New Orleans Hornets Will Rebrand as Pelicans in Time for 2013-2014 NBA Season

[Saint Zephyr III]

I LOOOOOVE the Pelicans name. Great local connection, and it's timeless -- no worries that it will sound dated like "Orlando Magic" does. Plenty of existing team names would get criticized for sounding silly if they were new today; the haters would hate any change. Give it a good logo and good jerseys and the merch will sell itself.

The only thing I'm sad about is that we'll lose my favorite alternate jersey in the league. This is the only NBA jersey that doesn't use any white at all, right?

Well they can technically keep that design; just change the colors to red, gold, and blue and you're good to go.

[B-Rich]

Last few notes before turning in... After hearing a PM drivetime sports show, I even question these "sources"; which apparently have something to do with the fan-run Hornets24/7 website. The name change buzz (pun intended) was all over radio and TV; a local politician even mentioned it at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon I attended today. Local sentiment is decidedly negative; one poll shown on TV had 84% against switching to the Pelicans moniker....

[29texan]

Exhibit A of why this move is fantastic and makes all the sense in the world:

Yeah, we all know why Pelicans was chosen and yes, it does make sense...... but it just doesn't sound right. It doesn't sound like a professional basketball team (at least, not NBA anyway).

The way I see it, if you're gonna stick with 'Pelicans', why not change the location's identity to include the entire state?

They would be the Louisiana Pelicans, instead. I mean, at least that rolls off the tongue.

[rams80]

The fact is that many of the teams names (that have something wrong with them) in the NBA are beyond fixing, but the Hornets/Bobcats situation can be fixed.

And the Hornets 2.0 can have pipe dreams of being as good playing as the Browns 2.0.

[lancealot]

The NBA screwed it self up, by making so many teams keep their name upon relocation.

I agree. The "Utah Jazz" has always stuck in my craw. Utah and Jazz just don't go together.

But the reality is that the Jazz have been in Utah for 30 years and have had some top-shelf teams associated with the name in that time. There's no rolling that back, realistically.

I understand where you are coming from. I think your argument applies to the L.A. Lakers, but I'm not sure it applies to the Utah Jazz who I believe have won two conference championships in their history.

Are you saying because of jazz' two conference championships their name can be irrelevant, yet the lakers; one of the nba's powerhouses and probably the most legendary team in basketball history, should change their name because it is irrelevant

[dbadefense1990]

I think Utah should change their name to the "Buzz" ... a similar short name with the same ending consonants ... the name connects with the Mormons and their triple-A baseball team, the Salt Lake Bees.

Why would the organization currently known as the Jazz want to change their nickname to one that was rejected by the city's Triple-A baseball team after a few years of use? Allow SLC residents to recycle their old Buzz merchandise?

[jhans203]

I think Utah should change their name to the "Buzz" ... a similar short name with the same ending consonants ... the name connects with the Mormons and their triple-A baseball team, the Salt Lake Bees.

Why would the organization currently known as the Jazz want to change their nickname to one that was rejected by the city's Triple-A baseball team after a few years of use? Allow SLC residents to recycle their old Buzz merchandise?

Georgia Tech owns the trademark on Buzz. That's why they switched to Stingers then Bees. If the Jazz were to change I'd support a return to the Stars.

[dbadefense1990]

[Foxxtrot44]

Georgia Tech owns the trademark on Buzz. That's why they switched to Stingers then Bees. If the Jazz were to change I'd support a return to the Stars.

I would support a move to a name so gobsmackingly anachronistic that it produces ten times the consternation Jazz causes...I present your Utah Marlins!!!

[Claystation360]

So on the subject of the "Hornets 2.0" what colors would they go with ? The original Charlotte Hornet colors or the current Bobcat colors with the Hornet logos and uniforms ??? Or just something new ??

[Silver_Star]

So on the subject of the "Hornets 2.0" what colors would they go with ? The original Charlotte Hornet colors or the current Bobcat colors with the Hornet logos and uniforms ??? Or just something new ??

New Orleans Nutrias?

New Orleans Cajuns?

New Orleans Crescent?

[Chawls]

So on the subject of the "Hornets 2.0" what colors would they go with ? The original Charlotte Hornet colors or the current Bobcat colors with the Hornet logos and uniforms ??? Or just something new ??

New Orleans Nutrias?

New Orleans Cajuns?

New Orleans Crescent?

When he says Hornets 2.0, I believe he's referring to the Charlotte franchise, not the New Orleans one.

Also Silver_Star, to your suggestions:

Nutrias? You think being named after a rodent is any better than being named after a bird?

No.

Cajuns? They mostly live in South-central Louisiana, not New Orleans. It would be neither geographically nor culturally accurate.

Crescent? I'd rather be a Pelican.

[IceCap]

The fact is that many of the teams names (that have something wrong with them) in the NBA are beyond fixing, but the Hornets/Bobcats situation can be fixed.

And the Hornets 2.0 can have pipe dreams of being as good playing as the Browns 2.0.

This.

