The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

The thread on the Wizards' uniform change and subsequent discussion on their mascot name has got me thinking: Do the NBA team mascots fit the city / area which they represent?

Let's find out if the mascot can, in any way, shape, or form be associated with the city:

Boston Celtics: Yes
(It's a reference to the Irish community. Boston = Irish Community)

New Jersey Nets: Yes
(It's a name that has to do with the sport, the "net" of the hoop - but it was cheesily named to rhyme with the Mets and the Jets)

New York Knicks: Yes
(Knicks = Knickerbockers, and New York state's heritage is full of 'em)

Philadelphia 76ers: Yes
(We sort of became independent in 1776, and Philadelphia is sort-of where it all went down).

Toronto Raptors: No
(The team name was influenced by the movie Jurrasic Park and was left up to a fan vote / fan contest, for fuck's sake. Hell no).

Chicago Bulls: No
(If the Bulls played from Pamplona, then yes. However, Chicago is not known for it's male cattle population)

Cleveland Cavaliers: No
(Another team mascot left up to a fan vote. After everything they've recently experienced, they should change logos to something more appropriate, like the Cleveland Cry Babies)

Detroit Pistons: Yes
(Obvious reference to the auto industry which is still big in Detroit, despite recent times)

Indiana Pacers: Yes
(The Pacers name is a reference to the Indy 500 pace car colors, and the Indy 500 is big in Indiana)

Milwaukee Bucks: Yes
(I don't know this first hand, but I am guessing that the "Buck" density in Wisconsin is probably large enough to where this makes sense. Fear the deer!)

Atlanta Hawks: No
(There are no "hawks" in the Atlanta area. This is a team that has had it's name changed and edited a few times, and the franchise never bothered to change it)

Charlotte Bobcats: Yes
(The bobcat is a popular species of the wild in North Carolina)

Miami Heat: Yes
(Ever been to South Florida? It's hot as balls. This 100% makes sense)

Orlando Magic: Yes
(Obvious reference to the "Magic Kingdom", where the Magic play)

Washington Wizards: No
(This was changed after an uprorar over the prior mascot "Bullets", which as some of you pointed out, makes more sense given the crime rate of the Baltimore-DC area)

Dallas Mavericks: Yes
(The name came from an old western TV series, all about cowboys and guns and stuff, which is perfect for Texas)

Houston Rockets: Yes
(Kennedy Space Center in Florida is where most rockets actually take off from, but Houston monitors them)

Memphis Grizzlies: No
(Another lazy franchise unwilling to change mascot names after their move to a new city, so we're stuck with Grizzlies for an area / state known for Dolly Parton, Elvis, and music)

New Orleans Hornets: No
(Again, nothing about New Orleans screams "Hornets" to me. So many french / musical / cultural influences to derive from, but yet, they go with "Hornets")

San Antonio Spurs: Yes
(A spur is the little spiky thing that cowboys wear on the ankles of their boots. Anything western for a team in Texas is appropriate)

Denver Nuggets: No
(The team name was selected by a fan vote, after Rockets and after Larks, which is the Colorado state bird. The Nuggets mascot was used in the 30's by the original Denver Nuggets, and probably didn't make sense then, either)

Minnesota Timberwolves: Yes
(Like the Bucks, I am not going to challenge the existence of deadly wild animals in states where animals nearly out-number humans).

Portland Trail Blazers: No
(There are many cities that could be considered "Trail Blazers". Why Portland?)

Oklahoma City Thunder: Yes
(Ever been to OKC? Probably not, I imagine. There are lots of tornadoes and thunderstorms there).

Utah Jazz: No
(They used to be the New Orleans Jazz [Perfect Name!!!], but when they moved to Salt Lake City, the team didn't have the guts to change the name. Perhaps the Utah Mormons or Utah Quacks or the Utah Magic Underwears may suit them better?)

Golden State Warriors: No
(They never changed the name from when the franchised moved from Philadelphia - and you can tell by now that I don't like this practice)

Los Angeles Clippers: No
(What the hell is a Clipper?)

Los Angeles Lakers: No
(The Lakers were originally named after the Great Lakes bordering Minnesota / Minneapolis. However, due to obvious popularity and historical notoriety, this team name is never going to change).

Phoenix Suns: Yes
(If Phoenix has one thing, it's sunshine. Lots of it. Perfect sense this makes).

Sacramento Kings: No
(They had their chance when they moved from Cincinnati to Kansas City to change this meaningless name, but they didn't take advantage of it then, and sure aren't going to do anything about it now).

Chicago Bulls: No
(If the Bulls played from Pamplona, then yes. However, Chicago is not known for it's male cattle population)

Yes:  Chicago is widely known for its stockyards. You can smell the cow dung all over the city.

Denver Nuggets: No
(The team name was selected by a fan vote, after Rockets and after Larks, which is the Colorado state bird. The Nuggets mascot was used in the 30's by the original Denver Nuggets, and probably didn't make sense then, either)

Yes: Reference to the gold nuggets in the popular mining region of Colorado.

Los Angeles Clippers: No
(What the hell is a Clipper?)

Yes: A Clipper is a reference to a Clipper ship, which is perfectly suitable for a coastal city like Los Angeles.

^

Chicago Bulls

We have the White Sox, the Cubs, the Blackhawks, and the Bears in Chicago. 3 of 4 team names are wild, un-stock-yardable animals. How do the Bulls really fit in here?

