Ladies and gentlemen, your New York Nets

[gyrocol]

Firststly Knights fits with Brooklyn, as the Brooklyn Bridge's main structures resemble Castle Towers and even London's Tower Bridge.

Knights and Brooklyn go way back with the settlements of the first Europeans the Dutch and the English both fighting for the land in America and overseas, also there were many Knights at Fort Brooklyn protecting the Kings intrests (not all knights wore armour).

So you propose that the team celebrate the Brooklyn Loyalists, many of whom fought against the American Patriots in what was one of George Washington's biggest defeats in the Revolutionary War (the Battle of Brooklyn)?

For a team that used to be called the "Americans" and wore stars-and-stripes jerseys, I really suggest they stay as far away from that type of brand imagery as possible, for people who actually do know their history.

I realise the Nets have a history in NJ but they will be in Brooklyn and don't have a history there it should of been a time too change and be accepted by their new area and supporters.

They also have a history in NEW YORK where they featured one of the most famous players of all time, and basically was the face of the ABA, which many people still look back fondly at. And last I check, Brooklyn is in New York.

History is just as important to sports fans as anything else. There's no sense in completely discarding history when you're basically moving from one part of a metropolitan area to another. This isn't the Supersonics moving from Seattle to Oklahoma.

[JQK]

NJ really shouldn't have "their own" pro sports teams.

You're so awesome...

[Gothamite]

Well, you can't deny that the two New Jersey major-league teams are in very serious trouble.

It's a difficult situation, right next to major markets but unable to tap them.

[Dexter Morgan]

The Nets is a better name than any generic one anyone can could up with. Knights? What the heck does that have to do with Brooklyn? Why not just call them the Lions or the freaking Wizards. /sarcasm. The Nets name has history with it and it fits with the other NY teams. Mets and Jets.

Firststly Knights fits with Brooklyn, as the Brooklyn Bridge's main structures resemble Castle Towers and even London's Tower Bridge.

Knights and Brooklyn go way back with the settlements of the first Europeans the Dutch and the English both fighting for the land in America and overseas, also there were many Knights at Fort Brooklyn protecting the Kings intrests (not all knights wore armour).

I realise the Nets have a history in NJ but they will be in Brooklyn and don't have a history there it should of been a time too change and be accepted by their new area and supporters.

Dexter Learn the history before you pipe up with sarcasm BUDDY cos it aint worth getting cut down.

zZzZzZ

So Brooklyn's new team nick name should be named after a bunch of British intruders and occupiers? Probably the dumbest idea I've ever heard.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

On 2/8/2012 at 9:09 PM, Dexter Morgan said:

NJ really shouldn't have "their own" pro sports teams. North Jersey sports fans linked to the NYC teams. South Jersey sports fans are linked to the Philly teams. Soon the Devils will be the only pro sports team in the state with NJ in their name... but guess what... they are on the brink of bankruptcy. When someone mentions NJ as a possibility for MLB expansion or relocation tell them [they're] crazy.

This is absolutely correct. New Jersey, despite being the most densely populated state, has no pro-sports identity of its own. The fact is that it is made up of suburbs of New York and Philadelphia. The name "New Jersey", in pro sports, might as well be "Nowheresville". Consider the huge impact in New York made by the Rangers' one recent Stanley Cup victory, as compared to the absolute lack of impact made by the three which the Devils have won.

 

This is not to say that the name "New York" is, by itself, a guarantee of runaway popularity. The New York Nets were actually based outside of the City, on Long Island, where the New York Islanders play. The Nets won two championships in the renegade ABA, and the Islanders won four consecutive Stanley Cups in the established NHL; but these feats did not catapult the either team into the consciousness of New Yorkers (by which I mean people of New York City).

 

Still, I have to believe that the Nets would have been much healthier if they had remained the New York Nets throughout their time in Jersey, as the Giants have done. But, after the Giants elected to retain the New York name upon moving into Giants Stadium in 1976, the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority (the state agency that owns the Meadowlands) enacted a policy of requiring that any teams that play in their complex use the name "New Jersey" if they used a locality name. (Of course this was not required of the Jets in 1984 when they moved in, as the NJSEA were happy to have them, and as the team reaped the benefits of the Giants' continued use of the New York name.)

