B-Rich

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

Recommended Posts

Has it ever occurred to you that the Raiders' image is a function of where they played?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, DeFrank said:

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

 

Yeah, I always thought of the Redskins as the truest team for natives of the entire DMV/southern Mid-Atlantic/whatever, because of their tenure, their success, and the fact that football brings demographics together like that. The Capitals feel like a distinctly Northern Virginia team to me, transplant-friendly but with a definite core of very proud DC-area lifers, while the Cosplay Bullets seem to skew more to the District and Maryland and get that particular NBA mix of blacks and rich white snobs. The Nationals feel like an occasion for people from other places to get together and hang out; I'm not convinced they really won over that many O's fans from points south. But that whole part of the country is still terra incognita to me until maybe this summer so I could be 0/4 here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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

 

Cowboys yes - the star is a big part of that, as is the national exposure.  I don't think 99% of the non-US world knows what Dallas is, but that doesn't matter.  I'm inclined to agree with the Raiders too, but they wouldn't have gotten that way had it not been partially because of their geography.  Disagree on the Yankees.  The NEW YORK part of NEW YORK YANKEES is a big deal, and part of their success- especially internationally - is due to the NY cap, which many people just look at as a cool American thing, not even necessarily knowing anything about the Yankees.

 

The Warriors are not in that category now, nor will they ever be.  Once this success fades, so will they.  It's just how it is.

 

1 hour ago, Digby said:

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.

 

It's possibly the biggest one.

 

42 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

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.  The 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. 

 

Good post.

 

6 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Has it ever occurred to you that the Raiders' image is a function of where they played?

 

Sure is.  If they were the Des Moines Raiders rather than LA, then they don't get as much popularity in the gangsta rap world, their stars like Bo Jackson might not get the same attention, and let's face it - "OAKLAND Raiders" just sounds cool, even if most people wouldn't know where Oakland is if it wasn't for sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean really the Warriors could use Golden State no matter where they go in California. Maybe that’s what makes them so dynamic. They are just gonna bounce around California every once in awhile and keep the same name. It’s truly unreal smart branding. Just bringing championships to as many cities in California as possible because the LAs and Sacramento sure ain’t bringing home any banners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DeFrank said:

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

 

When I first started watching sports in the late 70's, I was confused why Seattle would play Washington, shouldn't they be friends (I was around 7 or 8 at the time). Someone had to explain to me that Washington had nothing to do with the state and was a separate city and I had been there before (which made it more embarrassing to me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, the admiral said:

 

Yeah, I always thought of the Redskins as the truest team for natives of the entire DMV/southern Mid-Atlantic/whatever, because of their tenure, their success, and the fact that football brings demographics together like that. The Capitals feel like a distinctly Northern Virginia team to me, transplant-friendly but with a definite core of very proud DC-area lifers, while the Cosplay Bullets seem to skew more to the District and Maryland and get that particular NBA mix of blacks and rich white snobs. The Nationals feel like an occasion for people from other places to get together and hang out; I'm not convinced they really won over that many O's fans from points south. But that whole part of the country is still terra incognita to me until maybe this summer so I could be 0/4 here.

 

I agree with most of this except the capitals thing. Not sure why but I have no association of them as Virginian more than anything else. But definitely on the mark with the NBA, NFL. Nats too on the idea that it’s an occasion for everyone, but I would say that many O’s fans have come over. Not all, but many, especially of my age. I was 10 when the Nats came in. Never an o’s fan, but many of my friend were. If you lived in DC you joined up, if you lived in true ‘Maryland (Bethesda, but not Chevy Chasr) you typically stayed with the O’s/loved the Maryland foootball pride uniforms/old bay etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the admiral said:

Brown1 is a poster to watch in 2018.

I’m not very good looking so watch at your own risk. Dad said I had mom’s looks but I never understood that because I have two dads? It’s probably the whole test tube thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, DeFrank said:

I agree with most of this except the capitals thing. Not sure why but I have no association of them as Virginian more than anything else.

