Charlotte Hornets?

[hugevolsfan]

Oh no not this discussion again let Charlotte bring back a better identity & who knows the may start having success on the court as well.

Stranger things have happened.

[hawk36]

The Bobcats were never the Hornets. Pretending they were would be stupid. Which is why I expect this sad, flailing franchise to go through with it.

Just as stupid as New Orleans pretending they were the Charlotte Hornets? Seems the same difference to me. Like it or not, a team's city and name and history are inseparable.

[Bravo96]

McCall, Gothamite, and The Old Roman nailed it. It's not about pretending the name never left. It's about taking back, if only in spirit, that history. What would be wrong with "sharing" the team history? Heck, we in NC don't care about the post-2002 history anyways. Couldn't NOLA have NOLA's history and Charlotte have our own back? I fail to see the harm in that at all.

I quite agree as well. I'm a major San Jose Earthquakes fan, and our history issue is somewhat similar. We started life as the Clash when the MLS started play in 1996 but the team rebranded as the Earthquakes in 1999, an homage to San Jose's soccer past. Though there had been a span of over 20 years since San Jose had hosted soccer as the Earthquakes, (or at all), with different owners, players, and everything else, today's MLS Earthquakes and its fans consider the Earthquakes' history as one timeline with some holes in it. In fact, today's Earthquakes jersey has "Est. 1974" on the back of the neck.

In 2005, the team left for Houston, won a few championships, and continued on as the Dynamo. In 2008, the Earthquakes returned yet again. The fans and league recognize the history San Jose held. The championships with the players, staff and owners that had donned Earthquakes gear the year before were simply considered another club in our minds. That history belongs to Houston. The championships won in SJ are San Jose's. I imagine its similar for those in cities like Ottawa and Winnipeg. Though the Hornets continued in another city, and Charlotte has some Bobcat in their history, the city and its fans will always identify as the Hornets. I myself (living on the other side of the country) still identify the Hornets with Charlotte. Heck, how many discussion have occurred on this board over whether New Orleans should reclaim the Jazz name? When name originates in a city, that city and its fans tend to keep their claim to that identity long after the team has left.

Seems like a sensible way to do things.

The Bobcats were never the Hornets. Pretending they were would be stupid. Which is why I expect this sad, flailing franchise to go through with it.

It's a great identity and to have it thrown by the wayside would just suck. The name Bobcats was awful and supposedly only chosen because of the damn owner. Things have been garbage and they need to just start over and pretend it never happened.

None of which really addresses what Ice_Cap said. The Charlotte Bobcats were never the Charlotte Hornets, so stating that the franchise is "going back to" that name is false.

This has nothing to do with a discussion of the merits of either identity, it's just looking at the facts of the two franchises. In doing this name change, what exactly are you pretending didn't happen? That the Hornets v1.0 didn't move? That the Bobcats didn't exist?

Who has to pretend anything? Charlotte fans need a better identity for their team, and there's one sitting unused that's not only great, it's locally relevant and locally beloved. That's all.

Presuming for the moment that it happens, the franchise itself might not be "going back to" that name, but the city sure is. And sometimes, that's okay.

Couldn't have said it any better. Charlotte the NBA franchise may never have existed as the "Charlotte Hornets." But Charlotte the city knows and remembers the Charlotte NBA franchise that was the Charlotte Hornets. Call it what you want, but it's as simple as regaining our history.

[mania]

The Bobcats were never the Hornets. Pretending they were would be stupid. Which is why I expect this sad, flailing franchise to go through with it.

Just as stupid as New Orleans pretending they were the Charlotte Hornets? Seems the same difference to me. Like it or not, a team's city and name and history are inseparable.

LOL. Your logic is absolutely impeccable.

GIVE THE PISTONS BACK TO FORT WAYNE!

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

^ That's stupid. They already have the Mad Ants, silly.

[chakfu]

I can live with it, as long as the NBA does not go all "Cleveland Deal" on us.

But in this day in age, I wonder whether the NBA can stop itself.

It's impossible unless you have a time machine; it's 10 years too late for a "Cleveland deal." As much as you guys like to cry about the possibility, there is still is no precedent for a retroactive gerrymandering of team history.

[Jamikel]

Why does the debate over who owns the official team history even matter? If the Ravens can have a statue of Johnny Unitas outside their stadium, surely Charlotte can figure out some way to honor the players who made their mark there, regardless of what franchise they actually played for.

