Sports in Canadian culture

[esquire]

Originally Posted by osmo

NBA was shortsighted in not being patient with Vancouver, a well sized, a wealthy market, natural local rivals in Cascadia, with a large Asian population that is tapped into a Basketball ball hungry Asian in many parts.

NBA will be back in Vancouver in my lifetime.

The NBA saw the potential which is why Vancouver got a team in the first place... the problem was that the team was a mess and fans were staying away, which was compounded by a 62 cent dollar for quite a while. I don't know what the team's losses were but I'm sure it was on an epic scale. It isn't surprising that the owner writing all of those cheques wanted out of Vancouver. There was a convergence of factors that really doomed the Griz.

If the dollar gets roughly on par with the USD again for a good long while, a team there could become realistic again.

[kirjtc2]

Originally Posted by JHikka

It's a shame that the Grizzlies had to vacate Vancouver because I always enjoyed their branding far more than the purple Raptors days. Although what happened to their branding in Memphis was certainly regrettable I think a teal Grizzlies team in Vancouver today could look pretty sharp.

As far as I'm concerned, the Griz had one of the sharpest looks in NBA history - the logo may have been a bit cartoonish but I'm sure they would have streamlined it over time.

Sometimes I still bust out my Big Country Reeves jersey.

[GernB]

Originally Posted by megadude

I don't particularly like the names that are too frequent like Huskies, Bulldogs, Wildcats, Lions, Tigers, etc. One of the schools I went to, York, changed from Yeomen to Lions. Went from a beautiful name to the most generic one.

Just read this morning on the U Sports Hoops website that York's teams were originally called the Windigoes. Certainly an original name. Mount Allison were once called the Hawks. I wonder how common it is for University/College teams to change names?

[GernB]

Originally Posted by kirjtc2

As far as I'm concerned, the Griz had one of the sharpest looks in NBA history - the logo may have been a bit cartoonish but I'm sure they would have streamlined it over time.

Sometimes I still bust out my Big Country Reeves jersey.

Yeah, the colours were good I thought, but the logo needed work.

[GernB]

Originally Posted by esquire

The NBA saw the potential which is why Vancouver got a team in the first place... the problem was that the team was a mess and fans were staying away, which was compounded by a 62 cent dollar for quite a while. I don't know what the team's losses were but I'm sure it was on an epic scale. It isn't surprising that the owner writing all of those cheques wanted out of Vancouver. There was a convergence of factors that really doomed the Griz.

If the dollar gets roughly on par with the USD again for a good long while, a team there could become realistic again.

IIRC the team was averaging about 14,000 per game in their final season. The American owner (who bought the team from the Griffiths family, who were having financial problems due to overextending themselves vis a vis acquiring the Canucks, creating the Grizzlies, and building GM Place and were facing estate and succession issues) was intent on flipping the team to new owners, thereby making a quick profit. That said, the Grizzlies were mismanaged from the start, drafting and trading poorly. I've heard rumours that the Aquilini family are interested in an NBA franchise, and with the Seattle arena reno getting a green light, perhaps a Seattle plus Vancouver expansion may take place.

[rousseau]

I actually know someone who has been with the Grizzlies organization since the beginning, amazingly enough. According to him Vancouver is never getting an NBA franchise again, and the news of the move to Memphis was met with unqualified excitement and relief. Vancouver was essentially the Atlanta Flames of the NBA. It just didn't work.

From what he tells me the next two additions for the NBA will be Seattle and Las Vegas.

[EpicPonyTime]

Originally Posted by rousseau

I actually know someone who has been with the Grizzlies organization since the beginning, amazingly enough. According to him Vancouver is never getting an NBA franchise again, and the news of the move to Memphis was met with unqualified excitement and relief. Vancouver was essentially the Atlanta Flames of the NBA. It just didn't work.

From what he tells me the next two additions for the NBA will be Seattle and Las Vegas.

I call baloney on this. When the Commissioner himself says that moving the Grizzlies was a mistake, it's impossible to suggest the NBA won't ever go back to Vancouver. If a rich owner wanted to put a team there, a team would go there.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by EpicPonyTime

I call baloney on this. When the Commissioner himself says that moving the Grizzlies was a mistake, it's impossible to suggest the NBA won't ever go back to Vancouver. If a rich owner wanted to put a team there, a team would go there.

As long as there's an owner and a building and the market is appealing enough to the league a team will go there eventually. Vancouver makes some sense for the NBA but might be behind a few others, including Seattle, Louisville, and Mexico City.

[cjones2451]

Originally Posted by EpicPonyTime

I call baloney on this. When the Commissioner himself says that moving the Grizzlies was a mistake, it's impossible to suggest the NBA won't ever go back to Vancouver. If a rich owner wanted to put a team there, a team would go there.

The expansion agreement was so stacked against them. If it was fair they would have got Tim Duncan instead of Antonio Daniels, amongst others ( the agreement was they could not get the 1st overall pick for 5 years, even though they had the worst record 3 times)

Stu Jackson was a nice guy but a TERRIBLE GM. Poor drafting, poor trades, refusal to go after Steve Nash even though it would have sold 1000s of tickets

They point to poor attendance but what did they expect. Their overall record was 101 - 359 - .219% win percentage.

I know a friend from Sony who called in the final season to see what they could do to help from a sponsorship to help the team and never got a call back, they got screwed by the NBA

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by EpicPonyTime

I call baloney on this. When the Commissioner himself says that moving the Grizzlies was a mistake, it's impossible to suggest the NBA won't ever go back to Vancouver. If a rich owner wanted to put a team there, a team would go there.

The commissioner may have said that, but apparently the people behind the scenes say quite another.

