Jump to content

Warriors to Keep Golden State Name Despite 2019 Move to San Francisco


B-Rich

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, BrandoCalri55ian said:

Hahaha please do a quick google maps picture of Santos and Geneva in Daly City. Seriously one of the only areas of town that will probably never gentrify. I can only imagine the beautiful broadcast cut aways of the neighborhood during Warriors and Sharks finals appearances.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7082891,-122.420134,3a,75y,220.5h,86.12t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYYZBWIEeK3VC8sGzUzy4eA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DYYZBWIEeK3VC8sGzUzy4eA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D269.30182%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

 

Certainly not San Francisco at its best, I agree. But the Bulls and Blackhawks have spent almost their entire existence in a section of the west side that was fairly rough until like last Thursday. The Flyers and 76ers play in a Sports Containment Zone. The Blues play in St. Louis. Nevertheless, the broadcast crews still manage to get all the neat establishing shots of skylines at night and people cooking food. I just wish San Francisco had a full complement of teams in or adjacent to the city with no far-flung suburban hockey arena or Lego Stadium.

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 260
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It should be the San Francisco Warriors. The whole bay are has no problem supporting either the SAN FRANCISCO Giants or OAKLAND A's and either the SAN FRANCISCO 49ers or OAKLAND Raiders, not living in those cities doesn't alienate the rest of the bay area from choosing one. The niners play in Santa Clara and no ones complaining they aren't the Santa Clara 49ers. Also the whole bay area supports the SAN JOSE Sharks as their hockey team even though their name doesn't represent the bay area. Golden State doesn't even represent the bay area And lets be real if the warriors changed to San Francisco they wouldn't lose fans, they are in one of the most successful runs in NBA history and are the most popular team in the NBA with tons of bandwagon fans they'd be fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I don't quite get the hate for "Golden State." The name has been around for decades and they've won 3 titles under it. It's also synonymous with the Run-TMC Warriors teams of the early 1990s and 2007's We Believe squad. But to me, the main draw is that it's also unique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Satomiblood said:

Honestly, I don't quite get the hate for "Golden State." The name has been around for decades and they've won 3 titles under it. It's also synonymous with the Run-TMC Warriors teams of the early 1990s and 2007's We Believe squad. But to me, the main draw is that it's also unique.

While the bold may make retaining the name more likely, it does not keep the name from being bad.

 

It is unique, but unique is not, in itself, necessarily good.  "NoCal Warriors" would be unique, as would "Bay Area Warriors."  Admittedly, I have a fairly rigid preference that the "place" be a City and, failing that, an actual "place" in a "census" way (ruling out Carolina, Tampa Bay, and the like).  Now, "Golden State" is a nickname for a place (the State of California) but "Big Apple" is a nickname for one, as well and I am glad we don't have the "Big Apple Knicks."

 

That said, I appreciate the odd position this franchise is in.  They have been "San Francisco" but the move to Oakland made keeping that name a bit odd since Oakland is not a suburb like Auburn Hills or something.  "Oakland," not being the region's dominant or signature city does not make sense when the whole Bay Area has only one team.  Other things like "Bay Area" are just as goofy.  "California" would make sense if there were not other teams there.  But then again "Golden State" represents California anyway, so its no less egregious.  So, while in Oakland, it was tough.  I'd have either stuck with SF or gone to California (like the Angels did despite the existence of four other teams).

 

And there's one other thing that bugs me about Golden State: the cadence.

  • California is the GOLDen state
  • But we call them golden STATE

The name has accidentally devolved into mimicking a college team.  I don't know whether that was fan behavior or simply the fact that saying GOLDen state Warriors is difficult and does not roll off the tongue. Probably the latter but I'd still argue that the college-like sound of the name makes it worse.  I actually have memories of thinking it was a college team when I was a little kid just getting into sports (also with no NBA in Minnesota, I saw more college basketball).

Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse."

 

BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD

POTD (Shared)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

While the bold may make retaining the name more likely, it does not keep the name from being bad.

 

It is unique, but unique is not, in itself, necessarily good.  "NoCal Warriors" would be unique, as would "Bay Area Warriors."  Admittedly, I have a fairly rigid preference that the "place" be a City and, failing that, an actual "place" in a "census" way (ruling out Carolina, Tampa Bay, and the like).  Now, "Golden State" is a nickname for a place (the State of California) but "Big Apple" is a nickname for one, as well and I am glad we don't have the "Big Apple Knicks."

