colortv

Golden State Considering Name Change to "San Francisco Warriors"

Recommended Posts

I think as long as they are in Oakland, I think they will remain the Golden State Warriors. The only way they become the San Francisco Warriors is they they move to the other side of the bay. I think there is too much of an inferiority complex in Oakland to have the team change to San Francisco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DEAD!: That's the thing. The Warriors ARE actually moving to San Francisco in a few years. They've already confirmed it & picked out the location of their new arena in SF. Basically once that happens, screw Oakland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going off-topic, but I've always maintained that "Boston Patriots" is a far superior name...

it's not though, New England is superior because the stadium is located 20 miles from Providence and Boston. That might not sound like far but it is a good 45 minute drive from either city without traffic and that by itself makes it so they can't name themselves after either city. it was also located there for that very reason to be close enough for both to appeal to fans from around both metropolitan areas and appeal to the whole area of southern new england. and the whole area of new england identifies with the patriots not just boston.

I was referring to the name itself, not the geographic significance.

Boston Patriots sounds better, and has some historical meaning - like (as mentioned earlier) the Texas Rangers and the Charlotte Hornets.

"Dallas" Rangers and "Carolina" Hornets wouldn't work due to the fact that there is history behind the names themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did Golden State come from in the first place? There's no other team whose geographical identifier is the nickname of the state or city they're in.

To an extent, the New England Patriots.

Going off-topic, but I've always maintained that "Boston Patriots" is a far superior name...

it's not though, New England is superior because the stadium is located 20 miles from Providence and Boston. That might not sound like far but it is a good 45 minute drive from either city without traffic and that by itself makes it so they can't name themselves after either city. it was also located there for that very reason to be close enough for both to appeal to fans from around both metropolitan areas and appeal to the whole area of southern new england. and the whole area of new england identifies with the patriots not just boston.
And the Patriots truly are a regional team. The New England states are small. I remember seeing license plates from multiple states in the area when I was tailgating prior to a game up there.

I've always heard that the Warriors have a pretty strong fan base throughout the Bay Area. I can understand fans from areas other than SF not liking a new branding featuring one city. I would just call them the Bay Warriors, even though I kind of like the name Golden State.

Shakespeare said, "What's in a name?". Here in VA, we have a ton of die-hard Washington ___skins fans. Nobody really cares that the team is branded as Washington or the fact that the team actually plays in Maryland. They are "the" team in most of VA and folks just want to see them win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DEAD!: That's the thing. The Warriors ARE actually moving to San Francisco in a few years. They've already confirmed it & picked out the location of their new arena in SF. Basically once that happens, screw Oakland.

Oops how did I missed that? I had thought it was a proposed site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Oakland fans would be angered by the change. Especially considering the Athletics situation in baseball.

Don't think anyone cares what Oakland fans think. I mean it's not like they're the Oakland Warriors. They've spent 40 years doing anything the can to distance themselves from the city they actually call home. Besides, the majority of East Bay and Oakland fans have no problem rooting for their favorite baseball team, the San Francisco Giants. I doubt they'll have any problem rooting for the San Francisco Warriors either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't Golden State come when they moved from San Francisco to Oakland and didn't want to be called the Oakland Warriors? Maybe I'm wrong.

No it came from their then owner wanting to make them the "team of the state". He originally intended to play games all over the state, and did in fact play a few games down in then vacant San Diego. But the idea fizzled while the odd name remained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about $an Franci$co Warrior$? ;)

or $an Fran¢i$¢o Warrior$

Haha! Even better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DEAD!: That's the thing. The Warriors ARE actually moving to San Francisco in a few years. They've already confirmed it & picked out the location of their new arena in SF. Basically once that happens, screw Oakland.

Oops how did I missed that? I had thought it was a proposed site.

Technically it is just proposed, but with the Warriors having bought the land in San Francisco already themselves, they're planning to build the arena themselves privately... there's really none of the usual public muckity muck that can screw it up at this point. They'll have to go through an EIR and a few minor city regulatory hurdles, but with the mayor backing them those will be far more a formality than they were going to be up at the Pier 30 site they wanted originally. And unlike the Pier site the Fed has no say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW the San Jose Earthquakes in the old NASL went by Golden Bay for a few years, outdoor games in San Jose indoor games Oakland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Patriots truly are a regional team.

The Red Sox, Bruins, and Celtics aren't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Patriots truly are a regional team.

The Red Sox, Bruins, and Celtics aren't?
Those teams are actually located in boston, the pats arent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Patriots truly are a regional team.

The Red Sox, Bruins, and Celtics aren't?
Those teams are actually located in boston, the pats arent
Football just lends itself better to a truly regional fanbase. It's not ludicrous for someone who lives three hours away from the stadium to have football season tickets like it would be for the other three big sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California is too big. Just like the California Angels were a horrible name. How would fans in San Antonio and Houston feel about the Texas Mavericks? It should be the San Francisco Warriors again.

Houston would probably feel the same way it does about the Texas Rangers

The Texas Rangers currently represent 12 Texas counties while playing in the Metroplex. Now if the Rangers moved to a new stadium closer to or in the city of Dallas, then yes, they should be the Dallas Rangers.

