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

[andrewharrington]

6 hours ago, guest23 said:

 

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

 

 

No regrets here.

 

 

The value would probably increase if the franchise had a real live city name attached to it.

[kimball]

1 hour ago, andrewharrington said:

 

The value would probably increase if the franchise had a real live city name attached to it.

 

I don't mind Golden State much any more. They are who they are and I don't think you're going to confuse anyone after their current success since 2015. But, I will say this ... this missed the opportunity to go with the Oakland Warriors back in the late 90s when they moved back into the renovated Coliseum. They should have made that change, especially then. Then no one would have thought twice about a change back to the San Francisco Warriors when they finally make the move back across the bay.

[rxmc89]

On 4/6/2018 at 9:51 PM, SJAnfield said:

The Bay Area is a unique market. There are three big cities and several other 100,000+ communities that make it up, all with distinctly different cultures. Many, if not most, who live in San Jose, Oakland, Santa Rosa, Fremont, Walnut Creek and the like don’t want to be labeled as San Francisco, when they’ve had a team for over 40 years represent the entire bay. Yes, they were the SF Warriors, but it was for less than a decade, and long, long before any of the younger Warriors fans were born. Golden State isn’t Bay Area specific, but it’s neutral and has a long history with this community. 

 

 

There is is an undercurrent of resentment between the bay communities, but at the same time a sort of sibling love and brothership. I am an avid sharks fan, but I have to admit, they move to SF and rebrand, I’m not watching as much or following as avidly. Likewise, when the Niners relocated to the South Bay, SF residents and those on the peninsula were pissed, and remain pissed (not all, but a lot. Many I’m related to or have known my whole life). What I’m getting at is they have been the Bay’s team for over 40 years, not San Francisco’s. Oracle (and the Coliseum before that) was often full before the current Warriors were around (when we were truly horrid!) and has always been a staple throughout the bay. It may sound really silly and trivial to non Bay Area people, but it is a real issue amongst the community.  

 

I’m not a 49ers fan or a SF resident and I’m disappointed about them moving to Santa Clara.

[andrewharrington]

2 hours ago, kimball said:

 

I don't mind Golden State much any more. They are who they are and I don't think you're going to confuse anyone after their current success since 2015. But, I will say this ... this missed the opportunity to go with the Oakland Warriors back in the late 90s when they moved back into the renovated Coliseum. They should have made that change, especially then. Then no one would have thought twice about a change back to the San Francisco Warriors when they finally make the move back across the bay.

 

True. They let it go too long and now they’re stuck (though I still maintain that a vast majority of fans wouldn’t care if the team renamed itself).

 

Every minute, there are dozens of babies born who will one day wonder where the hell Golden State is (or why a college team was the best in the NBA for the better part of a decade). 

[JayMac]

9 hours ago, BrandoCalri55ian said:

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!

I'm a Seahawks fan since the late 80s. Even though they are heading for a rebuild, I know exactly how you feel.

[Digby]

10 hours ago, kimball said:

 

I don't mind Golden State much any more. They are who they are and I don't think you're going to confuse anyone after their current success since 2015. But, I will say this ... this missed the opportunity to go with the Oakland Warriors back in the late 90s when they moved back into the renovated Coliseum. They should have made that change, especially then. Then no one would have thought twice about a change back to the San Francisco Warriors when they finally make the move back across the bay.

 

Oakland Warriors sounds so nice. But it would have been SUCH a big thing when the move to Chase came up. Especially now that Black Panther is making Oakland cool in the wider consciousness.

 

A plus to the Golden State moniker is that changing the name is one fraught thing that can be wholly avoided with the move.

[The_Admiral]

ugh I was bandwagoning the Raiders and A's years and years before people liked the comic book movie.

[kroywen]

On 4/8/2018 at 8:09 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.

