Dave Newhouse of the Oakland Tribune thinks so:
No other surname in professional sports is as repulsive. The Warriors’ surname, which won’t ever disgrace this space, also is meaningless. It doesn’t reflect a city or state, thus it has no mayor, no governor, no voting precincts, no ZIP code.
A more suitable surname, and easily more palatable, would be “Oakland Warriors.”
He goes on…
…but if Lacob is aware of the Warriors history, the team relocated to Oakland for the 1971-72 season after its financial disaster in San Francisco, and has mostly flourished at the gate on this side of the bridge. And even with the Warriors’ latest prolonged slump, they still have the NBA’s most loyal fans.
Thus Lacob and Guber can’t argue that renaming the team the Oakland Warriors will affect how well they play or how well they’re supported.
As further proof that a team’s surname has no influence on its performance, observe the Oakland A’s and Oakland Raiders. They’ve both experienced the summit and swampland of success — in the arena and at the turnstiles. But if they were the Jolly Green Giant A’s and the Silver Lode Raiders, it wouldn’t matter.
When I first heard this idea I thought that the name change might alienate fans living in San Francisco, the city of Oakland’s natural rival. His point about the A’s and Raiders makes some sense, but San Francisco has its own NFL and MLB teams, so delineating those make sense. There’s only one NBA team in the Bay Area, and it’s the Golden State Warriors.
What do I think the chances are of renaming the Warriors?
Not good.
You see in June, two weeks before the team’s sale was announced, the Warriors changed their logo and their look once again — new uniforms, new merchandise, new home court surface logo — complete with that same disgusting surname.
I believe Lacob and Guber agreed to that logo change. Otherwise, why would the old Warriors ownership seek to upset the new Warriors owners, who might begin firing staffers right and left as soon as they walk in the door?
I just don’t foresee the Oakland Warriors happening. And if that’s the case, I wish the new owners nothing but futility dunking on their heads.
Newhouse’s use of ‘repulsive’ is a little over the top. I’m sure the fans in Oakland would rather have the team named the ‘Oakland Warriors’ (which sounds b*tchin, by the way), but what percentage of the team’s historically supportive fan base lives in San Francisco or some other part of the Bay Area and would be turned off enough by the change to stop coming to games?
If the new ownership is thinking about such a change (and it doesn’t appear that they are) maybe a poll of season ticket holders is the best way to gauge the inevitable reaction.
