New name for Charlotte?

[BBTV]

For one thing, Eagles and Bears have been names of major teams since before any of us are born. Whether they're generic or not doesn't matter - we're used to it and accept it.

Bobcats just seems to be the name of so many elementary / Jr. High schools, and always seems to be represented by the stupid paw print. Hell - my Jr. High team probably played two or three Bobcat teams every year. I'll say Cougars is probably second on the list of names that I associate with youth teams, though Carolina Cougars does have a nice ring to it.

So to summarize, bobcats in and of itself is no more or less generic than Eagles or Bears. It's just that I (and many others) associate it with kids teams due to our experiences growing up, while Eagles and Bears have always been associated with the NFL teams.

[illini1]

A Jordan-owned team wearing adidas?

That will be interesting.

They may have an Adidas logo on them, but I guarantee you they'll be Nike uniforms. When Jordan made his comeback with the Wizards, he had all custom made Nike gear with the Wizards logos and colors. Considering the controversy Jordan had during the '92 Olympics and his son had last year at UCF, I can't see him letting his team wear Adidas gear if there is a way he can get around it. Perhaps he could pay a fine and keep the Adidas logos off of their uniforms, like the Yankees do with Majestic.

I can't see that happening since NBA jerseys are exclusively manufactured by Adidas

It's not Adidas owns a factory that makes basketball uniforms. There are a few companies that produce uniforms for the major athletic apparel brands. They make the uniforms to each companies specifications (cut, fabric type, etc.). All Adidas cares about is that their logo is on the uniform. But in MLB, the Yankees pay a fine every tear to keep the Majestic logo off their uniforms. I could see Jordan doing that. Nike probably would pay the fine for him considering all the publicity it would create.

[hawk36]

That being said, I can't understand why any city/fans wouldn't want their own name, especially when the old name has so much baggage. Why would New Orleans even want the Hornet name when everyone that hears it thinks Charlotte. Or why would Utah want the Jazz name when even years and years later, the Jazz name is still more connected to New Orleans.

Because in modern North American sports branding, the team name is not their own. It is created by management with the aid of highly paid consultants with minimal actual fan input outside of sham voting contests that can be rigged to proffer the desired result "democratically".

Understood but my point is, these highly paid marketers and management should realize that they could sell a lot more merchandise and build a stronger fan base if they build around a new name that is part of the new city rather than simply using an old name that the current city has no tie to.

I would bet that a large majority of fan bases would rather their team be theirs instead of the old city's. I don't care if the Jazz remain in Utah for 50 more years, they still are first and foremost New Orleans. You simply can't get around that and it's a sad thing for the current fans. As horrible as the OKC Thunder name is, I'm sure the OKC fans love that name much more than they ever would have the Sonics. It's theirs, not a reminder of something stolen from Seattle. Same would apply to Utah.

[IceCap]

For one thing, Eagles and Bears have been names of major teams since before any of us are born. Whether they're generic or not doesn't matter - we're used to it and accept it.

Bobcats just seems to be the name of so many elementary / Jr. High schools, and always seems to be represented by the stupid paw print. Hell - my Jr. High team probably played two or three Bobcat teams every year. I'll say Cougars is probably second on the list of names that I associate with youth teams, though Carolina Cougars does have a nice ring to it.

So to summarize, bobcats in and of itself is no more or less generic than Eagles or Bears. It's just that I (and many others) associate it with kids teams due to our experiences growing up, while Eagles and Bears have always been associated with the NFL teams.

Fair enough, though I was under the impression that Wildcats was the worse offender then Bobcats.

As for what we accept as fans, I said it earlier, all traditions have to start somewhere. In 50 years time, perhaps the name Bobcats, at least as it relates to the NBA, will be seen as perfectly acceptable for a major league team.

[Quillz]

That being said, I can't understand why any city/fans wouldn't want their own name, especially when the old name has so much baggage. Why would New Orleans even want the Hornet name when everyone that hears it thinks Charlotte. Or why would Utah want the Jazz name when even years and years later, the Jazz name is still more connected to New Orleans.

Because in modern North American sports branding, the team name is not their own. It is created by management with the aid of highly paid consultants with minimal actual fan input outside of sham voting contests that can be rigged to proffer the desired result "democratically".

