Since natural gas production is big in OKC, I present to you:

The OKC Fumes

Yeah, not really...but there should be some good ones out there...or do we resurrect the Blazers name?

I am sure that there will be strong opinions for both new and for keeping with the team of the past. I for one feel that if we kept the old name (where as there was a good history with the Blazers) we would be missing a great opportunity that comes with a new franchise and a new identity. Reviving the Blazers identity could create disillusionment with the old fans when the team and experience are not the same, which it will certainly not be. The Blazers were a great chapter for the city and were a building block that certainly has led to the possibilities of both the NBA and AHL coming to our great city. But it should remain there in the past to allow for new growth to emerge that will far exceed the benchmark we achieved with the Blazers.
A new Franchise with a new name and local identity creates another reason for citizens of the city and state to come to OKC and see what is happening and support a new team. This will capture both the old blazer fans as well as those who may not have really gotten behind the Blazers previously. Then there is the merchandizing. A new team means a new look and new team jerseys and all of the other memorabilia to market and sell to fans. In this case definitely a new identity is warranted.

It's already an established name known nationwide... B-L-A-Z-E-R-S!!!

no

no

Now THAT'S original. The Oklahoma City no.:congrats:

the squirters?

BLAZERS!!!!! would be my first choice,but I also like Storm.

How about the Naturals? Natural gas, natural resources, natural friendliness, natural people.

Then there is the merchandizing. A new team means a new look and new team jerseys and all of the other memorabilia to market and sell to fans. In this case definitely a new identity is warranted.

This is actually a pretty funny statement.

You obviously didn't follow the Oklahoma City Blazers very closely following their first major uniform redesign at the end of the 94-95 season.

In the subsequent 14 seasons, I believe the front office changed uniform designs, colours, and logos 14 times in endless attempts at selling more merchandise.

how about the OKC Compressors?
...you know for Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)

Naturals
or the Compressors
or the Cornetts..lol

Oklahoma City Ice Barons

I like the Oklahoma City Wind.

When it was first suggested for the NBA team, I hated it, but it sort of grew on me. And it's appropriate (for Oklahoma City, not for being a product of the Oilers).

Wichita had a hockey team called the Wind in the 80's. Wichita Wind rolls of the tongue a little better than Oklahoma City Wind, but I still like it. It's different.

My first choice would be Blazers, but my second choice is Wind.

I like the Oklahoma City Wind.


yeah, because *nobody* will make any fart jokes.

:rolleyes:

yeah, because *nobody* will make any fart jokes.

:rolleyes:

Would the mascot be called "Breaker?"

I know! "It's a fast break... The Wind!"

I like Oklahoma City Barons... as i did with the NBA name too. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense!! What is OKC/Oklahoma know for? Oil... We're OIL Barons. What team is OKC representing? Edmondton Oilers... It's perfect!! Oklahoma City Barons!! Not Ice Barons, not Oil Barons... just Barons

I made a post right after the announcement was made, that I thought that since was already have the Thunder the new team should be named The Oklahoma City Storm. Put them together and you get the Thunderstorm nothing says Oklahoma like a Thunderstorm. It seems thematic to me anyway. The Barons would be ok as well, but it kind of draws a connotation that may not help us be as supportive of what OKC is all about. True, it is rich with a heritage of Oil and still is and will be for the foreseeable future, however there is also a negative association with the term baron that might have an unintended effect. A name should be accessible enough and non-exclusive so that folks from all areas of the country feel welcome to identify with them and become fans. I am not saying that they can't be location driven because they should be, but with care in what it says about the area and how it might be perceived by others as well. Just my thoughts...for what its worth.

I made a post right after the announcement was made, that I thought that since was already have the Thunder the new team should be named The Oklahoma City Storm. Put them together and you get the Thunderstorm nothing says Oklahoma like a Thunderstorm. It seems thematic to me anyway. The Barons would be ok as well, but it kind of draws a connotation that may not help us be as supportive of what OKC is all about. True, it is rich with a heritage of Oil and still is and will be for the foreseeable future, however there is also a negative association with the term baron that might have an unintended effect. A name should be accessible enough and non-exclusive so that folks from all areas of the country feel welcome to identify with them and become fans. I am not saying that they can't be location driven because they should be, but with care in what it says about the area and how it might be perceived by others as well. Just my thoughts...for what its worth.

