Conrad.

New name for Charlotte?

Recommended Posts

Well to be fair, the name Cavaliers does fit the history of the area. The Cavaliers were the soldiers and supporters of King Charles I during the English Civil War. When they were defeated by Parliament and its supporters, the Roundheads, many Cavaliers fled to the American colonies, whose loyalties were divided at the time. A good portion of them settled in what is now the State of Ohio.

The English Civil War ended in 1651. European settlement of the Ohio Territory, aside from a few French trappers, didn't occur until the mid-to-late 18th Century, about 100 years later.

That was when the area was officially claimed by the English, following British victory in the Seven Years War (French and Indian War for Americans) in 1763. Still, the are was a site of (admittedly limited) settlement on the part of those fleeing England following the collapse of the Royalist cause in 1648. Remember, the colonies that would later make up the US were, for the most part, established. Virginia in particular was sympathetic to the Royalists (known as "cavaliers"), and the area that we now know as Ohio was claimed by Virgina at the time.

Sorry, Cavaliers is a stretch. The Ohio region wasn't English territory until after the French and Indian War in 1763. Subsequently, the British government prohibited settlement west of the Appalachians. Anyone fleeing the collapse of the Royalist cause in 1648 would more than likely have been dead by the time the Ohio valley was under British control.

Neither was it French during the time of the English Civil War. The French had settlements in Louisiana and Quebec, and the British had settlements along the coast. The Ohio region was just sort of there. Yeah, France claimed it, but so did Britain, via Virginia. No one had made an active effort to settle the area until the late 1750's, when the Seven Years' War started up. Again though, this is a meaningless discussion. The date that the area officially transfered to British control isn't what's being discussed.

The important and relevant fact is that the area was the destination of a number of Royalist cavaliers, in the aftermath of the Parliamentary victory in the English Civil War. The fact that the area wasn't officially British is irrelevant. There were cavaliers in the area, thus the name for a regional sports team makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to be fair, the name Cavaliers does fit the history of the area. The Cavaliers were the soldiers and supporters of King Charles I during the English Civil War. When they were defeated by Parliament and its supporters, the Roundheads, many Cavaliers fled to the American colonies, whose loyalties were divided at the time. A good portion of them settled in what is now the State of Ohio.

The English Civil War ended in 1651. European settlement of the Ohio Territory, aside from a few French trappers, didn't occur until the mid-to-late 18th Century, about 100 years later.

That was when the area was officially claimed by the English, following British victory in the Seven Years War (French and Indian War for Americans) in 1763. Still, the are was a site of (admittedly limited) settlement on the part of those fleeing England following the collapse of the Royalist cause in 1648. Remember, the colonies that would later make up the US were, for the most part, established. Virginia in particular was sympathetic to the Royalists (known as "cavaliers"), and the area that we now know as Ohio was claimed by Virgina at the time.

Sorry, Cavaliers is a stretch. The Ohio region wasn't English territory until after the French and Indian War in 1763. Subsequently, the British government prohibited settlement west of the Appalachians. Anyone fleeing the collapse of the Royalist cause in 1648 would more than likely have been dead by the time the Ohio valley was under British control.

Neither was it French during the time of the English Civil War. The French had settlements in Louisiana and Quebec, and the British had settlements along the coast. The Ohio region was just sort of there. Yeah, France claimed it, but so did Britain, via Virginia. No one had made an active effort to settle the area until the late 1750's, when the Seven Years' War started up. Again though, this is a meaningless discussion. The date that the area officially transfered to British control isn't what's being discussed.

The important and relevant fact is that the area was the destination of a number of Royalist cavaliers, in the aftermath of the Parliamentary victory in the English Civil War. The fact that the area wasn't officially British is irrelevant. There were cavaliers in the area, thus the name for a regional sports team makes sense.

Ohio was not the destination of the Cavaliers. Present-day Virginia was the destination of the Cavaliers. The only people who occupied that region during that time period were French fur trappers, British merchants trading with Native Americans, or daring frontiersmen. The Ohio area basically wasn't settled until after the American Revolution. VCU Cavaliers makes a hell of a lot more sense than than Cleveland Cavaliers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to be fair, the name Cavaliers does fit the history of the area. The Cavaliers were the soldiers and supporters of King Charles I during the English Civil War. When they were defeated by Parliament and its supporters, the Roundheads, many Cavaliers fled to the American colonies, whose loyalties were divided at the time. A good portion of them settled in what is now the State of Ohio.

The English Civil War ended in 1651. European settlement of the Ohio Territory, aside from a few French trappers, didn't occur until the mid-to-late 18th Century, about 100 years later.

