The Cornucopia of Possible NBA Logo Changes

[TFoA]

is it true that orlando will have black alternate unis this year?

No word, yet. I hope so, though. The black alts from the 90s were pretty damn sharp, and it would be great to see them bring the black jerseys into their new identity.

[BBTV]

is it true that orlando will have black alternate unis this year?

No word, yet. I hope so, though. The black alts from the 90s were pretty damn sharp, and it would be great to see them bring the black jerseys into their new identity.

It was leaked on a Mcfarlan figure a few weeks ago.

[hawk36]

Hornets are not leaving New Orleans anytime soon.

Beware. People in Seattle said the same thing right up until the point the Mayor pulled the rug out from under us and let the team run without a fight. No team is safe.

[TheOldRoman]

is it true that orlando will have black alternate unis this year?

No word, yet. I hope so, though. The black alts from the 90s were pretty damn sharp, and it would be great to see them bring the black jerseys into their new identity.

The 90's black jerseys were primary road unis. By the second year of the blue unis they started wearing them all the time and soon phased out the black. It is a shame because the black unis were so much better.

[Wasatch]

Granted, most of the cities listed have had their fair share of issues

Bingo. That's hardly a list of universal slam-dunk locations.

Vegas has the same smaller-city issues, plus has a very transient population. Might be very hard to grow an appreciable fanbase there.

That may be, but I think the NBA is banking on the aforementioned growth rate of Las Vegas. None of the cities I listed have nearly as high of a growth rate percentage.

Not at this point. Vegas? economy is one of the worst in the country at the moment, it has nothing to do with how much they?ve grown in the past decade!

[jimbojohnny56]

Wasatch I'm telling you did'nt you see the link I posted the Vegas group has an NBA team under contract provided the local Vegas committee approves the construction.

[IceCap]

A team in Vegas is ludicrous for a few reasons.

Think about it, who's in Vegas? Tourists and shift workers. The shift workers don't make enough to afford season tickets and the tourists are in town to gamble and see shows, not go to a basketball game. Factor in the current downturn in the Vegas economy, and a pro team there (in any league) looks like a long shot at best.

There's also the gambling thing that can't be easily overlooked. It won't help any league to be seen to be cozying up to the gambling community. Especially the NBA, given that one of their officials all but announced to the world that the sport's just short of being worked. They can't afford the bad PR that would come with a Vegas move.

[rams80]

well you go worry about your team and we will worry about ours.....those Jazz colors have NOLA all over it....that's why they went back to it because they look better than the "mountain with the baby blue" Jazz...cmon really? Let's just hijack an identity...

I admit I associate yellow, green, and purple with the Jazz franchise, and if we can't have that, blue is a nice compromise.

Otherwise you're paranoid, and dancing on one of the boards' third rails. BZZZZAAPPP!!!!!!

[bluemagic89]

is it true that orlando will have black alternate unis this year?

No word, yet. I hope so, though. The black alts from the 90s were pretty damn sharp, and it would be great to see them bring the black jerseys into their new identity.

It has definitely been confirmed by staff of the Magic that they will introduce a completely new black alternate uniform this year. They had to wait the league minimum 2 seasons to use the alternate.

[IceCap]

If the Jazz had changed named upon moving to Utah then perhaps naming a second NOLA NBA team the Jazz would work. They didn't, so it doesn't.

The Jazz are in Utah, the Hornets are in New Orleans, and the Bobcats are in Charlotte. It's not changing, nor should it. Give it up.

[rams80]

There is no status.

So if I?m not mistaken, David Stern gave Seattle 5 years in order to build a new arena for a relocating/new franchise to be located in Seattle. What happens if Seattle doesn?t accomplish this feat, they just don?t get an NBA franchise in the foreseeable future?

Bingo.

*cackles maniacally*

[jimbojohnny56]

Ice Cap thank you very much for basically putting end to it. No cities are switching names. Game Over.

[hawk36]

Having let it sink in now, I have to say that the new/old Jazz look is one of the worst ideas I've seen in a long time.

Although I'm not a fan of having a logo match a region instead of the nickname (see SD Padres wave motif), I'd say the mountain/snow look is much better than the jazz note for a team in Utah.

Seeing the jazz note (rendered horribly as has been discussed) only serves as a reminder that the team was from New Orleans and not Utah. If the team insists on using the name, which has nothing to do with the city or state, at the very least they should reference the city/state with their logo.

