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

[BigBryArab]

2 hours ago, rxmc89 said:

 

Maybe the Heat should change their name to the Sunshine State Heat.  Wouldn’t want to alienate the people in Fort Lauderdale.  How about Lone Star State Mavericks?  Can’t forget about the people in Fort Worth.  Golden State Lakers?  Can’t forget Orange County.

 

And the Golden Gate Bridge may be more iconic, but I think it’s overrated.  I think area that it’s in and the unique color are why it’s so famous.  The bridge itself is really nothing special, it’s just an ordinary suspension bridge. Both Bay Bridges are far better looking.

I’m not saying teams shouldn’t use their city name. Those teams never actually played in those cities, but the Warriors actually play in Oakland right now.

 

Have you ever been to the Bay? the Golden Gate Bridge is stunning in real life. 

[rxmc89]

27 minutes ago, BigBryArab said:

I’m not saying teams shouldn’t use their city name. Those teams never actually played in those cities, but the Warriors actually play in Oakland right now.

 

Have you ever been to the Bay? the Golden Gate Bridge is stunning in real life. 

 

Yes I have and I’ve seen the GGB in person and driven across it.  The area around it is beautiful but the bridge itself is nothing special.

[BBTV]

what's on the north side of the GGB?  The south is SF, right?

[Digby]

8 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

I’ve always wished the Warriors, if anything, used a more Bay Area themed moniker such as “Golden Gate” or even “Bay Area”. Golden State is fine and I like it because it’s relatively unique in American sports, but it’s kind of weird as it represents the ENTIRE state rather than just the region. You could be a Warriors fan in LA who claims that the team is trying to represent you, and you wouldn’t really be wrong. It’s the same issue we had with the California Angels. Not a bad sounding name and kind of different, but you’re stretching further than you probably should. 

 

[Digby]

2 hours ago, rxmc89 said:

 

Yes I have and I’ve seen the GGB in person and driven across it.  The area around it is beautiful but the bridge itself is nothing special.

Save it for the bridge engineering forum.

[BrianLion]

I have no problem with regional designations for teams like Golden State, New England, Tampa Bay, etc.  It breaks up the monotony of all city or state designations. 

 

Although it is a bit odd when you have other franchises in the same sport playing in the region as well. The Warriors aren't even the only team in NorCal much less the whole of California. (then again I always preferred "California Angels" to either the Anaheim or LA designations) 

[rxmc89]

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

what's on the north side of the GGB?  The south is SF, right?

 

Yes, SF is on the south side.  Sausalito is on the north side.

[Mac the Knife]

On 4/5/2018 at 7:56 AM, kroywen said:

Here's part of the problem with "Golden State": they play in one of the largest metropolitan areas in the country, and (will) play in one of the most well-known and recognizable cities in the country, and yet their name doesn't indicate that at all. It's a generic nickname for the largest state in the union - a state that has four or five 'major league' metro areas in it, and seven or so "major league" cities.

One of the largest metropolitan areas in the country, which contains within its NBA-designated home territory the cities of San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Stockton and even Sacramento (which paid an indemnification to GSW when they moved from Kansas City, and whose territories overlap to some point), all of which currently identify themselves with the team now... and four-fifths of which wouldn't if you changed "Golden State" to "San Francisco" at this point.

 

16 hours ago, the admiral said:

Wish the NBA had said "no, you're not playing games in San Diego, that's dumb" in the first place, but this was when the NBA was so small-time that you could shoot around with the Kansas City-Omaha Kings at a local gym and no one thought it was weird.

The NBA actually has a provision in its Constitution and Bylaws permitting any franchise to play up to four games a year in any market outside another NBA team's home territory, provided the Board of Governors approves it.  So there'd be nothing, for example, preventing the Warriors from deciding at some point to play four games a year in San Jose.  Or Oakland.  Or Barcelona, for that matter.

 

8 hours ago, rxmc89 said:

Maybe the Heat should change their name to the Sunshine State Heat.  Wouldn’t want to alienate the people in Fort Lauderdale.  How about Lone Star State Mavericks?  Can’t forget about the people in Fort Worth.  Golden State Lakers?  Can’t forget Orange County.

Or maybe the Arizona Coyotes, Arizona Diamondbacks, Colorado Avalanche, Colorado Rockies, Texas Rangers, Tennessee Titans, Carolina Panthers and Carolina Hurricanes (okay, I'll confess, even I think that one's dumb), Minnesota (insert name here's), or any of the other regionally named franchises.

 

While I'd like the Hurricanes to be the Raleigh Hurricanes and the Panthers to be the Charlotte Panthers because I live in North Carolina and those two cities are about 200 miles apart, in most every other case the alternative is worse:  the Glendale Coyotes.  The Arlington Rangers.  The Nashville Titans.  The St. Paul Wild (I think).  Or let's take it to its logical extremes and have the Queens Mets, Bronx Yankees, Foxborough Patriots, Miami Gardens Dolphins, Cobb County Braves, Chester Union, Arlington (or Irving, I forget) Cowboys, etc., etc., etc.

[Bobster]

On 4/5/2018 at 4:56 AM, kroywen said:

Here's part of the problem with "Golden State": they play in one of the largest metropolitan areas in the country, and (will) play in one of the most well-known and recognizable cities in the country, and yet their name doesn't indicate that at all. It's a generic nickname for the largest state in the union - a state that has four or five 'major league' metro areas in it, and seven or so "major league" cities.