 

The Nets, floundering after the enforced sale of Julius Erving (in order to pay the territorial fee to the Knicks, a fee which the NBA imposed on them at the last minute, and which was an expense that none of the other three ex-ABA teams had to deal with), were in no position to argue this. They were happy to have a home; they readily accepted the New Jersey name, while the Meadowlands Arena was being built as they spent several seasons at Rutgers in Piscataway.

 

This NJSEA policy was the reason that the NASL's New York Cosmos became simply "the Cosmos", why the USFL, which would have preferred the name "New York Generals", settled for "New Jersey Generals", and why the WLAF, which intended to call its team the "New York Knights", went for the unwieldy moniker "New York/New Jersey Knights" (even as coach Mouse Davis wore a sweater with "New York Knights" emblazoned on it). The attempt to split the difference with the name "New York/New Jersey" was later adopted by the MLS team the New York/New Jersey MetroStars.

 

In 2006, when the MetroStars (by then shorn of the "New York/New Jersey" name, just "the MetroStars") were sold to the owners of Red Bull, this group decided to simply buck the rule, and call the team the New York Red Bulls, effectively daring the NJSEA to do something about it. The NJSEA, aware that the club was angling to build its own arena and would soon be leaving Giants Stadium, issued a few complaining press releases and then just gave up.

 

The Nets will as of next season be playing home games in New York City for the first time; ironically, however, they will not be using the New York name, but the name of one of New York's boroughs. While the prevailing opinion is that this is a clever move, I still have my doubts.

 

The name "Brooklyn" is great for people from Brooklyn; and it seems cool to people outside the New York City area; but, in Manhattan, the name "Brooklyn" carries very little cachet. (I am aware of the Brooklyn Diner on 57th Street. But you wouldn't find a "Brooklyn Diner" uptown.)

 

For the purpose of selling shirts to people around the country (and around the world), the name "Brooklyn Nets" will probably work well. But, if this team hopes to attract fans from the rest of New York City, for example, from the boroughs of Manhattan and the Bronx, then the name "Brooklyn" will do very little to accomplish that.

 

In sum, the team would have been best served by the name "New York Nets", both in the past and going forward.

[Chawls]

the Nets should really slap "BROOKLYN" on those and call it a day.

Agreed. So long as they're going to keep the awful name, they couldn't do better than these.

Yup. They look great. Best basketball uniforms ever in my opinion.

I disagree. At the very least, make the uniform symmetrical. This isn't the 1990s.

Ok. Why? Serious question. Why is it so important that the uniform be symmetrical?

Aesthetically, I find symmetry to be more appealing. Asymmetry makes it look like they didn't finish designing the uniform. It looks unprofessional IMO.

[gyrocol]

This is not to say that the name "New York" is, by itself, a guarantee of runaway popularity. The New York Nets were actually based outside of the City, on Long Island, where the New York Islanders play. The Nets won two championships in the renegade ABA, and the Islanders won four consecutive Stanley Cups in the established NHL; but these feats did not catapult the either team into the consciousness of New Yorkers (by which I mean people of New York City).

Different time and era, bud. The 1970-80's New York City was a crime-infested bankrupted cesspool, and teams actually wanted to move out of the city proper. The Giants and Jets eventually pulled it off, the Yankees and Knicks/Rangers didn't, though there were many threats to do so. As such, appealing to NYC residents wasn't big on anyone's mind.

Back then, teams in the suburbs outdrew teams in the city, as the Islanders and the Nets did for several years (and no, your statement that the championships didn't bring them popularity is false). The Mets, located in the comparatively suburban Queens, also outdrew the Yankees in the crime-ridden Bronx for many years. In fact, the Islanders' success and constant selling out of Nassau Coliseum (leading the arena to keep adding seats) drove the Colorado Rockies to invade the NYC suburbs also and become the NJ Devils.