[Norva]

The Bobcats were never the Hornets. Pretending they were would be stupid. Which is why I expect this sad, flailing franchise to go through with it.

Just as stupid as New Orleans pretending they were the Charlotte Hornets? Seems the same difference to me. Like it or not, a team's city and name and history are inseparable.

Except they weren't pretending, they WERE the Charlotte Hornets and they moved the teams operations to a new city and changed the name. Same franchise/organization/lineage. The entity known as the Charlotte Bobcats started in 2004 and has never had another name. If they do become the Hornets, it's just a new version, the old Hornets are still playing but under a new name: New Orleans Pelicans

[CubsFanBudMan]

Why does the debate over who owns the official team history even matter? If the Ravens can have a statue of Johnny Unitas outside their stadium, surely Charlotte can figure out some way to honor the players who made their mark there, regardless of what franchise they actually played for.

Honor the history, own the memories of past and future, but have the lineage stick to the facts.

By the way, who was this Fab 5 that reunited 20 years after a title game that didn't exist? See how silly rewriting history is? Whether it's vacated or rewritten, the facts and how things played out remain the facts.

[AgentColon]

So true. I argued with someone at work who insisted Michigan won in 93. I had to take an imaginary timeout from speaking with them.

[Gothamite]

That's a totally different situation, like a couple Seattle fans insisting that they really won that Super Bowl.

Honoring players who meant a great deal to their city, even if not for the actual franchise currently representing that city, isn't factually incorrect. You might call it overly sentimental, but hey. Sports.

[IceCap]

Honoring players who meant a great deal to their city, even if not for the actual franchise currently representing that city, isn't factually incorrect. You might call it overly sentimental, but hey. Sports.

Whether or not it's factually incorrect depends on how you honour them. If you want to acknowledge them as players who meant a great deal to the city that's perfectly fine. It becomes an outright lie fuelled by to much sentimentality when you start claiming that the current team and the old team those players played for are one in the same.

The Bobcats were never the Hornets. Pretending they were would be stupid. Which is why I expect this sad, flailing franchise to go through with it.

Just as stupid as New Orleans pretending they were the Charlotte Hornets? Seems the same difference to me.

Not really. The New Orleans Hornets were the Charlotte Hornets operating out of a different location. The New Orleans Pelicans will still be the same franchise as those old Charlotte Hornets.

Like it or not, a team's city and name and history are inseparable.

When it comes between what's factually correct what's sentimental I'll chose the former over the latter. At the very least it's intellectually honest.

Now if you want to rename the Bobcats the Hornets and honour the old Hornets team, that's fine. Just don't outright lie and rewrite the history books to pretend that the Bobcats-renamed-Hornets are the old Hornets. The current team in Charlotte can honour that old team, but let the actual team that played there keep their records.

I think that's a fair compromise between our positions.

[habsfan1]

Just waitin' for it to be official...I want this to happen for real...

[JayMac]

That's a totally different situation, like a couple Seattle fans insisting that they really won that Super Bowl.

Honoring players who meant a great deal to their city, even if not for the actual franchise currently representing that city, isn't factually incorrect. You might call it overly sentimental, but hey. Sports.

We won that Superbowl and you know it! Haha!

[BigBubba]

The Bobcats were never the Hornets. Pretending they were would be stupid. Which is why I expect this sad, flailing franchise to go through with it.

Just as stupid as New Orleans pretending they were the Charlotte Hornets? Seems the same difference to me. Like it or not, a team's city and name and history are inseparable.

Except they weren't pretending, they WERE the Charlotte Hornets and they moved the teams operations to a new city and changed the name. Same franchise/organization/lineage. The entity known as the Charlotte Bobcats started in 2004 and has never had another name. If they do become the Hornets, it's just a new version, the old Hornets are still playing but under a new name: New Orleans Pelicans

Yes. A sports franchise is just an organization moving around to do business in different places. the fans are just along for the ride. When the organization decides to pack up and leave town, they take their history with them. The fans will have their memories, but don't own the history.

Let's say the name change system was back up. Ice_Cap decided to change his name to "LondonBoy54". Once he did that, I decided to change mine to "Ice_Cap". Would it make sense for me to pretend that I was the user who's posted 16 000+ times in 10 years here? No. To pretend that some kid with a dumb username would have the posting history of somebody else just because he has said person's old name is ludicrous.