 

"Golden State" could be from anywhere in the state - is it Anaheim? LA? Sacramento? Inland Empire? Bakersfield?! There's nothing that says "San Francisco" or "Bay Area" about it at all. When I was a young kid and first heard of the "Golden State Warriors," my first thought was that they played in Sacramento, since it's a lesser known city and is the state capital. Then I remembered the Kings play there, and couldn't figure out where the heck the Warriors played. I figured they might've been in Anaheim, San Diego, or perhaps even some city I had never heard of (as an East Coast kid 3,000 miles away).

 

I remember actually being quite surprised when I heard they played in Oakland, right across from San Francisco - why wouldn't they use Oakland like the Raiders and A's, or San Francisco, in the same fashion that the Giants and Jets use "New York"? "Golden State" has always come across as being overly vague and hard to identify with, at least to me. 

The reason they went with Golden State is because when they moved from San Francisco to Oakland in 1971 the plan was to also play a few games in San Diego every year (San Diego had just lost the Rockets to Houston).  That plan was abandoned pretty quickly, but unlike the Capital Bullets/Washington Bullets they chose to keep the regional nickname rather than change to the the city name.  There were several newly-named teams with regional names in the 1960's/early 70's, including the NFL's New England Patriots and Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the ABA's Carolina Cougars and Floridians and teams named after states like the Indiana Pacers, Virginia Squires, Kentucky Colonels, New Jersey Americans, Minnesota Pipers, Minnesota Muskies, Utah Stars, Texas Chaparrals, Texas Rangers, Minnesota Vikings and Minnesota Twins.

And as noted by several others - there was the possibility that the Warriors would have returned to the San Francisco name if hey hadn't had their recent success strengthening the Golden State brand.  Now it seems extremely unlikely.

[Bobster]

17 hours ago, the admiral said:

Wish the NBA had said "no, you're not playing games in San Diego, that's dumb" in the first place, but this was when the NBA was so small-time that you could shoot around with the Kansas City-Omaha Kings at a local gym and no one thought it was weird.

 

They were willing to try scheduling games in San Diego because they had averaged about 5,100 fans playing in the Bay Area the year before and the Rockets had averaged about 6,800 in San Diego (their average attendance dropped to under 5,000 for each of their first four years in Texas).  The Floridians and Carolina also tried playing regionally in the ABA and the Kings would do the same in Kansas City and Omaha.

[kimball]

5 hours ago, Bobster said:

The reason they went with Golden State is because when they moved from San Francisco to Oakland in 1971 the plan was to also play a few games in San Diego every year (San Diego had just lost the Rockets to Houston).  That plan was abandoned pretty quickly, but unlike the Capital Bullets/Washington Bullets they chose to keep the regional nickname rather than change to the the city name.  There were several newly-named teams with regional names in the 1960's/early 70's, including the NFL's New England Patriots and Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the ABA's Carolina Cougars and Floridians and teams named after states like the Indiana Pacers, Virginia Squires, Kentucky Colonels, New Jersey Americans, Minnesota Pipers, Minnesota Muskies, Utah Stars, Texas Chaparrals, Texas Rangers, Minnesota Vikings and Minnesota Twins.

And as noted by several others - there was the possibility that the Warriors would have returned to the San Francisco name if hey hadn't had their recent success strengthening the Golden State brand.  Now it seems extremely unlikely.

 

Out of curiosity ... is there a reason why the Bullets went with the Capital Bullets moniker for just that one season? I haven't seen or read anything offering a reasoning other than a move to DC. Were they planning on splitting games between Baltimore and Washington, DC?

[Bobster]

 

Double post.

 

 

[Bobster]

1 hour ago, kimball said:

 

Out of curiosity ... is there a reason why the Bullets went with the Capital Bullets moniker for just that one season? I haven't seen or read anything offering a reasoning other than a move to DC. Were they planning on splitting games between Baltimore and Washington, DC?

 

Their home games at the Capital Centre were actually played in Landover, Maryland.  It was probably an effort to get more regional support.

[kimball]

3 hours ago, Bobster said:

 

Their home games at the Capital Centre were actually played in Landover, Maryland.  It was probably an effort to get more regional support.

 

Right. Which is basically DC. I assumed it had to do with regional support, but wasn’t sure if they had the name to include Baltimore market.

 

I also wonder if it was changed once the Caps moved in the following year? Having the Capital Bullets and Washington Capital I guess wouldn’t work?

 

Im going to do some digging ...

[Trapper John]

Hate the name it's just been around so long you sort of forget how terrible it is.  

[Quillz]

14 hours ago, BrianLion said:

I have no problem with regional designations for teams like Golden State, New England, Tampa Bay, etc.  It breaks up the monotony of all city or state designations. 

 

Although it is a bit odd when you have other franchises in the same sport playing in the region as well. The Warriors aren't even the only team in NorCal much less the whole of California. (then again I always preferred "California Angels" to either the Anaheim or LA designations) 

This is why I have only liked "region" names when the team is the only one in the region representing their sport. Like, "Minnesota Twins" is perfect: the only pro baseball team in Minnesota. This is why I never liked "California Angels" or "Texas Rangers," although the latter does have some historical context.

[SJAnfield]

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.  

[Gothamite]

On 4/5/2018 at 10:45 PM, ChicagoOakland said:

The weird thing is when that logo was introduced, that bridge wasn't even finished yet.

 

I don’t know if it’s “weird” - the bridge was under construction, and everyone knew it would be iconic upon completion.  It was designed to be so. 

[Gothamite]

20 hours ago, rxmc89 said:

 

Yes, SF is on the south side.  Sausalito is on the north side.

 

And Muir Woods, one of my favorite places on Earth. 

[smzimbabwe]

11 hours ago, Quillz said:

 Like, "Minnesota Twins" is perfect: the only pro baseball team in Minnesota. 

So if Duluth somehow got a team, the Twins should change their name?