Funny how we went through this about 18 months ago. All the bats come out of their caves with the silly names, the rednecks come out with their hick names that draw attention to the stereotype image we are trying to change (why do you think Clay chose Thunder), and the people who are easily offended come out also. All fail to remember the richest tradition in Oklahoma City hockey... Blazers. It is already established, already has name recognition (continent wide), and has a very large fan base.

Several reasons to stay with the name you know... OKLAHOMA CITY BLAZERS!

I feel ill someone from a local Media Sports desk mention the Tornados?
please tell me its not happening!!!

I feel ill someone from a local Media Sports desk mention the Tornados?
please tell me its not happening!!!

Like I said...

Please not another reference to the weather. Thunder was bad enough.

This one MUST be relevant.

Why not correct a mistake from the past and name them the 89'ers!?

i favor the "Oklahoma City Pioneers" or the "Oklahoma Outlaws".

i favor the "Oklahoma City Pioneers" or the "Oklahoma Outlaws".

Like I said... (see my long post)

Really am not getting any peace of mind here..lol

OKC Barons and Wind are great I think.

The Windy Barons?

The Windy Barons?

Like I said...

OKC Energy

I like the Oklahoma City Wind.

When it was first suggested for the NBA team, I hated it, but it sort of grew on me. And it's appropriate (for Oklahoma City, not for being a product of the Oilers).

Wichita had a hockey team called the Wind in the 80's. Wichita Wind rolls of the tongue a little better than Oklahoma City Wind, but I still like it. It's different.

My first choice would be Blazers, but my second choice is Wind.


The Wind?

You are correct! Wichita had a hockey team in the early rebirth of the CHL called the Wind before they became the Wichita Thunder. It might be quite ironic if we have an NBA Thunder and an AHL Wind--both names of Witchita's AA hockey experience.

Remember all the headline potentials with Wind.

"Americans break Wind in 5-1 blowout."

Remember all the headline potentials with Wind.

"Americans break Wind in 5-1 blowout."

:yourock: with that one!

The Wind?

You are correct! Wichita had a hockey team in the early rebirth of the CHL called the Wind before they became the Wichita Thunder. It might be quite ironic if we have an NBA Thunder and an AHL Wind--both names of Witchita's AA hockey experience.

Yeah, I realize I'm not quite the authority Smooth is, (like he said...) but I do like the name Wind. I guess when I was younger the fart jokes might have concerned me, but now they're obviously not something I think about.

Like I said (may I use that, smooth?) Blazers would be my first choice. Far and away my first choice. I just always liked the name Wind, even when Wichita had it. The little swirling, befaced Tornado holding the hockey stick logo was pretty cool, I thought.

And it'll never happen, anyway, so no need worrying about it.

WildCats, Oil Blazers, Oaks, Hell Fighters, Barons, Kings, Oily birds..lol,

BLAZERS!isThe best choice, end of story!lol

WildCats, Oil Blazers, Oaks, Hell Fighters, Barons, Kings, Oily birds..lol,

Wildcats. What does a Wildcat have to do with Hockey? Oil Blazers: Although an oil well can catch fire, they do not really "blaze." They have high flames, but do not blaze. So, Oil Blazers makes no sense. Oaks? Still no sense. Hellfighters. You may or may not know it, but a John Wayne movie released in 1968, was called "Hellfighters," and was a biography of Red Adair, who was an oil firefighter known worldwide. So, yes, there is an oil relation, but still does not fit. Kings? Maybe the AAA afiliate of the Los Angeles Kings, but not here. Barons? No and only because of the rich history of the Blazers name. The longest running franchise in Oklahoma City history (hockey) was the Blazers. Still, very well established. Oily Birds?... Like I said...

Wildcats. What does a Wildcat have to do with Hockey?

Wildcatters would be a decent name, and somewhat related to the oil biz. I believe there was an ECHL team by that name in Beaumont, Texas a few years ago.

I agree with you smooth, Blazers first. I hope the Oilers don't shoot it down.

Wildcatters would be a decent name, and somewhat related to the oil biz. I believe there was an ECHL team by that name in Beaumont, Texas a few years ago.

I agree with you smooth, Blazers first. I hope the Oilers don't shoot it down.

