Jump to content

Unpopular Opinions


Recommended Posts

I think a lot of the "artifact title" teams have now had plenty of history in their current locations that their name doesn't sound "wrong" anymore. Jazz, Lakers, Dodgers, etc. None of those names really make sense, but it doesn't matter. All have become established.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel that the "Jazz" nickname is, in many ways, more synonymous with Utah than New Orleans. Stockton and Malone, the '97 and '98 Finals against Jordan's Bulls, and Jerry Sloan's long tenure in Utah have all made it such an appropriate fit.

And that is the very reason why Jazz fans (not to mention most people roaming these boards and making the decision-makers in the NBA) are against changing the name. It would be a revisionist nightmare of epic proportions.

EDIT: Not to forget that the franchise is entering its 36th season of play in Salt Lake as opposed to its first 5 in New Orleans

How is that revisionist? No one is suggesting they should pretend the Utah Jazz never existed, just that the name should be changed.

Well, let's put it this way: With the Charlotte Hornets, v2.0 being seen as the NBA's Cleveland Deal, a theoretical return of the Jazz moniker to New Orleans with Utah renaming themselves, say, the Stars, would raise a lot more questions than what we have with the current situation, such as:

What team did John Stockton, Karl Malone, Adrian Dantley, etc. play for, and who did Frank Layden and Jerry Sloan coach? What team did Larry H. Miller buy at the last minute to keep them from moving to Minnesota or Miami in the mid-1980s? Did Pete Maravich play for two separate teams, seeing as he was on the roster when the team moved and shortly thereafter?

In short(er) form, would the history of the New Orleans Jazz, v2.0 be read by the league as:

Beginnings in New Orleans, 1974-79;

Utah era, 1979-2017 (for example);

Return to New Orleans, 2017-present?

What if this came up as a serious discussion with the Lakers/Dodgers/etc.? Would they give up their history, too?

Granted, it's true that those who know better know that the Pelicans are the original Hornets and that the current Hornets were the Bobcats, and thus a renamed Utah Stars team would be the original Jazz, and that the new New Orleans Jazz is the original Hornets/Pelicans, but things like this are better left out of the league's revisionist hands.

I'll echo OnWis97's sentiment: When you move your team, either change right off the bat or don't at all. Of all the things that came out of the Cleveland Deal, at least the name was changed upon relocation (even though it was forced.)

Edited by DustDevil61
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it were up to me, a team would either change names right upon relocation or never. So we'd have the Tennessee Oilers, New Orleans Hornets, etc.

I agree, to an extent. Tennessee deliberately waited to change until their new stadium was finished, they played in Memphis the first season and at Vanderbilt their second. If it's a deliberate decision, for solid reasons, I can get behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one is pretty obscure, but I liked it better when the Mets had a white outline to their numbers and NOB on the pinstripes. I love the Mets' pinstripes (all though the snow-whites with piping and no-drop shadow were also beautiful). The white outline just set the numbers off and made the look less cluttered, IMO. I also miss that glacier twill.

64938b_lg.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one is pretty obscure, but I liked it better when the Mets had a white outline to their numbers and NOB on the pinstripes. I love the Mets' pinstripes (all though the snow-whites with piping and no-drop shadow were also beautiful). The white outline just set the numbers off and made the look less cluttered, IMO. I also miss that glacier twill.

64938b_lg.jpeg

what years did they do that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one is pretty obscure, but I liked it better when the Mets had a white outline to their numbers and NOB on the pinstripes. I love the Mets' pinstripes (all though the snow-whites with piping and no-drop shadow were also beautiful). The white outline just set the numbers off and made the look less cluttered, IMO. I also miss that glacier twill.

64938b_lg.jpeg

what years did they do that?

1993-1994 (with underlined Mets script) and 1995-98 (with normal, non-underlined Mets script).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one is pretty obscure, but I liked it better when the Mets had a white outline to their numbers and NOB on the pinstripes. I love the Mets' pinstripes (all though the snow-whites with piping and no-drop shadow were also beautiful). The white outline just set the numbers off and made the look less cluttered, IMO. I also miss that glacier twill.

