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

[CubsFanBudMan]

Also, had the Bobcats started as the "new" Hornets, they'd be in the same situation as the Browns: Replaced by a pale imitation pretending to be a much-better franchise that vacated long ago.

The willingness to abandon Bobcats after all this time is part Bob Johnson, part no established identity in 3 or 4 tries, and part bad performance. The nostalgia seems to be winning over that combination, as shown by that court they rolled out this season. It almost looked teal and purple in the original instagrammed shot. The availability of Hornets will likely seal the deal. They haven't established anything as Bobcats to leave behind, and that's a real shame.

[NatsFan2004]

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."

No offense, but the fans of these teams seem just fine with these names and reconciling their current franchises with the legacies of their previous teams. They're all even rather successful brands. It seems like you're in the minority opinion on this point.

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.

You mention the Ravens. Are you aware that if Baltimore fans had their way, the team would STILL be called the Colts? I can't speak for Minnesota fans, but I would suspect they would prefer North Stars. Not sure about Houston fans, since the Oilers name was pretty sullied by Bud Adams by the time the team decamped for Memphis.

In any case, sure these markets adjusted, but at least in the case of Baltimore "Ravens" is not an optimal choice.

Here's my question: Why does your opinion of history trump the desire of the fans of these teams, who financially and emotionally support the team? Why should ownership of these teams bend to your will, rather than that of the people who are their customers? Who put you in that position to decide?

Again, in the end, this is a branding thing - and if the customer wants brand X, why shouldn't they get that? (Assuming that it's legally possible - something not the case in Baltimore).

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

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!!!

Theoritically there could be a Marlin in Salt Lake. Someone's disgarded pet. You can't exactly cuddle with a swordfish.

On a serious note, the more I think about it, the more I dislike Pelicans as an NBA name. It could work as hockey or baseball, but something feels off when using it in a basketball context.

Something nautical could work I think.

New Orleans Navigators rolls off the tongue, only problem with this is people would shorten to either Navs (which sounds too much like Mavs) or Gators, which would make it lose it's context completely.

New Orleans Captains

New Orleans Admirals

Some sort of reference to steamboats would be cool, but say New Orleans Steamers without laughing.

[NatsFan2004]

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?

Bogues, Mourning and Johnson never played minor league baseball either (the origin of the Charlotte Hornets name). By your logic, the NBA team should never have been named that in the first place, because it was and never will be the same team that held that name (for 70+ years, no less).

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.

So what if that team wants to give it up and another team wants to take it? When you get right down to it, branding is controlled by the league, not the team. So it's OK then because the NBA (a privately owned organization) says it is. Right?

[whateverman42]

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.

You sound like an owner yourself, not a fan. Of course a fanbase does not own a brand name, but they can vote with their dollars. If they are not emotionally invested in a product why would they provide support? Which is why owners would change names in the first place. There's more money to be taken out of Charlotte sports fans pockets with a team named the Hornets than with the Bobcats. And if the Bobcats were more successful the fans would have become more loyal to the name, but the name still sucks. And as things played out, they were one of the worst teams ever, which is probably exacerbating the need to go back to the Hornets, root of the disagreement aside. Every situation is different, and with Charlotte everything is making sense for a change: 1) Hornets name no longer in use by someone else 2) Bobcats is a horrible name 3) Bobcats has no current staying power due to consistently bad teams. With the three examples you gave to support your argument in the Ravens, Texans, and Wild, two of them do not even have the option to use their old name, and I guarantee they would have if the Indianapolis Colts and Dallas Stars weren't using them.

[rams80]

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.

Tell that to the Salt Lake City Jazz Festival.

[IceCap]

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."

No offense, but the fans of these teams seem just fine with these names and reconciling their current franchises with the legacies of their previous teams. They're all even rather successful brands. It seems like you're in the minority opinion on this point.

Of course teams seem "fine." Civilization never rose or fell based on what a sports team called themselves. At the end of the day we're discussing stuff that doesn't matter. Which is fine. I'm just explaining my preferences.

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.

You mention the Ravens. Are you aware that if Baltimore fans had their way, the team would STILL be called the Colts? I can't speak for Minnesota fans, but I would suspect they would prefer North Stars. Not sure about Houston fans, since the Oilers name was pretty sullied by Bud Adams by the time the team decamped for Memphis.

