Saturday, January 26, 2013
Fun with Charts: What Employers Are Looking For in Job Interviews
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
A Post About Kings, Pelicans, Hornets, and Jazz: NBA Name-Swapping
Today's match-up between the New Orleans Hornets and the Sacramento Kings seemed to be a game just like any other. And while the game itself was pretty standard, breaking off-the-court news made it unique. It now appears likely that neither team will exist in its current form next season.
Last month, the Hornets made headlines when they announced a possible name change to the New Orleans Pelicans. And today's reports indicate the Kings have been sold to a group of investors that will move the team to Seattle (pending league approval).
Obviously, this is good news for Seattle fans, bad news for Sacramento fans, and somewhat confusing news for New Orleans fans. I think this should have implications for a few other cities around the country, as well.
There are a lot of reasons why a team should change names when it moves to a new city. For one, it gives them a chance to distance themselves from the city they screwed over (think Cleveland Browns -> Baltimore Ravens). The Hornets decided to keep their name when they moved from Charlotte to New Orleans in 2001. So, they've been rubbing it in Charlotte fans' faces for over a decade. Better late than never.
Secondly, it allows them to choose a more locally-appropriate name that creates a connection to the new city. In some occasions, it makes just as much sense to keep a team's name in the new city too (e.g. San Diego -> Houston Rockets, Milwaukee -> Atlanta Braves), but this is rare. Other times, the name doesn't make sense in relation to the new city, but they keep it anyway. The Lakers moved from Minneapolis to Los Angeles, which is certainly not known for its lakes. The Colts moved from Baltimore to Indianapolis, where there is no significant horse-breeding/racing legacy. The Grizzlies moved from Vancouver to Memphis, where there are no grizzly bears. And the Jazz moved from New Orleans to Salt Lake City, where there is no jazz. Obviously, there are plenty of examples, but it's still not a great idea to take a name with a team when it moves - it just doesn't make much sense.
When the Expos moved from Montreal to Washington D.C., they made the right choice by becoming the Washington Nationals. Previously, the Washington Senators had moved twice, becoming the Minnesota Twins and the Texas Rangers. The Hartford Whalers changed to the Carolina Hurricanes when they moved to Raleigh. And the Seattle Pilots became the Milwaukee Brewers. All of these changes made a lot more sense. Pelicans clearly aren't the first things that come to mind when you think of New Orleans, but they are the state birds of Louisiana. So, that's something, at least.
Additionally, a name change creates a clean break that can be used to make a complete overhaul. It opens the door for new colors, new uniforms, new momentum, and new history. The Hornets have tweaked their uniforms slightly by continuing the recent war on purple (see also: Milwaukee Bucks, Arizona Diamondbacks, Toronto Raptors), but the jerseys are still very closely tied to how they looked in Charlotte. If they want to go a different route, now is their chance. Plus, a new look is a good way to highlight a change in a team's fortunes. Now that the team in New Orleans is on the rise, their new appearance can signal their newly-established relevance and bright future.
So, it makes sense for New Orleans to get a new name, and Seattle should too (there's no reason to be excited about a Seattle Kings squad). In this case, however, Seattle will get its old name back. The reason the Kings are going to Seattle is because Seattle's previous team was stolen in 2008. And because that team's owners changed the name from the SuperSonics to the Thunder when they moved to Oklahoma City, they left the old name behind. So, to the delight of Sonics fans, their new team will look just like the one they grew up loving.
This is the way it should be. Think of how mad Cleveland fans would be watching the Baltimore Browns in the Super Bowl after being forced to cheer on the Cleveland Barons (or whatever they would have to call their expansion team) all season. If an owner is going to relocate a team, the least he can do is leave the name behind so the city can reuse it and start over.
This gentleman's rule hasn't always been followed, but it's never too late to make up for past crimes. So, here's my proposal: if a relocated team has yet to win a championship in its current city, the name is up for grabs. If the original city wants the name back, they can have it.
What does that mean? Well, for one, it means Minnesota won't be getting the Lakers back. But, it does allow for a decent shake-up. Now that Seattle is getting their Sonics back, the Hornets name should also return to Charlotte. The fans will surely be happy to get rid of the Bobcats (which is a horribly generic name) and forget that the last few seasons ever happened. New Orleans won't even be using the name, so no one gets hurt. With that said, New Orleans should make another move of its own. While I'm on board with the Pelicans name, the New Orleans Jazz certainly sounds more appropriate. The Utah Jazz had a lot of success in the 90s, but they weren't able to win a title. So, it's on them to create a new name - New Orleans gets the old one. Even Milwaukee and Philadelphia can get in on the fun. If they feel like being jerks, the Bucks could change their names to the Hawks (who left Milwaukee way back in 1955). And although Golden State won a title in 1975, Philadelphia would certainly have an argument if they wanted to take back the Warriors name. They won the first league championship in Philadelphia in 1947, and won a total of two titles there.
