Too bad Utah won't give the Jazz name back. I've always hated it and
wished it were something more about this area, not the deep south. I know, the
Lakers didn't change either, but Jazz is just stupid for this area. It
should be written that if a team moves, the name stays. Like the Browns in
Cleveland. NO could still have the Jazz, and we could have....?
"Utah Jazz" doesn't make any sense! Let's give it up like
they should have at the beginning, and find one that fits Utah. Pioneers? Miners? Mountain Men? Archies (get it?) Crickets? Elk? Trade
for "Lakers"? Evaporites? Basin-Rangers? Wasatch? Brethren?
The Utah Saltines.
Utah Stars. Our old ABA name.
Jazz isn't a very representative name for any Utah team, and Lakers
certainly doesn't fit an LA area team. As such, these 2 teams should just
switch names. There certainly is a lot more Jazz music to be found in LA, and
definitely more lakes in Utah than the LA area. The only downside is that Utah
Lakers kind of sounds like a Utah county team to local fans. Outside of Utah,
most people would associate it (the name Lakers) with the Great Salt Lake, which
almost everyone has heard of and knows is in Utah.As for Pelicans,
it's not a very intimidating name (the name "Jazz" doesn't
cause many goosebumps either). But New Orleans had a wide open slate to name
themselves almost anything, and they chose Pelicans???. Most people consider
pelicans to be slow, awkward, funny looking and with big mouths. On second
thought, it might end up being an appropriate name after all.
I second the motion for the Jazz to return to the Stars name.Let's see if New Orleans would be willing to buy back the Jazz name for a
million or two. Jazz is a much better fit for New Orleans. Pelicans?
Let's just give the whole organization back. It would certainly cut down
on the cumulative frustration felt throughout Utah.