I'm sorry, but from what I've seen the area has more or less embraced the Ravens. I'm sure that there are still old timers who remember the Colts who would like to see the Colts name return, but the sense I get is that the area's more or less ok with the Ravens, and that any remaining "bring back the Colts" sentiment will fade away as the older fans die off or just come to terms with the fact that it's not happening. Fact is you don't need to adopt an older name to get fans behind you. Put a good product on the field/court/ice, reach out to the community, and all but the most dedicated old fans will embrace the new team and new identity. I guarantee you that if the Bobcats were a regular playoff team from the get go there wouldn't be this "Bring Back the Buzz" talk. People only want the Hornets back because they associate the Bobcats with failure. I promise you that if the Bobcats turned it around and didn't adopt the Hornets name people will start to embrace the team.

Here's my question: Why does your opinion of history trump the desire of the fans of these teams, who financially and emotionally support the team? Why should ownership of these teams bend to your will, rather than that of the people who are their customers? Who put you in that position to decide?

I'm flattered that you think I have any actual say in how these things work

No, I don't have a say in how these things work. Neither do you for that matter. We're just two guys exchanging opinions on a fairly trivial matter on the internet. That's all. Sorry if something I said, or if how I presented my opinion, offended you in some way.

Anyway your question. Why does my view of history trump all for me? Well it's because history deals in facts. The "bring back the Hornets" (and similar movements elsewhere) deal in sentimentality. The idea that fans or a community can own a team name and identity, the idea that a community has a "special" relationship with a certain team that relocation cannot break, it's all sentimental. When you deal with sentimentality you often ignore facts for what feels right. What feels right, well it's not always what is right. It's not my opinion that the Hornets left Charlotte. It's a fact. Bobcats or Hornets? I'll choose the one that reflects the reality of what actually happened. I'm a student of history, I'm a historian. You don't get to change what history says just because you don't personally like what happened. You have to accept what happened and make the best out of the situation you're in now.

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?

Bogues, Mourning and Johnson never played minor league baseball either (the origin of the Charlotte Hornets name). By your logic, the NBA team should never have been named that in the first place, because it was and never will be the same team that held that name (for 70+ years, no less).

Now you're moving the goal posts of the discussion.

Cross sports cases don't count. An expansion NBA basketball team adopting the name of a local minor league baseball team is different from one NBA team taking the history and identity of another NBA team and pretending to be them.

I'm more then willing to discuss this with you, I just ask that you keep the points on target and no try to reach for the ridiculous.

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.

So what if that team wants to give it up and another team wants to take it? When you get right down to it, branding is controlled by the league, not the team. So it's OK then because the NBA (a privately owned organization) says it is. Right?

The NBA is not a privately owned organization. It's a league made up of privately owned organizations. No one owns the NBA.

You're right, the NBA would have final say over what names and logos are used where. I never denied that. Teams give up a degree of that autonomy as a condition of joining the NBA. I'm just explaining why I don't want the NBA to do one thing in comparison to another thing.

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

(Random assertion about the Pelican name.)

Pelicans is no worse than Raptors, Thunder, Wizards, Magic... we're just used to all those. In a few years no one will think twice about the New Orleans Pelicans not sounding like an NBA name. In fact I think it has better staying power than those other 4 I just mentioned.

[BucWarrior]

_{^^ It does. It's a great name for a team in NO.}

[IceCap]

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.

You sound like an owner yourself, not a fan.

I am so honoured that so many people seem to think I posses power, influence, and wealth with such matters

In all honesty though, this little comment bugs me. It's a thinly veiled insult. "You're not a true fan if _____."

Pardon me? I'm sorry if my views of sports fandom don't line up with yours. I'll be sure to tell everyone I'm not REALLY a Blue Jays fan, because some guy on the internet told me I didn't have the right mentality to be one.

Of course a fanbase does not own a brand name, but they can vote with their dollars. If they are not emotionally invested in a product why would they provide support?

Emotional investment =/= actual investment. Look, I understand the emotional experience of being a fan. I get that, during the game, you feel like you're part of a greater movement or whole, and you feel like there's a connection between your life and what happened on the court/field/ice. I get that, I experience that. I also recognize it for what it is though, sentimentality. And to embrace it for a few hours when watching a game is fine. It's part of the experience of being a fan. That's cool. It's not something that should be mistaken for fact thought. Fans, at the end of the day, are just consumers who are along for the ride. I'm perfectly capable of recognizing that while also allowing myself to get caught up in the experience of being a fan come game day.

