This is a Single Point link, or quick commentary on the article or page linked above. (Follow the title link above to the source for full background on the commentary below).
Published on July 21, 2010 10:47 PM by dbo.
Just sad. I guess “the world’s greatest fans” would get confused and spend their money on the wrong Rough Rider merchandise.
Comments are closed.
Only Room For Roughriders was published on July 21, 2010 10:47 PM by dbo.
This link is tagged with ottawa and ottawa-rough-riders.
We can't have two teams with the same nickname. It should never have been allowed in the first place. Not professional. Saskatchewan is the financially strongest of the two, therefore the Roughrider name is theirs. Renegades is a good name. I would keep using this name.
By Rick Fullerton on July 22, 2010 4:22 AM
@Rick - no convincing arguments there. In five years will they get to trade names if their financial situations reverse?
"We can't..."? They did.
Shouldn't have been allowed? When? In 1876 when the Ottawa Rough Riders were formed? In 1910 when the Regina Rugby Club was formed? In 1924 when they were renamed the Regina Roughriders? In 1956 when the IRFU and WIFU combined to form the CFC? In 1958 when the CFC became the CFL?
There is a deep history to these clubs, their names and the events that created the modern CFL. The league didn't begin in 1970 or 1990 or any other time, it morphed from something we wouldn't recognize as football and merged from teams in geographic isolation.
By dbo on July 22, 2010 1:18 PM
Saskatchewan, in 1958, when the C.F.L. was officially formed and when they were in danger of folding, should have been forced to change their name. Ottawa was the strong franchise at that time. However, times have changed and the situation is reversed today. It is not professional to have two teams with the same name. If I were the new owners I would retain the Renegades name and adopt the old "Rough Rider" uniforms. The "R" on the helmet would stand for Renegades.
By Rick Fullerton on July 23, 2010 3:08 AM
@Rick - I think you miss the point. Hindsight is 20-20.
Interesting that you pick an arbitrary date for when the names started conflicting, even though the conflict started in 1924 and they both competed for the same championship from that time on.
Both clubs long set precedent, no one ever suing over the rights to the name and the league never resolving the issue because it wasn't a big deal. There is no study showing the Rough Riders and Roughriders co-existing cost the league or either club lost revenue or other hardship.
No, it is simply on the league detractors list of things wrong with the CFL that make every CFL fan believe they have to fix it. Fix what? There is no rule, law, or guideline in written history that says two teams cannot have similar names. If the CFL would rather celebrate the origins and history of its clubs rather than tie up our courts over a space, fans should be positive about it. Getting tied up in knots over the "professionalism" of it is just losing focus on the game, which is the whole point.
By dbo on July 23, 2010 11:44 AM