The whole name change thread got me thinking about NBA team names as a whole. Some names I hate for a multitude of reasons (Pelicans), some just do nothing for me either way (76ers, Suns), some make no sense but are so ingrained into history that they should never change (Lakers) and some are awesome.
I tried to come up with a more tangible method than simply saying, "this is cooler" - so here is my evaluation criteria:
Imagery (including cool factor and logo) - /10
City/Area Applicable - /5
Uniqueness (Brand identity) - /5
Imagery is scored out of 10. I think what a name evokes when it is said says a lot about its quality. The cool factor is definitely a big part of a team name because it is hard to take it seriously when you break a team huddle and yell "Go Pelicans". This gets the highest weight in my evaluation.
City/Area applicable is good but not necessary. You can get by without it as long as your team wins (again, the Lakers), but bonus points for teams that have "it" and are locale applicable.
Uniqueness is another factor that I think is really good if you can have it, but you can get by without it. Being instantly recognizable in the wide world of sports by your team name is great, but successful teams can share names across sports (New York Football Giants & San Francisco Giants of baseball) but a unique name can still be awful (Pelicans).
I then multiplied the subtotal by 5, to give a score out of 100 points.
Bonus: I am giving a 2 point bonus to teams that have won multiple championships in recent years. Winning changes everything, including the success of a team name but if you don't keep it up, the shine will start to fade.
Top 5:
Pistons 85 - I was surprised that this came out on top, but it's clearly unique in sports and fits for the city of Detroit and its moniker of "Motor City". The imagery of a piston firing gives a strong, manly, hard-working feel to it, which fits so well with the blue collar town of Detroit.
Bulls 82 - the Bulls are the team that I thought would be #1 before I started this. Jordan's Bulls changed this a lot in the 90's, but the team's logo does a lot for this name's success. The angry bull's head is strong, aggressive and iconic.
Rockets 80 - another surprise, but a rocket is still fairly badass, applicable to the city and it's history.
Timberwolves 80 - basically the same deal as the Rockets. While timberwolves aren't exclusive to Minnesota, the icon definitely fits and is unique to their team.
Heat 77 - definitely unique, but fitting for Miami. Hard to picture though, so they lost some points on imagery. I know it's cool, but when all you can use is the word for your logo, you are limiting your options. * - the net with ball aflame logo is pretty cool, but it doesn't necessarily tie directly to the name. It could just as easily mean "flames" or "flamers" or "flaming balls"
Bottom 5:
Wizards 25 - I very much dislike this name. Especially since "magic" was already in the league when they changed from Bullets. Wizards can be cool, but in sports is not one them. With the capital of USA, I would expect better than a childish, non-applicable team name.
Bobcats 35 - Futility definitely lowers their score, but I think the logo has as much to do with it. The big cat imagery can be done much better (NFL's Panthers and Jaguars have cool logos) and while Bobcats is unique in the world of sports, at the end of the day it's still another big cat team name.
Pelicans 40 - what I thought would score the lowest. I sadly had to give them points for the locale applicability since it is the state bird and (some) people in New Orleans must feel some tie to it. Personally I don't get it and maybe if I lived in New Orleans I'd score it different but from afar, this looks like the worst team name ever (if they wanted to be ridiculous then they should have went completely out of left field like the Japanese Baseball team "Nippon Fighting Hams"). Logo turned out better than I expected, but still.
Supersonics 40 - Lower than I thought, but when you consider, what exactly does a Supersonic (or non-super for that matter) look like? Did Seattle experience a lot of these?
Bullets 40 - The image of gun violence in (what was and could very well still be) the murder capital of the US per capita made this name awful. Imagine the jokes that would have been in the headlines if the team still had this name when Arenas pulled his gun out in the locker room?
