http://sportchange.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/rules-of-relocation/

http://sportchange.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/rules-of-relocation/

Yes!

http://sportchange.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/rules-of-relocation/

“Item 20b: Team Name. Subject to NBA approval and applicable rules, regulations and requirements of the NBA, and subject to the ability of ArenaCo or an affiliate of ArenaCo to obtain the rights to the name and trademarks under from the current owner thereof, any NBA Team domiciled in Seattle, Washington and operated by ArenaCo or an affiliate of ArenaCo that owns such NBA team will use the name “Seattle Supersonics.”

I don’t think it can be spelled out any clearer.

Move the Blue Jackets or Panthers. Would anyone notice?

Very weird indeed. Mind you it seems to be a constant in college sports unfortunately. Luckily Florida State hasn’t fallen for the PC backlash like St. John’s or Miami of Ohio. North .Dakota, Ole Miss and Illinois at least get to keep their names but sadly lose a potentially classic logo.

Probably a statute of limitations on nicknames of relocating franchises would probably be best. If a team is in a new city for more than 15-20 years, the team retains it’s nickname. For instance, there are multiple generations of LA Lakers fans and increasing few people (unfortunately) who remember the Minneapolis Lakers. Heck, there is an couple of generations that only know of the Utah Jazz, a Utah NBA franchise not known as the Jazz would be stranger. Not to mention, how weird it would be now for the Lakers to change their name now!

Again should anything like this to happen, anything that had been previously done would likely be grandfathered.

As far as the Jets go, and I may be wrong on this, but they are not showing the retired numbers from the (WHA-NHL) Jets. Even Kane is wearing Bobby Hull’s 9 jersey. Certain numbers may be treated as taboo, I doubt anyone will wear 10 or 25 there soon, those are not hung above the rink in ‘peg. That all said they aren’t showing Snyder’s 37 that Atlanta retired either.

If a team does move and respects taboo number number than that’s great, heck even teams that don’t move treat some numbers as taboo, the Canucks are not likely to ever retire Maki’s 11, Rypien’s 37 or Bourdon’s 28 but with the exception of the years Messier played for them those numbers aren’t used. Should the ‘Nucks ever need to move, should a future team need to respect those taboo’s? No, but it would be nice, and i digress.

Obviously, no matter what rulings if any would be put in place there would always be loopholes or considerations that would need to be looked at, and your pick of the Nords with Sakic and Forsburg are great examples of that. I would think if in their cases it would be looked at that seeing significant parts of their careers were in a Nords jersey and as that franchise (as the Av’s) did honour those accomplishments that there would be enough for both cities to share their legacies.

While there are Bobcats in the region (heck they pretty much cover the continent). There really isn’t enough of a presence here in BC for those names to make sense.

Should Vancouver become a NBA home again, unless Memphis was to give back the Griz name (highly unlikely after the last few seasons) the name would likely be something more regionally specific. Even the Mounties really don’t work as the City of Vancouver has it’s own police force (VPD) so the team wouldn’t even be playing in a venue protected by the RCMP. (one of the factors in the Grizzlies name originally I believe.)

No we’ll end up being the Orcas, The Salmons, Beachcombers or something else in that way of thought.

Thanks for clarifying that. However you still see the Winnipeg Jets retired numbers in both Winnipeg and Arizona. Both whom currently house separate Winnipeg Jets franchises. I wonder if the Quebec Nordiques return to the NHL, you’d see Sakic’s number 19 and Forsberg’s # 21 hung from the rafters of Le Colisee or whatever the arena would be called. Or if Charlotte does retain the Hornets name, Bobby Phils number would be brought over. Although, Pistol Pete’s number 7 is retired in both New Orleans and Utah. Or is it just NOLA?

Well, it would hurt a little not hearing Vancouver Grizzlies if Van City ever got an NBA team again. But then maybe they would have a chance to call themselves something strictly Canadian. Like the Mounties. Hey since the Charlotte Bobcats are supposedly trying to retreive the Hornets nameplate from the Big Easy, perhaps Vancouver Bobcats would sound appropriate. Or if not Bobcats, maybe Lynx with the same logo as the team has right now.

Simply put, there would be a set time period by the league the team is a member of between 2 to 5 seasons, in which the team can use the history of the franchise from it’s former location to help promote the team.

Say if the NBA was to set a 2 year term, In the case of (for example) the Thunder when they moved to the Chesapeake Energy Arena for the 2008-09 season, would have been able to use details from the teams history in Seattle to market themselves in the Oklahoma area for the 2008-09 and 2009-10 seasons only. From 2010-11 onward, any official marketing or promotion of the team would be restricted to the 2008-09 season onward. Again, personal records of current players however would be treated as personal & franchise based so the club would still be able to claim and promote Kevin Durant as their draft pick and his team records from 2007. Once a player retires thou, his records and achievements stay with the city so Lenny Wilkens or Gus Williams numbers would be kept in Seattle.

The Nets were only mentioned as a recent example of a team that is more transferring to a close local, which is more akin to just changing facilities, but just far enough away that a local change to the name makes sense. Issues like the Coyotes looking to drop Phoenix for Arizona would fall under the same.

As far as teams who did move great distances but kept their name, while under rule one (which I am more in favor of) past moves would be grandfathered, as I have no interest in forcing a team that has built roots (regardless if they relocated in the past) being forced to change, even thou do so means that if Vancouver got the NBA to come back it would be without the Grizzlies (which is still a bit of a piss off IMO)

Another thing….

For Rule set one, other than the Nets, the other exceptions ought to be the Giants (NY/SF), A’s (Philadelphia, KC, Oakland), Rams (Cleveland, LA, St.Louis), Raiders (Oakland/LA), Rockets (San Diego/Houston), Colts (Baltimore/Indy), Dodgers (Brooklyn/LA), Braves (Boston/Milwaukee/Atlanta), Flames (Atlanta/Calgary), Kings (KC/Omaha/Sacramento), Hawks (Milwaukee, St.Louis, Atlanta). Reason being, regardless of the city, those names fit. Even though there are no lakes in LA, LA Lakers just sounds right.

Wouldn’t be a bad idea, although I think it should be up to the owners if they want to use an old nickname for their team or use tbe current nickname in a different city, but only if it fits. I think fans in different markets from the teams from wence they came from should have knowledge of the history of the franchise, regardless of what they’re called. But there are some exceptions though. Any team called anything besides the Cleveland Browns, Quebec Nordiques, Winnipeg Jets, Montreal Allouettes wouldn’t sound proper. Mind you, I’ve gotten used to hearing Houston Texans, Washington Nationals, Baltimore Ravens, St. Louis Rams, Charlotte Bobcats, Minnesota Wild, Anaheim Ducks overtime. New Orleans Pelicans, hmmm! Let’s see how the team performs after the name change.