B-Rich

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

Recommended Posts

"Bay Area Warriors" isn't bad. Not gonna happen, but it isn't bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word “Area” in a team name strikes me as far more objectionable than Golden State, imho. 

 

Its all just a placeholder til they become the Rakuten Warriors in eight years’ time anyway.

Share this post


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

The word “Area” in a team name strikes me as far more objectionable than Golden State, imho. 

 

Its all just a placeholder til they become the Rakuten Warriors in eight years’ time anyway.

 

You're not wrong! In Silver's NBA, there's nothing that can't be Sponsored Content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 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.

 

Also the city + MD/VA suburbs can be referred to as the "national capital region." It's a another way of saying the "Washington metropolitan area." 

 

19 hours ago, kimball said:

 

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 ...

 

Landover is near DC but it is not "basically DC." Prince George's County, from my own point of view as a DC resident, has a lot of Maryland pride. This was also before the Redskins moved out to Landover. 

 

When understanding the "national capital region," especially in the early 1970s, you've also got to understand the area's racial demographics. PG County, and DC as a whole back then, were predominantly black. I don't know exactly how to use that information here, but I think there's something to look at. The parts of DC that are still predominantly black, and have historically been black, are those that are closest to PG County, which is also still, somewhat famously, predominantly black.

 

Could "Capital" have been seen as a way of pulling in white DC suburbanites in Maryland and Virginia who would look at a team called "Washington" playing in PG County as not for them? I don't know, but just trying to introduce something that's worth looking at.

 

"Capital" wouldn't have been seen as a pull-in for Baltimore though. Just the DC area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never heard the DC area referred to as the National Capital Region. Ottawa, yeah.

Share this post


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

 

Also the city + MD/VA suburbs can be referred to as the "national capital region." It's a another way of saying the "Washington metropolitan area." 

 

 

Landover is near DC but it is not "basically DC." Prince George's County, from my own point of view as a DC resident, has a lot of Maryland pride. This was also before the Redskins moved out to Landover. 

 

When understanding the "national capital region," especially in the early 1970s, you've also got to understand the area's racial demographics. PG County, and DC as a whole back then, were predominantly black. I don't know exactly how to use that information here, but I think there's something to look at. The parts of DC that are still predominantly black, and have historically been black, are those that are closest to PG County, which is also still, somewhat famously, predominantly black.

 

Could "Capital" have been seen as a way of pulling in white DC suburbanites in Maryland and Virginia who would look at a team called "Washington" playing in PG County as not for them? I don't know, but just trying to introduce something that's worth looking at.

 

"Capital" wouldn't have been seen as a pull-in for Baltimore though. Just the DC area.

 

2457102497_81fd86ee1c.jpg?w=300

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

qrMgXYD.jpg

 

What I was describing upthread, mocked this up years and years ago. I'd probably do a better job refashioning the Bay Bridge into the Golden Gate now, I think maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm a monkey's uncle! Still, it clangs to me the same way "Homeland Security" does: there's something not-quite-American about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2018 at 11:17 PM, the admiral said:

Maybe the Warriors and Sharks should have gone halfsies on a new arena in the parking lot of the Cow Palace (if it's possible -- I haven't analyzed the terrain) circa 1993 instead of building the arena in San Jose and renovating the Coliseum Arena. Then we could have had the San Francisco Sharks and the San Francisco Warriors for a long while and kept "Golden State" to a relatively brief aberration. Of course, they still wouldn't be in San Francisco city limits, but hey, who can be these days?

Turning parking lots into arenas?  We tend to go the other way on this board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

Turning parking lots into arenas?  We tend to go the other way on this board.

Tradition Evolved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would just Bay Warriors work? Eh, probably not.

 

An example that hasn’t been tossed out for this situation that is slightly applicable is Tampa Bay Bucs/Lightning/Rays. Tampa Bay isn’t the city. It’s Tampa or its St. Petersburg. So as not to alienate any part of the region, they all go with the body of water, Tampa Bay.

 

San Francisco Bay Warriors is probably too clunky. And you’re getting the “SF” problem anyways.

 

Golden State sucks, but as outlined, I don’t know if we have a better/agreeable moniker to work with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The St. Petersburg Times became the Tampa Bay Times a few years ago. Sports got an entire newspaper to change its name. Golden State Examiner forthccoming?

 

Hockey fans may remember that the Ice Palace sold its naming rights to become the St. Petersburg Times Forum, though the arena is in Tampa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


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

Would just Bay Warriors work? Eh, probably not.

 

An example that hasn’t been tossed out for this situation that is slightly applicable is Tampa Bay Bucs/Lightning/Rays. Tampa Bay isn’t the city. It’s Tampa or its St. Petersburg. So as not to alienate any part of the region, they all go with the body of water, Tampa Bay.

 

San Francisco Bay Warriors is probably too clunky. And you’re getting the “SF” problem anyways.

 

Golden State sucks, but as outlined, I don’t know if we have a better/agreeable moniker to work with.

 

I read "East Bay Warriors" as being exactly that analogue though you're right, "Bay Area" would be more apt. And "Bay Area Warriors" isn't great at all.

 

Taking a step back, it's kind of crazy that a city like San Francisco is taking in a new team without it being renamed. I know that places like Phoenix/Arizona and St. Paul/Minnesota have a different set of constraints, but San Francisco seems a bit above that. Alas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2018 at 9:17 PM, the admiral said:

Maybe the Warriors and Sharks should have gone halfsies on a new arena in the parking lot of the Cow Palace (if it's possible -- I haven't analyzed the terrain) circa 1993 instead of building the arena in San Jose and renovating the Coliseum Arena. Then we could have had the San Francisco Sharks and the San Francisco Warriors for a long while and kept "Golden State" to a relatively brief aberration. Of course, they still wouldn't be in San Francisco city limits, but hey, who can be these days?

 

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. 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Also the city + MD/VA suburbs can be referred to as the "national capital region." It's a another way of saying the "Washington metropolitan area." 

 

 

Landover is near DC but it is not "basically DC." Prince George's County, from my own point of view as a DC resident, has a lot of Maryland pride. This was also before the Redskins moved out to Landover. 

 

When understanding the "national capital region," especially in the early 1970s, you've also got to understand the area's racial demographics. PG County, and DC as a whole back then, were predominantly black. I don't know exactly how to use that information here, but I think there's something to look at. The parts of DC that are still predominantly black, and have historically been black, are those that are closest to PG County, which is also still, somewhat famously, predominantly black.

 

Could "Capital" have been seen as a way of pulling in white DC suburbanites in Maryland and Virginia who would look at a team called "Washington" playing in PG County as not for them? I don't know, but just trying to introduce something that's worth looking at.

 

"Capital" wouldn't have been seen as a pull-in for Baltimore though. Just the DC area.

 

From someone who's from PG County, it's all the DC area to us. There isn't as much "Maryland pride" as there is throughout the rest of the state. Maybe pride in PG County, which just happens to be in MD, but it's still the DC metro area. We have more connection to DC than anything else.

 

As far as "Capital", I feel it was just a more interesting choice for a name. I don't know why it would draw more white people than "Washington" would.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.