Understood but my point is, these highly paid marketers and management should realize that they could sell a lot more merchandise and build a stronger fan base if they build around a new name that is part of the new city rather than simply using an old name that the current city has no tie to.

I would bet that a large majority of fan bases would rather their team be theirs instead of the old city's. I don't care if the Jazz remain in Utah for 50 more years, they still are first and foremost New Orleans. You simply can't get around that and it's a sad thing for the current fans. As horrible as the OKC Thunder name is, I'm sure the OKC fans love that name much more than they ever would have the Sonics. It's theirs, not a reminder of something stolen from Seattle. Same would apply to Utah.

But the Jazz lasted five seasons in New Orleans and were second class citizens there. They didn't have great attendance, and they never received priority in the Superdome. They were once forced on a month-long road trip because the Superdome had to be used for something else.

[Matito]

I'm not going to stick up for Johnson for naming the team after himself, but I'll throw this out. How is this that much different than the Cleveland Browns being named after Paul Brown (although not by his choice) or the Texas Rangers' owner Robert Short making the "R" and "S" on the original Rangers' uniforms bigger than the rest of the letters?

[gueman]

That being said, I can't understand why any city/fans wouldn't want their own name, especially when the old name has so much baggage. Why would New Orleans even want the Hornet name when everyone that hears it thinks Charlotte. Or why would Utah want the Jazz name when even years and years later, the Jazz name is still more connected to New Orleans.

Because in modern North American sports branding, the team name is not their own. It is created by management with the aid of highly paid consultants with minimal actual fan input outside of sham voting contests that can be rigged to proffer the desired result "democratically".

Understood but my point is, these highly paid marketers and management should realize that they could sell a lot more merchandise and build a stronger fan base if they build around a new name that is part of the new city rather than simply using an old name that the current city has no tie to.

I would bet that a large majority of fan bases would rather their team be theirs instead of the old city's. I don't care if the Jazz remain in Utah for 50 more years, they still are first and foremost New Orleans. You simply can't get around that and it's a sad thing for the current fans. As horrible as the OKC Thunder name is, I'm sure the OKC fans love that name much more than they ever would have the Sonics. It's theirs, not a reminder of something stolen from Seattle. Same would apply to Utah.

You make a very good point. I always thought the NFL really messed up when the Browns moved to Baltimore, not working a deal to allow the new Baltimore NFL team to be called the Colts and assign all the records from 1950 to 1983 to the team. Then remarket the Indy franchise. You would have had done 2 things, helped fix the PR disaster that the Colts move caused, and create 2 new markets for merchandise. Perhaps it was the short time that caused it not to be a viable option in time for the '96 season. And while I call the Colts move a PR disaster, it was the catalyst that created the stadium and arena boom that happened in the '90's.

[Old School Fool]

It's this simple.

Utah Bobcats.

New Orleans Jazz.

Charlotte Hornets.

Three-team swap!

[rams80]

That being said, I can't understand why any city/fans wouldn't want their own name, especially when the old name has so much baggage. Why would New Orleans even want the Hornet name when everyone that hears it thinks Charlotte. Or why would Utah want the Jazz name when even years and years later, the Jazz name is still more connected to New Orleans.

Because in modern North American sports branding, the team name is not their own. It is created by management with the aid of highly paid consultants with minimal actual fan input outside of sham voting contests that can be rigged to proffer the desired result "democratically".

Understood but my point is, these highly paid marketers and management should realize that they could sell a lot more merchandise and build a stronger fan base if they build around a new name that is part of the new city rather than simply using an old name that the current city has no tie to.

I would bet that a large majority of fan bases would rather their team be theirs instead of the old city's. I don't care if the Jazz remain in Utah for 50 more years, they still are first and foremost New Orleans. You simply can't get around that and it's a sad thing for the current fans. As horrible as the OKC Thunder name is, I'm sure the OKC fans love that name much more than they ever would have the Sonics. It's theirs, not a reminder of something stolen from Seattle. Same would apply to Utah.

