New name for Charlotte?

[Buster]

MJ will make another on-court appearance, one game only as a player someday, like Gordie Howe. Just to prove he can. He can't help himself.

[Jamikel]

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".

If this is Europe, where the nickname was bestowed by the fanbase over time, you might have an argument. This isn't and they aren't.

The problem with the European way of letting the fans bestow a nickname on the team is that, well, those nicknames have a tendency to suck.

Liverpool wears red? Let's call them the Reds!

Chelsea wears blue? How about the Blues?

You know what a good name for Inter Milan would be? The Black-and-Blues! Why? Because they wear black and blue!

[Gothamite]

I'll see you "Reds" and "Blues" (and man, no way would those lame names be acceptible for a professional American team) and raise you "Cottagers", "Gunners", "Spurs", "Magpies" and "Hammers". Solid team nicknames, all.

And that's not even getting into the really cool ones like "Addicks" or "Monkey Hangers".

[Sodboy13]

When a team gets the name "Rabbitohs" because its players were selling fresh rabbits in the market the morning before the match, and took to the field with blood and fur on their jerseys, that's earning a nickname.

[Red Wolf]

I'll see you "Reds" and "Blues" (and man, no way would those lame names be acceptible for a professional American team) and raise you "Cottagers", "Gunners", "Spurs", "Magpies" and "Hammers". Solid team nicknames, all.

And that's not even getting into the really cool ones like "Addicks" or "Monkey Hangers".

Some are great, but most seem to basically just be named based on the team's colors or some aspect of their uniforms. And the American Reds are essentially an example of the "natural" nickname and the Blues are named after a music style. A little different I'd say.

Anyway, I'd love to see a name change for Charlotte. Bobcats never wowed me, and the former owner naming the team after himself rubs me the wrong way. I don't know that it would necessarily be a smart move for Charlotte to change, but I want them to.

[Gothamite]

I think that's partially a function of soccer teams being long-established (most old baseball clubs were named after some aspect of their uniforms) and partly because the names are intended to be casual. You don't see many teams with their nickname on the shirts.

[Red Wolf]

I think that's partially a function of soccer teams being long-established (most old baseball clubs were named after some aspect of their uniforms) and partly because the names are intended to be casual. You don't see many teams with their nickname on the shirts.

Exactly. Now, I'm not saying that either way is right or wrong. I kind of like the different styles of names you find in different sports. Especially soccer compared to most every other sport.

[Quillz]

You know, aren't "meaningful" names really more of an American trend? I mean, when you look at European football clubs, they're pretty much always named "AC (name of city)," "FC (name of city)," "(Name of city) United," etc. You don't tend to run into football clubs named Jaguars, Bobcats, etc. in Europe.

Even rugby clubs in other nations are usually just "Team (name of country)."

[The_Admiral]

I'll see you "Reds" and "Blues" (and man, no way would those lame names be acceptible for a professional American team) and raise you "Cottagers", "Gunners", "Spurs", "Magpies" and "Hammers". Solid team nicknames, all.

There's a team called the Cottagers in England? If "cottaging" means what I think it does, that's unfortunate.

[Sguse1]

You know, aren't "meaningful" names really more of an American trend? I mean, when you look at European football clubs, they're pretty much always named "AC (name of city)," "FC (name of city)," "(Name of city) United," etc. You don't tend to run into football clubs named Jaguars, Bobcats, etc. in Europe.

Even rugby clubs in other nations are usually just "Team (name of country)."

...Not necessarily.

All Blacks, Springboks, USA Eagles, Les Bleus, Wallabies, Los Pumas, Azzuri, British/Irish Lions

[Legend]

I have a bad feeling about a rebrand. Correct me if I'm wrong (like I need to say that on the internet) The last full rebrand we got was OKC's bland mess. The last redesign is the Sixers running back to an old design. Heck, the Jazz are heading backwards as well.

What was the last great redesign? The Cavs? Where every other game is a throwback? The Hornets? Where the great new logo is considered the secondary?

This is a league in which the Wizards still hold onto to that monstrosity of a logo and the Clippers can keep that mystery seam. The Bobcats are way down the list of NBA teams that need further work done considering how far they have come already.

Best post in the thread. Glad someone else has pointed out the stupidity and bland "new" looks most teams go with.

[CubsFanBudMan]

I don't think the Bobcats will re-brand for same the reasons others have stated: Asking a community to go from Hornets to Bobcats to Flight (or whatever) is asking too much. And if it's the community that's doing the asking because of their dislike of yet another owner -- that's why Shinn "had" to move, after all -- then they need to get used to being a pro sports fan.

