Steve Luhm wrote a very measured and logical piece about potentially selling the Jazz name to the New Orleans Hornets. Well, they already hung up Pistol Pete Maravich's number in their stadium -- despite him never playing for the Charlotte Hornets -- so I think it is pretty clear that they wouldn't mind having the rest of OUR history to call their own. You can read his piece here.
Do I think that the Jazz should sell their name to New Orleans? I don't think so, but often the ideals of logic are often trumped by the necessity of money. At the very least, the Jazz always have their name, their history, and their pride . . . but I guess for the right price Luhm argues that they could sell that too.
I'm not a fan of the idea. Part of being in sports is to have nonsensical nicknames. Our rec-league hockey team back in undergrad had a team name that I can't even type out without offending people. (Think of a law enforcement cat) The Washington Redskins still exist. Which is offensive. The Los Angeles Lakers will never give their name and history back to the Minnesota region. The Toronto Raptors were named after antagonists in a PG science fiction movie -- despite the Toronto basketball city having it's own historical team name that used to lace them up against the New York Knicks back in the day: the Huskies. (Look it up.)
I like Luhm's piece. I just don't really want the Jazz to sell the name. New Orleans wants it though, and Luhm isn't saying the Jazz should sell it. He's just stating the facts. As a fan I find it funny how we were talking about this on the site a few stories ago too. If the Utah Jazz franchise sells the name, and adopts something that means nothing to me (I grew up a Utah Jazz fan, not a fan of the Utah Bumblebees or Utah Friendly Neighborhoods or something like that) . . . it would be really tough for me.
What do you think?