I know some fans of the team will argue that somehow the Jazz is now Utah's own, but honestly, the rest of the country chuckles at this notion. The return of the Jazz note will only make the team/name more of a joke.

Sorry.

[rams80]

I don't care about the team one way or the other, but I think almost 30 years of having a nickname makes it your own. And they spent the first half of their existence using the note. If they want to bring it back, go right ahead.

/Besides, it is better to have a musical note for Jazz than some repurposed beer logo.

[Wasatch]

Wasatch I'm telling you did'nt you see the link I posted the Vegas group has an NBA team under contract provided the local Vegas committee approves the construction.

But that doesn?t mean Vegas would be able to support the team itself in the short-term.

A team in Vegas is ludicrous for a few reasons.

Think about it, who's in Vegas? Tourists and shift workers. The shift workers don't make enough to afford season tickets and the tourists are in town to gamble and see shows, not go to a basketball game. Factor in the current downturn in the Vegas economy, and a pro team there (in any league) looks like a long shot at best.

There's also the gambling thing that can't be easily overlooked. It won't help any league to be seen to be cozying up to the gambling community. Especially the NBA, given that one of their officials all but announced to the world that the sport's just short of being worked. They can't afford the bad PR that would come with a Vegas move.

I completely agree.

There is no status.

So if I?m not mistaken, David Stern gave Seattle 5 years in order to build a new arena for a relocating/new franchise to be located in Seattle. What happens if Seattle doesn?t accomplish this feat, they just don?t get an NBA franchise in the foreseeable future?

Bingo.

*cackles maniacally*

It just seems stupid that a thriving city like Seattle, a city that had the Sonics for 41 years, was only given a 5 year window (by Stern) to get their ducks in a row in order to reacquire a franchise, something that should have never left that region in the first place!

[BBTV]

It's safe to say that he never expected Seattle to meet the 5-year deadline. That smells like PR as much as anything. Good on Seattle for not caving in. Look no further than Philadelphia for an example - the Flyers couldn't get public dollars to get an arena built to replace the Spectrum, so, seeing it as a good business decision to build a world class arena in a large thriving market, Ed Snider just built it himself (the city/state did pay for some of the infrastructure changes though.) The arena makes money hand over fist, and was one of the big pieces of the deal where Snider's company Spectacor merged with Comcast and bought the Sixers (who were signed to move to New Jersey prior to Snider's decision to build what is now the Wells Fargo Center.) Most of these owners aren't stupid - if the market is profitable, they'll get there one way or the other. Pittsburgh wouldn't have a team without public money, because nobody would make the investment. A city like Seattle will eventually end up with a privately funded arena, and the Hornets or Grizzlies will be first in line to move in.

[IceCap]

Seattle seemed like a great NBA town, it really did. I just can't muster sympathy for the city, however, when they knew what they had to do to keep the team and they flat out refused. I really hope they get an NBA team again (and a NHL one for that matter), but it's just not happening without a new arena, which the city has refused time and again to build.

Having let it sink in now, I have to say that the new/old Jazz look is one of the worst ideas I've seen in a long time.

Although I'm not a fan of having a logo match a region instead of the nickname (see SD Padres wave motif), I'd say the mountain/snow look is much better than the jazz note for a team in Utah.

Seeing the jazz note (rendered horribly as has been discussed) only serves as a reminder that the team was from New Orleans and not Utah. If the team insists on using the name, which has nothing to do with the city or state, at the very least they should reference the city/state with their logo.

I know some fans of the team will argue that somehow the Jazz is now Utah's own, but honestly, the rest of the country chuckles at this notion. The return of the Jazz note will only make the team/name more of a joke.

Sorry.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Lets look at the facts.

The Jazz, J/note and all, were in New Orleans for five years. The Jazz, with the J/note, were in Utah for seventeen years. The Jazz have been in Utah, regardless of their identity, for thirty one years.

I think it's a very safe to make the assumption that in the minds of the majority of sports fans the name Jazz and the J/note are linked to Utah, not New Orleans.

[hawk36]

Having let it sink in now, I have to say that the new/old Jazz look is one of the worst ideas I've seen in a long time.

Although I'm not a fan of having a logo match a region instead of the nickname (see SD Padres wave motif), I'd say the mountain/snow look is much better than the jazz note for a team in Utah.

Seeing the jazz note (rendered horribly as has been discussed) only serves as a reminder that the team was from New Orleans and not Utah. If the team insists on using the name, which has nothing to do with the city or state, at the very least they should reference the city/state with their logo.