I also prefer that team names should stay with the franchise, not the city. In truth the Cleveland Browns franchise won a Super Bowl as the Baltimore Ravens, just like the Baltimore Colts did as the Indianapolis Colts. It did not change anything about the cities' or franchises' histories because the NFL vacated it like the NCAA with a Michigan Fab Five Final Four appearance. If the Cubs moved to Las Vegas, I'd still be a fan of the Cubs franchise (who happened to go to a lot more White Sox games), even if they became the Las Vegas Aces and the Oakland A's were moved to Wrigley Field and called the Cubs. I realize not all cases work, but it makes some sense to me (KC Chiefs aside) that the Houston Texans took the Oilers' place -- it's a new team and they play like it -- while Cleveland fans ought to be bummed that their team was replaced by an imitation while their franchise has succeeded. (Ok, "Texans" isn't the best example.)

All that to say the Bobcats are the Bobcats, not the Hornets, so they shouldn't pretend to be. And if the Grizzlies or some other team moves to Seattle, they should still be that team, not the Sonics. Just my opinion.

[hawk36]

I disagree with the franchise, not the city, keeping the name. That's just my own personal opinion though. For me sports are so much more than a simple business.

As a fan in the new city, it would be sort of like your new wife keeping the last name of her famous ex-husband. Every time you hear her last name, you are reminded that you were not her first husband. Sure, she could do that but why not give the relationship a fresh, new start?

[dmhtfld]

i tried a flight concept with the two of the concept logos that were posted on the first page.

[IceCap]

I disagree with the franchise, not the city, keeping the name. That's just my own personal opinion though. For me sports are so much more than a simple business.

As a fan in the new city, it would be sort of like your new wife keeping the last name of her famous ex-husband. Every time you hear her last name, you are reminded that you were not her first husband. Sure, she could do that but why not give the relationship a fresh, new start?

So you're comparing a sports team to a loved one? Weak dude, weak.

[Droost]

I have not read the entire thread so I am sorry if this is a repost.

As far as nicknames go and someone that is originally from the Carolina's - Bobcats, Dragons, and Flight would all seemed forced and "fake" at this point. All those names are associated with losing and people in NC remember how close the team was to being called the flight. Charlotte for most within the city will always be the Hornets and the trio of Mugsy Bogues, Larry Johnson, and Alonzo Mourning painted on the side of one of the buildings in the city will forever stay in the minds of those located within the Queen City.

If they were to change I don't mind what Michael Wilbon said on PTI: Charlotte Fliers isn't that bad, and I also wouldn't mind Charlotte Airmen

[CubsFanBudMan]

Yeah, I was just coming to post that. Wilbon said he liked Carolina Cougars, but that was the first time I'd heard Charlotte Airmen. Not bad, but again, what if the fans get mad at Jordan? Rename the team again.

Surprised PTI gave the topic high-profile airtime, no pun intended.

[ManCalledAmp]

Count me in with Wilbon also...either Cougars redesign, or Airmen. A lot of ways one could go with the Airmen.

And while I hate the Bobcats name, because it does sound generic, I'm not sure they should change. There's nothing inherently conflicting with the Charlotte Bobcats. As has been said, it's not borrowed, and it doesn't sound forced or odd, like Lakers or Jazz or Hornets-when-we're-used-to-New-Orleans. Those names have been grandfathered in, whether we like them or not, even though they can sound awkward at times. "Bobcats" doesn't have that issue. Bland and uninspired? Maybe, but it's a start. One could build from there.

So which is better (or worse)...forging ahead and trying to salvage and rebuild an identity on a brand that is perceived to be named for inept ownership and is otherwise bland but not terrible...or forcing the fanbase through another name change (name 3 in a short span), perhaps to a name tied to another owner?

It's the perfect storm of "go or get off the pot." Both options have their perks and their flaws, and looking objectively, I can't say for sure what I prefer.

[CDixonDesign]

After hearing many suggestions, both from Wilbon, and the fan base, I pose this question.

Besides the fact that the name may be generic, or bland, or not have a gigantic connection with the region, isn't the fact that Bob Johnson named the team the Bobcats after himself a large part of the reason that many people want a name change? Yet we've discussed in large part, the names "Airmen" "Flight", and others, all of which could easily be argued to be directly named after Micheal's persona. Isn't this the same thing Johnson did?

[IceCap]

Generic sounding or not (and it really doesn't sound that bad to me), Bobcats is a hell of a lot better then Airmen, Flight, or Dragons. Cougars sounds alright, but really, do you actually want to homage a failed ABA team?

If the name Bobcats hadn't been chosen to reflect the owner's name, there wouldn't be so much of an uproar. It's as if there's some crime about about a man naming something he owns in honour of himself. True, he won't be the owner for much longer, but the brand's been established. Leave it alone. Don't mess with the market again by giving them a THIRD identity to try and connect with. Leave the name Bobcats and let them get attached to that.

Besides, if people are so angry that the Bobcats were named after Robert Johnson, why aren't people demanding the New York Rangers change their name? The team was founded by Tex Rickard, and got their named based off of the pun "Tex's Rangers." The point being that owners naming teams after themselves isn't necessarily a bad thing, and down the line even provides a neat bit of team trivia casual fans may not be aware of.