Oklahoma City .....

[hawk36]

To me it's simple. If a team does not keep the same name, it shouldn't claim any of the past history. PERIOD.

Let's put it this way, I'd be shocked if any Sonics would even show up if OKC were to retire their numbers. Gary Payton and Shawn Kemp have already said there is no way they would ever set foot at an OKC game. As well, the Sonics who have already had their numbers retired, I've heard, are pretty clear that they do not want their numbers hanging from the rafters in OKC.

[BBTV]

Howabout a rule that when a team moves, it can protect a few of its players, the rest get disbursed (somehow), and you have an expansion draft, so that the team can actually be a new team, not just the league making believe that they're a new team.

[rams80]

How about fans take advantage of the miracles of modern mass communication, thank the team for saving them money on season ticket deposits, and follow the team regardless of where it plays?

Oh wait...that's just silly talk from a guy who is a out of market fan of all his teams.

As for Payton and Kemp, promise them a replica championship ring, and a free month's child support payment respectively, and watch them come to games.

[hawk36]

Howabout a rule that when a team moves, it can protect a few of its players, the rest get disbursed (somehow), and you have an expansion draft, so that the team can actually be a new team, not just the league making believe that they're a new team.

I wouldn't go that far but I'd love there to be a rule that if a team moves, it is required to pick a new name, colors, brand, etc. In my mind, the city is as much a part of the name as the mascot. So, in my perfect world, you could not separate Charlotte from the Hornets or New Orleans from the Jazz or even the Lakers from Minneapolis or the Dodgers from Brooklyn.

If you want to move, fine, you can keep the players, but leave the brand, history, name behind. Only seems fair.

[mania]

Howabout a rule that when a team moves, it can protect a few of its players, the rest get disbursed (somehow), and you have an expansion draft, so that the team can actually be a new team, not just the league making believe that they're a new team.

I wouldn't go that far but I'd love there to be a rule that if a team moves, it is required to pick a new name, colors, brand, etc. In my mind, the city is as much a part of the name as the mascot. So, in my perfect world, you could not separate Charlotte from the Hornets or New Orleans from the Jazz or even the Lakers from Minneapolis or the Dodgers from Brooklyn.

If you want to move, fine, you can keep the players, but leave the brand, history, name behind. Only seems fair.

How does that seem fair? If you buy the team, you buy everything that goes along with it.

[quantum]

I know fans get irked when their team moves, but the titles and history should remain with the franchise. To me, the legacy is part of the value of the franchise. If the relocating franchise betrays you unjustly, why would you want any connection to that team anyway?

With that said, I'm glad the Browns organization became the Ravens. Baltimore Browns just doesn't have the same ring IMO.

[FiddySicks]

Howabout a rule that when a team moves, it can protect a few of its players, the rest get disbursed (somehow), and you have an expansion draft, so that the team can actually be a new team, not just the league making believe that they're a new team.

I wouldn't go that far but I'd love there to be a rule that if a team moves, it is required to pick a new name, colors, brand, etc. In my mind, the city is as much a part of the name as the mascot. So, in my perfect world, you could not separate Charlotte from the Hornets or New Orleans from the Jazz or even the Lakers from Minneapolis or the Dodgers from Brooklyn.

If you want to move, fine, you can keep the players, but leave the brand, history, name behind. Only seems fair.

But even so, that doesn't guarantee that the old city will instantly keep it's old name, just look at the Texans.

[jhans203]

I know fans get irked when their team moves, but the titles and history should remain with the franchise. To me, the legacy is part of the value of the franchise. If the relocating franchise betrays you unjustly, why would you want any connection to that team anyway?

With that said, I'm glad the Browns organization became the Ravens. Baltimore Browns just doesn't have the same ring IMO.

If Baltimore's MLB and NFL teams kept their previous nickname prior to moving to Baltimore, they would both be known as the Baltimore Browns. Totally off topic and a bit random, but interesting nonetheless.

[BlueSky]

I know fans get irked when their team moves, but the titles and history should remain with the franchise. To me, the legacy is part of the value of the franchise. If the relocating franchise betrays you unjustly, why would you want any connection to that team anyway?

Couldn't disagree more. The team is identified with the city and with the fans. Without the fans there would be no team. If the current franchise can't stay, fine, go be something else, but the fans deserve to keep the legacy the team built there.

Besides, often the nickname makes no sense in the new location. The Oilers are a good example but the best example of totally ridiculous nickname retention has to be the Utah Jazz. Makes as much sense as calling a team the New Orleans Mormons. Just...doesn't...fit.

Back on topic, frankly I haven't read all 22 pages of this thread so if this is a repeat I apologize. First, I'd be very surprised if any tornado/cyclone-related name is used since those events have caused untold death and destruction in Oklahoma. My suggestion for a name would be to drop the word 'city' and call them the Oklahoma Wildcatters. Too many syllables with the word 'city' in there but just using Oklahoma really works and will increase the team's appeal across the state.

Recognizing that not everyone knows this term, a 'wildcatter' is someone who drills for oil in a location not known to contain oil. They're drilling 'on spec' in the hope of finding oil.