Now, usually I don't mind when teams take the names of old teams who used to play in their city (Ottawa Senators, Winnipeg Jets, soon enough the Québec Nordiques). But in this case, when another franchise used the "Hornets" name the year before, it would create a lot of confusion to someone not familiar with the situation. Yet again, if the NBA decides to merrily go along with the idea of pretend history and phantom relocation, who cares?

[omnivore]

The Bobcats were never the Hornets. Pretending they were would be stupid. Which is why I expect this sad, flailing franchise to go through with it.

What does it hurt? Besides, everyone admits Bobcats was a vanity project by the former owner. The Hornets name predates the basketball club in that city anyway. No reason NOT to do it.

[omnivore]

The Bobcats were never the Hornets. Pretending they were would be stupid. Which is why I expect this sad, flailing franchise to go through with it.

Just as stupid as New Orleans pretending they were the Charlotte Hornets? Seems the same difference to me. Like it or not, a team's city and name and history are inseparable.

Except they weren't pretending, they WERE the Charlotte Hornets and they moved the teams operations to a new city and changed the name. Same franchise/organization/lineage. The entity known as the Charlotte Bobcats started in 2004 and has never had another name. If they do become the Hornets, it's just a new version, the old Hornets are still playing but under a new name: New Orleans Pelicans

Yes. A sports franchise is just an organization moving around to do business in different places. the fans are just along for the ride. When the organization decides to pack up and leave town, they take their history with them. The fans will have their memories, but don't own the history.

Let's say the name change system was back up. Ice_Cap decided to change his name to "LondonBoy54". Once he did that, I decided to change mine to "Ice_Cap". Would it make sense for me to pretend that I was the user who's posted 16 000+ times in 10 years here? No. To pretend that some kid with a dumb username would have the posting history of somebody else just because he has said person's old name is ludicrous.

Now, usually I don't mind when teams take the names of old teams who used to play in their city (Ottawa Senators, Winnipeg Jets, soon enough the Québec Nordiques). But in this case, when another franchise used the "Hornets" name the year before, it would create a lot of confusion to someone not familiar with the situation. Yet again, if the NBA decides to merrily go along with the idea of pretend history and phantom relocation, who cares?

For goodness sakes, who cares about this? I mean, if the NBA wanted to handle it, they could easily create separate records. But that's not going to happen and that's fine. But if the people in that city are invested in the name who the heck cares if the team changes it name to a legacy name in that community now that it's been abandoned? No you can't reinvent history, but...I don't understand why people are so bent out of shape about the idea of a community and an ownership group reclaiming a name if it's made available? It hurts no one except people who imagine NBA record books as some kind of Hogwarts projects where there's dust on it and that cannot be changed without a stone tablet or some such.

Who cares if the Pelicans were named the Hornets prior to their move and thus, have the records of the Hornets? Hell the NBA could fix that if they REALLY wanted to. But they won't. No one will care. It's not important in the grand scheme of things, except that it'll make a sizable portion of folks who call themselves fans happier to support the team they're already supporting anyway.

Works for me.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Try reversing it: What if the Johnny Unitas statue outside the stadium read "Greatest Raven of All Time"?

Who cares if it's historically accurate, right? Colts "belong" to Indy now. Unitas "belongs" to Baltimore. Baltimore is a Ravens town now and, because of this new trend, always will be, no matter how many teams leave and arrive. So why have your bronzed hero stuck as a Colt? How do you ever explain that to the kids?

Doesn't it seem ridiculous to rewrite history for sentimental reasons? Pet peeve, I guess.

[BigBubba]

who cares about this?

who the heck cares

Who cares

No one will care.

Works for me.

many people do.

there are a lot of people who do

a bunch of people

yes they will

not for me

[IceCap]

Well said BigBubba.

The Bobcats were never the Hornets. Pretending they were would be stupid. Which is why I expect this sad, flailing franchise to go through with it.

What does it hurt?

History. The record books should reflect what happened, not what we wished would have happened.

Besides, everyone admits Bobcats was a vanity project by the former owner. The Hornets name predates the basketball club in that city anyway. No reason NOT to do it.

Bob Johnson aside I like the name Bobcats. It sounds regionally appropriate, and it's unique.

As for the Hornets name, like I said I would be fine if the Bobcats went back to it, so long as they leave the records of the original Hornets with the Pelicans.