So where do the Raptors fit? They scored a 75, tying them with the Warriors for 6th. Unique and badass imagery and branding. In all of sports, there is only one Raptors and I think that counts for a lot. Does it matter if they aren't scientifically accurate with their portrayal of what velociraptors looked like? I don't think so. They are their own entity and have their own identity, science be damned.
Name Imagery Area App Brand Sub Total /100 Bonus Total
Heat 5 5 5 15 75 2 77
Knicks 4 5 5 14 70 2 72
Pacers 4 3 5 12 60 0 60
Nets 5 1 4 10 50 0 50
Bulls 10 1 5 16 80 2 82
Hawks 7 2 1 10 50 0 50
Celtics 4 5 5 14 70 2 72
Bucks 5 2 3 10 50 0 50
76ers 2 5 5 12 60 0 60
Raptors 8 2 5 15 75 0 75
Pistons 7 5 5 17 85 0 85
Cavaliers 5 2 4 11 55 0 55
Magic 5 1 3 9 45 0 45
Hornets 6 2 2 10 50 0 50
Thunder 5 3 3 11 55 0 55
Spurs 4 5 5 14 70 2 72
Nuggets 3 5 5 13 65 0 65
Clippers 4 4 4 12 60 0 60
Grizzlies 7 1 3 11 55 0 55
Warriors 8 3 4 15 75 0 75
Lakers 4 1 5 10 50 2 52
Rockets 7 5 4 16 80 0 80
Jazz 4 1 4 9 45 0 45
Mavs 5 4 4 13 65 0 65
Blazers 4 5 5 14 70 0 70
T'wolves 8 4 4 16 80 0 80
Kings 7 3 1 11 55 0 55
Suns 5 5 4 14 70 0 70
Bobcats 2 2 3 7 35 0 35
Wizards 2 1 2 5 25 0 25
Pelicans 1 4 3 8 40 0 40
Sonics 3 1 4 8 40 0 40
Bullets 3 1 4 8 40 0 40
If I were to do this again, I'd probably bump up the Celtics and Knicks on imagery despite the fact that you can't really draw either in your mind. They get by on legacy. I also like Spurs more than Warriors, so this just shows that objectivity is hard to capture on a very subjective topic.
I tried to come up with a more tangible method than simply saying, "this is cooler" - so here is my evaluation criteria:
Imagery (including cool factor and logo) - /10
City/Area Applicable - /5
Uniqueness (Brand identity) - /5
Imagery is scored out of 10. I think what a name evokes when it is said says a lot about its quality. The cool factor is definitely a big part of a team name because it is hard to take it seriously when you break a team huddle and yell "Go Pelicans". This gets the highest weight in my evaluation.
City/Area applicable is good but not necessary. You can get by without it as long as your team wins (again, the Lakers), but bonus points for teams that have "it" and are locale applicable.
Uniqueness is another factor that I think is really good if you can have it, but you can get by without it. Being instantly recognizable in the wide world of sports by your team name is great, but successful teams can share names across sports (New York Football Giants & San Francisco Giants of baseball) but a unique name can still be awful (Pelicans).
I then multiplied the subtotal by 5, to give a score out of 100 points.
Bonus: I am giving a 2 point bonus to teams that have won multiple championships in recent years. Winning changes everything, including the success of a team name but if you don't keep it up, the shine will start to fade.
Top 5:
Pistons 85 - I was surprised that this came out on top, but it's clearly unique in sports and fits for the city of Detroit and its moniker of "Motor City". The imagery of a piston firing gives a strong, manly, hard-working feel to it, which fits so well with the blue collar town of Detroit.
Bulls 82 - the Bulls are the team that I thought would be #1 before I started this. Jordan's Bulls changed this a lot in the 90's, but the team's logo does a lot for this name's success. The angry bull's head is strong, aggressive and iconic.
Rockets 80 - another surprise, but a rocket is still fairly badass, applicable to the city and it's history.
Timberwolves 80 - basically the same deal as the Rockets. While timberwolves aren't exclusive to Minnesota, the icon definitely fits and is unique to their team.
