). Two different teams that shared the same name. Where I think it becomes murky is with the new Cleveland Browns of the NFL and the new Charlotte Hornets of the NBA. Both are technically new teams, but claim the history of the old ones. Will happen again in the NBA if they ever return to Seattle (where the SuperSonics name and history await them). Just food for thought.

I would argue that when the team has the same name most people will not think of them as different teams. The new or old Cleveland Borwns makes no difference to the people supporting them. I'm not sure I see what the value would be of splitting them to each have their own page and ID. I would think that would lead to more confusion for people. 

They should be seperated. They are independednt entities. The Minors and Majors versions of the Miami Marlins have seperate pages because they are not a continuation of one or the other.

Regardless of what some Canadian members will have you believe, the NHL considers them separate franchises.  The current Ottawa Senators have no connection to the original Senators, other than the name.  The hanging of the original Senators banners in the arena is just paying homage not ownership. The original Ottawa Senators records belong to the St. Louis Eagles.

I have always felt they should be listed seperately. I do. 

Technically the Clippers changed their name to be just the LA Clippers after Steve Ballmer bought them, but nobody recognizes that...probably because they also use Los Angeles on their court and alternate uniforms. However, the official name is LA Clippers, not Los Angeles Clippers. 

I understand your point, but the Browns are a bad example. There were several lawsuits filed in an attempt to fight the move of the Browns to Baltimore, based on both their lease with the city of Cleveland (a lease that had a specific clause requiring them to play all home games in Cleveland) and on the NFL's relocation guidelines (part of the NFL by-laws and developed to be legally binding with the help of the judge who ruled against the NFL when Al Davis wanted to move to LA). 

Ultimately, those lawsuits were dropped on the condition that the city would get the Browns back for the 1999 season, that the records, name, etc. would remain with the Cleveland Browns franchise (effectively making the Baltimore Ravens an expansion team and putting the Browns on a 3 year hiatus).  This "offer" was coupled with the ultimatum that, if the lawsuits were successful and the Browns forced to stay until the end of their lease, the NFL would then move the team and blackball Cleveland from future expansion considerations. Officially, then, the "new" Browns ARE the same franchise as the "old" Browns, so it really is a different situation than the one described here. 
 

The situation with the Ottawa Senators, as I understand it, would be more like the team moving from Cleveland to Baltimore deciding to call themselves the "Baltimore Colts" or the Washington baseball team deciding to use the name "Senators" instead of "Nationals" even though neither team has any relation to the previous franchises with those names.

bakerybum wrote:

I would argue that when the team has the same name most people will not think of them as different teams. The new or old Cleveland Borwns makes no difference to the people supporting them. I'm not sure I see what the value would be of splitting them to each have their own page and ID. I would think that would lead to more confusion for people. 

Another example is the Jackson Generals in the baseball section.  Two distinct minor league teams lumped together, and should not be.

One was AA Texas League franchise based in Jackson Mississippi from 1991 to 1999.  They were affiliated the whole time with the Houston Astros.
 

The other a AA Southern League franchise based in Jackson Tennessee from 2011 to 2020...not sure about 2021 foward as they lost their mlb affiliation.  Teamwas the Diamond Jaxx from 1998 to 2010.  They were affiliated with three different major league team over the 98 to 2020 timeframe.

Not sure, but there may be a system-related reason why we can't do the same name twice under current and/or "Former".

FWIW I asked about the St. Paul Saints a while back since they're switching from independent to minor league this season and was told we didn't need to separate everything through 2020 from 2021 moving forward.

Yes, it's possible.  There are 3 different Baltimore Orioles, TID 3 (MLB), 5346 (American Assoc), and 2145 (MiLB).