That was when the area was officially claimed by the English, following British victory in the Seven Years War (French and Indian War for Americans) in 1763. Still, the are was a site of (admittedly limited) settlement on the part of those fleeing England following the collapse of the Royalist cause in 1648. Remember, the colonies that would later make up the US were, for the most part, established. Virginia in particular was sympathetic to the Royalists (known as "cavaliers"), and the area that we now know as Ohio was claimed by Virgina at the time.

Sorry, Cavaliers is a stretch. The Ohio region wasn't English territory until after the French and Indian War in 1763. Subsequently, the British government prohibited settlement west of the Appalachians. Anyone fleeing the collapse of the Royalist cause in 1648 would more than likely have been dead by the time the Ohio valley was under British control.

Neither was it French during the time of the English Civil War. The French had settlements in Louisiana and Quebec, and the British had settlements along the coast. The Ohio region was just sort of there. Yeah, France claimed it, but so did Britain, via Virginia. No one had made an active effort to settle the area until the late 1750's, when the Seven Years' War started up. Again though, this is a meaningless discussion. The date that the area officially transfered to British control isn't what's being discussed.

The important and relevant fact is that the area was the destination of a number of Royalist cavaliers, in the aftermath of the Parliamentary victory in the English Civil War. The fact that the area wasn't officially British is irrelevant. There were cavaliers in the area, thus the name for a regional sports team makes sense.

Ohio was not the destination of the Cavaliers. Present-day Virginia was the destination of the Cavaliers. The only people who occupied that region during that time period were French fur trappers, British merchants trading with Native Americans, or daring frontiersmen. The Ohio area basically wasn't settled until after the American Revolution. VCU Cavaliers makes a hell of a lot more sense than than Cleveland Cavaliers.

First off, Ohio, as far as Virginia was concerned, was Virginian territory. So you (Virginia) have this influx of pro-Royalist refugees coming in. What do you do? Well you could suggest they settle this unsettled area that you're convinced belongs to you anyway. That way you move the regugees out of the already populated areas.

As for the bolded parts. Well British merchants sounds like something refugees from Britain might take up upon starting a new life in America. Also, former soliders sound like the ideal "daring frontiersmen."

Finally, why name a team the Cavaliers if the name was not location-relevent. It's not a generic name like Tigers, Bears, Eagles, Hawks, Lions, Panthers, etc... It's really only something that works if it`s location-relevent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flight just fits bettter but tbh this is how it should go down tho

Charlotte Hornets

New Orleans Jazz

Utah Bobcats

that works so perfectly hoenstly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flight just fits bettter but tbh this is how it should go down tho

Charlotte Hornets

New Orleans Jazz

Utah Bobcats

that works so perfectly hoenstly!

Stop-Sign.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, why name a team the Cavaliers if the name was not location-relevent. It's not a generic name like Tigers, Bears, Eagles, Hawks, Lions, Panthers, etc... It's really only something that works if it`s location-relevent.

Alliteration maybe? I don't know anything about what you guys are talking about, but I think that sometimes (especially back then), it could just be as simple as somebody thinking it had a nice ring to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, why name a team the Cavaliers if the name was not location-relevent. It's not a generic name like Tigers, Bears, Eagles, Hawks, Lions, Panthers, etc... It's really only something that works if it`s location-relevent.

Alliteration maybe? I don't know anything about what you guys are talking about, but I think that sometimes (especially back then), it could just be as simple as somebody thinking it had a nice ring to it.

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner! I would have to think alliteration is the most logical reason for the name. Coincidentally, the Cavs' expansion brethren in 1970 were the Buffalo Braves. Why the "Buffalo Braves"? Probably the same reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole English story is compelling, but it's more likely that they just went with something alliterative. It's not like Cleveland really inspires intriguing local lore, anyway. It's probably the most superficially uninteresting major city in the Midwest. It's such a just-a-place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, why name a team the Cavaliers if the name was not location-relevent. It's not a generic name like Tigers, Bears, Eagles, Hawks, Lions, Panthers, etc... It's really only something that works if it`s location-relevent.

I can't agree at all. The word has become generic, outgrowing its original application. From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: cav·a·lier

1 : a gentleman trained in arms and horsemanship

2 : a mounted soldier : knight

3 capitalized : an adherent of Charles I of England

4 : gallant

The original meaning is now the third definition of the word. It has become genericized, like its cousin "paladin." Cleveland needn't require any specific connection to the Royalists as a prerequisite for using the name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, why name a team the Cavaliers if the name was not location-relevent. It's not a generic name like Tigers, Bears, Eagles, Hawks, Lions, Panthers, etc... It's really only something that works if it`s location-relevent.

