heads complaining who for some reason have honed in on the "Jazz" as being a dumb name since Utah and Jazz have no connection (yet the same complaints are rarely raised about the Los Angeles Lakers or Dodgers or the San Francisco Giants and others). We get it. There is no "jazz" in Utah. But when the Jazz moved from New Orleans to Salt Lake, the franchise was poor. Rebranding efforts aren't cheap and the Jazz were just trying to stay alive. Rather than allocate money to a complete rebrand, the team used its money more wisely. Eventually the Jazz franchise would be in a position where a rebrand was financially viable (see 1995 and a hundred times since), but by that time, "Utah Jazz" became a household name. Sure, "Utah and jazz" doesn't make sense. But "Utah Jazz" has become its own special thing.

You can't compare the Sonics-to-Thunder change to the Jazz situation. The Sonics were an iconic franchise that had existed for decades. When they made the move to OKC, part of the deal was the OKC franchise would relinquish the Sonics name to allow for it to be used one day if Seattle were to get another team. Also, the Sonics' records and whatnot don't transfer to OKC for historical purposes. It's as if Seattle folded and OKC emerged as a new franchise. And when this happened, there was plenty of money for the team to completely rebrand itself. Whereas the NO Jazz weren't anything special -- there was basically no history or anything since the Jazz were only in NOLA for 5 years. The only things the New Orleans Jazz did were draft Pete Maravich and trade away a draft pick that ended up being used by the Lakers to take Magic Johnson.