Gothamite Posted May 6, 2008 Share Posted May 6, 2008 How about the Oklahoma Corral?.... yup the OK Corral.And now we're back to Arizona.... The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEAD! Posted May 6, 2008 Share Posted May 6, 2008 How about the Oklahoma Corral?.... yup the OK Corral.And now we're back to Arizona....... yeah, I knew it didn't make much sense How about the Oklahoma Computers? The OK Computers? Eh... I give up.... I saw, I came, I left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfoster Posted May 6, 2008 Share Posted May 6, 2008 I do like the sound of Oklahoma City Outlaws though. I'd go with an old West theme. Maybe black, bronze and red.My problem with this line of thinking about the team name is that Oklahoma actually has relatively little old West history. There was some cattle-trail activity and all, but as far as our stereotypes of the old West go, Oklahoma is practically a hole in the map until the frontier was pretty much settled. Given Oklahoma's status as home to many native tribes, and having existed under at least six different national governments, I'd be more inclined to go with something like the Sovereigns. Or the Okies. I'd lean toward using Western colors and iconography, but I'd try to keep the name a bit more current. I'd also throw the Riders, Gushers, and Dusters into the mix.There's so little old West history in Oklahoma they put the National Cowboy Hall of Fame in OKC. Nearly ALL the cattle trails came through Oklahoma (and I think the Goodnight-Loving still clipped the Panhandle). The 101 Ranch and associated Wild West Show were based in Oklahoma (I have several ancestors who were ranch hands there). There was no hole on the map. The eastern 1/2 or so was settled by the relocated Five Civilized Tribes (and a few others, ex., Jim Thorpe was Sac & Fox), and what wasn't settled was leased to cattlemen (like Colonel George Miller of the 101). It wasn't simply terra incognito until the cannons went off in 1889.Oh, and there are no Okies in Oklahoma. As Will Rogers once said, "they all moved to California, and raised the IQs of both states." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferrousoxide66 Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 I liked the ol CBA name, the Oklahoma City Cavalry.And if we want to dredge up USFL references, the "Outlaws" was a damn cool nickname, but I think Generalissimo Stern would veto that one in a heartbeat. Preserving the supposed image of the players as "choirboys" while communities have their teams stolen from them. Love that guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J23P Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 cavalry is too close to cavaliers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferrousoxide66 Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 cavalry is too close to cavaliers...Absolutely correct with that one. Didn't even think of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkJourney Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 How about this for a nickname:"Lets wait until the situation is resolved in Seattle" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hecticbro Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 I've always thought Renegades would make a good nickname for a team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cranium Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 The NBA is never going to approve a name that suggests outlaw/illegal activities. They are way too concerned about the league's reputation and image nowadays to permit such names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AAO Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Oklahoma City Sonics. Perfect. I don't think they'll ditch the Sonics moniker because it is unique to all 4 major sports leagues. (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL). Behance Network || ianbakar.com || Dribbble Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk36 Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Seems in a perfect world, the NBA should simply have the Hornets and Sonics trade owners, and have the Sonics stay in Seattle under Shinn and have the Hornets move back to OKC under Bennett.No. Why would Shinn, as owner of the franchise with a profitable lease agreement, up-to-date arena, and growing/"arrived" fan support move to a lesser, obsolete arena and terrible lease?Why should Shinn have to leave his new home (and that of his children, a couple of whom work with him in the organization) and move more than halfway across the country to a different city?Yes I know that the Hornets are doing better in NOL now but I think most would agree that short of an amazing season like the current one, they aren't going to be able to survive there.Quit relying on message boards, talking heads and pundits. "Most would agree" that the Hornets were going to lose in Round 1 against the more experienced Mavericks. "Most would agree" that the reigning champion Spurs were going to easily handle the Hornets.And if you go back not only on these boards but also on other boards and blogs, in September of 2005, "most would agree" that the Saints were never coming back to New Orleans, that the Superdome would be razed, and that New Orleans would never recover from Katrina and would be abandoned.Thankfully, what bloggers, pundits and board posters "most agree" on does NOT determine the fate of sports franchises