There is a certain pre-made novelty factor when teams first show up in town that gets popularity and interest regardless of the origin of the nickname. In other words, regardless of whose nickname, it was, it is the new market's now. Over time, as loyalty to that organization grows in the current market, the support of the nickname does as well. This is especially true in cases where the moniker is that of an animal or some other region neutral identity. To go a step further, the Jazz, known as the Jazz, are a beloved institution in Utah much as the Lakers, known as the Lakers, are a beloved institution in Los Angeles.

Fair enough, though I was under the impression that Wildcats was the worse offender then Bobcats.

As for what we accept as fans, I said it earlier, all traditions have to start somewhere. In 50 years time, perhaps the name Bobcats, at least as it relates to the NBA, will be seen as perfectly acceptable for a major league team.

50+ years ago, high school and middle school athletics were much less institutionalized in American culture and fandom. Part of this was a function of there being fewer people (and by extension schools) and part of this was just a lack of interest/difficulty in traveling to away contests. Additionally, those schools that did exist did make more of an effort to adopt quirky "local" monikers. With the rapid growth of schools in some places, and the merger boom in rural districts, however, this trend in nicknaming tended to change (the new school needs a nickname fast, so think up something good and generic like "x"cats, or the new merged school needs a new, generic nickname that is not-quirky and local because otherwise you're pissing off everyone who just had their school shut down. Again, "x"cats.) Additionally, the other "generic" animal names are sufficiently rare that there is not the stigma that "Bobcats" carry.

I'm not going to stick up for Johnson for naming the team after himself, but I'll throw this out. How is this that much different than the Cleveland Browns being named after Paul Brown (although not by his choice) or the Texas Rangers' owner Robert Short making the "R" and "S" on the original Rangers' uniforms bigger than the rest of the letters?

Well, the Rangers example is also bad form, but the Browns case was IIRC something of popular acclaim (Paul Brown was an institution in Ohio football), so its slightly more forgivable.

You make a very good point. I always thought the NFL really messed up when the Browns moved to Baltimore, not working a deal to allow the new Baltimore NFL team to be called the Colts and assign all the records from 1950 to 1983 to the team. Then remarket the Indy franchise. You would have had done 2 things, helped fix the PR disaster that the Colts move caused, and create 2 new markets for merchandise. Perhaps it was the short time that caused it not to be a viable option in time for the '96 season. And while I call the Colts move a PR disaster, it was the catalyst that created the stadium and arena boom that happened in the '90's.

See first rant. The Colts nickname has been institutionalized in Indianapolis, so a rebrand to assuage hurt feelings in Baltimore would not have worked. The folks in Indy are going to be quite pissed that you retook the nickname that they feel loyalty to, just to give it back to a rival team in the league. That, and it's not the NFL's place (nor any league's place) to unilateraly order a franchise to rebrand so as to give the identity to another market at the league's convenience.

[AJM]

While I'm not a fan of the Bobcats name, I doubt the franchise would be renamed so soon. Hopefully the Jordan ownership will "re-brand" their style of play and make them a better team.

[The_Admiral]

You guys do know Jordan's been the nominal "president" for several years now and can't even deign to attend his team's games, right? He's not really good at things that aren't playing basketball. Why people are expecting him to do anything well is beyond me.

[Quillz]

You guys do know Jordan's been the nominal "president" for several years now and can't even deign to attend his team's games, right? He's not really good at things that aren't playing basketball. Why people are expecting him to do anything well is beyond me.

True. As I recall, he wasn't a particularly effective player-coach of the Wizards, either. There's a big difference between being able to play the game and being able to manage the game. Jordan was a legendary player, but oftentimes, an individual's skills don't rub off on others. I've never considered him to be a particularly great manager of teams.

[mjmatias]

I still want the Carolina Cougars to come back.

And yes, I do know about the naming-rights issue with the former Spirits of St. Louis owners.

Or what about the Charlotte Cougars...a nod to the old ABA team without the legal problems!

[gueman]

See first rant. The Colts nickname has been institutionalized in Indianapolis, so a rebrand to assuage hurt feelings in Baltimore would not have worked. The folks in Indy are going to be quite pissed that you retook the nickname that they feel loyalty to, just to give it back to a rival team in the league. That, and it's not the NFL's place (nor any league's place) to unilateraly order a franchise to rebrand so as to give the identity to another market at the league's convenience.