I'm not sure what they would call the new teams in Utah, Atlanta, and Oakland, but truthfully, I don't know much about those places. I'm sure they could come up with something. And if nothing else, this rule will create a sense of urgency for teams like the Grizzlies... if Vancouver ever gets another team, the name is going back up north.
Last month, the Hornets made headlines when they announced a possible name change to the New Orleans Pelicans. And today's reports indicate the Kings have been sold to a group of investors that will move the team to Seattle (pending league approval).
Obviously, this is good news for Seattle fans, bad news for Sacramento fans, and somewhat confusing news for New Orleans fans. I think this should have implications for a few other cities around the country, as well.
There are a lot of reasons why a team should change names when it moves to a new city. For one, it gives them a chance to distance themselves from the city they screwed over (think Cleveland Browns -> Baltimore Ravens). The Hornets decided to keep their name when they moved from Charlotte to New Orleans in 2001. So, they've been rubbing it in Charlotte fans' faces for over a decade. Better late than never.
Secondly, it allows them to choose a more locally-appropriate name that creates a connection to the new city. In some occasions, it makes just as much sense to keep a team's name in the new city too (e.g. San Diego -> Houston Rockets, Milwaukee -> Atlanta Braves), but this is rare. Other times, the name doesn't make sense in relation to the new city, but they keep it anyway. The Lakers moved from Minneapolis to Los Angeles, which is certainly not known for its lakes. The Colts moved from Baltimore to Indianapolis, where there is no significant horse-breeding/racing legacy. The Grizzlies moved from Vancouver to Memphis, where there are no grizzly bears. And the Jazz moved from New Orleans to Salt Lake City, where there is no jazz. Obviously, there are plenty of examples, but it's still not a great idea to take a name with a team when it moves - it just doesn't make much sense.
When the Expos moved from Montreal to Washington D.C., they made the right choice by becoming the Washington Nationals. Previously, the Washington Senators had moved twice, becoming the Minnesota Twins and the Texas Rangers. The Hartford Whalers changed to the Carolina Hurricanes when they moved to Raleigh. And the Seattle Pilots became the Milwaukee Brewers. All of these changes made a lot more sense. Pelicans clearly aren't the first things that come to mind when you think of New Orleans, but they are the state birds of Louisiana. So, that's something, at least.
Additionally, a name change creates a clean break that can be used to make a complete overhaul. It opens the door for new colors, new uniforms, new momentum, and new history. The Hornets have tweaked their uniforms slightly by continuing the recent war on purple (see also: Milwaukee Bucks, Arizona Diamondbacks, Toronto Raptors), but the jerseys are still very closely tied to how they looked in Charlotte. If they want to go a different route, now is their chance. Plus, a new look is a good way to highlight a change in a team's fortunes. Now that the team in New Orleans is on the rise, their new appearance can signal their newly-established relevance and bright future.
So, it makes sense for New Orleans to get a new name, and Seattle should too (there's no reason to be excited about a Seattle Kings squad). In this case, however, Seattle will get its old name back. The reason the Kings are going to Seattle is because Seattle's previous team was stolen in 2008. And because that team's owners changed the name from the SuperSonics to the Thunder when they moved to Oklahoma City, they left the old name behind. So, to the delight of Sonics fans, their new team will look just like the one they grew up loving.
This is the way it should be. Think of how mad Cleveland fans would be watching the Baltimore Browns in the Super Bowl after being forced to cheer on the Cleveland Barons (or whatever they would have to call their expansion team) all season. If an owner is going to relocate a team, the least he can do is leave the name behind so the city can reuse it and start over.
This gentleman's rule hasn't always been followed, but it's never too late to make up for past crimes. So, here's my proposal: if a relocated team has yet to win a championship in its current city, the name is up for grabs. If the original city wants the name back, they can have it.
What does that mean? Well, for one, it means Minnesota won't be getting the Lakers back. But, it does allow for a decent shake-up. Now that Seattle is getting their Sonics back, the Hornets name should also return to Charlotte. The fans will surely be happy to get rid of the Bobcats (which is a horribly generic name) and forget that the last few seasons ever happened. New Orleans won't even be using the name, so no one gets hurt. With that said, New Orleans should make another move of its own. While I'm on board with the Pelicans name, the New Orleans Jazz certainly sounds more appropriate. The Utah Jazz had a lot of success in the 90s, but they weren't able to win a title. So, it's on them to create a new name - New Orleans gets the old one. Even Milwaukee and Philadelphia can get in on the fun. If they feel like being jerks, the Bucks could change their names to the Hawks (who left Milwaukee way back in 1955). And although Golden State won a title in 1975, Philadelphia would certainly have an argument if they wanted to take back the Warriors name. They won the first league championship in Philadelphia in 1947, and won a total of two titles there.
I'm not sure what they would call the new teams in Utah, Atlanta, and Oakland, but truthfully, I don't know much about those places. I'm sure they could come up with something. And if nothing else, this rule will create a sense of urgency for teams like the Grizzlies... if Vancouver ever gets another team, the name is going back up north.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)