 

That said, I appreciate the odd position this franchise is in.  They have been "San Francisco" but the move to Oakland made keeping that name a bit odd since Oakland is not a suburb like Auburn Hills or something.  "Oakland," not being the region's dominant or signature city does not make sense when the whole Bay Area has only one team.  Other things like "Bay Area" are just as goofy.  "California" would make sense if there were not other teams there.  But then again "Golden State" represents California anyway, so its no less egregious.  So, while in Oakland, it was tough.  I'd have either stuck with SF or gone to California (like the Angels did despite the existence of four other teams).

 

And there's one other thing that bugs me about Golden State: the cadence.

  • California is the GOLDen state
  • But we call them golden STATE

The name has accidentally devolved into mimicking a college team.  I don't know whether that was fan behavior or simply the fact that saying GOLDen state Warriors is difficult and does not roll off the tongue. Probably the latter but I'd still argue that the college-like sound of the name makes it worse.  I actually have memories of thinking it was a college team when I was a little kid just getting into sports (also with no NBA in Minnesota, I saw more college basketball).

 

A well-put argument, but I'm still not convinced with the idea that it's bad. I think time and circumstances have given the label more than enough traction, which is a bit of a selling point with me. It's why I feel Utah should remain the Jazz. It just sounds good (at least to me).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

If there was any danger of Duluth getting a major league team, the Twins should never have adopted the "Minnesota" name in the first place.

Maybe; but I can also give a pass to a team that uses the state name when it's first.  Florida Marlins, for example (of course they've changed).  You certainly could have argued at that point that Tampa (or Orlando?) could one day get MLB but Florida was getting MLB for the first time and I can deal with naming the team after a state without worrying about a hypothetical.  (you know, setting aside my general preference for city names).  Texas Rangers and Florida Panthers, on the other hand, came in after another team in the state existed.  (Obviously because both names make more sense with the state names, but I still think they should have picked different names and gone for cities).

Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse."

 

BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD

POTD (Shared)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2018 at 7:09 PM, the admiral said:

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7082891,-122.420134,3a,75y,220.5h,86.12t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYYZBWIEeK3VC8sGzUzy4eA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DYYZBWIEeK3VC8sGzUzy4eA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D269.30182%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

 

Certainly not San Francisco at its best, I agree. But the Bulls and Blackhawks have spent almost their entire existence in a section of the west side that was fairly rough until like last Thursday. The Flyers and 76ers play in a Sports Containment Zone. The Blues play in St. Louis. Nevertheless, the broadcast crews still manage to get all the neat establishing shots of skylines at night and people cooking food. I just wish San Francisco had a full complement of teams in or adjacent to the city with no far-flung suburban hockey arena or Lego Stadium.

Don't hate on San Jose haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, tigerslionspistonshabs said:

I get it and normally I would despise this sort of thing, but they`ve had it so long. It`s part of their brand. 

 

Exactly, and that's what I find frustrating about even entertaining the idea: a brand is not. just. aesthetics.

Showcasing fan-made sports apparel by artists and designers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2018 at 8:35 AM, Shadojoker said:

Huge fail by not changing the name. My understanding is $$$; they don't want to change the name of a good brand even if it doesn't make sense.

 

Exactly. It's a dumb name but it's their dumb name. Their fans embrace it and they have a successful brand built around the name. Also throwing some randomness into franchise names makes a league unique as opposed to complete standardization which tends to give off a sterile failed upstart league vibe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oldschoolvikings said:

Something I'm sure many members of this community have thought when they realized they were stuck forever with the name they thought up in 10 seconds while signing up here.

hm yes perhaps :/

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

That's hardly a robust defense.

 

It is when your franchise value is approaching $3B.

 

3 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Something I'm sure many members of this community have thought when they realized they were stuck forever with the name they thought up in 10 seconds while signing up here.

 

No regrets here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, spockEars7 said:

Don't hate on San Jose haha.

I feel like people think the Sharks fanbase and franchise (Tampa also) is like all the other forced SunBelt markets Bettman has insisted will work. San Jose deserves to have a team and takes a great deal of pride in the Sharks. 

 

Also as anyone else that’s been a warriors fan since the 80’s realized how weird it is to have a “Bandwagon”????? Most of us assumed they would just always be bad!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.