Now it is "institutionalized" in Indy, but in 1995, just 11 years later? Much less so. The NFL had no problem giving the city of Cleveland everything is asked for. Also I think a little deference could have been made to Baltimore given the teams historic link to the game. The 2 most important games in league history the '58 title game and Super Bowl III involved this team. Indianapolis has no historical ties to the Colts other than a drunk moved the team there. The name fits in the city like the Jazz in Utah and Lakers in LA, and the Dodgers in LA. Granted now the Colts have played more games as the Indianapolis Colts than they did the Baltimore Colts. But in 1996 most still regarded the team named the Colts as being the Baltimore Colts. Perhaps the people of Indianapolis would have relished the chance to create their own identity not one from another city.

[Buster]

I vote for the Charlotte Hornets.

New Orleans can become the Jazz.

Utah can become the Lakers (Great Salt Lake).

Los Angeles can become the Shooters...a nice basketball name that also ties into its local area. OR, the Giraffes.

[rams80]

See first rant. The Colts nickname has been institutionalized in Indianapolis, so a rebrand to assuage hurt feelings in Baltimore would not have worked. The folks in Indy are going to be quite pissed that you retook the nickname that they feel loyalty to, just to give it back to a rival team in the league. That, and it's not the NFL's place (nor any league's place) to unilateraly order a franchise to rebrand so as to give the identity to another market at the league's convenience.

Now it is "institutionalized" in Indy, but in 1995, just 11 years later? Much less so. The NFL had no problem giving the city of Cleveland everything is asked for. Also I think a little deference could have been made to Baltimore given the teams historic link to the game. The 2 most important games in league history the '58 title game and Super Bowl III involved this team. Indianapolis has no historical ties to the Colts other than a drunk moved the team there. The name fits in the city like the Jazz in Utah and Lakers in LA, and the Dodgers in LA. Granted now the Colts have played more games as the Indianapolis Colts than they did the Baltimore Colts. But in 1996 most still regarded the team named the Colts as being the Baltimore Colts. Perhaps the people of Indianapolis would have relished the chance to create their own identity not one from another city.

The Cleveland Deal was bad policy prompted by a desire to extricate the league from a tricky legal situation. It is a unique situation, and should not be repeated again.

The 1995 team that was a Hail Mary away from the Super Bowl? Yes, yes, the name was institutionalized. They still venerate that team and those associated with it. 11 years is longer than you think. Furthermore, the reaction to the rebrand will be negative because you are once again taking away a brand they have come to know and love to give to a rival team in the Conference. Furthermore, they don't care what outsiders think of the team, as far as they are concerned, they are the Indianapolis Colts.

/Southern Indiana is good horse country.

[rams80]

I vote for the Charlotte Hornets.

New Orleans can become the Jazz.

Utah can become the Lakers (Great Salt Lake).

Los Angeles can become the Shooters...a nice basketball name that also ties into its local area.

You're not getting NBA owners to give up franchise identities they've had for decades in places just to right a perceived historical wrong. Also that Los Angeles nickname would never, ever fly in the NBA.

[Buster]

I vote for the Charlotte Hornets.

New Orleans can become the Jazz.

Utah can become the Lakers (Great Salt Lake).

Los Angeles can become the Shooters...a nice basketball name that also ties into its local area.

You're not getting NBA owners to give up franchise identities they've had for decades in places just to right a perceived historical wrong. Also that Los Angeles nickname would never, ever fly in the NBA.

Why would you say that?

[The_Admiral]

[Gothamite]

You guys do know Jordan's been the nominal "president" for several years now and can't even deign to attend his team's games, right? He's not really good at things that aren't playing basketball. Why people are expecting him to do anything well is beyond me.

True. As I recall, he wasn't a particularly effective player-coach of the Wizards, either. There's a big difference between being able to play the game and being able to manage the game. Jordan was a legendary player, but oftentimes, an individual's skills don't rub off on others. I've never considered him to be a particularly great manager of teams.

That fits in with my impression that he's much more suited to the role of an owner. He can do big-picture stuff without having to bother with the day-to-day.