But I also think the Jets and Giants have no business calling themselves New York when they play their home games in New Jersey.

When the Warriors move to San Francisco in 2018, I definitely support a name change.

But the Jets and Giants have their offices in New York City.

The Jets' corportate offices are in Florham Park, New Jersey. The Giants' corporate offices are in East Rutherford, New Jersey. In fact, nothing about them are New York.

Besides playing in the flippin' metro area. Look, I know this is a surprise to folks out west, but some times metropolitan areas can even cross state lines.

Right. When the Sixers were going to move to Camden NJ in the early/mid 90s, they were still going to be the Philadelphia 76ers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A major-league team should always be named after a city -- not a county, not a state, not a region; a city. There is no major-league team that is not within some city's sphere of influence. State-based (or region-based) locality names are just unbecoming to a team in a major league.
The bigger and more diverse the state, the more absurd the state-wide naming is. No single team can represent a state as large and/or populous as Texas, California, Florida, or New Jersey, whose internal cultural divisions are huge.
I understand that "Minnesota Twins" was an effort to appeal both to Minneapolis and St. Paul, that "New England Patriots" was an effort to appeal both to Boston and Providence; that still doesn't justify these non-city-based locality names. Just use the name of the larger city, even if you're outside the city's borders.
(In the case of a team called "Boston", the whole New England region is still going to adopt that team; and so will fans in Boston, even if the team plays 20 miles outside of town. The sphere of influence of a major city always crosses borders -- sometimes even state borders, as the Meadowlands are clearly within New York City's sphere of influence.)
I understand that the names "Texas Rangers", "New Jersey Devils", "Colorado Rockies", and "Florida Panthers" come from already-existing names. The simple solution: don't name the team after those things. Find an already-exisitng name that involves a city name, such as was done by the Baltimore Orioles, the Montreal Expos, the Charlotte Hornets, the New Orleans Jazz, and by the macabrely-named Chicago Fire and San Jose Earthquakes.
The only mitigating factor would be if a team were really based state-wide, with home games in multiple cities. Then something like "California Warriors" would be sensible. And, likewise, if the Patriots played home games in multiple cities, then "New England Patriots" would be just fine.
We've all lived with "New England Patriots", and most of us grew up with "California Angels"; so those names seem "right" just by our having got used to them. But those teams should never have gone away from "Boston Patriots" and "Los Angeles Angels".

It's great that we've seen the correction of "Florida Marlins" to "Miami Marlins" (which has unfortunately been cancelled out by the degradation of "Phoenix Coyotes" into "Arizona Coyotes"), and also LA Angels' return to their original name (even if it carries a little extra baggage that most people sensibly ignore). The prospect of the Warriors reclaiming a more appropriately major-league name would also be a welcome move in the right direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Patriots truly are a regional team.

The Red Sox, Bruins, and Celtics aren't?

I didn't say they weren't. All Boston area teams have a strong New England fan base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW the San Jose Earthquakes in the old NASL went by Golden Bay for a few years, outdoor games in San Jose indoor games Oakland

Golden Bay, I like that ... The Golden Bay Warriors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's great that we've seen the correction of "Florida Marlins" to "Miami Marlins" (which has unfortunately been cancelled out by the degradation of "Phoenix Coyotes" into "Arizona Coyotes"), ...

Everyone needs to understand the mindset of the individual regions...in the case of the Phoenix metro-area, they consider each community separate...people in Mesa or Chandler, or Glendale, or Tempe do not consider themselves as part of Phoenix, any more than people in Scottsdale do.

Most Arizonans (?) were offended that the Cardinals labeled themselves "Phoenix", when they played in Tempe. The Cards SHOULD HAVE named themselves "Arizona" in the beginning; this one act may have gone a long way in helping public relations initially.

Calling the hockey team "Phoenix" while playing in Glendale was not very endearing to the locals (from what I've heard; I don't live there), and there's also the issue of the Glendale-based NFL team having "University of PHOENIX" emblazoned on the football stadium.

I don't think one can use a one-size-fits-all approach with naming conventions; you need to take each region on a case-by-case basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DEAD!: That's the thing. The Warriors ARE actually moving to San Francisco in a few years. They've already confirmed it & picked out the location of their new arena in SF. Basically once that happens, screw Oakland.

Oops how did I missed that? I had thought it was a proposed site.

Technically it is just proposed, but with the Warriors having bought the land in San Francisco already themselves, they're planning to build the arena themselves privately... there's really none of the usual public muckity muck that can screw it up at this point. They'll have to go through an EIR and a few minor city regulatory hurdles, but with the mayor backing them those will be far more a formality than they were going to be up at the Pier 30 site they wanted originally. And unlike the Pier site the Fed has no say.

Minor city regulatory hurdles anywhere else are always major hurdles in San Francisco. Such is the nature of the politics there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am 100% behind putting the Warriors with a City... but as a franchise, they need to worry about the real branding issue... and that's the use of the Copperplate font.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.