11/05/24
May 06, 2003
Vote for the name of the new Charlotte NBA franchise.: The three finalists are the Bobcats, Dragons, and the Flight. Please don't vote for the Flight, it's stupid. Dragons is okay, I don't like the Bobcats. What happened to the Bankers? or the Jordans? At least the Cougers didn't make the cut.
posted by corpse to basketball at 10:35 AM - 40 comments
Flight? Flight? Jebus, help us all. I don't know if this one will win, but its mere inclusion in the "finals" is enough for me to hate the Dragons/Bobcats. Boo Charlotte. And I'm not sure who the marketing genius was that came up with the entire action-naming trend, but the Storm, the Reign, the Power, the Revolution, and the Sun can all Burn in hell. Just because it is (or was) unique does not make it right. Please stop. Take a cue from the Carolina Panthers or the Jaguars or even the Blue Jackets and name the team something that makes sense and lends itself to easy cheering. I'm not sure about you, but "Go Power" doesn't do it for me.
posted by 86 at 11:10 AM on May 06, 2003
I thought "Raptors" was a terrible choice, thinking it would be "old news" when the whole Jurassic Park phenom disappeared. However, I have to say that the name has survived pretty well and I don't even associate it with the movie franchise (unless I think about it deliberately). If I had to choose, I'd pick Bobcats. It'll make for a better trampoline-dunking-mascot and the newspapers will automatically shorten the team name to 'Cats.
posted by grum@work at 11:17 AM on May 06, 2003
What happened to adding some regional flair to a team's identity? Like the Memphis Grizzlies because of their bear problems. And the LA Lakers, y'know, cause of all those lakes out there. And the Minnesota Wild, cause you know, Minny = WILD. Jokes aside, all these names are terrible. If nothing else "Flight" is at least trying. And failing. But trying nonetheless. I'd have to disagree about "Raptors" surviving the test of time, though...still makes me shudder.
posted by Succa at 11:25 AM on May 06, 2003
I'd call them the Black Widows because then you could say "We play in Charlotte's Web"
posted by vito90 at 11:53 AM on May 06, 2003
Succa, Grizzlies was the perfect name for a Vancouver team, but I can't think of anything funnier than Memphis Grizzlies.
posted by dusted at 11:59 AM on May 06, 2003
anything funnier than Memphis Grizzlies Utah Jazz?
posted by vito90 at 12:09 PM on May 06, 2003
Mighty Ducks?
posted by gspm at 12:19 PM on May 06, 2003
Succa. The Wild actually makes a lot of sense, at least to us Minnesotans. It was supposed to be a play on words, wild as in wilderness and wild animals, both of which we have a ton of in Northern MN. That's why the logo is a bears head with a river/trees/north star all incorporated in it. I thought it was a genius decision for marketing. Oh, and you know that the Lakers got their name from the old Minneapolis Lakers right? Minneapolis calls itself the City of Lakes, so it just made sense. Sorry, back on topic. All three names sound horrible. Like they should be for a NFL Europe team or something.
posted by emoeby at 12:32 PM on May 06, 2003
Well, to further the perspective on lousy team names - the Jazz were originally a New Orleans team so like the Lakers/Hornets/Grizzlies it is a name that makes more sense in its original location.
posted by gspm at 01:14 PM on May 06, 2003
Oh my God. Not having watched a single game of pro basketball in the past ten years or so, I always assumed they meant birds when they said Toronto Raptors. They might as well have just called them the Toronto Commercial Tie-Ins. That's terrible. According to the Toronto's website: The final top-10 list was dominated by animal names: Beavers, Bobcats, Dragons, Grizzlies, Hogs (Toronto's nickname is Hogtown), Raptors, Scorpions, T-Rex, Tarantulas, and Terriers. The Toronto T-rex? I guess it could have been worse.
posted by Samsonov14 at 01:23 PM on May 06, 2003
Team names are like band names. They almost always sound awkward when you first say them. But then after awhile they just stick, and you never think about them again. It's a language-thing. Take "Pearl Jam" for instance. Or "Beatles." Or "U2." Or "Coldplay." Imagine saying them for the first time. "Let's call ourselves Pearl Jam." Of course, to my ears that sounds cool. Maybe it's the randomness of band names that make them work. Maybe sports team should forget about meaning and just go for random hipness: Charlotte Nakedness Charlotte TwoFlies Charlotte Nowhere Indiana Angora Indiana Agony of Being Chicago Jellysoup
posted by jacknose at 02:38 PM on May 06, 2003
The Charlotte Harlots... The Charlotte Catch Rags... The Truck Drivers... The Back Tacks...