 

This is across the street from Citi Field:

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7584017,-73.8447928,3a,75y,26.49h,78.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG_BHR1SGZfHzwXcguwh1wQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

Hey, they can't all have McCovey Cove beyond th outfield fence.

 

It's really a shame that such a great city as San Francisco has their teams flung throughout a 60-mile long area. Obviously building venues right in the heart of downtown San Francisco isn't really viable for a number of reasons (mostly $$$ and space), but I wish all of those teams were in easy driving distance and an easy train ride away from SF. 

[The_Admiral]

15 minutes ago, kroywen said:

This is across the street from Citi Field:

 

Oversight on the part of Google not to have the theme song to Sanford & Son start playing when I opened that link

[Digby]

53 minutes ago, kroywen said:

 

This is across the street from Citi Field:

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7584017,-73.8447928,3a,75y,26.49h,78.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG_BHR1SGZfHzwXcguwh1wQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

Hey, they can't all have McCovey Cove beyond th outfield fence.

 

It's really a shame that such a great city as San Francisco has their teams flung throughout a 60-mile long area. Obviously building venues right in the heart of downtown San Francisco isn't really viable for a number of reasons (mostly $$$ and space), but I wish all of those teams were in easy driving distance and an easy train ride away from SF. 

 

Even Citi Field won't look like that much longer. 

 

 

[guest23]

15 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

 

The value would probably increase if the franchise had a real live city name attached to it.

 

I disagree with that. Most brand marketers would tell you that applying geography to a name can suppress brand value and marketability especially from a global perspective. Golden State Warriors is almost a nickname unto itself. When the Raiders got into their long running spat with Oakland they basically scrubbed the city name from their merchandise which I think was a smart move as their brand is not bound to geography. I also think Moreno should market his team as The Angels but the stadium lease may still preclude him from that.

[The_Admiral]

Okay, well, the brand marketers are wrong as far as North American professional sports go, because the geography matters a great deal. And can we put to rest this lie that the Raiders have nothing to do with Oakland or California?

[BBTV]

37 minutes ago, the admiral said:

. And can we put to rest this lie that the Raiders have nothing to do with Oakland or California?

 

Well in two years...

[BBTV]

.. 

[BBTV]

1 hour ago, guest23 said:

. Golden State Warriors is almost a nickname unto itself. 

 

“Ladies and gentlemen, introducing the starting lineup for your 2020 San Francisco Golden State Warriors...”

[guest23]

1 hour ago, the admiral said:

Okay, well, the brand marketers are wrong as far as North American professional sports go, because the geography matters a great deal. And can we put to rest this lie that the Raiders have nothing to do with Oakland or California?

 

Geography might matter a "great deal" in provincial markets where the city identity is dependent on a sports franchise. Small market teams like the Sacramento Kings, Winnipeg Jets, Jacksonville Jaguars etc. may need to be joined at the hip to sell themselves but big sports brands like the Cowboys, Raiders, and Yankees have transcended the cit limits and local media market in the digital age. I would put the Warriors in that category now

[The_Admiral]

But the Yankees don't transcend New York! People buy Yankee hats because they say "NY" on them! The fact that they're from New York underpins their marketing success as much as anything. What you're arguing for with "The Angels" is a team that belongs to everyone and no one and only by necessity of the laws of physics plays its home games in a discrete location. That's not how we do sports here and it never will be.

[Digby]

46 minutes ago, guest23 said:

 

Geography might matter a "great deal" in provincial markets where the city identity is dependent on a sports franchise. Small market teams like the Sacramento Kings, Winnipeg Jets, Jacksonville Jaguars etc. may need to be joined at the hip to sell themselves but big sports brands like the Cowboys, Raiders, and Yankees have transcended the cit limits and local media market in the digital age. I would put the Warriors in that category now

While I don’t think the Warriors will suffer any in value just because they don’t have San Francisco in the name, I think geography is inextricably tied up with those teams’ brands and identities, though. Doesn’t matter if fans aren’t constrained geographically. That’s how you get the Yankees as paragons of excellence and class, that’s how you get the Showtime Lakers...  it’s even interesting the Warriors’ ascendancy in a suddenly nerd-friendly NBA has tracked with the cultural ascendency of the Bay at large.

