UrbanLegend wrote:I disagree, I don't understand why fans say that the Utah Jazz 'SHOULD' have given or forced to change its name. Why? Just because? I have not read anywhere, yet a good concise reason to why Utah should do that.
The Utah Jazz have now over 30+ years associated and a history with Stockton/Malone/Hornacek/Sloan. So just because a few people in New Orleans are butt-hurt still... get over it. It'll never happen.
Even the Jazz owner said that it'll never happen. So get used to it, Utah Jazz.
I don't think you're quite understanding what I meant there, perhaps because other people are advocating for the thing you're arguing against, even though I'm not. I'm absolutely not saying that the Jazz should return the team name to New Orleans. What I'm saying is that when the franchise moved in 1979, it would have been preferable, in my opinion (and I wasn't even born then, so take it for what it's worth) for the team to find a different name, one more directly affiliated with Salt Lake City or Utah in general. I'd rather have seen the Colts change names when they moved to Indianapolis, so Baltimore could have had their Colts back in the future. I still want a team in Seattle called the Supersonics, and I was pleased when Cleveland got to keep the name Browns. Fanbases have attachments to their team, which is why people talk about "rooting for laundry," and my preference is always for a city who's lost their team to not see that team take the name somewhere else. That way, they can reclaim the name, if they choose, when a new team comes into town.
Similarly, I wasn't pleased with the Hornets taking the team name with them when they moved from Charlotte. It's just a personal preference, but I know I'd be infuriated if I lost the Flyers, Phillies, Eagles, or Sixers, had to watch them somewhere else under that name, and couldn't ever get that team I loved back.
Or better yet convince Utah to change their name so New Orleans could take back the Jazz name. 