Originally Posted by JHikka

As long as there's an owner and a building and the market is appealing enough to the league a team will go there eventually. Vancouver makes some sense for the NBA but might be behind a few others, including Seattle, Louisville, and Mexico City.

I hadn't considered Louisville, but the reasoning in that article makes sense about smaller markets without a big 4 pro team. As for Vancouver, the reasons against it look fairly definitive:

Why not? The Raptors have carried the mantle as Canada’s team and might oppose this. Basketball fans in the Vancouver area might also get away with being served by a reborn Sonics team in Seattle, and is there a real need to add two teams to the Pacific Northwest? Vancouver is an international choice without the financial upside of Mexico City. It’s also worth noting that much of NBA ownership has turned over since the first Vancouver debacle, so there may not be any strong feelings of guilt over how that went down.

Can't really see the need for two NBA teams so close together when the Sonics would be sufficient for that market.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by rousseau

I hadn't considered Louisville, but the reasoning in that article makes sense about smaller markets without a big 4 pro team.

I think a team in Louisville or Hampton Roads would be very interesting. Sort of like how the NHL was the first to breach Vegas, i'm sure the others are poking around to be the first into other markets. MLS has been poking around Austin, although that's a bit more controversial.

Originally Posted by rousseau

Can't really see the need for two NBA teams so close together when the Sonics would be sufficient for that market.

It doesn't exactly work the same way as it would for the potential NHL expansion in Seattle as one of the markets already has a team and the rivalry would be built from that. In the NBA, Seattle's natural rival would be Portland, and adding a third team onto that (Vancouver) is probably unnecessary.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by GernB

I wonder how common it is for University/College teams to change names?

UNB was a mess of names.

Wikipedia - The name "Varsity Reds" was only adopted circa 1993. Prior to this, every varsity sport, including football, hockey, women's basketball, men's basketball and men's wrestling had a different name: the Red Bombers, Red Devils, Red Bloomers, Red Raiders and Black Bears respectively.

I seemed to recall they were the Redmen and had to change the name but my memory might be faulty on that one.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Can't really see the need for two NBA teams so close together when the Sonics would be sufficient for that market.

Well, they may watch the same TV shows and movies, speak the same language, tell the same jokes and sing the same folk songs, , but I am still not sure Seattle and Vancouver should be considered a single market.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by rousseau

According to him Vancouver is never getting an NBA franchise again, and the news of the move to Memphis was met with unqualified excitement and relief. Vancouver was essentially the Atlanta Flames of the NBA. It just didn't work.

Seems to me, I posted a graphic showing Vancouver attendance in its years to Memphis in the same amount of years and they were either close or Vancouver had somewhat better attendance. Going on memory here, unless someone can find the post.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Well, they may watch the same TV shows and movies, speak the same language, tell the same jokes and sing the same folk songs, but I am still not sure Seattle and Vancouver should be considered a single market.

I would think that would be insulting to both of them, or should be.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by elly63

UNB was a mess of names.

Wikipedia - The name "Varsity Reds" was only adopted circa 1993. Prior to this, every varsity sport, including football, hockey, women's basketball, men's basketball and men's wrestling had a different name: the Red Bombers, Red Devils, Red Bloomers, Red Raiders and Black Bears respectively.

I seemed to recall they were the Redmen and had to change the name but my memory might be faulty on that one.

It seems odd for a team's name to be changed for purely aesthetic or marketing reasons. Unless it's something racist, sexist or language has evolved to make the name sound vulgar or embarrassing.

I actually like original names like Gamecocks, Tar Heels, etc.

I know that Syracuse changed its name from Orangemen to simply Orange.

McGill has separate names for male and female teams: Redmen and Martlets.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by elly63

I would think that would be insulting to both of them, or should be.

Especially that they're easily a three-hour drive apart (probably quite a bit more in fact).

Also, basketball isn't like football or to a lesser degree baseball where a lot of people from your "wider market" will make a weekend out of attending a game or games.

Hockey isn't really like this either, at least not in the U.S. it isn't.

[TimB09]

I'm surprised Kansas City isn't on anyone's list for expansion/relocation(NHL/NBA). Are there no ownership groups looking to purchase a franchise?

I can't see Vancouver in the NBA any time soon. It failed miserably the first time and I would think the league would want to explore other markets before trying a failed market again. That's just my opinion though.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by TimB09

I'm surprised Kansas City isn't on anyone's list for expansion/relocation(NHL/NBA). Are there no ownership groups looking to purchase a franchise?

Everyone's pretty hot/cold on KC. Ownership groups seem weary and the arena is average, along with a market that isn't large enough to warrant diving in.

Originally Posted by TimB09

I can't see Vancouver in the NBA any time soon. It failed miserably the first time and I would think the league would want to explore other markets before trying a failed market again. That's just my opinion though.

Vancouver didn't fail as a market, though. The owner wanted out, the Canadian dollar killed the team, and the NBA lockout was the nail in the coffin.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

McGill has separate names for male and female teams: Redmen and Martlets.

U. Alberta is the same way, Golden Bears and Pandas. I never really understood why.

As to Vancouver and the NBA, I just don't see it happening unless the C$ shoots through the roof, which won't happen unless oil skyrockets again.

Not that Vancouver couldn't support a team, but I don't see them clamoring for one there. I think the heavy hitters in the business community there would be much more inclined to spend money on a hockey skybox as opposed to basketball... it just doesn't permeate culturally the same way. A NBA team wouldn't be a slam dunk (sorry) in Van the same way that it would be in a place like KC, San Diego, Buffalo, Richmond, or especially Seattle.

(I realize some might say "but Toronto", but Toronto is twice the size and can support a team much more readily as a result.)