posted by StarFucker at 02:40 PM on May 06, 2003
The Charlotte Purple Monkey Dishwasher.
posted by Samsonov14 at 02:48 PM on May 06, 2003
Ha ha!! I get that one samsonov!
posted by StarFucker at 02:57 PM on May 06, 2003
CATCH RAGS?! nice sf.
posted by garfield at 03:06 PM on May 06, 2003
Bobcats and Dragons were on the Toronto list as well? Are these just catch-all names they can use for any sports team in any location? I always thought that Toronto Towers would have been good, but I remember that there was some legal reason why they couldn't use that name (some old team had it or something). Bizarre band names work because it is supposed to catch your attention on the radio when you hear it. Bizarre sports team names don't work because it's hard to come up with a logo and mascot and advertising campaign for something too weird.
posted by grum@work at 03:28 PM on May 06, 2003
How about naming the franchise "Soon to Be Relocated"?
posted by IceBurrg at 03:48 PM on May 06, 2003
I think the Indiana Agony of Being woudl be a fantastic logo/team name. They could use that guy from The Scream as a mascot.
posted by Samsonov14 at 03:48 PM on May 06, 2003
I propose that they rotate all the old names to the teams in the right location. So the Minnesota Lakers, the New Orleans Jazz, the Charlotte Hornets, and then stick those cities like Utah and LA looking for names. Better yet, merge the Lakers and Clippers, and call them the Clippers! (but fire all the old clipper players and keep Kobe Shaq et al). Then maybe Utah could take Grizzlies or TWolves. And memphis could be the Memphis Mosquitos or something (that's all I remember of staying in Memphis, that whenever we opened the motel door a swarm of mosquitos would come in the room) Or, call em the pharoahs since they play in the pyramid ;) This sounds like my half joking plan to redo the NHL if I was the commissioner - all the stupid southern teams would go back where they came from, Winnepeg, Quebec, Hartford, Minnesota, etc. And all the dumb florida teams and LA teams could just cease to exist. it was better as a northern game, in actual hockey climates. I mean, don't you wish the Jets, Nordiques, and Whalers still existed?
posted by Bernreuther at 03:56 PM on May 06, 2003
Here were my suggestions from an earlier thread: The BBQ Sandwiches The Jesses Helmses The Grits The Piedmonters THe Nascars The Baptist Churches The Baptist Generals The Generals The Fundies The Generals The Lack of Sidewalks The I-40s The Road Cones The Hogs The Hog Lagoons The Turkeys The Farmers The Jordans The Torque
posted by corpse at 04:16 PM on May 06, 2003
OK, point taken. "Utah Jazz" will always rule every dumb team name contest. The Lack of Sidewalks has my vote!
posted by dusted at 04:46 PM on May 06, 2003
I think corpse was on the right track for the Charlottes--after all, this is NASCAR country and Charlotte does have one of the major tracks. What would be wrong with Drivers or Racers as the name and some car-type logo? Although Johnson, the owner, is after all black and influential, while NASCAR is extremely vanilla, last domain of the honky.
posted by billsaysthis at 05:20 PM on May 06, 2003
Toronto Maple Leafs or Vancouver Canucks or Boston Red Sox or Los Angeles Dodgers or Montreal Expos. None of these names would have sounded good if they introduced them nowadays. It's all about the passage of time and building a history. There are few names that really fit their city: Seattle Mariners Dallas Cowboys Quebec Nordiques are a couple that I can think of quickly.
posted by grum@work at 05:41 PM on May 06, 2003
uh, the Philadelphia Phillies?
posted by mbd1 at 05:47 PM on May 06, 2003
Knickerbockers fits NYC in a 1940s (or 1600s?) kind of way. And the original Toronto NBA team was called the Huskies. They could have at least considered that one before picking Raptors. Not that a lot of Huskies are seen on Toronto streets, but, you know. And if you wanna talk commercial tie-ins -- soon after (or when) the Raptors launched in Toronto there was a California pitas kind of place called Wraptors that blatantly used a Raptorsish logo. They didn't last long, I think it was a legal thing that shut them down or at least stripped them of their sign, logo and name.
posted by gspm at 06:13 PM on May 06, 2003
How about naming the franchise "Soon to Be Relocated"? Maybe this is the reason for bland names that have nothing to do with the city. Brand portability.
posted by dusted at 09:47 PM on May 06, 2003
My picks were Stallions and Cyclones, but they didn't make the cut. My pick is the Dragons, because I hate Bobcats and Flight. Bobcats is bush league, and Flight...ugh! Cougars would have been OK, but we already have the NFL's Panthers. If you wanted a flight theme, call them the Thunderbirds! Or better yet, pay off the New Orleans Hornets for them to come up with a new name and purchase back the Hornets name.