64938b_lg.jpeg

what years did they do that?

1993-1994 (with underlined Mets script) and 1995-98 (with normal, non-underlined Mets script).

cool but id prefer without

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate that I can't quote posts (forgive the copy and paste):

I don't see how that makes it an appropriate fit. Just because they have more history in Utah doesn't mean that the name makes more sense than it does for New Orleans. Jazz music is one of the things New Orleans is best known for. Utah is about as well known for jazz as Winnipeg is for beaches and bikinis.


rxmc89: That's not really what I meant. Of course the name is a bit of a misnomer when you consider the relationship between a team's geography and its name. No one is disputing that. It's that the Jazz have been in Utah for so long, with so many historical milestones to show for it, that the location/name disconnect doesn't seem to matter a whole lot (at least to me). Plus, on a superficial note, "Utah Jazz" just sounds better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel that the "Jazz" nickname is, in many ways, more synonymous with Utah than New Orleans. Stockton and Malone, the '97 and '98 Finals against Jordan's Bulls, and Jerry Sloan's long tenure in Utah have all made it such an appropriate fit.

I don't see how that makes it an appropriate fit. Just because they have more history in Utah doesn't mean that the name makes more sense than it does for New Orleans. Jazz music is one of the things New Orleans is best known for. Utah is about as well known for jazz as Winnipeg is for beaches and bikinis.

People grew up saying "Utah Jazz", so when people say it, they don't give it a second thought, it's just "right" to them. Sure, "New Orleans Jazz" makes more sense when you think about it. Heck, if the Jazz moved from New Orleans to Utah today, I bet they would have renamed to something else.

Right. I am 41 and have probably been familiar with all NBA team names for 35 years. And I am not old enough to Remember the New Orleans Jazz. It's been Utah Jazz that entire time.

I hear the argument that they should have changed names when they moved, but now they have 35 years of history in Utah. They have a fan base that is accustomed to that being the team name. The ship has sailed and there's not much benefit to going back now. I don't think anyone in Utah is clamoring for a new name. And I don't think we have a Bobcats/Hornets situation in New Orleans where the entire community's support is dependent on the old name.

And yeah, Jazz is not great for Utah. But Dodgers was a very Brooklyn name and makes no sense for LA. Same with Lakers, which makes much more sense in Minnesota. Grizzlies in Memphis?

The Jazz move is a product of a different era. Some teams back then kept names (Flames, for Example). And while Jazz may not be the best one, it's reflective of the unique history of sports. Would they have kept the name if the move occurred today? No way. But sports history is fun and I think it's great to see that stuff like that happened. Why try to bury it?

If it were up to me, a team would either change names right upon relocation or never. So we'd have the Tennessee Oilers, New Orleans Hornets, etc.

Dodgers actually does make some sense for LA. That area is notorious for having some of the worst traffic in the country, so Dodgers could now refer to having to dodge your way through LA traffic, rather than Brooklyn trolleys.

And here's a much simpler (and possibly unpopular?) reason why the Jazz name should never go back to New Orleans: Because Pelicans is better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. I just think that it looks absurd.

I've said it before, his hair looks fake to me. :upside:

Dodgers actually does make some sense for LA. That area is notorious for having some of the worst traffic in the country, so Dodgers could now refer to having to dodge your way through LA traffic, rather than Brooklyn trolleys.

I personally think that's a bit farfetched. Although, I've always thought that the name, "Dodgers", was just another old timey name like the Red Sox, Giants, Reds, or White Sox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think that's a bit farfetched. Although, I've always thought that the name, "Dodgers", was just another old timey name like the Red Sox, Giants, Reds, or White Sox.

True. Even though I know where the name came from, to me, a Dodger is just someone who plays baseball in LA. And a Laker is someone who plays basketball in LA.

Link to comment
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.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.