[BBTV]

Howabout a rule that when a team moves, it can protect a few of its players, the rest get disbursed (somehow), and you have an expansion draft, so that the team can actually be a new team, not just the league making believe that they're a new team.

I wouldn't go that far but I'd love there to be a rule that if a team moves, it is required to pick a new name, colors, brand, etc. In my mind, the city is as much a part of the name as the mascot. So, in my perfect world, you could not separate Charlotte from the Hornets or New Orleans from the Jazz or even the Lakers from Minneapolis or the Dodgers from Brooklyn.

If you want to move, fine, you can keep the players, but leave the brand, history, name behind. Only seems fair.

But even so, that doesn't guarantee that the old city will instantly keep it's old name, just look at the Texans.

Never mind.

[Ez Street]

"The complete team identity, including name, colors, logos and the uniform, will be completed by late September,? Arena said. "We will work with Mr. Bennett, the team and adidas on a plan to release some individual elements as soon as next month.?

[Gothamite]

I know fans get irked when their team moves, but the titles and history should remain with the franchise. To me, the legacy is part of the value of the franchise. If the relocating franchise betrays you unjustly, why would you want any connection to that team anyway?

With that said, I'm glad the Browns organization became the Ravens. Baltimore Browns just doesn't have the same ring IMO.

If Baltimore's MLB and NFL teams kept their previous nickname prior to moving to Baltimore, they would both be known as the Baltimore Browns. Totally off topic and a bit random, but interesting nonetheless.

Actually, in that universe they'd be the Baltimore Brewers. But your point is well taken.

[TwinsTerritory]

I wonder when the team is going to finally make an announcment on this. It seems like it's been a while since the move. I thought it'd just be a couple weeks the way the owner made it sound.

[MVP]

I wonder when the team is going to finally make an announcment on this. It seems like it's been a while since the move. I thought it'd just be a couple weeks the way the owner made it sound.

Read the 2nd post above yours.

[Island_Style]

I wonder when the team is going to finally make an announcment on this. It seems like it's been a while since the move. I thought it'd just be a couple weeks the way the owner made it sound.

Read the 2nd post above yours.

Yeah, hopefully a leak may seep through come August.

[B-Rich]

If Baltimore's MLB and NFL teams kept their previous nickname prior to moving to Baltimore, they would both be known as the Baltimore Browns. Totally off topic and a bit random, but interesting nonetheless.

Actually, in that universe they'd be the Baltimore Brewers. But your point is well taken.

Gothamite, I get where you're coming from (the franchise originally started as Milwaukee Brewers in 1901)- but jhans did say "previous nickname", not "original nickname". Point well taken and correct, jhans.

Also totally off-topic, as a friend pointed out back in the eighties, all teams in the 3 main leagues named "Los Angeles" (not including the NHL and the Kings) were relocatees who kept the team nickname from their previous location (Dodgers, Clippers, Lakers, Rams, Raiders)

[jhans203]

I know fans get irked when their team moves, but the titles and history should remain with the franchise. To me, the legacy is part of the value of the franchise. If the relocating franchise betrays you unjustly, why would you want any connection to that team anyway?

With that said, I'm glad the Browns organization became the Ravens. Baltimore Browns just doesn't have the same ring IMO.

If Baltimore's MLB and NFL teams kept their previous nickname prior to moving to Baltimore, they would both be known as the Baltimore Browns. Totally off topic and a bit random, but interesting nonetheless.

Actually, in that universe they'd be the Baltimore Brewers. But your point is well taken.

Touche

[TwinsTerritory]

Oops, I missed that. I'm pretty sure he said it'd be a couple weeks before we knew. So much for that. Hopefully they at least announce a team name...

[hawk36]

Howabout a rule that when a team moves, it can protect a few of its players, the rest get disbursed (somehow), and you have an expansion draft, so that the team can actually be a new team, not just the league making believe that they're a new team.

I wouldn't go that far but I'd love there to be a rule that if a team moves, it is required to pick a new name, colors, brand, etc. In my mind, the city is as much a part of the name as the mascot. So, in my perfect world, you could not separate Charlotte from the Hornets or New Orleans from the Jazz or even the Lakers from Minneapolis or the Dodgers from Brooklyn.

If you want to move, fine, you can keep the players, but leave the brand, history, name behind. Only seems fair.

How does that seem fair? If you buy the team, you buy everything that goes along with it.

I would disagree. Unlike with almost all other companies, sports teams and their histories are tied to the cities they play in.

In this case, it's the history of the SEATTLE Supersonics not just the Supersonics. You can't claim the history of Seattle if you are not playing in Seattle or at least in the region.

Do you really think anyone in OKC is sitting around basking in the glory of the '79 championship? No, all they care about is their "new" team and how it will do from this point on. I seriously doubt anyone there cares at all what the Sonics did for the past 40 years.

[thasouthernicon]

OKC Braves, OKC Machine, OKC Thunder, I'd like the old-school name Calvary too... OKC Red Devils,OKC Oilers, OKC Americans