B-Rich

ESPN writer suggests Clippers change name

Recommended Posts

Just because a team has a lot of bandwagon fans, doesn't mean they don't have die-hards.

I'm not being flippant or sarcastic. Sure there are a few odd die-hards like "Clipper Darrell" but the Clipper "fanbase" is probably the oddest in all of North American sports.

People in SoCal have never had any legitimate reason to root for the Clippers, especially when the Lakers are in town. Instead the people who call themselves Clipper fans are likely one of three people: 1.) they are transplants who like basketball but can't bring themselves to root for the Lakers. 2.) They are simply contrarians who love to say they aren't Lakers fans 3.)They just buy tickets to watch the other teams because Lakers tickets are too expensive.

None of that inspires a great deal of passionate fandom. I mean Billy Crystal, probably the most public Clippers fan, is literally option number 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Clippers logo is just as good as the Lakers, no need to change it !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Clippers logo is just as good as the Lakers, no need to change it !

Well, the Lakers one is pretty terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Clippers logo is just as good as the Lakers, no need to change it !

The Clippers logo is the Lakers logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People in SoCal have never had any legitimate reason to root for the Clippers, especially when the Lakers are in town. Instead the people who call themselves Clipper fans are likely one of three people: 1.) they are transplants who like basketball but can't bring themselves to root for the Lakers. 2.) They are simply contrarians who love to say they aren't Lakers fans 3.)They just buy tickets to watch the other teams because Lakers tickets are too expensive.

Or they enjoy following the team, just like any other fan. The condescending attitude that since the Clippers' history is poor, they therefore can't have any real fans that always seems to come up in these discussions is annoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, if you're going to be contrarian, then own it. It's not inherently negative, it just sort of becomes that when you deny that's your mindset despite the fact that it clearly is. If you root for the Clippers because you just want to say you're not Lakers fan then fine. Admitting that's the source of your fandom and moving on (which I do with my Hamilton Ti-Cats fandom) is much less grating then you denying the fact despite it being obvious to everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, if you're going to be contrarian, then own it. It's not inherently negative, it just sort of becomes that when you deny that's your mindset despite the fact that it clearly is. If you root for the Clippers because you just want to say you're not Lakers fan then fine. Admitting that's the source of your fandom and moving on (which I do with my Hamilton Ti-Cats fandom) is much less grating then you denying the fact despite it being obvious to everyone else.

I'm pretty sure it's up to the fans themselves to decide why they root for the team, not everyone else.

I could just as easily say that the Lakers don't have any real fans and it's all just a matter of when they hopped on the bandwagon, but that wouldn't be fair to the legitimate hardcore fans of the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People in SoCal have never had any legitimate reason to root for the Clippers, especially when the Lakers are in town. Instead the people who call themselves Clipper fans are likely one of three people: 1.) they are transplants who like basketball but can't bring themselves to root for the Lakers. 2.) They are simply contrarians who love to say they aren't Lakers fans 3.)They just buy tickets to watch the other teams because Lakers tickets are too expensive.

Or they enjoy following the team, just like any other fan. The condescending attitude that since the Clippers' history is poor, they therefore can't have any real fans that always seems to come up in these discussions is annoying.

Agreed. A team doesn't have to have a massive fan base to have die-hards. The two are only tangentially related.

As for why a fan is a fan, only that fan can answer it. It's condescending to assume that we can possibly know "why".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, if you're going to be contrarian, then own it. It's not inherently negative, it just sort of becomes that when you deny that's your mindset despite the fact that it clearly is. If you root for the Clippers because you just want to say you're not Lakers fan then fine. Admitting that's the source of your fandom and moving on (which I do with my Hamilton Ti-Cats fandom) is much less grating then you denying the fact despite it being obvious to everyone else.

I'm pretty sure it's up to the fans themselves to decide why they root for the team, not everyone else.

I could just as easily say that the Lakers don't have any real fans and it's all just a matter of when they hopped on the bandwagon, but that wouldn't be fair to the legitimate hardcore fans of the team.

Yep it's up to the fans to decide why they want to root for the team...and those reasons can have no actual connection to the Clippers franchise. If you are a "fan" of the Clippers simply because you don't want to root for the Lakers, are you really a fan of the Clippers?

And what I said isn't false. Those are the kind of people who attend Clippers games. It may sound condescending but it's still the truth.

And I'm also curious as to when and why you became a Clippers fan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, if you're going to be contrarian, then own it. It's not inherently negative, it just sort of becomes that when you deny that's your mindset despite the fact that it clearly is. If you root for the Clippers because you just want to say you're not Lakers fan then fine. Admitting that's the source of your fandom and moving on (which I do with my Hamilton Ti-Cats fandom) is much less grating then you denying the fact despite it being obvious to everyone else.

I'm pretty sure it's up to the fans themselves to decide why they root for the team, not everyone else.
Oh it is. I'm just saying that it's obvious that contrarians make up a large part of the Clippers' fanbase prior to their recent run of success. That for those people rooting for the team that isn't the Lakers is obviously the reason they chose for themselves. I'm saying there's nothing wrong with that and that it only becomes negative when you try to deny what seems obvious to most everyone else.