When I think of Chicago, I think of:

- Big City
- Pizza
- Windy City
- Sears Tower

"Bulls" is a stretch - but like the Lakers - you can't change the team name of the team that Michael Jordan played on

Denver Nuggets:

There are plenty of geographical areas in the United States where gold-mining is highly relevant (San Fransisco, for example). When I think of Denver, I think of:

- Mountains
- "Mile-High" above sea level
- Cold
- Skiing / Snowboarding

The Nuggets don't have a history like the Lakers or Bulls do - this team name is ripe for the picking of a change in mascot

Los Angeles Clippers

Is it also suitable for a city like San Diego? Because that's where the franchise obtained this mascot name. Every coastal city has some type of harbor / man-made bay - San Diego could have come up with something much better and more unique to the city - but the move to Los Angeles should have sparked a name change.

The Clippers are a miserable existence of a franchise with no hope whatsoever (and don't say "Blake Griffin" - the Clippers have been a "sleeper" team for 25 years now). They could be the L.A. Smog or the L.A. Traffic Jam or L.A. Brush Fires. Or, the L.A. Stars, in reference to the stars that live and frequent the Staples Center.

I'm sorry...was I supposed to justify "all the team names" within a market? Or just Da Bulls? I went with the latter.


I wasn't trying to think "from Joe's mental perspective"...I was just throwing information out there to justify the team name as it relates to its location.


So, basically, you weren't looking for feedback...just a place to rant. My bad.

^^I'm with ya Stroke.  I was thinking the same thing about the bulls & nuggets, I think they are appropriate.

I grade this high on effort, but low on actual research and ability to alter. I immediately thought of the Stock Yards when the Bulls were mentioned.

The Hornets shouldn't have anything to do with the city of New Orleans, since they were originally the Charlotte Hornets (not that I know what Charlotte has to do with hornets).

As for the Portland Trail Blazers: I presume you've heard of the Oregon Trail?  Or Lewis and Clark?  Oregon isn't famous for much else.

Denver Nuggets are EXTREMELY APPROPRIATE. The Colorado Territory was established after Colorado Gold Rush of the late 1850s, which brought the first major influx of settlers.

The miners were actually called "59'ers", like the 49'ers of the California Gold Rush a decade earlier.

That's an F in American History, folks.

As a side note on the Hornets:

If Sacramento loses the Kings and someone moves the Hornets to Sacramento, that would be extremely appropriate (http://www.hornetsports.com/) (if confusing).

Add the local paper (the Sacramento Bee (http://www.sacbee.com)) into the mix, and you'd have a decidedly entomological feel going on...

I've always been in the minority when it comes to team names/mascots. IMO I don't deem it necessary for teams to ALWAYS match the mascot to the city they're in. For every team name that makes "no sense" regarding the city, you have those forced names to match the city (Magic, Heat, Thunder etc.) that are as equally stupid sounding.

A little late, but:

Saying that the Blackhawks are named after an animal is like saying that the Browns are named after a color.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d3/ChicagoBlackhawksLogo.svg/200px-ChicagoBlackhawksLogo.svg.png)

Raptors had feathers and are actually pretty small (only thigh high).  The ones in Jurassic Park (after which the Toronto mascot is modeled) isn't what they look like at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Stock_Yards but in case you are to lazy to read I will paraphrase for you. "From the Civil War until the 1920s and peaking in 1924, more meat was processed in Chicago than in any other place in the world"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_mining_in_Colorado#Gold_mining_today.  Gold mining has been a big part of Colorado history.
Just because you are ignorant of other cities and states history's, does not mean that team mascots for those regions are incorrect or stupid.

Throws a flag at the B-Smoothie for piling on...

;)

For what it's worth, I thought that this was a great post.  Sure, JTex made some incorrect assumptions, but we all learned from it, including him.  No need to act like jerks.

I had no idea what stock yards were, either.  I don't think that makes me an ignorant idiot.

You guys didn't read the Jungle by Upton Sinclair in high school? 

^ Nope.  (I went to the same High School as JTex.)

Outstanding book. (And I don't say that about most of the books I was required to read)

Worth reading. Warning though - don't read it before dinner. The book has induces vegetarianism probably more than any other book. 

I don't think you can equate ignorant to idiot. You were indeed ignorant on the subject (the word itself isn't a put down), but I wouldn't call you an idiot.

Fine, but he's being berated for making a constructive post.  He said something he thought was correct and it wasn't.  It's fair to correct him and point it out, but he's being vilified for something that I thought was a good idea and an enjoyable read.

I agree. It was pointed out and that should have been all.

He made a rant.  Others ranted about inaccuracies of said rant.  I would agree with you if the original post was a regular post, but it was a rant.  So the turnaround of ranting, is fair play. 

There was nothing constructive about his "post". It was an attack on the teams of mascots he thought were foolish or stupid because they made no sense to him, when a quick google search would have presented up logical reasons why said mascots were picked.
If he had presented his post as more of an inquiry, instead of an attack, I would have just put up the same links without the commentary at the end so that he could become more informed.
As previously said, being ignorant is not neccesarily bad on its own, but when you combine it with bad behavior by attacking other people for their choices without the knowledge base to understand why they made their choice, you deserve to be villified.

A must read for history buffs or for anyone going into business, journalism, politics, or economics.  A great novel about a horrifying practice.