I know some fans of the team will argue that somehow the Jazz is now Utah's own, but honestly, the rest of the country chuckles at this notion. The return of the Jazz note will only make the team/name more of a joke.

Sorry.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Lets look at the facts.

The Jazz, J/note and all, were in New Orleans for five years. The Jazz, with the J/note, were in Utah for seventeen years. The Jazz have been in Utah, regardless of their identity, for thirty one years.

I think it's a very safe to make the assumption that in the minds of the majority of sports fans the name Jazz and the J/note are linked to Utah, not New Orleans.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't know if I've ever discussed the Utah NBA team with anyone where the conversation hasn't gone to the whole "what does Utah have to do with jazz anyway" discussion. Even after 31 years, it continues to be one of the most inappropriate nicknames in all of sports. Maybe it's just because Jazz was such a perfect name for a team from New Orleans.

Bottom line, I would say a majority of the public think the name doesn't fit and using a logo that reinforces that isn't a good decision.

What if the Lakers changed their primary logo back to the Minneapolis version with the state of Minnesota on it, or if the Dodgers changed their primary look to a trolley with the New York skyline? It would look odd and only remind people that those nicknames had nothing to do with Los Angeles.

[IceCap]

What if the Lakers changed their primary logo back to the Minneapolis version with the state of Minnesota on it, or if the Dodgers changed their primary look to a trolley with the New York skyline? It would look odd and only remind people that those nicknames had nothing to do with Los Angeles.

Those are really not the same thing as the Jazz using the J/note. At all.

[rams80]

Having let it sink in now, I have to say that the new/old Jazz look is one of the worst ideas I've seen in a long time.

Although I'm not a fan of having a logo match a region instead of the nickname (see SD Padres wave motif), I'd say the mountain/snow look is much better than the jazz note for a team in Utah.

Seeing the jazz note (rendered horribly as has been discussed) only serves as a reminder that the team was from New Orleans and not Utah. If the team insists on using the name, which has nothing to do with the city or state, at the very least they should reference the city/state with their logo.

I know some fans of the team will argue that somehow the Jazz is now Utah's own, but honestly, the rest of the country chuckles at this notion. The return of the Jazz note will only make the team/name more of a joke.

Sorry.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Lets look at the facts.

The Jazz, J/note and all, were in New Orleans for five years. The Jazz, with the J/note, were in Utah for seventeen years. The Jazz have been in Utah, regardless of their identity, for thirty one years.

I think it's a very safe to make the assumption that in the minds of the majority of sports fans the name Jazz and the J/note are linked to Utah, not New Orleans.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't know if I've ever discussed the Utah NBA team with anyone where the conversation hasn't gone to the whole "what does Utah have to do with jazz anyway" discussion. Even after 31 years, it continues to be one of the most inappropriate nicknames in all of sports. Maybe it's just because Jazz was such a perfect name for a team from New Orleans.

Bottom line, I would say a majority of the public think the name doesn't fit and using a logo that reinforces that isn't a good decision.

What if the Lakers changed their primary logo back to the Minneapolis version with the state of Minnesota on it, or if the Dodgers changed their primary look to a trolley with the New York skyline? It would look odd and only remind people that those nicknames had nothing to do with Los Angeles.

1. The limited subset of people you hang out with is likely too "sophisticated" to regularly follow American sports. Outside of Bill Simmons' retarded readership, the "LOL there's no jazz in Utah" complaints do not begin to approach say the "LOL there are 11 12 teams in the Big Ten". The majority of the sports populace has little issue or sees any problem with the name. (And why should they? The team's been around for 30 years, and being a music genre, jazz isn't exactly restricted by geography.)

2. Using strict geography might be a problem in the Lakers case, but its balanced out by the throwback craze. (Also, the Lakers took great pains to place "Minneapolis" Lakers nights in a throwback-only context.) As for the Dodgers, I think the trolley might create greater issue not over the skyline, but because trolleys are popularly associated with a certain city up the California Coast. That is home to the Dodgers' biggest rivals. But its not a certainty.

3. Being a music genre, a musical note is a perfect, regionally neutral representation for "Jazz." The Dodgers don't use trolley imagery because trolleys have fallen into great disuse and we tend to forget that was once part of the name. The Lakers don't use lakes, because, well, lakes don't translate well into logo form and the Edmund Fitzgerald just looks like a generic ship to a layman.