Comments on: OAKLAND Warriors

By: ACV

ACV — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 02:40:43 +0000

I live in the peninsula and was formerly a SF sports fan. I made the switch and became and oakland fan after I realized how poorly treated Oakland is by both the media and people from the surrounding areas. The one team I’ve had trouble truly supporting though is the warriors just because of the fact of how they’ve disrespected Oakland since moving there. This is one subject that gets me really fired up and angry. There is no other team in basketball that has treated their city worse than how the warriors treat Oakland. They should change the name to show some respect. I think it’s hilarious that people would stop going if they labeled themselves as an Oakland team. All it does is give oaklanders a little more pride and gives people nationally a sense of where the warriors actually play.

Also, Oakland warriors just sounds better and rolls off the tongue easier than golden state warriors

By: Marcus Thompson

Marcus Thompson — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 06:21:07 +0000

A half a mil is nothing to a team with a $40 million center on their bench.

By: Winston

Winston — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 03:54:16 +0000

I could’ve sworn that Rowell said something about the NBA wanting $500K for a name change (or perhaps it was a change in logo?).

By: Marcus Thompson

Marcus Thompson — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 01:28:37 +0000

From what I’m told from a Warriors staff member, the Warriors did get the “Golden State” monicker because they played in several cities, including San Diego and other neutral sites.
And Keith, you are right. I am biased and want Oakland in the name. While I do think the term “Bay Area” is understood to represent the San Francisco Bay Area, I do think calling the team the San Francisco Bay Area Warriors is better than Golden State, though have fun trying to fit San Francisco Bay Area on the road jersey.
Still, for the record, I think it’s fine to be based and named after one city while representing an entire metropolitan area that includes various cities — even when there aren’t any other teams in that league in a neighboring city. There are several examples that such a situation works (i.e, Dallas, which shares a metropolis with Fort Worth). But, as you said, I’m biased.

By: Keith

Keith — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:14:35 +0000

I’d like to respond to your suggestion that the Golden State Warriors
change their name to the Oakland Warriors. First off, I’m an east-coast
transplant who grew up following the NBA, but I never really was a true
fan of one team. When I moved to San Francisco five years ago, I turned
the TV on one night, and the Warriors were playing. My first reaction
was: “That’s right…..the Warriors do play around here,” before asking
my roommate exactly where they played. I also found it quite strange
that the team was called the Golden State Warriors, considering the fact
that 3 other NBA teams call the Golden State home.

Clearly, one major reason that no one knows where the GSW play is
because they have been so terrible (and possibly worse, irrelevant) the past
dozen years, and, therefore, rarely in the news outside the Bay Area.
But it goes without saying that calling the local team the Golden State
Warriors when it only represents a portion of the state is just bad
marketing, good team or not.

That said, I decided to take it upon myself to rename the Warriors.
I’ve seen your comments on this topic in articles and Q&A forums, and I
read your recent blog as well. I understand that you propose to change
the name to the Oakland Warriors, but I’m just guessing you are a little
biased. Unlike the Athletics and the Raiders, who use ‘Oakland’ in
their moniker, the Warriors are the only pro basketball team in the entire
Bay Area, so they do represent the entire metropolian region. If San
Francisco or San Jose also housed an NBA team, then I would certainly
agree with you. Your second suggestion, to change the name to the Bay Area
Warriors, however, doesn’t correct one of the major problems with the
current name, that is, the general public still cannot associate a city
or exact location to the team. There are many bays in the U.S. (and
consequently, many bay areas), so assigning a name such as the Bay Area
Warriors makes little sense.

But when thinking about other major bay areas in this country, only one
immediately springs to mind. The metropolitan region of Tampa/St.
Petersburg/Sarasota has three major professional sports franchises, one
which plays in Tampa, the other two in St. Petersburg. There are no other
competing sports teams in that metropolitan region, and all three of
those teams, the Buccaneers, the Devil Rays, and the Lightning, use ‘Tampa
Bay’ in their names, even though there is no city called Tampa Bay. I
propose that the Warriors follow this lead. The bay which we all
surround is called the San Francisco Bay, so my suggestion is to name the team
the San Francisco Bay Warriors. This is the only name that both
represents the area and gives casual fans an exact location to conjure in
their minds. One final comment: please do not think that I am pushing for
San Francisco to be in the name just because I live there. If it was
called the Oakland Bay or the Northern California Bay, I would
lobby for a similar change.

Keep up the great reporting.

By: Zeke from Walnut Creek

Zeke from Walnut Creek — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:59:59 +0000

Marcus – You are correct. It should be the Oakland Warriors. Golden State just confuses people. In fact when Chris Mullin was drafted out of St. John’s in 1985 one of the first things he said was, he didn’t know where Golden State played. I think the origins of the Golden State name go back to 1971-72. The Rockets left San Diego for Houston and the Warriors played six home games in San Diego that year. I don’t know whose idea it was, perhaps Franklin Meuli. There might be a story there for you. I would think Al Attles would know. “The Destroyer” has been with franchise since its days back in Philly.