Again, my biggest problem with giving the Hornets name to the Bobcats is that the Bobcats are not, and never will be, the Hornets. The nostalgia anyone feels for the Charlotte Hornets? Those players are long gone, and the actual organization they played for is in New Orleans. Even after the name change to Pelicans, it's still the same team that played in Charlotte all those years.

Giving the Hornets name to the Bobcats won't make them anything more then a 2000s expansion team with dismal history. it won't suddenly bring Muggsy Bogues, Alonzo Mourning, and Larry Johnson back. They won't be that team everyone remembers fondly (for some reason) because they aren't that team. It's a completely different organization. It's intellectually dishonest, and it's just a band-aid solution for Charlotte's current NBA troubles. Dress them up as the actual Hornets all you want, they'll still be the Bobcats.

That's not even taking into account the history/records problems that would come from giving the Bobcats the Hornets' name and identity.

[BlueSky]

A little trivia...the more observant of you may have noticed the blood on the Louisiana flag. Apparently if a mother pelican can't find food to feed her young, she exposes her belly and lets them peck little pieces of her off so they don't starve (yum!). It represents sacrifice as shown on the flag.

I tend to agree with B-Rich about the name being floated to gauge reaction.

For the poster who doesn't get the "Jazz belongs to New Orleans" argument, it's not that, it's that Jazz just doesn't go with Utah or Salt Lake City in any way, shape or form.

Love the Maskers story. I do remember there was almost universal disdain the moment that name was announced. As for the contest being rigged, surely that couldn't happen in New Orleans.

A nautical name would work. People get caught up in the food and music and Catholicism of New Orleans but the port is also a huge part of the city:

[hugevolsfan]

I just don't get the argument that the Bobcats are not the Hornets.

If you change the name they will be & if they have success then the Bobcat name will just be a distant memory.

Now that is a big if but still why not adopt a name if you can that is much better in IMO.

I still think the best name for New Orleans is Spirits with Mardi Gras colors.

It would fit well with the Saints as well.

[IceCap]

I just don't get the argument that the Bobcats are not the Hornets.

If you change the name they will be

No, they won't. Not really. You know those Hornets teams that everyone remembers fondly (very fondly for a team that never made it past the second round of the playoffs)? Well, regardless what you call the NBA team currently playing in Charlotte, that team moved. They're currently playing in New Orleans, and in a year they'll be the Pelicans. Nothing you say or do will change the fact that the actual team those memorable Hornets players played for is now, and seemingly forever will be, in New Orleans.

The Bobcats? They were established in 2002. Mourning, Bogues, and Johnson never played for them. Dressing them up like the Hornets of old won't make them the Hornets of old.

& if they have success then the Bobcat name will just be a distant memory.

Conversely if they keep the Bobcats name and have success Charlotte's NBA fanbase will embrace them as the Bobcats and fewer and fewer people will push for the Hornets name to be brought back. Houston's embraced the Texans despite them not being the Oilers, and Baltimore's embraced the Ravens despite them not being the Colts. Minnesota's hockey faithful have embraced the Wild, and they aren't the North Stars.

Fanbases will embrace a new team with a new name if the team gives them a reason to. Fans haven't embraced the Bobcats because the team's never really been any good. It's not because they're not the Hornets.

[NatsFan2004]

I just don't get the argument that the Bobcats are not the Hornets.

If you change the name they will be

No, they won't. Not really. You know those Hornets teams that everyone remembers fondly (very fondly for a team that never made it past the second round of the playoffs)? Well, regardless what you call the NBA team currently playing in Charlotte, that team moved. They're currently playing in New Orleans, and in a year they'll be the Pelicans. Nothing you say or do will change the fact that the actual team those memorable Hornets players played for is now, and seemingly forever will be, in New Orleans.

The Bobcats? They were established in 2002. Mourning, Bogues, and Johnson never played for them. Dressing them up like the Hornets of old won't make them the Hornets of old.

& if they have success then the Bobcat name will just be a distant memory.

Conversely if they keep the Bobcats name and have success Charlotte's NBA fanbase will embrace them as the Bobcats and fewer and fewer people will push for the Hornets name to be brought back. Houston's embraced the Texans despite them not being the Oilers, and Baltimore's embraced the Ravens despite them not being the Colts. Minnesota's hockey faithful have embraced the Wild, and they aren't the North Stars.

Fanbases will embrace a new team with a new name if the team gives them a reason to. Fans haven't embraced the Bobcats because the team's never really been any good. It's not because they're not the Hornets.

So what you're really saying is that the Washington Nationals, Winnipeg Jets and Cleveland Browns should immediately surrender their names and change to something different because they aren't the teams that formerly went by those names.

I mean, I get the point that the Bobcats literally aren't the same team as the old Hornets, but I would submit to you that when a brand has lasting power and if the fans WANT to root for a team called by that name, why shouldn't a team change to that name? Because at the end of the day, that's what this Hornets thing is all about: branding and fan affinity for the team. I would think that would be well-understood on a forum like this.

[whateverman42]

This.

Again, my biggest problem with giving the Hornets name to the Bobcats is that the Bobcats are not, and never will be, the Hornets. The nostalgia anyone feels for the Charlotte Hornets? Those players are long gone, and the actual organization they played for is in New Orleans. Even after the name change to Pelicans, it's still the same team that played in Charlotte all those years.

