B-Rich

ESPN writer suggests Clippers change name

Recommended Posts

why can't the Clippers fans be Clippers fans with out the stigma of 'contrarian' or 'bandwagoneer'?

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.

Every team has diehards, don't be ignant! They gots Clipper Darrell

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.

It doesn't necessarily need to be saved. But if you change it now, anytime someone sees a highlight or reads a story or talks about the Clippers it will always be followed with "Oh, that's when they were owned by that racist." The Clipper brand will be forever linked to Donald Sterling and his name will come up whenever the name Clippers comes up. I don't think that's what the NBA wants. They want Donald Sterling to never be mentioned again. And the way you achieve that is by keeping the brand intact and moving forward.

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.

It doesn't necessarily need to be saved. But if you change it now, anytime someone sees a highlight or reads a story or talks about the Clippers it will always be followed with "Oh, that's when they were owned by that racist." The Clipper brand will be forever linked to Donald Sterling and his name will come up whenever the name Clippers comes up. I don't think that's what the NBA wants. They want Donald Sterling to never be mentioned again. And the way you achieve that is by keeping the brand intact and moving forward.

How often is a former identity that never won a championship and rarely made the playoffs mentioned? Even if they change, it will still be better than when everyone in the future thinks, "Wow, I can't believe an NFL team used a racial slur as their name for like 90 years."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seattle Sonics, green and gold

They will keep the Clippers for now since I think there is a good chance they will change to the Seattle SuperSonics in 5-10 years. Here is my scenario:

1. Lakers get back to being the Lakers and Los Angeles goes back to not caring about the Clippers

2. Balmer grows tired of the LA scene and the fair weather fans, and longs for Seattle and its fervent fans

3. Balmer and the NBA realize that it would be better to have the Seattle market instead of the Lakers' left over crumbs of an LA market

Mock me if you wish but I don't think my scenario is outlandish. And, if the Clippers somehow succeed, great for everyone down there. I just think the NBA may have told Balmer that he can move to Seattle in 5-10 years IF things aren't going well for the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seattle Sonics, green and gold

They will keep the Clippers for now since I think there is a good chance they will change to the Seattle SuperSonics in 5-10 years. Here is my scenario:

1. Lakers get back to being the Lakers and Los Angeles goes back to not caring about the Clippers

2. Balmer grows tired of the LA scene and the fair weather fans, and longs for Seattle and its fervent fans

3. Balmer and the NBA realize that it would be better to have the Seattle market instead of the Lakers' left over crumbs of an LA market

Mock me if you wish but I don't think my scenario is outlandish. And, if the Clippers somehow succeed, great for everyone down there. I just think the NBA may have told Balmer that he can move to Seattle in 5-10 years IF things aren't going well for the team.

Hahaha... No. Even if the Lakers get better and the fans "go back to not caring", I doubt Balmer will get tired of all the lucrative financial opportunities of having a team in one of the top three media markets in the US and in a high-quality area (whereas in Seattle, an arena would have to be built to replace the aged KeyArea within a few years). Even if they go back to the downtrodden Clipper ways, there is still more money to be made in LA and from their fair-weather fans. Moving another team through shady means would not only produce more scandal and controversy (a kind that the NBA really doesn't want/need right now). Also, do you realize how thoroughly hypocritical this approach to getting a team is? Your team got stolen, so now you want to steal another team while still playing the victim? This vulture-like attitude has made me lose a significant amount of sympathy for Sonics fans, and I hope no more teams have to be "stolen" to fix Sonicsgate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seattle Sonics, green and gold

They will keep the Clippers for now since I think there is a good chance they will change to the Seattle SuperSonics in 5-10 years. Here is my scenario:

1. Lakers get back to being the Lakers and Los Angeles goes back to not caring about the Clippers

2. Balmer grows tired of the LA scene and the fair weather fans, and longs for Seattle and its fervent fans

3. Balmer and the NBA realize that it would be better to have the Seattle market instead of the Lakers' left over crumbs of an LA market

Mock me if you wish but I don't think my scenario is outlandish. And, if the Clippers somehow succeed, great for everyone down there. I just think the NBA may have told Balmer that he can move to Seattle in 5-10 years IF things aren't going well for the team.