I've been a Blue Jays fan longer then I've been a fan of any other team. I've bought jerseys, caps, tickets, been to games (was even there when they won the World Series), cheered, celebrated, mourned defeat, etc...

Yet I don't feel I own any part of the Blue Jays, their identity, or their legacy. Would it suck if they moved? Yeah it would. I wouldn't deny their right to maintain their history as the Blue Jays in their new location though. If a new team came in and became the Blue Jays? Well I'd have to be honest with myself and say "no, they aren't the same team I supported for all those years."

[NatsFan2004]

Of course teams seem "fine." Civilization never rose or fell based on what a sports team called themselves. At the end of the day we're discussing stuff that doesn't matter. Which is fine. I'm just explaining my preferences.

I'm sorry, but from what I've seen the area has more or less embraced the Ravens.

Because they don't have any choice in the matter. There are still many Ravens fans who would prefer Colts as the team name. There's a statue of Johnny U standing outside M&T Bank Stadium...tell me that 'Colts' doesn't mean anything to Ravens fans. I dare you.

Fact is you don't need to adopt an older name to get fans behind you. Put a good product on the field/court/ice, reach out to the community, and all but the most dedicated old fans will embrace the new team and new identity.

You don't have to, and no one is arguing that you do. Clearly there are examples of other teams not going with previously-used team names and being successful. But you don't HAVE to ignore the past either. You seem to be arguing that there should be some arbitrary rules that are determined according to your personal preferences that prevent new teams from adopting old team names and brands. This is what I don't get.

I guarantee you that if the Bobcats were a regular playoff team from the get go there wouldn't be this "Bring Back the Buzz" talk. People only want the Hornets back because they associate the Bobcats with failure. I promise you that if the Bobcats turned it around and didn't adopt the Hornets name people will start to embrace the team.

When's that going to happen? It certainly hasn't yet. It seems that the fans are telling management what they want to support. (Hint: It's not 'Bobcats')

Anyway your question. Why does my view of history trump all for me? Well it's because history deals in facts. The "bring back the Hornets" (and similar movements elsewhere) deal in sentimentality. The idea that fans or a community can own a team name and identity, the idea that a community has a "special" relationship with a certain team that relocation cannot break, it's all sentimental. When you deal with sentimentality you often ignore facts for what feels right. What feels right, well it's not always what is right. It's not my opinion that the Hornets left Charlotte. It's a fact. Bobcats or Hornets? I'll choose the one that reflects the reality of what actually happened. I'm a student of history, I'm a historian. You don't get to change what history says just because you don't personally like what happened. You have to accept what happened and make the best out of the situation you're in now.

I don't get what any of this has to do with the current situation. No one is going to be pretending that the current Charlotte basketball team is the same franchise as the former Charlotte basketball team. They would just have the same name. As a student of history, you should know full well that throughout the history of sports in the United States, there are MANY examples of teams adopting the names of their predecessors - in the same sport and otherwise. Seems like you're wanting to ignore history here, not pay attention to it.

Now you're moving the goal posts of the discussion.

Cross sports cases don't count.

Who says?

An expansion NBA basketball team adopting the name of a local minor league baseball team is different from one NBA team taking the history and identity of another NBA team and pretending to be them.

I'm more then willing to discuss this with you, I just ask that you keep the points on target and no try to reach for the ridiculous.

I don't think that's ridiculous at all. You're talking about insisting that the brand of one team be unique to it. Who cares whether it's a baseball team, a football team, or a basketball team?

So what you're telling me is that if the Charlotte AAA team changed its name to Hornets and adopted the NBA team's colors and logo, you'd be okay with that because it's not the same sport?

The NBA is not a privately owned organization. It's a league made up of privately owned organizations. No one owns the NBA.

You're right, the NBA would have final say over what names and logos are used where. I never denied that. Teams give up a degree of that autonomy as a condition of joining the NBA. I'm just explaining why I don't want the NBA to do one thing in comparison to another thing.

The NBA is a private corporation, not a public entity. So again, it's okay if they choose to rebrand the Charlotte team as the Hornets and change the New Orleans team to something else because they are privately controlled and own the intellectual property and therefore can do as they please. Right?