I could just as easily say that the Lakers don't have any real fans and it's all just a matter of when they hopped on the bandwagon, but that wouldn't be fair to the legitimate hardcore fans of the team.

Here's the thing. Bad teams do have diehards, but the Clippers are unique because they play in the same arena and cater to same exact market as another, more successful, team.

Sure, the Kansas City Royals have been terrible for a long time. They're still Kansas City's baseball team though, so they'll have their diehards. The Clippers though? The Lakers have been in the market longer and have a more distinguished history. It's not so much a bandwagon effect that draws people to the Lakers, it's the fact that if you're a basketball fan in Los Angeles the Lakers are it. The Clippers, until recently, were afterthoughts as a consequence of their situation. So yeah, I feel confident in saying that the Clippers' core fanbase includes a large amount of contrarians. Which, again, isn't a bad thing. It's just that most would prefer those people to be honest about it. Own it, admit that's where their fandom started, and move on.

I'd also be weary about throwing out the bandwagon label. With the Clippers good and the Lakers slumping? You'll probably going to get a few of those in your fandom soon enough if you don't already ;)

As for the name? I'd prefer they keep "Clippers", but I really want a big four team to use the name "Knights" (you let me down, Brooklyn). So if they went with that? I'd be ok with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clippers change name:

Die-hard fans continue to watch franchise as they always have

Clippers stay Clippers:

Die-hard fans continue to watch franchise as they always have

The Clippers don't have die-hard fans.

I was referring to die-hard NBA fans, the ones who will watch as many games as possible, even if their team isn't the one playing. A name change won't encourage them to change the channel to watch the team in the same way staying the Clippers won't stop them from watching Clippers games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for why a fan is a fan, only that fan can answer it. It's condescending to assume that we can possibly know "why".

I disagree. Why am I a Leafs fan? It's not condescending to assume it's because I was born and raised 45 minutes outside of the Greater Toronto Area. So then why do I root for the Hamilton Ti-Cats in the CFL? If you assumed it was because I have a bit of a contrarian streak in me you'd be right.

I've seen plenty of people on these boards who are Sharks and Ducks fans say their fandom started because the trendy colours and logos those teams started with in the 90s caught their attention as kids. So I wouldn't say I'm being condescending to assume that helped start the fandom of, say, an Anaheim Ducks fan in Georgia or a San Jose Sharks fan in Detroit.

Closer to the point at hand, I've met hockey fans born and raised in southern Ontario who are Red Wings, Senators, Habs, or Canucks fans because they don't want to be Leafs fans. That desire was where their fandom of whoever else started.

So I don't think I'm being condescending when I assume a good portion of the Clippers' fanbase is made up of contrarians. I'm taking my experiences as a fan who has interacted with other fans and I'm applying it to the discussion at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said this before, all they need is a logo change and maybe a color scheme change. The name is fine. But, they need a new logo, badly. Else they risk always looking like the little brother who wants to imitate his older more successful brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see: Ford's Theater, Auschwitz and the Texas School Book Depository are allowed to stand, but the Clippers have to change everything because their octogenarian owner asked his mistress to be discreet about her social media uploads.That makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but in defense of Ford's Theatre, it was a really good play. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Clips don't need an name change, but could probably use a change of identity. Anything at this point would be better than a logo that looks like the Lakers red-and-blue twin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Clips don't need an name change, but could probably use a change of identity. Anything at this point would be better than a logo that looks like the Lakers red-and-blue twin.

I know, I've always been bothered by the lack of imagination that went into the clippers logo.

*Thought process of the owner at the time* "hmmm, pay a relatively small amount of money for me to get a unique logo, or, whats that you say, I can just recolor the Lakers logo? Sure let's do it!"

I'm fine with the name, just change the logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all the talk about changing the name, I have yet to see a suggestion that is an upgrade from the Clippers. People tend to either suggest generic names like Knights or Bears, or really tacky ones like the Ballers or the Hollywood Stars.

The logic that changing the name erases any vestiges of Sterling is poor. The Clippers name existed before Sterling bought the team. If Ballmer really wants to erase him from the team's visual identity, he should do so by changing the colors instead, because the boring and generic red/white/blue color scheme was chosen by Sterling.

The name existed for four years before Sterling, and 32 years with Sterling.

If you change the name now, the Clippers name will be forever defined by Donald Sterling. If you keep the name and push forward, this whole ordeal will be nothing more than a foot note in the franchises history.

Will "Clippers" have its feelings hurt? Is there some compelling reason why the Clippers history needs to be saved? They've been run horribly for almost their entire existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a locally relevant name, which is better than can be said about their co-tenants. Don't lose it for some generic focus-group tested abomination that exists because there are too many branding and marketing "consultants" running around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will "Clippers" have its feelings hurt? Is there some compelling reason why the Clippers history needs to be saved? They've been run horribly for almost their entire existence.

The majority of fans don't want a name change, the new names people are suggesting are all worse than the one the team already has, and considering the franchise's history, a Clippers championship would be a lot more special and meaningful than a [insert lame, generic replacement name here] one.

Share this post


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