It wasn't until the late 80's that the MSG teams started getting out of the gutter attendance-wise, and heck, the whole city of NY actually became a desirable place again.

[vekterx]

The Nets is a better name than any generic one anyone can could up with. Knights? What the heck does that have to do with Brooklyn? Why not just call them the Lions or the freaking Wizards. /sarcasm. The Nets name has history with it and it fits with the other NY teams. Mets and Jets.

Firststly Knights fits with Brooklyn, as the Brooklyn Bridge's main structures resemble Castle Towers and even London's Tower Bridge.

Knights and Brooklyn go way back with the settlements of the first Europeans the Dutch and the English both fighting for the land in America and overseas, also there were many Knights at Fort Brooklyn protecting the Kings intrests (not all knights wore armour).

I realise the Nets have a history in NJ but they will be in Brooklyn and don't have a history there it should of been a time too change and be accepted by their new area and supporters.

Dexter Learn the history before you pipe up with sarcasm BUDDY cos it aint worth getting cut down.

zZzZzZ

So Brooklyn's new team nick name should be named after a bunch of British intruders and occupiers? Probably the dumbest idea I've ever heard.

Brooklyn Knights is a play on the demonym for Brooklyn which is Brooklynites.

[IceCap]

The Nets is a better name than any generic one anyone can could up with. Knights? What the heck does that have to do with Brooklyn? Why not just call them the Lions or the freaking Wizards. /sarcasm. The Nets name has history with it and it fits with the other NY teams. Mets and Jets.

Firststly Knights fits with Brooklyn, as the Brooklyn Bridge's main structures resemble Castle Towers and even London's Tower Bridge.

Knights and Brooklyn go way back with the settlements of the first Europeans the Dutch and the English both fighting for the land in America and overseas, also there were many Knights at Fort Brooklyn protecting the Kings intrests (not all knights wore armour).

I realise the Nets have a history in NJ but they will be in Brooklyn and don't have a history there it should of been a time too change and be accepted by their new area and supporters.

Dexter Learn the history before you pipe up with sarcasm BUDDY cos it aint worth getting cut down.

zZzZzZ

So Brooklyn's new team nick name should be named after a bunch of British intruders and occupiers? Probably the dumbest idea I've ever heard.

I've never thought of the name "Brooklyn Knights" as having any real historical meaning. The age of knights was over in Britain by the time they got the area now known as New York. If you're looking for a historic term to apply to the time period Cavaliers would be more accurate, and that's taken as far as the NBA goes. I just like the name Knights for a Brooklyn NBA team because it's a solid name that's sadly underused in sports, and the Nets name is kind of, well, lame. That's about the extent of my reasoning.

Though you probably wouldn't have a country if it weren't for those British intruders and occupiers

[illwauk]

nyway, the only complaint I have with the recent retro sets (both the whites and the blues) is that they have the name and number centered on the jerseys. The jersey is famous for being asymmetrical, and the stars and stripe is a important element to the design that runs across the right side of the front of the jersey, while the name and number are offset to the left.

The new retro jerseys center the numbers, and the stars and stripe seem to have been tacked on the right side of the jersey as an afterthought.

I get your point, but honestly, I think it looks better centered. The asymmetry may have worked in the 70s, but nowadays it looks clunky and awkward. The throwbacks look like a natural evolution of what may have happened if they kept that look since the ABA days.

[Gothamite]

I really dislike how, in a human mouth, Brooklyn Nets becomes "Brooklynettes" the same way that Brooklyn Knights becomes "Brooklynites", the proper name for residents of the borough.

I just like the name Knights for a Brooklyn NBA team because it's a solid name that's sadly underused in sports, and the Nets name is kind of, well, lame.

That's my thought as well.

I always thought it slightly silly, naming yourself after the one truly unnecessary piece of equipment on the court. On street courts, the incubator of the game and arguably its soul, nets are routinely dispensed with.

The only way I can see it working for Brooklyn is if they can work up a logo involving a chain net. But I'd still take "Knights" any day.