 

there are a few reasons the Spurs never transcended the way other dynastic teams of their era did and I do think San Antonio is one.

[DeFrank]

This is a cool little conversation. To me, the "Washington Redskins" are so differently tied to the city than the "Washington Nationals." There are obviously a million reasons for that. Some are universally true (1937 vs. 2005, stadium location, team colors, uniqueness of (racist) nickname, etc.) and some are likely true to me (I was born in 1995, and don't really remember the pre-FedEx Field/Snyder NFL team, which to my understanding, was far more associated with the city, the "District" rather than the surrounding area, etc.)

 

I'm always shocked by how many random people think that the Washington NFL team is from Washington state. But then I think about it, and it makes sense, especially if you're tangentially learning via the Wizards, Nationals, and Capitals that DC teams are 1. red white blue 2. likely have a "dc-themed" nickname. 

 

There's also this partial-truth that DC teams lack a large, dedicated fan base because of the nature of the city as home to so many people from somewhere else. That feels, to me, like a uniquely non-Redskins phenomenon. Nobody really ever bemoans a small crowd size at an NFL game in DC because of this idea. It's always the others.

 

Anybody have any thoughts on the "Washington" teams? How you perceive them?

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

17 hours ago, guest23 said:

On 12/04/2018 at 10:56 PM, andrewharrington said:

The value would probably increase if the franchise had a real live city name attached to it.

 

I disagree with that. Most brand marketers would tell you that applying geography to a name can suppress brand value and marketability especially from a global perspective. Golden State Warriors is almost a nickname unto itself. When the Raiders got into their long running spat with Oakland they basically scrubbed the city name from their merchandise which I think was a smart move as their brand is not bound to geography. I also think Moreno should market his team as The Angels but the stadium lease may still preclude him from that.

 

16 hours ago, the admiral said:

Okay, well, the brand marketers are wrong as far as North American professional sports go, because the geography matters a great deal. And can we put to rest this lie that the Raiders have nothing to do with Oakland or California?

 

14 hours ago, guest23 said:

Geography might matter a "great deal" in provincial markets where the city identity is dependent on a sports franchise. Small market teams like the Sacramento Kings, Winnipeg Jets, Jacksonville Jaguars etc. may need to be joined at the hip to sell themselves but big sports brands like the Cowboys, Raiders, and Yankees have transcended the cit limits and local media market in the digital age. I would put the Warriors in that category now

 

 

While the Yankees and the Cowboys have a national footprint, they each derive 100% of their brand image from the cities that they belong to. 

 

The Raiders are a different story.  They are a unique case, the only team whose brand image is truly untethered to any geographical location.  They could set up in Oakland, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, San Antonio, or any other city, and their brand would be undiminshed.  This is not true for the New York Yankees or Dallas Cowboys.

 

The Warriors' identity has become very strong over the past few years.  But they are not in the category of the Yankees and the Cowboys.  They're not even in the category of the Lakers and the Celtics, which are permanent fixtures in the consciousness of the nation.  The Warriors are in the category of the Cavaliers and the Thunder: brands which formerly meant nothing nationally but which are now at their height, and which will surely fall again when the teams' period of dominance ends.  The last-place Lakers are still the Lakers; they still occupy a spot in people's awareness.  By contrast, a last-place Warriors team would be invisible, and would be no more significant than the Nets.

And the idea that the Angels should drop all geographical references is bonkers.  They have no nationally recognised identity; their sole asset is to be tied to Los Angeles — which is why their owner wanted to exchange the name of Anaheim, a city known for one tourist attraction, for the name of Los Angeles, one of the world's greatest cities.