CubsFanBudMan Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 FWIW, Joe Lacob following the press conference:"No, it's going to be the Golden State Warriors. That's our name and until further notice ? and I say until further notice because I'm leaving myself an out because at the end of the day, this comes down to what the fans want. Not me, it's not what I want to name it, it's not what Peter wants to name it. If the fans of the Golden State Warriors, overall, vote someday that they wanted to be the San Francisco Warriors, then we have to consider that. But bottom line is that it's the Golden State Warriors and it's going to remain the Golden State Warriors for the foreseeable future and maybe forever."In other words, "we're not changing now so as not to offend the east bay fans while we still have to live with them for five year, afterward we'll come up with some half baked poll that shows the fans want it to change to San Francisco and blame the name change on the fans to as to placate the few fans who will be offended by the change."You mean like the one that said Padres fans prefer blue? Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm sure it will play out like you describe for the Warriors, but with an "SF" logo in use for a couple years now with no "O" or even "GS" counterpart, I think it's clear what that eventual "fan" poll will show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Rich Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 "Toronto FC" or "FC Dallas" isn't as sensibility-offending as "Real Salt Lake" or "Sporting Kansas City," but having them in a league that also has traditional North American nomenclature makes them feel wrong. Being so used to the orthodoxy of location in the first column, nickname in the second everywhere else in North American sports, the grab-bag nature of MLS is kind of hard to wrap your head around. I know there's this sort of eternal taffy pull as to whether American soccer culture should try to "fit in" with what more established nations have been doing (all that tra-la-la-la-la scarf stuff), or whether it should be given its own spin by the way we've always done everything else (our clocks go backward dadgum it), and I get the arguments for both sides, but I think naming the teams as if they are things they are not, which is to say the descendants of 19th century athletic clubs, is baldly derivative and smacks of Trying Too Hard.Seconded. Great points, Ad. It is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Thanks. A pithier way to put it might be "is this American soccer, or soccer in America?" I'm not good at being pithy, though. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nash61 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Golden Gate Warriors, anyone? On September 20, 2012 at 0:50 AM, 'CS85 said: It's like watching the hellish undead creakily shuffling their way out of the flames of a liposuction clinic dumpster fire. On February 19, 2012 at 9:30 AM, 'pianoknight said: Story B: Red Wings go undefeated and score 100 goals in every game. They also beat a team comprised of Godzilla, the ghost of Abraham Lincoln, 2 Power Rangers and Betty White. Oh, and they played in the middle of Iraq on a military base. In the sand. With no ice. Santa gave them special sand-skates that allowed them to play in shorts and t-shirts in 115 degree weather. Jesus, Zeus and Buddha watched from the sidelines and ate cotton candy. POTD 5/24/12, POTD 2/26/17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HolyStroke Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 No. Either change to San Francisco or remain Golden State Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.