[IceCap]

The only thing Nets has going for it is that it rhymes with Jets and Mets. Even then it's weak, because Jets and Mets are legitimately good names whereas Nets feels like a strained attempt to fit in, which it was. Besides, the Islanders fall into the group of secondary New York teams as well, and they don't have an -ets name. So trying to hard to make the basketball team fit with "Nets" is kind of pointless anyway because you'll never have -ets teams across the board anyway.

I agree, just give me Knights.

[Captain Apollo]

The Nets is a better name than any generic one anyone can could up with. Knights? What the heck does that have to do with Brooklyn? Why not just call them the Lions or the freaking Wizards. /sarcasm. The Nets name has history with it and it fits with the other NY teams. Mets and Jets.

How bout Dodgers?

[infrared41]

Nets is a very cool name if you ask me (and no one has.) It makes no sense whatsoever but I still like it. When did it become a rule that team names need to represent either something indigenous to their area, or something that relates to the history of the area? It's not like San Francisco is overrun with giant...well...anything. I've been to Detroit many, many times. At no point did I encounter a Tiger or a Lion. I've been to Cleveland more times than anyone should ever have to go there. Never ran into a Cavalier once.

In my opinion, there is no good reason to change the name of this team. Besides, Knights is so freaking generic that I'm surprised it's getting any support at all around here. Naming a team "Knights" is like naming your cat "whiskers" or "frisky." Just my opinion.

[infrared41]

Ok. Why? Serious question. Why is it so important that the uniform be symmetrical?

Aesthetically, I find symmetry to be more appealing. Asymmetry makes it look like they didn't finish designing the uniform. It looks unprofessional IMO.

Well, I find the asymmetrical look to be more appealing. The design is complete, it's just not traditional and orderly. I have no idea what "looks unprofessional" means in that context.

[gyrocol]

The Nets is a better name than any generic one anyone can could up with. Knights? What the heck does that have to do with Brooklyn? Why not just call them the Lions or the freaking Wizards. /sarcasm. The Nets name has history with it and it fits with the other NY teams. Mets and Jets.

How bout Dodgers?

There's already a Dodgers team that owns the name and they aren't selling it.

Word is that Ratner, the previous Nets owner, did try to buy it from them, and failed.

But I like the name 'Nets' because it is very uniquely New York... New York teams generally don't have strong imagery in their names... The Mets, Yankees, Giants, Knicks, Rangers, etc. Its not like a "Knight" or an animal where its obvious what the brand image would be. And because of that they put the emphasis on the geographic indicator, be it "New York" or "Brooklyn", which IMO is the biggest selling point of any of the New York teams.

[bucknut40]

Those high socks, short shorts, and New Balance basketball shoes...WOW

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

I know that RWB is way overused in the league, but part of me hopes that the Brooklyn Nets' unis are based on these.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

On 2/8/2012 at 2:36 PM, gyrocol said:

On 2/8/2012 at 0:38 PM, cesarano said:

This is not to say that the name "New York" is, by itself, a guarantee of runaway popularity. The New York Nets were actually based outside of the City, on Long Island, where the New York Islanders play. The Nets won two championships in the renegade ABA, and the Islanders won four consecutive Stanley Cups in the established NHL; but these feats did not catapult the either team into the consciousness of New Yorkers (by which I mean people of New York City).

Different time and era, bud. The 1970-80's New York City was a crime-infested bankrupted cesspool, and teams actually wanted to move out of the city proper. The Giants and Jets eventually pulled it off, the Yankees and Knicks/Rangers didn't, though there were many threats to do so. As such, appealing to NYC residents wasn't big on anyone's mind.

Back then, teams in the suburbs outdrew teams in the city, as the Islanders and the Nets did for several years (and no, your statement that the championships didn't bring them popularity is false). The Mets, located in the comparatively suburban Queens, also outdrew the Yankees in the crime-ridden Bronx for many years. In fact, the Islanders' success and constant selling out of Nassau Coliseum (leading the arena to keep adding seats) drove the Colorado Rockies to invade the NYC suburbs also and become the NJ Devils.

It wasn't until the late 80's that the MSG teams started getting out of the gutter attendance-wise, and heck, the whole city of NY actually became a desirable place again.