Yes. A wildcatter is oil related. They started the industry. Beaumont, Texas says it all... And that is NOT good.:ou2 (not just the team. The entire state)

F... Blazers. It is already established, already has name recognition (continent wide), and has a very large fan base.

Several reasons to stay with the name you know... OKLAHOMA CITY BLAZERS!

By that logic, wouldn't the NBA team still be the SuperSonics and Triple A ball still be the 89's. Both teams seemed to have improved under the new branding.

I'm rather neutral on hockey, but given the public success of other teams, it seems almost unfair not to give the new OKC based team a shot at earning its own street cred via its own leadership, talent and banner.

By that logic, wouldn't the NBA team still be the SuperSonics and Triple A ball still be the 89's. Both teams seemed to have improved under the new branding.

I'm rather neutral on hockey, but given the public success of other teams, it seems almost unfair not to give the new OKC based team a shot at earning its own street cred via its own leadership, talent and banner.

Clay agreed to leave the name and statistics in Seattle. Plus, Oklahoma City has nothing to do with Boeing developing a super sonic jet. The renaming of the baseball team I was against for the very reasons I have cited about the possible renaming of the hockey team. BTW. You do not "rebrand." You rename. I know a lot of people misuse that term, so it's not you I am commenting about. It's all people that misuse it.

I will not change my mind about keeping the Blazers name, but a second choice would be.... (drum roll, please)... "Oklahoma City Blizzard.":congrats:

I like the name Blizzard....the theme song could be Snowblind from Styx!! :irule:

As I mentioned in the other thread, I think to keep the name Blazers is a monumental mistake. It's a new a different team and league and will be a totally different type of hockey. Keeping the name Blazers, while it's nice and people are used to it, is too close to the old team and it's too ease for the casual fans to dismiss the team because they've been there and done that.

I like the name Blizzard....the theme song could be Snowblind from Styx!! :irule:

As I mentioned in the other thread, I think to keep the name Blazers is a monumental mistake. It's a new a different team and league and will be a totally different type of hockey. Keeping the name Blazers, while it's nice and people are used to it, is too close to the old team and it's too ease for the casual fans to dismiss the team because they've been there and done that.

If I would have known someone would have suggested hidiously loud screetch "music," I would have never suggested Blizzard. PUKE!!!

If I would have known someone would have suggested hidiously loud screetch "music," I would have never suggested Blizzard. PUKE!!!
Screetch music?!? :boxing2: Thems fighting words.

ha lets call them the Super sonics!

It's funny how people want to separate us from the team formally known as the Oklahoma City Blazers.

Look, what we need to do is separate us from that fiasco formally known as the Springfield Chickens.

Good Lord...let's hope they don't bring THAT style of AHL hockey to Indian Territory.

New team, new league, new start = New name.

New team, new league, new start = New name.

New team, new league, TRADITION AND PRE-MARKETED= SAME NAME

New team, new league, TRADITION AND PRE-MARKETED= SAME NAME

Nope, this team will actually be playing good hockey. We don't want anyone to mistake them for the Blazers.

Matt obviously never witnessed a Springfield Falcons game.

Matt obviously never witnessed a Springfield Falcons game.

Or a Blazers game, apparently. One sub .500 season in 17 years.

According to the Lost Ogle . . .

"Based on information obtained from the Ogle Mole Network, Prodigal really have no jursidiction in naming the team. The franchise is an affiliate of the Edmonton Oilers of the National Hockey League, so the team is required to use the same moniker."

The Oklahoma City Oilers!

According to the Lost Ogle . . .

"Based on information obtained from the Ogle Mole Network, Prodigal really have no jursidiction in naming the team. The franchise is an affiliate of the Edmonton Oilers of the National Hockey League, so the team is required to use the same moniker."

The Oklahoma City Oilers!

If that is the case then why do most of the AHL teams have different names than their major league teams? Case in point: The other new team (relocation) Charlotte Checkers, the AAA farm team for the Carolina Hurricanes.

Or a Blazers game, apparently. One sub .500 season in 17 years.

Two championships in seventeen years in the equivalent of an A or double-A league. Yeah, they were pretty much the best hockey team ever.

Two championships in seventeen years in the equivalent of an A or double-A league. Yeah, they were pretty much the best hockey team ever.

Did either of us make that claim?

