Waffles Posted August 12, 2010 Author Share Posted August 12, 2010 According to this article, the papers they filed indicated their intention to make a change, but didn't require that they specify the new name.And I can't see them picking "New York" over "Brooklyn" either. Not only does the Brooklyn brand have wide appeal and cultural resonance, as Gothamite pointed out, but it's a brand that the franchise can immediately step in and dominate. "New York" already has the Yankees, Mets, Rangers, Knicks, and for branding purposes, Giants and Jets - not to mention other institutions identified with New York, like Wall Street and Broadway. Brooklyn is a brand that the team can own almost exclusively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 If Jean-Luc Picard supports Brooklyn, then by god so do I."Number One - execute the pick and roll""Captain, recommend we get it down low and try to pick up a foul""Make it so." *turns to asst. coach*"I'm thirsty. Get me some tea. Earl Gray. Hot." "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost_limey Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 The only athlete that can pull off pink is Bret Hart. Everybody else would fail miserably.and that's because he'sThe best there wasThe best ther isthe best there ever will be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
29texan Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Brooklyn Brawlers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Brooklyn Brawlers/threadLock this one up. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illwauk Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Brooklyn Brawlers/threadLock this one up.+1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 If Jean-Luc Picard supports Brooklyn, then by god so do I."Number One - execute the pick and roll""Captain, recommend we get it down low and try to pick up a foul""Make it so." *turns to asst. coach*"I'm thirsty. Get me some tea. Earl Gray. Hot."And boy, does he ever.Same convention, different day, different Brooklyn shirt.Somehow I'm not seeing "But Brooklyn is only part of New York City!" as some great impediment to Prokhorov's marketing strategy. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Cesarano Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Somehow I'm not seeing "But Brooklyn is only part of New York City!" as some great impediment to Prokhorov's marketing strategy.To the world outside New York, probably not. As a global "brand", Brooklyn would be a feasable name. The team could get on TNT easily; and it could sell its jerseys in many countries.But to fans within New York itself, it's another story. Using "Brooklyn" is a risky strategy if the club hopes to win local fans -- and by "fans" I really mean "converts", as all of these fans are already Knick fans; they already identify with "New York".While you have already said that you in Queens can gladly support a Brooklyn team, I strongly doubt whether this holds true for people from Manhattan and the Bronx, or even for others from Queens; especially when the choice is one of choosing either "New York" (the Knicks) or "Brooklyn" (the Nets under their new name). Under these conditions, I think you are overestimating the amount of New Yorkers to whom the name "Brooklyn whatevers" will seem so cool and attractive.Apart from all "branding" questions, I must mention that calling the team "Brooklyn" would really bother me as a proud New Yorker. The Admiral has already stated his dislike of the fetishisation of Brooklyn; and I feel the same way. Nothing against Brooklyn in particular -- I live right on the Brooklyn-Queens border, and I spend lots of time in Brooklyn. Indeed, I was born in Brooklyn before moving to Queens as a baby. And it would bother me just as much if, by some utterly inconceivable sequence of events, the name "Queens" somehow became so hip that a team wanted to use it. After the great Consolidation of 1898, when New York became whole, this sort of naming became inappropriate. (Note that the Brooklyn National League baseball team began play well before this Consolidation; they therefore used "Brooklyn" legitimately, as their city name.)For me as a proud New Yorker, it would feel like a slap to name a team after one of my City's constituent parts. (Though the irony of the presence in my sig of Chelsea jerseys is not lost on me: Chelsea is a consitiuent part of London. Still, different histories mean that different standards apply.) It's bad enough that the U.S. Postal Service never got around to recognising the Consolidation. But, by Andrew H. Green, may the Nets not do the same! windmill-tiltingly,Ferdinand CesaranoNew York City Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameroncrazie07 Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Brooklyn Bridges should win IMO it works, knights is ok i guess The Core 4 Sports Podcast Twitter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utahjazz48 Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 I have a bad feeling they're going to take the Nets' current logo and put whatever name they're going to use instead of the word "NETS". The first non-banned member of ther CCSLC to post in The Ugliest Bathroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 For me as a proud New Yorker, it would feel like a slap to name a team after one of my City's constituent parts.We will have to agree to disagree - I am a native New Yorker, proud as you are, and it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.But then, I'm not usually bothered by such things. I've never lived in Green Bay, and I would hazard a guess to say 95% of Packer fans haven't either. Casting the widest possible net (if you will) in an attempt to draw in fans seems to be rather silly. Like nobody's going to support a team if their particular locale isn't mentioned in the name. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 I kind of see his point. It's not that your local isn't included, it's that by going with the name of one of the constituant parts of the city, your local is in effect being excluded.I also don't think that this would bother me, but I can see the point that it might bother some.I also see it from the team's perspective - they have a great marketing opportunity, and a great chance to "own" Brooklyn (and the 'burbs who want to rep Brooklyn) rather than share the entire market. Smaller but more rabid fan base vs. sharing a larger base with the Knicks. Of course they'll have fans from outside of that one borrough, but why not in effect guarantee yourself at least that support? "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camden Crazy Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 I always thought Knights would be an awesome pro sports name and am kinda shocked that there isn't a team with that name, so I'm all for Knights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 You can call them the Brooklyn Memories of a Celebrated Bygone Era of America as Melting Pot of Spirited Ethnic Heterogeneity Supplanted By Artist Colonies And Mediocre Rappers Who Vaguely Pretend They're Mafia Dons, and people will still prefer the Knicks, because this team will always be the crappy old Nets. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameroncrazie07 Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 You can call them the Brooklyn Memories of a Celebrated Bygone Era of America as Melting Pot of Spirited Ethnic Heterogeneity Supplanted By Artist Colonies And Mediocre Rappers Who Vaguely Pretend They're Mafia Dons, and people will still prefer the Knicks, because this team will always be the crappy old Nets.Nice I'm all for it The Core 4 Sports Podcast Twitter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JQK Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Ah, the Brooklyn Moacbeoaamposehsbacamrwvptmdapwsptkbttwabtcons...Not bad... Stay Tuned Sports Podcast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illwauk Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 I kind of see his point. It's not that your local isn't included, it's that by going with the name of one of the constituant parts of the city, your local is in effect being excluded.I also don't think that this would bother me, but I can see the point that it might bother some.I also see it from the team's perspective - they have a great marketing opportunity, and a great chance to "own" Brooklyn (and the 'burbs who want to rep Brooklyn) rather than share the entire market. Smaller but more rabid fan base vs. sharing a larger base with the Knicks. Of course they'll have fans from outside of that one borrough, but why not in effect guarantee yourself at least that support?I'll add that Brooklyn would be the 4th largest city in the country if it weren't part of New York... "limiting" themselves to Brooklyn is gonna give them a market that's roughly comparable to Houston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Well, if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. I'm not ready to presume that by plucking a moribund and unliked team from the suburbs and having it yell "BROOKLYN WE GO HARD, WE GO HARD" at the top of its figurative lungs, this market roughly comparable to Houston will largely abandon the Knicks and everything that comes along with the great rollercoaster of Knicks fandom, just because the good-for-nothing Nets changed their name. Call them what you will, sell them to whomever, they'll always be the weakest and least redeeming of New York's B-Teams. No plucky outer-borough underdog spirit like the Mets (which they inherited from the Dodgers), nor the dynasty to fall back on like the Islanders, nor the weird sense of self-flagellation that seemingly comes with liking the Jets. They lost in the Finals when the NBA was at a low point and they had that dead Slav. There, the Nets. B-K-L-Y-N. Woo. Get on board with that. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chakfu Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Brooklyn Bridges should win IMO it works, knights is ok i guessWow, it's the "Washington Monuments" "it's catchy because it's a name of something else I've heard of" argument again. If they choose New York instead of Brooklyn, we can name them the New York Cities.As for the NY vs Brooklyn argument; basically they can take advantage of the Brooklyn Dodgers nostalgia and pick up an identity, or they can become the NY Clippers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 They've been the New York Clippers for like thirty-five years. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.