 

What you say is true: appealing to New York City residents wasn't on the minds of the Islanders. And so they didn't. I wasn't claiming that the Islanders' Stanley Cups didn't make them popular; these championships certainly did have that effect -- on Long Island, not within the City. The team's nickname made it clear what their audience was: Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Neither was appealing to New Yorkers on the mind of the arriving Colorado Rockies, who came to New Jersey as the Devils with the plan of attracting Jerseyites. Both teams draw their audiences from outside New York City; and neither teams' championships mean a thing to New Yorkers. (Whereas many non-hockey-fan New Yorkers were extremely interested in and excited by the Rangers' 1994 championship.)

 

Rumours now abound that the Islanders are looking to join the Nets in Brooklyn, after the Nassau County voters did not approve funding for a new arena to replace the Nassau Coliseum. The team is already scheduled to play a pre-season game at the Barclays Center. If the Islanders pursue a permanent move to Brooklyn, it will be a challenge for them to position Brooklyn as part of Long Island.

 

An aside for those outside the area: it is necessary to explain that, while the New York City boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens are geographically on Long Island, the term "Long Island" is now almost always used to refer only to Nassau and Suffolk Counties. This, despite the presence in Brooklyn of Long Island University, the existence of the Queens section known as Long Island City (a separate city until 1898), and several Long Island Rail Road stations in those boroughs -- including one at the Barclays Center.

 

The use of "Long Island" in a purely geographical sense was standard before New York City consolidation in 1898 (the LIRR was founded in the mid-19th Century), when the city of Brooklyn and the county of Queens (including the city of Long Island City) became New York City boroughs. This usage remained commonplace through the early part of the 20th Century (LIU Brooklyn was founded in the 1920s). But, by the time the Islanders came about in 1971, the usage of "Long Island" had shifted to its current meaning. Indeed, the map in the Islanders' logo shows only Nassau and Suffolk, omitting Brooklyn and Queens -- the western end of this depiction looks nothing like the actual relief map of geographical Long Island; note the lack of Jamaica Bay and of Red Hook. (End of aside.)

 

The New York Nets also never became a hot property within New York City. (Despite the fact that they fascinated this young New Yorker!) This was because they played in the ABA, which many people saw as weird and sub-par. New Yorkers know all about the Knicks' NBA titles in 1970 and 1973; they tend not to know or care about the Nets' ABA titles in 1974 and 1976. And, in the New York Nets' only NBA season of 1976-77, the team sold Erving on the eve of the season and went on to post the NBA's worst record by a wide margain. Buzzkill!

 

So, while I am advocating for the name "New York Nets", I was simply acknowledging that the "New York" name itself is not a magical cure-all. Still, the team is now free of the constraints that had hampered it in the past (e.g.: poor owners; playing in a league seen as second-rate); so I believe that now would have been the perfect time to re-unleash the New York Nets upon the world. I imagine that the Brooklyn Nets will do well enough if they win, despite the limitations of this name's appeal in other parts of the City; but I cannot help but regret the wasted opportunity to bring back the name "New York Nets".

[mrfab]

This life long Nets fan STILL hasn't gotten over them NOT pulling the mid 1990's trigger on"YOUR New Jersey Swamp Dragons!". I drummed up Brooklyn Knights on this here very fine board many moons ago, "Knights" being One Of The Last Great Major Pro Nicknames Left Unused IMHO. "Brooklyn" will market SO much bigger beyond The Tri-State Area. Anyway, it was great watching Rick Barry Nets on fuzzy black and white TV. Dr. J Nets were LIVE & In COLOR!

WSJ "Jay-Z Determined To Make The Nets Stylish"

http://online.wsj.co...DNewsCollection

"Revamped Logo!", "New Uniform Style!", "BOLD New Color Scheme!", we can but hope. So, discuss, play nice and keep DIGGIN' this season's throwbacks.

I KNEW Ricky Rubio would ROCK that Muskies jersey! I was THIS close to getting a Chris Kaman LA Stars # 35, and THEN...