[LEWJ]

So is this change to red, blue, and gold official? If so that is semi disappointing. Reminds me too much of the Cavs 03-10 set.

[rams80]

Yes the Billcats can rebrand as the Hornets if they want to. It'd be stupid, pointless, and possibly harmful in the medium to long term, but it might get them another marginal dollar here or there in the short term, And as that's S.O.P. for American business operations nowadays, well...*shrugs*.

IceCap's just focusing on the "stupid and pointless" aspects of such a move and sees that as a reason why not to go through with it, along with disagreeing with what "fan ownership" actually means in a 21st Century sporting environment. Both his stances I agree with.

[OnWis97]

The real issue for me (and IceCap has at various times put it more eloquently), is the "honest" or "natural" view of history. The more these franchise names bounce back-and-forth, the more history gets muddied. I'd prefer (and it's just my preference as a fan) that someone from another planet could come in and not have to ask "wait, so it looks like the Ravens were an expansion team made up primarily of Browns players from the previous year, then the Browns took a few years off and came back with a roster made up of rookies and guys from other teams. What's up with that?"

And while there is not going to be a full "Browns" deal (see my comments below) in place, Winnipeg Jets, the New Hornets, etc., muddies that history. I am well aware that people in Charlotte want the Hornets to return. Maybe some people in New Orleans want the Jazz to return. Maybe we can have those Jazz/Hornets/Bobcats/Grizzlies/T-Wolves/Lakers trades so any newcomer can say "what the F***". No...keep the franchise lineage obvious. Keep the history true.

I know it's only anecdotal, but as a Minnesota fan, I have the following perspectives:

• Lakers would be a great name for a MN team...but I am glad the team kept the name in LA. It is a better reminder of "hey, the NBA's first dynasty was in Minnesota". It would have been silly for the new team to take on "Lakers" 28 years later.
  
• I admit that the Wild to me will never be the North Stars...but it's because of the lack of history of the franchise, not because of the name. The "new North Stars" would have had the same problem. It is also in part because I liked the NHL more as a kid than I do now. As much as I'd love to see the "N-Star" back (and if it were up to me, I don't deny I'd consider it), I know that the history (which is very minimal from a success perspective) belongs in Dallas. Either way, I am glad that Dallas was not "expansion" while the "new North Stars" were revised to have "started" in 1967. Admittedly, a better name than "Wild" may have helped...So while I admit, I, as a fan, would probably have scarified historical clarity for my nostalgia, it's a bullet I am comfortable taking; keeping names at relocation is good for the recognition of history (of course the Stars had to bump the "North" for obvious reasons).
  

The Browns deal is the most egregious example of dishonest history. Sports are rich with tradition and old franchises like the Browns should be recognized for their true lineage. The team in Baltimore won those pre-Super Bowl NFL titles and if it were up to me, the team in Baltimore would be called the Browns. I am glad for Cleveland that the outrage sparked the "OK we'll give you a team soon" reaction, but I'd much rather it be recognized as what it is, an expansion team. I am well aware that the NFL gave them a "franchise certificate" that indicates that they are "those" Browns. I know it's all official, but it's still a revisionist view of history. I am glad the Rams are still the Rams and that they did not take away the identity of that historic franchise. And I am very glad that the new St. L team did not become an "expansion" team full of "last year's rams", so the Jags (or whoever) could become the "Rams from the old days" with a dishonest history (Same with Colts). But since it does not look like that is going to happen with the Hornets, I guess it's a kind of moot point.

[hugevolsfan]

How is it stupid & pointless to bring something back many if not most of the Charlotte fans would want?

History is made everyday so if the Charlotte Hornets come back that is history..

Seems like all of these New Orleans threads get Hornet-jacked or whatever you want to call it.

Reading the post above what is dishonest about something that actually happened.

I am actually intrigued at reading some old history of how we got the teams we have.

That is interesting to me but maybe I am in the minority.

[IceCap]

here are still many Ravens fans who would prefer Colts as the team name. There's a statue of Johnny U standing outside M&T Bank Stadium...tell me that 'Colts' doesn't mean anything to Ravens fans. I dare you.

Getting rather belligerent I see. Ok.