You said the new team would be playing good hockey. The Blazers were always good, relative to their competition.

I agree, the product we're going to see next year will be far superior. I got tired of watching the product in the C, but the Blazers were always competitive for what and where they were.

Two championships in 17 years isn't great, but it's more than a lot of teams. I can't think of a team who's won more than that in the CHL off the top of my head. I'm sure there is one. Colorado? Memphis? Wichita in their heyday? Shreveport?

Did either of us make that claim?

You said the new team would be playing good hockey. The Blazers were always good, relative to their competition.

I agree, the product we're going to see next year will be far superior. I got tired of watching the product in the C, but the Blazers were always competitive for what and where they were.

Two championships in 17 years isn't great, but it's more than a lot of teams. I can't think of a team who's won more than that in the CHL off the top of my head. I'm sure there is one. Colorado? Memphis? Wichita in their heyday? Shreveport?

Records not withstanding, you people are forgetting the Blazers had the highest attendance of any minor league hockey team in North America. If that's not pre-marketing, then I have no idea how to define what I learned in College. (I have a Bachelors in Marketing)

Did either of us make that claim?

You said the new team would be playing good hockey. The Blazers were always good, relative to their competition.

I agree, the product we're going to see next year will be far superior. I got tired of watching the product in the C, but the Blazers were always competitive for what and where they were.

Two championships in 17 years isn't great, but it's more than a lot of teams. I can't think of a team who's won more than that in the CHL off the top of my head. I'm sure there is one. Colorado? Memphis? Wichita in their heyday? Shreveport?

Actually, no Central Hockey League teams since 1992 have won more than two championships.

Oklahoma City, Wichita, Laredo, Memphis and Colorado have taken home two championships a piece.

Records not withstanding, you people are forgetting the Blazers had the highest attendance of any minor league hockey team in North America. If that's not pre-marketing, then I have no idea how to define what I learned in College. (I have a Bachelors in Marketing)
It's a different market now. Back when the Blazer's first started, it had been a long time since hockey was here and people were hungry for higher level sports than the college level. Now we have a big league NBA team here that is doing very, very well with a future hall of fame player (assuming he stays healthy).

When the Blazers showed up, they were treated like rock stars. Hell I partied with them after the games in those early days and it was awesome. People were in awe and would swarm them at local bars....it was a great time....but that time is over.

It's a different market now. Back when the Blazer's first started, it had been a long time since hockey was here and people were hungry for higher level sports than the college level. Now we have a big league NBA team here that is doing very, very well with a future hall of fame player (assuming he stays healthy).

When the Blazers showed up, they were treated like rock stars. Hell I partied with them after the games in those early days and it was awesome. People were in awe and would swarm them at local bars....it was a great time....but that time is over.

Not really. Granted. The city is larger and we have a successful major league franchise and one that has just been upgraded to major league, but the history of the Blazers has nothing to do with market size.

You people are rally bull headed. Take it from someone that has been around a lot longer than most of you. Plus I have a degree to prove my marketing savvy. I hope I have the chance to say I told you so. I get that opportunity most of the time. You might as well concede the fact most people in this market want the Blazers name to stay.

Not really. Granted. The city is larger and we have a successful major league franchise and one that has just been upgraded to major league, but the history of the Blazers has nothing to do with market size.

You people are rally bull headed. Take it from someone that has been around a lot longer than most of you. Plus I have a degree to prove my marketing savvy. I hope I have the chance to say I told you so. I get that opportunity most of the time. You might as well concede the fact most people in this market want the Blazers name to stay.
If you can't see the difference in the OKC market from when the Blazers showed up and the OKC market today.....then it is you that is bull headed.

And anyone with a brain knows that simply having a degree does NOT mean that that person knows what they are talking about. Besides, I have multiple degrees but I don't need them to argue my point of view....my logic will work just fine. Too bad you missed that class because it would really have helped you.

In the grand scheme of life, they can be the Sparkplugs, the Sliced Tomatos, or Whole Wheat on Ice.

What I don't get, and perhaps smooth can help explain, is why on God's lil' frozen pond pit would there be a help name the name promo, in any form, if there was even a remote potential for deciding to wrap this new team up under the former team's moniker or colors, etc.

Just seems a bad PR move if the prior group's name and colors are seen by new mgmt. as a good idea.