Giving the Hornets name to the Bobcats won't make them anything more then a 2000s expansion team with dismal history. it won't suddenly bring Muggsy Bogues, Alonzo Mourning, and Larry Johnson back. They won't be that team everyone remembers fondly (for some reason) because they aren't that team. It's a completely different organization. It's intellectually dishonest, and it's just a band-aid solution for Charlotte's current NBA troubles. Dress them up as the actual Hornets all you want, they'll still be the Bobcats.

That's not even taking into account the history/records problems that would come from giving the Bobcats the Hornets' name and identity.

Fans don't care about money-making organizations, executives, and millionaire athletes anymore, for what reason have they been given to be loyal in that regard? They only really care about the logo and colours of their team and how those represent their locality on a national stage, and give Charlotte back their name and jerseys and it's the same as if the old franchise was actually returned in full. I'm a fan of the Blue Jays still, despite the fact that in one year half their roster is different players. And they wouldn't become some phony version of the Jays if the ownership or general manager changed. Essentially if a team takes hold in their community, their identity belongs to that community. You saw that with the Jets; Winnipeg was not interested in getting just any name, it had to be the Jets. As long as they have an NHL team named the Jets it doesn't matter the old franchise is now in Phoenix and they took over an expansion franchise from Atlanta, it's technical jumbo to passionate fans.

And I don't know why New Orleans was allowed to take the Hornets name in the first place. Wouldn't they want a new identity to fit with their city? And if there was a chance of Charlotte getting another team why wouldn't they retain the name like Seattle did with the Sonics? I hope all the big leagues learn from this, as the result is a waste of 10 years for New Orleans to have established a tradition and identity as they now start from scratch, and Charlotte wasting 8 years they could have been building on top of the prior Hornets history, on one of the most uninspired expansion sets ever to boot.

[IceCap]

So what you're really saying is that the Washington Nationals, Winnipeg Jets and Cleveland Browns should immediately surrender their names and change to something different because they aren't the teams that formerly went by those names.

Nationals? I was pulling for Washington Greys/Grays or Washington Federals myself.

Browns? Absolutely. The real Browns are in Baltimore now. Regardless of the NFL's Orwellian practices regarding their history. Cleveland's the reason we're even considering this nonsense in the first place.

Jets? I was hoping they would keep the Manitoba Moose name or go with Winnipeg Falcons. At the very least the current Winnipeg Jets have gone out of their way to insist that they're a different team from the original Jets with an original logo/uniform set and the fact that their website references the Thrashers and not the original Jets under "History."

I mean, I get the point that the Bobcats literally aren't the same team as the old Hornets, but I would submit to you that when a brand has lasting power and if the fans WANT to root for a team called by that name, why shouldn't a team change to that name? Because at the end of the day, that's what this Hornets thing is all about: branding and fan affinity for the team. I would think that would be well-understood on a forum like this.

Like I said Baltimore fans have found an affinity for the Ravens, despite not being the Colts. Houston's embraced the Texans and they're not the Oilers. Minnesota seems to have adjusted well to the Wild, and they're not the North Stars. And I'd say the Baltimore Colts, Houston Oilers, and Minnesota North Stars all had greater legacies then the Charlotte Hornets did. So if fans in those cities can embrace new teams with new names why can't Charlotte? Well it's because the Bobcats simply haven't been very good. If they turn it around and have success as the Bobcats, people won't be so desperate to bring the Hornets back.

As for brand affinity and "I would think you should understand the plight of Charlotte NBA fans because look at what site you're on" and all of that? Well no. I'm for honesty regarding history first and foremost. When you strip away the sentimentality of the situation what it comes down to is a big exercise in make-believe. Both for the fans, and for the team. Charlotte's NBA team was founded in 2002. Bogues, Mourning, and Johnson never played for them. They never were the Hornets. It would just be a team pretending to be something they're not, claiming a history that's not theirs, and fans going along with it because the team's always sucked, so why not go along with it if it makes them feel nostalgic?

Fans don't care about money-making organizations, executives, and millionaire athletes anymore, for what reason have they been given to be loyal in that regard? They only really care about the logo and colours of their team and how those represent their locality on a national stage, and give Charlotte back their name and jerseys and it's the same as if the old franchise was actually returned in full. I'm a fan of the Blue Jays still, despite the fact that in one year half their roster is different players. And they wouldn't become some phony version of the Jays if the ownership or general manager changed.

What do the Blue Jays have to do with any of this? Yes, players change teams. Not the same thing as what I'm talking about here.

Essentially if a team takes hold in their community, their identity belongs to that community.

And here's the root of our disagreement.

No, a team's identity does NOT belong to a community. A team's identity belongs to the team, and teams (Packers aside) are privately owned organizations. George Shinn owned the Hornets name, and now Tom Benson owns that name. Fans are just along for the ride. They don't own anything.

[Digby]

Charlotte will want to switch back to Hornets because of these two words: Starter. Jacket.