posted by jasonbondshow at 10:55 PM on May 06, 2003
There's already a Single A baseball team in Dayton called the Dragons.
posted by insomnyuk at 11:35 PM on May 06, 2003
Just to piss off George Shinn and Ray Woolridge, I'd call the team the "Stingers". But I'm sure stick-in-the-mud David Stern would nix that idea. Whoever did those "focus groups" needs to be fired after selecting those ridiculous names. Some other names to consider: Stampeders, Roughriders, and Renegades. Hey, if its good enough for the CFL, then its good enough for the NBA!
posted by jasonbondshow at 09:09 AM on May 07, 2003
I guess I'm in the minority but I like the singular team names (i.e. The Reign, the Fire, the Crew, the Lightening, et cetera) because it sounds unified as apposed to a group of animals, which comes off as being more individuals than a unified team. That being said, The Flight blows goats as a name for a team. Sadly, I think most of the good singular team names are taken.
posted by srw12 at 09:09 AM on May 07, 2003
The problem with singular names is that kids sound like idiots when they say the "When I grow up, I wanna be a..." When I grow up, I wanna be a Fire. When I grow up, I wanna be a Flight. When I grow up, I wanna be a Heat. A Hot? When I grow up, I wanna be a Reign.
posted by grum@work at 10:12 AM on May 07, 2003
I don't really hear a lot of kids saying " when I grow up I want to be a bear" or"...a Lion" or "...a Laker". I hear a lot of "I want to be a basketball player" or " a Linebacker".. but even if they do, the statements listed make about as much sense as "I want to be a Dragon". I guess it just seems too easy to just pick some random animal and add an "s" to the end. not very original.
posted by srw12 at 12:30 PM on May 07, 2003
I used to date a girl whose little sister wanted to be a fire truck when she grew up. True story.
posted by Samsonov14 at 12:56 PM on May 07, 2003
When I grow up, I wanna be around.
posted by worldcup2002 at 01:20 PM on May 07, 2003
Singular names? The NLL has a few: Albany Attack *unoriginal* NJ Storm *unoriginal* Colorado Mammoth *double gag* Toronto Rock *I kinda like it* Ottawa Rebel *gag* OHL: Guelph Storm *unoriginal* Owen Sound Attack *unoriginal* Sarnia Sting *it's ok, I guess* Saginaw Spirit *eh* Brampton Battalion *I like it* WHL: Calgary Hitmen *eh* Kootenay Ice *lame* AHL: Hartford Wolf Pack *lame* Manitoba Moose *it is a plural animal, technically* Syracuse Crunch *lame. Sounds like a chocolate bar* San Antonio Rampage *lame* NHL: Tampa Bay Lightning *good* Minnesota Wild *it's ok, but I don't like it* Colorado Avalanche *I like* NBA: Orlando Magic *eh* Miami Heat *ok* Utah Jazz *It's good, but not for utah* Well, you get the idea. The majority of singular team names are as unoriginal as any plural animal. The problem that I have with them is somewhat like what grum mentioned. A plural name for a team is good in that it can apply to individuals in the singular sense. A player joins the Maple Leafs, he becomes a Leaf. A player joins the Yankees, he's a Yankee. A player joins the Magic, he's a... Magician?? The good thing about short plural names is that they are easy in casual conversation. With a couple of beers, no one says "Avalanche" or "Lightning" -- it's always "Avs" and "Bolts." So, if it's going to be abbreviated anyway, why bother with a complicated name?
posted by mkn at 04:09 PM on May 07, 2003
How about the "Charlotte Team"? It is what it says it is.
posted by Samsonov14 at 04:31 PM on May 07, 2003
Charlotte Weren't-We-The-Hornets-Like-2-Years-Ago-s.
posted by therev at 04:39 PM on May 07, 2003
Colorado Avalanche is such a perfect name. It makes sense to the region, it provides easy work for sports writers ("Avalance bury opponents!"), the name is menacing in some way, and it really does roll off the tongue nicely. (side note: before the Nordiques moved to Denver, I used to have a fantasy hockey team called the Anchorage Avalanche. I knew it was a good name...) My choice would have been the Charlotte Sting.
posted by grum@work at 06:27 PM on May 07, 2003
Team names are like band names. 764-CHARLOTTE?
posted by yerfatma at 08:06 PM on May 07, 2003
Of course this isn't an official poll, and I doubt there will be an official one, they are just looking for "public feedback" in some way. Sure, they'll pick whatever can sell the most merchandise, which will probably be the Dragons. Kids love dragons.