 

I was imagining an analogue of Chicago suburbia, where the middle-class bedrock and nouveau-riche exurbs (i.e. NoVa) have a serious Blackhawks presence, but the North Shore is thought of as decidedly Bulls territory. Also, the Chicagoiest of sports fans usually manifest their provincialism through the Blackhawks and White Sox, so I figured there was an element of that with the Caps as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Golden State Warriors sounds better than San Francisco Warriors anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, the admiral said:

 

I was imagining an analogue of Chicago suburbia, where the middle-class bedrock and nouveau-riche exurbs (i.e. NoVa) have a serious Blackhawks presence, but the North Shore is thought of as decidedly Bulls territory. Also, the Chicagoiest of sports fans usually manifest their provincialism through the Blackhawks and White Sox, so I figured there was an element of that with the Caps as well.

 

I get that. I keep thinking of Phillip and Elizabeth Jennings in FX's "The Americans," and how they live in NoVa and they're big Caps fans because they... you know, are Soviet spies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, smzimbabwe said:

 

When I first started watching sports in the late 70's, I was confused why Seattle would play Washington, shouldn't they be friends (I was around 7 or 8 at the time). Someone had to explain to me that Washington had nothing to do with the state and was a separate city and I had been there before (which made it more embarrassing to me).

Same here, up until I was 9 or so. Though for a brief period I also thought the Blazers played in Maine. I knew little of western geography at this point, needless to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours 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. ;)

 

I wonder if I could drop my car off for service, then just pick it up after the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, leopard88 said:

 

I wonder if I could drop my car off for service, then just pick it up after the game.

 

Might be stripped of a few vital parts that would then be surreptitiously resold on the black market, but otherwise, sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

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.

 

Dare I say, branding themselves as an explicitly San Francisco team might help them in terms of building a national presence. The two "San Francisco" teams - the Giants and the Niners - both have a much more enduring 'national' brand than the Warriors, A's, or Sharks (the Raiders are in some weird exception-that-prove-the-rule thing with their brand, of course). No, the Giants and the Niners don't quite have the brand value of the Yankees, Dodgers, Cowboys, etc., but they're definitely seen as 'prominent' and 'historic' teams in their respective leagues, and I think much of that is derived from being explicitly from 'San Francisco.'

 

The Warriors are a charter NBA franchise with 5 championships and Wilt Chamberlain to their name, and yet they're not at all in that upper echelon of 'prestigious' NBA franchises. (And while they did relocate west, the Dodgers and Giants are both in that upper echelon of baseball franchises, as are the Lakers in the NBA, so that's not a great impediment.) Would the "San Francisco Warriors" carry the same kind of prestige that the "San Francisco Giants" and "San Francisco 49ers" do? I tend to think so. They'll never be the Lakers or the Yankees, but they could sure as hell be on the next rung down, so to speak.

 

19 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

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. 

 

You know, being the 'second fiddle' franchise in a major market doesn't really carry much prestige - I don't think anyone thinks of the Mets, Jets, White Sox, Clippers, Nets, etc., as being 'prestige franchises' (and I say that as a Jets fan) - but it sure as hell carries a lot of financial value to their owners. Those 'second-fiddle' major market franchises are usually ranked in the top 10 most valuable franchises in their respective leagues (well, at least the New York and LA ones do). And when those teams are good, they attract a ton of attention and money - more than a good team in a small city would attract. So while being the second-fiddle LA team isn't going to build up a ton of prestige, it's a hell of lot more valuable than being Orange County's quasi-team/Disneyland's side attraction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Warriors had the bad timing of going into an extended lull during the sports-media/internet boom of the late '90s. Sometimes someone would say they have "surprisingly good fans" but mostly they were just that one team that lost 45 games every year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, the admiral said:

The Warriors had the bad timing of going into an extended lull during the sports-media/internet boom of the late '90s. Sometimes someone would say they have "surprisingly good fans" but mostly they were just that one team that lost 45 games every year.

 

Warriors' games were the epicenter of the NBA's cocaine period in the '80s. Whoops.

 

16 minutes ago, kroywen said:

 

Dare I say, branding themselves as an explicitly San Francisco team might help them in terms of building a national presence. The two "San Francisco" teams - the Giants and the Niners - both have a much more enduring 'national' brand than the Warriors, A's, or Sharks (the Raiders are in some weird exception-that-prove-the-rule thing with their brand, of course). No, the Giants and the Niners don't quite have the brand value of the Yankees, Dodgers, Cowboys, etc., but they're definitely seen as 'prominent' and 'historic' teams in their respective leagues, and I think much of that is derived from being explicitly from 'San Francisco.'