Heat 77 - definitely unique, but fitting for Miami. Hard to picture though, so they lost some points on imagery. I know it's cool, but when all you can use is the word for your logo, you are limiting your options. * - the net with ball aflame logo is pretty cool, but it doesn't necessarily tie directly to the name. It could just as easily mean "flames" or "flamers" or "flaming balls"
Bottom 5:
Wizards 25 - I very much dislike this name. Especially since "magic" was already in the league when they changed from Bullets. Wizards can be cool, but in sports is not one them. With the capital of USA, I would expect better than a childish, non-applicable team name.
Bobcats 35 - Futility definitely lowers their score, but I think the logo has as much to do with it. The big cat imagery can be done much better (NFL's Panthers and Jaguars have cool logos) and while Bobcats is unique in the world of sports, at the end of the day it's still another big cat team name.
Pelicans 40 - what I thought would score the lowest. I sadly had to give them points for the locale applicability since it is the state bird and (some) people in New Orleans must feel some tie to it. Personally I don't get it and maybe if I lived in New Orleans I'd score it different but from afar, this looks like the worst team name ever (if they wanted to be ridiculous then they should have went completely out of left field like the Japanese Baseball team "Nippon Fighting Hams"). Logo turned out better than I expected, but still.
Supersonics 40 - Lower than I thought, but when you consider, what exactly does a Supersonic (or non-super for that matter) look like? Did Seattle experience a lot of these?
Bullets 40 - The image of gun violence in (what was and could very well still be) the murder capital of the US per capita made this name awful. Imagine the jokes that would have been in the headlines if the team still had this name when Arenas pulled his gun out in the locker room?
So where do the Raptors fit? They scored a 75, tying them with the Warriors for 6th. Unique and badass imagery and branding. In all of sports, there is only one Raptors and I think that counts for a lot. Does it matter if they aren't scientifically accurate with their portrayal of what velociraptors looked like? I don't think so. They are their own entity and have their own identity, science be damned.
Name Imagery Area App Brand Sub Total /100 Bonus Total
Heat 5 5 5 15 75 2 77
Knicks 4 5 5 14 70 2 72
Pacers 4 3 5 12 60 0 60
Nets 5 1 4 10 50 0 50
Bulls 10 1 5 16 80 2 82
Hawks 7 2 1 10 50 0 50
Celtics 4 5 5 14 70 2 72
Bucks 5 2 3 10 50 0 50
76ers 2 5 5 12 60 0 60
Raptors 8 2 5 15 75 0 75
Pistons 7 5 5 17 85 0 85
Cavaliers 5 2 4 11 55 0 55
Magic 5 1 3 9 45 0 45
Hornets 6 2 2 10 50 0 50
Thunder 5 3 3 11 55 0 55
Spurs 4 5 5 14 70 2 72
Nuggets 3 5 5 13 65 0 65
Clippers 4 4 4 12 60 0 60
Grizzlies 7 1 3 11 55 0 55
Warriors 8 3 4 15 75 0 75
Lakers 4 1 5 10 50 2 52
Rockets 7 5 4 16 80 0 80
Jazz 4 1 4 9 45 0 45
Mavs 5 4 4 13 65 0 65
Blazers 4 5 5 14 70 0 70
T'wolves 8 4 4 16 80 0 80
Kings 7 3 1 11 55 0 55
Suns 5 5 4 14 70 0 70
Bobcats 2 2 3 7 35 0 35
Wizards 2 1 2 5 25 0 25
Pelicans 1 4 3 8 40 0 40
Sonics 3 1 4 8 40 0 40
Bullets 3 1 4 8 40 0 40
If I were to do this again, I'd probably bump up the Celtics and Knicks on imagery despite the fact that you can't really draw either in your mind. They get by on legacy. I also like Spurs more than Warriors, so this just shows that objectivity is hard to capture on a very subjective topic.
Comment