and cities.Finally, if I have not stated this before, let me state it now: The fate of the Sonics franchise vis-a-vis their possible relocation to Oklahoma City is not and should not be tied in with the New Orlean Hornets.. If Katrina had never happened, and the Hornets had never played there for two seasons, Schultz STILL would have had the team for sale, and Bennett STILL would have bought the team, and STILL would have done what he has done regarding the move. If the Seattle powers that be would have (a) found a local ownership group committed to staying and (b ) spent the money to create a better arena/lease situation, Bennett would be looking elsewhere for a team with a bad, short-term lease and an owner willing to sell.I could be wrong, have been many times in the past, but the reality is, in the long run, NOL doesn't have the corporate industries that can support more than one major sports franchise. Unfortunate, but too true in this era of professional sports. The fans don't matter, it's the dollars from the corporates that make it happen. Design Hovie Studios Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk36 Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Oklahoma City Sonics. Perfect. I don't think they'll ditch the Sonics moniker because it is unique to all 4 major sports leagues. (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL).Sonics is simply too tied to Seattle to work well in OC. Would be like the Washington Nationals keeping the Expos name. Just doesn't work. But then again this is the NBA with the Lakers in LA and the Jazz in Utah so doesn't seem like a team name needs to have anything at all to do with the city the team plays in. Design Hovie Studios Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eRay Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Oklahoma City Sonics. Perfect. I don't think they'll ditch the Sonics moniker because it is unique to all 4 major sports leagues. (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL).What do you mean by "unique"? Only used by one team in the 4 Majors? Then, yes, you are correct.Not similar to any other sports team names? I always thought the NY Jets, Houston Rockets, and Houston Astros were similarly themed names. Then again, maybe it's just me. Upon looking into the Sonics' name, it was inspired by a Boeing contract for a project...and then the project was cancelled. It is still a good name that should not be changed if they stay in Seattle, but c'mon, thats a little lame, even the Toronto Raptors think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proc Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 The NBA is never going to approve a name that suggests outlaw/illegal activities. They are way too concerned about the league's reputation and image nowadays to permit such names.SuperSonics is a reference to Seattle's jet-building industry. It has nothing to do with OKC.But then Jazz has nothing to do with Salt Lake City either. Whoever said Utah should be called the "Salt Lakers", I applaud you. Nice call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
szczepmj Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Sonic Drive-In is based out of Oklahoma City. They don't own the team obviously, but I thought it was interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Survival79 Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 SuperSonics is a reference to Seattle's jet-building industry. It has nothing to do with OKC.However, Sonics has at least something to do with Oklahoma City.Oklahoma City sonic boom tests "If things have gone wrong, I'm talking to myself, and you've got a wet towel wrapped around your head." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee. Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 How about the Oklahoma Corral?.... yup the OK Corral.And now we're back to Arizona....... yeah, I knew it didn't make much sense How about the Oklahoma Computers? The OK Computers? Eh... I give up.... Thank Christ. Welcome to DrunjFlix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juddley Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 If I'm not mistaken the NBA has rules in place so that the name of the club will stay the same after relocation for a given number of years. The Grizzlies kept their name after the move to Memphis in 2001. They even kept the name after a vote with the fans about a new name when the logo change came around. So the Sonics will keep the name for a few years after the move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruColor Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 If I'm not mistaken the NBA has rules in place so that the name of the club will stay the same after relocation for a given number of years. The Grizzlies kept their name after the move to Memphis in 2001. They even kept the name after a vote with the fans about a new name when the logo change came around. So the Sonics will keep the name for a few years after the move.There have already been a number of articles written how the "SuperSonics" name will most likely stay in Seattle - in the case of a new expansion team or something along those lines.I don't think that there is any way "Sonics" goes to OKC with the franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Discogod Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 So it's pretty much a Ravens/Browns situation, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.