colortv

Golden State Considering Name Change to "San Francisco Warriors"

Recommended Posts

I wouldn't mind California Warriors

I don't know why they didn't go to Oakland Warriors when they renovated the Coliseum. Heck, I still think they should move to San Jose. The San Jose Warriors isn't a bad name either.

Oakland officials for whatever reason did not make it a requirement in the remodel. I think they should have. I know San jose would have required the team to change to san jose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You dumb bastard, it's not a schooner, it's a sailboat.

A schooner is a sailboat, stupidhead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You dumb bastard, it's not a schooner, it's a sailboat.

A schooner is a sailboat, stupidhead.

Well you know what? There is no Easter bunny over there, that's just a guy in a suit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should go with Santa Clara Warriors - to balance out the 49ers.

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.

That's all nice in theory, but you don't understand the politics involved in many of these instances.

Take for example, Tampa Bay. The metro area has a population of 4.5 million. The largest city in that metro area, Tampa (where the Buccaneers and Lightning play, but not the Rays) has a population of 347,645. That makes up only about 8% of the metro population. In other words, 92% of the people who live in "Tampa Bay" don't live in Tampa - the largest city in "Tampa Bay."

Most casual fans don't care, but if you're the mayor or St. Petersburg (the 2nd biggest city in "Tampa Bay" and home to the Rays), you care plenty. You have an MLB team under contract to play in your city through the year 2027, and you're not about to let that team break out of that contract and leave - especially to move to Tampa, where you stand to lose millions of dollars if the team decides to relocate a few miles outside your borders.

I don't have time to research, but the same could probably hold true for just about every professional team in the country. There is almost always a wealthy suburb chomping at the bit to jump up and snag the professional sports franchise(s) away from the city with the largest population in the metro. It just isn't as always as cut-n-dried as you might think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arizona Suns? Would that work?

I would imagine the Suns were from before every Phoenix suburb decided that they were totally a unique town whose boxy layout and miles of strip malls were so much different than the boxy layout and miles of strip malls in the next town over.

Yes, I get regional differences, but by Metro Phoenix's "logic," we should have the Wisconsin Packers and Wisconsin Brewers so the other parts of the state don't feel alienated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like the Dallas Cowboys who play in Arlington.

Could be worse, like the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arizona Suns? Would that work?

I would imagine the Suns were from before every Phoenix suburb decided that they were totally a unique town whose boxy layout and miles of strip malls were so much different than the boxy layout and miles of strip malls in the next town over.

Yes, I get regional differences, but by Metro Phoenix's "logic," we should have the Wisconsin Packers and Wisconsin Brewers so the other parts of the state don't feel alienated.

No - the Suns already play in Phoenix. So it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This discussion again....

tumblr_n05b7fHppO1qaoan0o1_500.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arizona Suns? Would that work?

I would imagine the Suns were from before every Phoenix suburb decided that they were totally a unique town whose boxy layout and miles of strip malls were so much different than the boxy layout and miles of strip malls in the next town over.

Yes, I get regional differences, but by Metro Phoenix's "logic," we should have the Wisconsin Packers and Wisconsin Brewers so the other parts of the state don't feel alienated.

No - the Suns already play in Phoenix. So it works.

I agree. Arizona Suns would be as the hypothetical examples I just gave. I could see Tempe's beef with the name Phoenix Cardinals when the Cardinals played at Sun Devil Stadium... Tempe actually has an identity aside from being right next to Phoenix. But Glendale, Mesa, Scottsdale, etc. are just not that damned important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arizona Suns sounds like a third rate biker gang.

kretschmann_gobax.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's too bad that Charlie O Finley wasn't around and bought the team.

Then he could name them the California Golden Warriors!

Yep! Great name.

Love that the Warriors are moving to San Fran. Plus if San Fran hosts the 2024 Olympics,the Warriors court could be a basketball site.

The Warriors moving to San Francisco is the "future of Bay Area basketball."

Share this post


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