The Case for the "San Jose 49ers"

It seems to me that for all the talk about the San Francisco 49ers possible move to Santa Clara, that many things have been bantered about for the teams name. The team seems pretty insistant that they want to keep "San Francisco". Others have said "Why not Santa Clara", and I've seen suggestions for "Bay Area 49ers" and other "non-city" names. The one thing that strangely has gotten what seems like the least play is the "San Jose 49ers", which is surprising, since if you look at how sports teams are generally named, "San Jose 49ers" are the most appropriate name.

First off, lets talk about the case against "San Francisco", if they build the new stadium in Santa Clara. Go to Google Maps and type in "Santa Clara, CA". If you are not familiar with the area, you will see that Santa Clara is right next to San Jose. They are kissing each other really. San Francisco is 45 miles away, with at least a dozen other cities between them and Santa Clara. So, really, the 49ers would in effect be playing in the shadow of San Jose, not San Francisco.

But, people will say: San Francisco is the major city of the area. But, people would be wrong. In fact, San Jose has 944,857 people to San Francisco's 799,263. Santa Clara has around 100,000, so, they aren't even in the equation. Santa Clara is like the Auburn Hills to Detroit's Pistons, or the Orchard Park to Buffalo's Bills. It isn't a major market, and the team has every right to take the name of the major city nearby.

But, that is where it gets tricky. San Jose, by all rights, IS the "Major City" nearby. Not San Francisco. In fact, given the above fact that San Jose is bigger than San Francisco, consider this: If they kept the name "San Francisco 49ers", they would be the first team, in ANY sport, at ANY level that I am aware of, that has taken the city name of a city FURTHER away than a closer city with a HIGHER population.

That is the crux of what makes the "San Fransico 49ers" in Santa Clara "wrong". Not because of the team not being in the city it's named after. Not even being so far away from San Francisco. It's the fact that another city has MORE of a right to have the name than they do.

Unfortunately, San Jose seems to have a case of "Columbus-itis" to most people. That's the case where a city doesn't have the cachet of other cities nearby, to the extent where people actually think they are smaller than those cities. If you ask most people what the largest city in Ohio is, they'd probably say Cincinatti or Cleveland. But, Columbus has and still is the largest city in Ohio. The reasons why people think that mainly come back to the issue at hand: sports. Until the Blue Jackets came along, Columbus had no teams even approaching pro level, while Cincinatti and Cleveland each had baseball and NFL teams. That gives an "aura" to a city that few other things can nationally to people outside the area. That is what San Jose "deserves" if the team locates so close to them.

Maybe there is the old "East Coast" bias, so, consider this theoretical sitation: Baltimore never get the Ravens in the NFL. The Washington Redskins then decide they want to move and build a stadium in Halethorpe, Maryland, which is right next to Baltimore, and about 35 miles from Washington, and still be called the "Washington Redskins". You don't think Baltimore would be having a hissyfit, having a population almost 100,000 more than Washington D.C., and not being able to have the name of the team RIGHT next door be "Baltimore"?

Any comparison you make to other situations would not be the same:

Auburn Hills Pistons? Orchard Park Bills? I've already stated, those are not "major cities" (no offense to the cities, I'm sure they are fine places to live and work). They are only 20-30% of the size of the city the teams are named after, so, this situation is certainly not applicable to those.

The "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" Yes, I am still one of the ones who thinks this is silly, but, it's still not applicable to the 49ers situation because Los Angeles is bigger than Anaheim. It's not as if Anaheim poached the Lakers name while still playing in downtown L.A.

Tampa Bay Lightning playing in St. Petersburg? First of all, St. Petersburg is smaller than Tampa. Secondly, contrary to many people's belief, there is NO city called "Tampa Bay". It's "Tampa, Florida". Tampa Bay simply refers to the "area", so, it's really a team name more like the "New England" Patriots or the "Golden State" Warriors.

Which, might be the 49ers solution to the whole situation: the "San Francisco BAY 49ers". That way, the team basically keeps the "San Francisco" name, but, by namesaking after the "Bay" and not the city, it encompasses the entire area.

But, San Jose, at least as of yet, doesn't seem to have risen to complain yet. Maybe they are waiting for it to become more official. Maybe they don't have the civic pride of a Baltimore or another city that shares a close metro area with another city. Maybe they should. Maybe they need to wake up and flex their wings and get what is rightfully theirs.