Utah Jazz - Early '80s Green Road Unis

[hawk36]

Wow, so now people want to ban me?

My main point was that Jazz, as in Jazz music, for Utah is incorrect and thus a music note should not be in the logo. That is why they got rid of it long ago. As someone who did design work for the team back during the switch, I know this personally. I thought their explanation, "we are not Jazz music, but we play a Jazzy type of basketball" for the name was weak but that was their decision.

[Buster]

Are there really a lot of hornets in Utah? I'd guess "NO" due to the cold weather.

[hawk36]

Are there really a lot of hornets in Utah? I'd guess "NO" due to the cold weather.

Utah is the "Beehive" state so we know there are a lot of bees there. Other than that a quick Google search found this:

There are at least four species of hornets in Utah, and the most common is the baldfaced hornet, Dolichovespula maculata (Figs. 8, 9). The baldfaced hornet is actually not a true hornet, but is an aerial- nesting yellowjacket. Adults look very similar to yellowjackets, and are smooth with black and yellow or white bands of color. The queen is about 3/4 ̋ long, and the workers are about 1/2 ̋ long.

[IceCap]

Wow, so now people want to ban me?

My main point was that Jazz, as in Jazz music, for Utah is incorrect and thus a music note should not be in the logo. That is why they got rid of it long ago. As someone who did design work for the team back during the switch, I know this personally. I thought their explanation, "we are not Jazz music, but we play a Jazzy type of basketball" for the name was weak but that was their decision.

It's that the whole "lets switch the names" thing is worn out, overplayed, and really doesn't make sense if you think about it.

[jhans203]

Wow, so now people want to ban me?

My main point was that Jazz, as in Jazz music, for Utah is incorrect and thus a music note should not be in the logo. That is why they got rid of it long ago. As someone who did design work for the team back during the switch, I know this personally. I thought their explanation, "we are not Jazz music, but we play a Jazzy type of basketball" for the name was weak but that was their decision.

It's that this brilliant idea has been overplayed too much on this board and throughout the whole internet. We understand that Jazz, Hornets, Lakers, Grizzlies and etc. would make sense if there was a little switch-a-roo of names in the NBA. Will it happen? No. Do we (as fans of the teams) want it to happen? No. Should others care? No.

[The_Admiral]

I bet the Utah Jazz are one of the most famous things about Salt Lake City other than Mormonism. "Oh, you're from Salt Lake City? Utah Jazz! Stockton to Malone!" It's a good brand, albeit currently lost in the wilderness of bad design decisions. Don't mess with it.

[IceCap]

That and "Utah Hornets" and "New Orleans Jazz" would completley screw with the NBA's historical records, the individual legacies of the teams, create fan confusion of who was named what and who plays for what team, and create a whole new set of merchandising and marketing problems.

It's a very bad idea for a lot of reasons.

[mania]

The Jazz note, I'm sorry, only works in New Orleans. Let it go until the NBA does the right thing and trades the names so that we have the:

- Utah Hornets

- New Orleans Jazz

So trading names is now an ethical matter? The only ethical thing the NBA should do is return the Sonics to Seattle.

Seattle could've... you know... built an arena and they wouldn't have moved in the first place.

[Wasatch]

The Jazz note, I'm sorry, only works in New Orleans. Let it go until the NBA does the right thing and trades the names so that we have the:

- Utah Hornets

- New Orleans Jazz

You're funny! When are you going to join the club and drop the whole "Trade Jazz for Hornets" debate?

Can we not just ban anyone who mentions a name switch?

Thank You!

That and "Utah Hornets" and "New Orleans Jazz" would completley screw with the NBA's historical records, the individual legacies of the teams, create fan confusion of who was named what and who plays for what team, and create a whole new set of merchandising and marketing problems.

It's a very bad idea for a lot of reasons.

You hit it right on!

With all that said, I agree, the Sonics (aka Thunder) need to move back to Seattle!

[IceCap]

See, here's the thing. While it does suck that Seattle lost their team, the city has no one to blame but themselves (well ok, the municipal leaders). Had they built a new arena the team would still be in Seattle today. It's hard to feel like the city was robbed when its leaders could have stopped the whole thing from happening.

That, and I thought Oklahoma City did deserve a team after they supported the Hornets so well following the whole Katrina mess.

[Wasatch]

See, here's the thing. While it does suck that Seattle lost their team, the city has no one to blame but themselves (well ok, the municipal leaders). Had they built a new arena the team would still be in Seattle today. It's hard to feel like the city was robbed when its leaders could have stopped the whole thing from happening.

The whole ?Sonics Leaving Seattle? debate is another one that?s been discussed to death here and other boards I?m sure. While you?re quite right that the Seattle Municipal Leaders are the ones to blame, I don?t quite get it. The City of Seattle could have just added on X many extra on the current tourist tax and that would have been more than enough to pay for the new arena that was needed. It?s not like this was money coming out of their own pockets!

That, and I thought Oklahoma City did deserve a team after they supported the Hornets so well following the whole Katrina mess.

I think Kansas City and St. Louis would have been more than happy to step up to but I don't see them getting a team any time soon. It's just too bad Howard Schultz didn't do his do diligence in finding an owner.

[The_Admiral]

Seattle could've... you know... built an arena and they wouldn't have moved in the first place.

As I recall, Bennett and McClendon demanded a publicly-funded arena so opulent that it couldn't possibly be taken seriously, thus giving them an easy "hey we tried" card to play. They also refused to put an arena in Kent or Renton or anywhere with real estate cheaper than downtown Seattle. To think that they had any interest in anything other than Oklahoma City, short of being handed a top-flight rent-free palace free of charge, is extremely naive. It's not as cut and dried as you make it out to be, as usual.