I can't agree at all. The word has become generic, outgrowing its original application. From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: cav·a·lier

1 : a gentleman trained in arms and horsemanship

2 : a mounted soldier : knight

3 capitalized : an adherent of Charles I of England

4 : gallant

The original meaning is now the third definition of the word. It has become genericized, like its cousin "paladin." Cleveland needn't require any specific connection to the Royalists as a prerequisite for using the name.

I'll be perfectly honest, this is news to me. Growing up the "adherent to Charles I" was always the first and most important definition. "Gallant" was a distant second. Up until now I've never heard of the term used a generic catch-all for a mounted soldier or knight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flight just fits bettter but tbh this is how it should go down tho

Charlotte Hornets

New Orleans Jazz

Utah Bobcats

that works so perfectly hoenstly!

READ (the thread) DUMMY!!

I'm starting to agree with the sentiment that this, and all variants of it should also be a banworthy offense.

/Bill Simmons is a partisan idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about in this instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Up until now I've never heard of the term used a generic catch-all for a mounted soldier or knight.

Well, consider that it's from the French "chevalier," which means horseman, and its related word "cavalry."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flight just fits bettter but tbh this is how it should go down tho

Charlotte Hornets

New Orleans Jazz

Utah Bobcats

that works so perfectly hoenstly!

READ (the thread) DUMMY!!

I'm starting to agree with the sentiment that this, and all variants of it should also be a banworthy offense.

/Bill Simmons is a partisan idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about in this instance.

The problem is many people agree that variants on this are the no brainer solution. Granted it may never have a chance in hell of happening but the impossible does occur. As long as miracles occur (and sports if full of them) then we can dream of a day when the Jazz return to New Orleans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not even as if jazz is exclusively associated with New Orleans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flight just fits bettter but tbh this is how it should go down tho

Charlotte Hornets

New Orleans Jazz

Utah Bobcats

that works so perfectly hoenstly!

READ (the thread) DUMMY!!

I'm starting to agree with the sentiment that this, and all variants of it should also be a banworthy offense.

/Bill Simmons is a partisan idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about in this instance.

The problem is many people agree that variants on this are the no brainer solution. Granted it may never have a chance in hell of happening but the impossible does occur. As long as miracles occur (and sports if full of them) then we can dream of a day when the Jazz return to New Orleans.

Except that day will be the day after the thinking machines turn on us and kill all humans. This is not manifest destiny. This is not Civil Rights. This is not writing a wrong. This is simply you wanting to adjust something to make it fit your limited and narrow aesthetic and world view. The Jazz were in New Orleans for just 6 :censored: ing years. The Hornets have a longer tenure in New Orleans than the Jazz did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Countless classic jazz albums of the 1950s were recorded around Newark. Rename the Nets the Jazz. Duke Ellington is from Washington. Rename the Wizards the Jazz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reellinemint and "New Orleans Jazz / Utah Hornets / etc" should be instabans. In fact, it should be in big red flashing type right on the main banner of the site - Chris Creamer's Sports Logos Community - a place where we do not care about your realignment or franchise nickname swapping proposals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bigger problem is that it is a suggestion of something that has never happened in sports (as far as I know) and likely never will. Wholesale nickname trades? Not going to happen, especially involving teams with long histories and established brands -- even in a second or third market for the franchise.

The concept doesn't bother me as much as some here -- there are plenty of dead horses around -- but this is anything but a "no-brainer." These are businesses. There is no benefit in taking someone else's brand while giving them the one you established.

And speaking of things that aren't going to happen... we're back on topic. The Bobcats are staying the Bobcats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bigger problem is that it is a suggestion of something that has never happened in sports (as far as I know) and likely never will. Wholesale nickname trades? Not going to happen, especially involving teams with long histories and established brands -- even in a second or third market for the franchise.

The concept doesn't bother me as much as some here -- there are plenty of dead horses around -- but this is anything but a "no-brainer." These are businesses. There is no benefit in taking someone else's brand while giving them the one you established.

And speaking of things that aren't going to happen... we're back on topic. The Bobcats are staying the Bobcats.

After witnessing too many years of really bad decisions by professional sports leagues all over the world, I'd say nothing is off the board as far as what could or should happen. All it would take is two crazy owners that want to trade and that are in the pocket of the commish and it's a done deal. People in Utah could complain all they want and no one in the NBA would care.

And, back on topic... too bad on the Bobcats if they are keeping the name. So many other great names to give a downtrodden franchise a fresh start. But, again, we're talking about the NBA. Not the smartest group

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.