Should the Clippers change their name?

Now that the sale of the Los Angeles Clippers to former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer appears imminent, ESPN L.A.'s Arash Markazi penned an interesting article regarding the future of the team's name.


A few of his more interesting points:

Most Los Angeles sports fans don't even know what the "Clippers" name actually means because, well, is has nothing to do with Los Angeles. It was a name derived from a fan contest when the Buffalo Braves moved to San Diego in 1978 in honor of San Diego's active harbor and historic sailing ships.

Of course, Los Angeles has plenty of harbors and sailing ships, but it does seem silly that a team that plays in L.A. is named after the harbors and boats from another city. Then again, as Markazi also notes, both the Dodgers' and Lakers' names are derived from Brooklyn and Minneapolis, respectively.

Even worse than being named after a sailing ship that has been out of commission since the 19th century is the Clippers' logo. It's a knockoff of the Lakers' logo, which was introduced when Sterling took over the team in 1982 with an eye toward relocating the team to Los Angeles.

The logo has always been a bit ridiculous considering it's obviously an unimaginative derivation of the Lakers' logo. I loved Doc Rivers' idea of putting Clippers banners over the Lakers' championship banners at Staples Center for Clipper home games last year. The Clippers are completely independent of the Lakers, so why should their logo look like a cheap ripoff? Even if the "Clippers" name stays, they need to address the dopey logo.

Photo Credit - off2riorob/Wikimedia Commons

If Ballmer were to agree to give his team a completely new, non-Sterling'd identity, what should it be? Something Los Angeles-y? L.A. is probably best known for Hollywood, but naming the team something like the "Stars" is bland.

Beaches? Mountains? Earthquakes? Diablos? Condors? I'm semi partial to "Earthquakes", though should some devastating earthquake ever hit the city again, it may prove to be a tad awkward.

Should they even keep the Los Angeles name? What if they went with the more all-encompassing "California" instead? California Quakes? California Condors? Those names certainly flow better, and perhaps they could market themselves more easily to places like San Diego if they didn't identify directly with Los Angeles.

The Warriors use "Golden State", so who's to say the Clippers couldn't just use "Hollywood" as the location name? Hollywood Hibachis. That name sucks, but you get the idea.

I agree with Markazi that Ballmer should take the opportunity to rebrand the Clippers and give the entire franchise a fresh start. Plus, the name "Clippers" is already boring and lame-sounding, even if you don't necessarily affiliate it with Donald Sterling.