The City of Seattle could have just added on X many extra on the current tourist tax and that would have been more than enough to pay for the new arena that was needed. It's not like this was money coming out of their own pockets!

There's no such thing as a free lunch. The money has to come out of someone's pocket, and maybe those pockets aren't going to be as readily available as you hoped. You can only offset everything to the out-of-towners for so long before you run the risk of losing the out-of-towners. If every project is met with "just slap it on the hotel tax," that's eventually going to bite you in the ass when people find cheaper alternatives.

[TruColor]

I think Kansas City and St. Louis would have been more than happy to step up to but I don't see them getting a team any time soon. It's just too bad Howard Schultz didn't do his do diligence in finding an owner.

St. Louis won't due to the fact that the former owners of the Spirits still own the territorial rights to the area, and are gettin' PAID from the current TV contracts.

I still think the Kings might go back to K.C. if they can't get their arena mess worked out.

[jtthasportfreak]

BTW they looked beautiful against the Los Angeles Lakers last night. Pics ?

[jhans203]

BTW they looked beautiful against the Los Angeles Lakers last night. Pics ?

First off, the Jazz sure played like it was 1982 last night. Not the kind of throwback you want.

Second, I love color-on-color matchups in the NBA especially this combination. This will be the same jersey matchup on Saturday in SLC. I wish the NBA would let both teams wear color if they contrasted enough. More teams should also be allowed to wear gold at home (ie-Indiana, Golden State, etc.). Just sayin' ...

[Wasatch]

There's no such thing as a free lunch. The money has to come out of someone's pocket, and maybe those pockets aren't going to be as readily available as you hoped. You can only offset everything to the out-of-towners for so long before you run the risk of losing the out-of-towners. If every project is met with "just slap it on the hotel tax," that's eventually going to bite you in the ass when people find cheaper alternatives.

Seattle will always have a big market in tourism, so they'll never have a problem with the "out of towners" flipping the bill.....

[dfwabel]

There's no such thing as a free lunch. The money has to come out of someone's pocket, and maybe those pockets aren't going to be as readily available as you hoped. You can only offset everything to the out-of-towners for so long before you run the risk of losing the out-of-towners. If every project is met with "just slap it on the hotel tax," that's eventually going to bite you in the ass when people find cheaper alternatives.

Seattle will always have a big market in tourism, so they'll never have a problem with the "out of towners" flipping the bill.....

Your "original" idea of tacking on an additional percentage to hotel taxes would give them temporarily, they highest hotel taxes in the US. It has been talked about, but not specifically for a new sports/entertainment facility.

Hospitality industry fights efforts to increase Seattle?s hotel tax

[Wasatch]

There's no such thing as a free lunch. The money has to come out of someone's pocket, and maybe those pockets aren't going to be as readily available as you hoped. You can only offset everything to the out-of-towners for so long before you run the risk of losing the out-of-towners. If every project is met with "just slap it on the hotel tax," that's eventually going to bite you in the ass when people find cheaper alternatives.

Seattle will always have a big market in tourism, so they'll never have a problem with the "out of towners" flipping the bill.....

Your "original" idea of tacking on an additional percentage to hotel taxes would give them temporarily, they highest hotel taxes in the US. It has been talked about, but not specifically for a new sports/entertainment facility.

Hospitality industry fights efforts to increase Seattle?s hotel tax

Wow, that's crazy to think they'd be higher than San Francisco and New York. Perhaps in the future when the Safeco Field and Qwest Field tourist taxes are finished, they could just extend it to help pay for a new arena.

[DustDevil61]

The whole “Sonics Leaving Seattle” debate is another one that’s been discussed to death here and other boards I’m sure. While you’re quite right that the Seattle Municipal Leaders are the ones to blame, I don’t quite get it. The City of Seattle could have just added on X many extra on the current tourist tax and that would have been more than enough to pay for the new arena that was needed. It’s not like this was money coming out of their own pockets!

I felt something could have been worked out had the Sonics stayed out their lease in Key Arena. The political leaders didn't bend to Bennett's demands and gave in at the end. I'm personally glad that Oklahoma City has an NBA team, but the way they got it was terrible: at the expense of a city with a lot of history in the given league.

This is the same way I feel about how the NFL returned to Baltimore, St. Louis, and Oakland, then came to Nashville (the Raiders should never have left Oakland, but Al Davis is their owner); it's good to see Nashville in the league (and BAL, STL, and OAK back), but the way they each got their team (except Oakland) was not good.

As for the "change/swap the Jazz name" discussions, there's just too much history that the team has here to justify changing the name. It may look good on paper at first, but you then get to the historical part of things and confusion ensues.

Why don't I ever hear of "change the Lakers/Grizzlies/etc. name" discussions? As far as names go, there aren't enough lakes in SoCal nor grizzlies near Memphis to justify the teams' keeping of their names. But everybody knows the Lakers and they have had a lot of success and history, and the Grizzlies name is more like a generic animal name in given city, like Bengals in Cincinatti or Lions and Tigers in Detroit (as none of those animals native to those cities).

As far as those green Jazz jerseys, they are great. However, like at the time the Jazz wore those jerseys (early 80's), they didn't know what they were capable of in last night's game, but I won't go there; I want to keep positive thoughts in my mind.

[jimbojohnny56]

Yo, Wasatch!

Updated ball