The Lakers' left over crumbs make the league and team ownership more than Seattle ever would. Probably look better on a national TV deal as well.

The Clippers made money while Sterling was ignoring the team. The only way this organization could not show a profit would be if there was active criminal malfeasance throughout the organization or the books were being cooked to an absurd extent.

Since Ballmer just shelled out $2 billion for this organization, I doubt he's planning on either option.

EDIT-

For perspective: There are more people in Greater Los Angeles than in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia, combined. That's the kind of market you're trading out of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah - as awful as it was to trade Seattle for Oklahoma, it would be just as bad to trade LA for Seattle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seattle Sonics, green and gold

They will keep the Clippers for now since I think there is a good chance they will change to the Seattle SuperSonics in 5-10 years. Here is my scenario:

1. Lakers get back to being the Lakers and Los Angeles goes back to not caring about the Clippers

2. Balmer grows tired of the LA scene and the fair weather fans, and longs for Seattle and its fervent fans

3. Balmer and the NBA realize that it would be better to have the Seattle market instead of the Lakers' left over crumbs of an LA market

Mock me if you wish but I don't think my scenario is outlandish. And, if the Clippers somehow succeed, great for everyone down there. I just think the NBA may have told Balmer that he can move to Seattle in 5-10 years IF things aren't going well for the team.

The Lakers' left over crumbs make the league and team ownership more than Seattle ever would. Probably look better on a national TV deal as well.

The Clippers made money while Sterling was ignoring the team. The only way this organization could not show a profit would be if there was active criminal malfeasance throughout the organization or the books were being cooked to an absurd extent.

Since Ballmer just shelled out $2 billion for this organization, I doubt he's planning on either option.

EDIT-

For perspective: There are more people in Greater Los Angeles than in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia, combined. That's the kind of market you're trading out of.

This. No scenario exists where someone would pay $2 billion for a basketball team and move it to Seattle. Not in today's dollars at least.

That's how lucrative the LA market is right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about changing the name to the Seattle SuperSonics.

And stay in L.A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about changing the name to the Seattle SuperSonics.

How about Seattle just builds that new arena so they don't lose their te-.

Um.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why can't the Clippers fans be Clippers fans with out the stigma of 'contrarian' or 'bandwagoneer'?

I think I made a pretty good case for it ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

clippers need to change their name something else the pelicans did it and charlotte brought back buzz so why not clippers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we are in an NBA renaming era, but changing the Clippers doesn't fit here.

The name has gone national now, and the bad PR was instantly redeemed with three words: "banned for life." Blackouts, inside-out warmups and walkout threats turned into patches of bright red, revived pride and standing ovations in a matter of hours.

The whiplash was such that many determined to revolt were not exactly sure what to do when the severe punishment was exacted.

Everybody knows the brand now. Why would you change it?

But that logo... go ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about changing the name to the Seattle SuperSonics.

Euphie.gif

clippers need to change their name something else the pelicans did it and charlotte brought back buzz so why not clippers

And the Hornets changed their name to the Bobcats according to them, which is good because George Shinn was a hateful :censored: head owner and the name was associated with him and wait...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep the name.

Change the logo to incorporate a nautical theme.

Keep the red (maybe adjust the type of red used) and switch to a lighter shade of blue.

Done.

The colors / idea behind their sleeve jersey this season were perfect (outside of being sleeved).

As a Nets fan, I was glad they didn't change the name to Brooklyn Knights or Brooklyn Ballers or whatever goofy name most people wanted to see when they were moving. Sure, Nets is kinda dumb, but that was their name for over 40 years before they moved to Brooklyn. They won 2 ABA championships with a local hero in Dr. J playing under that name. They made back-to-back finals with that name. They ARE the Nets, there's no reason you can't market yourself as the "former-laughingstock-turned-powerhouse" and keep your name.

I didn't mind the color change because there are too many RWB teams and unlike teams like the 76ers or the *Washington Basketball team (another unnecessary name change), nothing about the team's identity or location screams Red White and Blue.

Share this post


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