What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

The Most Offensive Team Nicknames

There are some that should have gone away a long time ago but read the link and try not to laugh including their #1.
 
Colors Slime GIF by Beck
 
started making a new thread and the auto-search found this already existed.

spurred by the Chiefs discussion in the NFL thread, what are the most offensive nicknames in major sports?

for me, #1 is the South Carolina Gamecocks. I understand the history of the name, and also note that it's referencing an illegal activity centered around animal abuse. I know PETA often launches a campaign against USC (and is generally mocked for doing so), but I'm surprised that the name doesn't generate more controversy.

I don't find the remaining NA derived names offensive, but I acknowledge that this isn't an area I appreciate very well. My highschool changed their name from the Indians to
  • Florida State Seminoles
  • Atlanta Braves (there's also a few minor league teams nicknamed 'Braves')
  • Chicago Blackhawks
  • Utah Utes
  • Golden State Warriors
I think the Golden State situation is analogous to the KC NFL one. 'Warriors' and 'Chiefs' can both be commonly understood as terms free from racial implication, but the history of that word use does focus on Native Americans.

Last, I know there's been some complaints about pirate based names, e.g. Tampa Bay Buccaneers, ECU Pirates.... Noting piracy is illegal, I don't feel those names carry anywhere near the same stigma as USC's as they lack the cruelty aspect.
 
started making a new thread and the auto-search found this already existed.

spurred by the Chiefs discussion in the NFL thread, what are the most offensive nicknames in major sports?

for me, #1 is the South Carolina Gamecocks. I understand the history of the name, and also note that it's referencing an illegal activity centered around animal abuse. I know PETA often launches a campaign against USC (and is generally mocked for doing so), but I'm surprised that the name doesn't generate more controversy.

I don't find the remaining NA derived names offensive, but I acknowledge that this isn't an area I appreciate very well. My highschool changed their name from the Indians to
  • Florida State Seminoles
  • Atlanta Braves (there's also a few minor league teams nicknamed 'Braves')
  • Chicago Blackhawks
  • Utah Utes
  • Golden State Warriors
I think the Golden State situation is analogous to the KC NFL one. 'Warriors' and 'Chiefs' can both be commonly understood as terms free from racial implication, but the history of that word use does focus on Native Americans.

Last, I know there's been some complaints about pirate based names, e.g. Tampa Bay Buccaneers, ECU Pirates.... Noting piracy is illegal, I don't feel those names carry anywhere near the same stigma as USC's as they lack the cruelty aspect.
The Seminole tribe embraces, educates, and gets revenue for the use of their name, so I am good with that. The Braves should pay a fee to all Georgia tribes to keep their name, and have educational efforts.
 
The Seminole tribe embraces, educates, and gets revenue for the use of their name, so I am good with that. The Braves should pay a fee to all Georgia tribes to keep their name, and have educational efforts.
any idea -- why does Utah always seem to get left out of this controversy?
 
started making a new thread and the auto-search found this already existed.

spurred by the Chiefs discussion in the NFL thread, what are the most offensive nicknames in major sports?

for me, #1 is the South Carolina Gamecocks. I understand the history of the name, and also note that it's referencing an illegal activity centered around animal abuse. I know PETA often launches a campaign against USC (and is generally mocked for doing so), but I'm surprised that the name doesn't generate more controversy.

I don't find the remaining NA derived names offensive, but I acknowledge that this isn't an area I appreciate very well. My highschool changed their name from the Indians to
  • Florida State Seminoles
  • Atlanta Braves (there's also a few minor league teams nicknamed 'Braves')
  • Chicago Blackhawks
  • Utah Utes
  • Golden State Warriors
I think the Golden State situation is analogous to the KC NFL one. 'Warriors' and 'Chiefs' can both be commonly understood as terms free from racial implication, but the history of that word use does focus on Native Americans.

Last, I know there's been some complaints about pirate based names, e.g. Tampa Bay Buccaneers, ECU Pirates.... Noting piracy is illegal, I don't feel those names carry anywhere near the same stigma as USC's as they lack the cruelty aspect.

The Seminole Tribe has endorsed FSUs use.
 
Utah has a deal with the Ute tribes, and Florida State has a deal with the Seminole Nation, but it can be tenuous. The University of North Dakota had a deal with the Standing Rock Sioux and Spirit Lake Sioux for them to retain the 'Fighting Sioux' mascot, but the Standing Rock Sioux pulled out of the agreement and North Dakota had to change to like the Fighting Hawks or something like that.

It's completely possible that the Utes or Seminoles may change their minds in the future and pull their support. However, I would imagine their support comes with a price tag, so there's always that. I don't know what Utah does, but I imagine FSU spends a lot of money to make sure the Seminoles are happy with the agreement.
 
Utah has a deal with the Ute tribes, and Florida State has a deal with the Seminole Nation, but it can be tenuous. The University of North Dakota had a deal with the Standing Rock Sioux and Spirit Lake Sioux for them to retain the 'Fighting Sioux' mascot, but the Standing Rock Sioux pulled out of the agreement and North Dakota had to change to like the Fighting Hawks or something like that.

It's completely possible that the Utes or Seminoles may change their minds in the future and pull their support. However, I would imagine their support comes with a price tag, so there's always that. I don't know what Utah does, but I imagine FSU spends a lot of money to make sure the Seminoles are happy with the agreement.
Utah is very careful about how the name and imagery is used. None of the cartoonish characters, no presenting them as bloodthirsty, primitive savages, etc.

This is the issue with the Chiefs as represented by the kid in a war bonnet and blackface. If the imagery is presented in a positive light or negative light is what makes the difference, and that determination is something that the tribes get to determine, not the people using the imagery.
 
I don’t know about all this stuff, but there was a guy who played for Team USA hockey in world juniors whose name was Red Savage. Always cracked me up and seems like a pretty badass name.
 
You know, this whole discussion in this thread and the other has kind of made me realize how weird mascots and nicknames actually are. I mean, I get the idea of the fans wanting to have some nickname to call their team, but think about it: a bunch of young people get together to play a game and they all decide, "hey, we're not just a random collection of humans who are good at this particular activity, let's also pretend we're animals, or other people, or natural phenomena!"

I know sports brings out all kinds of weird behavior in people, but the more I think about it, the more bizarre it seems.
 
You know, this whole discussion in this thread and the other has kind of made me realize how weird mascots and nicknames actually are. I mean, I get the idea of the fans wanting to have some nickname to call their team, but think about it: a bunch of young people get together to play a game and they all decide, "hey, we're not just a random collection of humans who are good at this particular activity, let's also pretend we're animals, or other people, or natural phenomena!"

I know sports brings out all kinds of weird behavior in people, but the more I think about it, the more bizarre it seems.
Yeah, I've been saying sports are stupid for years.
 
Back
Top