 

Good points, but there are complications to them. The Niners had arguably the most significant pre-Brady Patriots dynasty in the NFL through the 1980s-mid 1990s, while the Giants had the good fortune of being successful when they moved to SF and having the best outfielder of the 1990s-early '00s play for them.

 

Let's not forget that the Giants nearly moved to Toronto, San Jose (A's fans will never not bring that up), and Tampa Bay while playing at Candlestick. Bonds, the Magowan and post-Magowan ownership, and Willie Mays Park saved the team from obscurity and restored them to a national presence in the "sports media boom."

 

Quote

The Warriors are a charter NBA franchise with 5 championships and Wilt Chamberlain to their name, and yet they're not at all in that upper echelon of 'prestigious' NBA franchises. (And while they did relocate west, the Dodgers and Giants are both in that upper echelon of baseball franchises, as are the Lakers in the NBA, so that's not a great impediment.) Would the "San Francisco Warriors" carry the same kind of prestige that the "San Francisco Giants" and "San Francisco 49ers" do? I tend to think so. They'll never be the Lakers or the Yankees, but they could sure as hell be on the next rung down, so to speak.

 

The big reason why they're not in the "upper echelon" is that they spent about forty years being mediocre to terrible. Even in a "good" market, on-field failure will lower your prestige. Look at Red Wings during the "Dead Wings" period or the Phillies through most of their existence. Wilt barely played in the Bay Area, and Warriors fans are more likely to remember Rick Barry, Al Attles, or Run-TMC. While I'm one of the most pro-NY baseball Giants fans in the SF Giants community (i.e., I believe the Giants should have built a John McGraw statue long before a Gaylord Perry one), I can understand the relocation divide. Heck, how many Laker fans have any idea who George Mikan was?

 

Quote

You know, being the 'second fiddle' franchise in a major market doesn't really carry much prestige - I don't think anyone thinks of the Mets, Jets, White Sox, Clippers, Nets, etc., as being 'prestige franchises' (and I say that as a Jets fan) - but it sure as hell carries a lot of financial value to their owners. Those 'second-fiddle' major market franchises are usually ranked in the top 10 most valuable franchises in their respective leagues (well, at least the New York and LA ones do). And when those teams are good, they attract a ton of attention and money - more than a good team in a small city would attract. So while being the second-fiddle LA team isn't going to build up a ton of prestige, it's a hell of lot more valuable than being Orange County's quasi-team/Disneyland's side attraction.

 

"Second Fiddle" teams may have prestige, but let's remember that it was the "Anaheim" Angels that did this (shudder):

 

021-645x356.jpg pitcher-scott-schoeneweis-of-the-anaheim-angels-celebrates-with-picture-id1582315

 

You can't take that away from them and that city name. Likewise, "Los Angeles Ducks" wouldn't fly. Local fans prefer the "Anaheim" name (from what I've gathered), as do Dodger fans. The "Orange Curtain" is far stronger power than many give it credit for, one that almost necessitates the "Anaheim" name for teams in the region. The ideological difference between LA and "the OC" is comparable to the Manhattan/Brooklyn divide. Read Lisa McGirr's Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right to see it action. I was once pro-"Los Angeles Angels," but time and experience with their fans has shown me the errors of my ways. I know I'll get a lot of flak for this paragraph, but I'm glad I put it out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 Lisa McGirr's Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right

 

I was trying to recommend this book to someone but I couldn't remember the name. I stalled at "the one about the Sun Belt suburbs and Goldwater." Thanks for jogging my memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Anaheim is a good comparison for this discussion -- Orange County is similar to the Bay Area with both being a lot more diffuse than we're used to in our sports team markets. I guess I would perceive it as the Bay has two centers (SF and SJ), while Orange County has no center at all (or if it does it's LA, and has a really weird relationship to its center as was just discussed). Anaheim always struck me as a weird, small-time place identifier for those two teams -- and I assumed both were called that strictly as Disneyland synergy -- but I don't know what would be the better option. Regardless of their name I don't think the Angels have convincingly made a connection to Los Angeles, but maybe that will change if Ohtanimania takes off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now