I'm not saying the Colts don't mean anything to Ravens fans. Just that the Ravens haven't been rejected because they aren't the Colts. Which is my point.

FTR my podcast partner infrared41 is a longtime Browns fan, who's said that he doesn't feel like the Browns of today are the same team that he grew up supporting. So the idea that bringing back old names is just what the fans want doesn't seem as concrete as you may think. Fans aren't stupid. They tend to know when you're playing make-believe with them.

You seem to be arguing that there should be some arbitrary rules that are determined according to your personal preferences that prevent new teams from adopting old team names and brands. This is what I don't get.

I'm just stating my preferences on team names when relocation comes into play, and defending my preferences when people question me about them. That's all. I'm not Supreme Lord Of What Teams Call Themselves, nor am I actively trying to pressure any teams to conform to my preferences. I'm just sharing my preferences. I'm willing to discuss them, but you seem to be genuinely upset by what my preferences are.

So no, I'm not trying to impose a list of rules on anyone. Though if you poke around this forum you'll see that we all list "arbitrary" rules here and there. People spend pages talking about colour theory, and what makes a logo good vs what makes it bad. Coming up with non-binding "rules" is sort of what's done here. Please try not to get to caught up in that, lest your brain explode the next time someone mentions the "hand drawn logo" rule.

I guarantee you that if the Bobcats were a regular playoff team from the get go there wouldn't be this "Bring Back the Buzz" talk. People only want the Hornets back because they associate the Bobcats with failure. I promise you that if the Bobcats turned it around and didn't adopt the Hornets name people will start to embrace the team.

When's that going to happen? It certainly hasn't yet. It seems that the fans are telling management what they want to support. (Hint: It's not 'Bobcats')

Well the Wild have made it to the playoffs a few times, the Texans have steadily improved, and the Ravens have a Super Bowl Championship. I think that's enough cases to establish a pattern. Put out a good product and people will support new teams in old markets with new names. There's no reason to suggest that Charlotte would be any different. I'd say fans' failure to embrace the Bobcats name has more to do with the fact that the team's been awful. The Hornets nostalgia is just that. Nostalgia from when a different team in the area was good. It's born out of dissatisfaction with the current on-court Bobcats product. Fix that dissatisfaction with a competitive on-court product and the longing for the Hornets name will fade away.

No one is going to be pretending that the current Charlotte basketball team is the same franchise as the former Charlotte basketball team. They would just have the same name.

See what happened with the Browns. The Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore and became the Ravens, but had to leave the Browns name, legacy, and identity in Cleveland. Now when you look at the NFL's record books you see that they consider the Ravens an expansion team and the Browns that started play in 1999 as the same team that left in 1996. People are pretending that the current Browns are the original Browns when the historical record indicates differently. IE they're allowing sentimentality to cloud the facts. Which is what I fear will happen if the Bobcats become the Hornets. People, and maybe even the NBA, will pretend like they're the same team that left in 2002. It's just intellectually dishonest and a prime example of group-think make-believe.

As a student of history, you should know full well that throughout the history of sports in the United States, there are MANY examples of teams adopting the names of their predecessors - in the same sport and otherwise. Seems like you're wanting to ignore history here, not pay attention to it.

Teams adopting the names of predecessors is one thing. The original Ottawa Senators no longer exist in any form. So I really don't take issue with 1990s expansion team in Ottawa using the name Senators. I think things get rather stupid, however, when the team who's name your using is still in existence. Even after the name change to Pelicans the New Orleans team will still be the original Hornets.

Which brings us back to history. The Hornets began in Charlotte in 1988, moved to New Orleans in 2002, and then changed their name to the Pelicans after a number of years in their new home. That's the historical record whether we like it or not. To assign the name of the Hornets to the Bobcats, a 2004 expansion team in Charlotte, and then to pretend that they are the original Hornets (which the precedent set by the Browns indicates that they will) is being dishonest in the name of sentimentality, and it's ignoring the facts of the historical record. It's a dishonest attempt to try and polish the turd that is the current Charlotte Bobcats franchise by pretending on a large scale that they're the same team Mourning, Johnson, and Boguse played for.

The NBA is a private corporation, not a public entity. So again, it's okay if they choose to rebrand the Charlotte team as the Hornets and change the New Orleans team to something else because they are privately controlled and own the intellectual property and therefore can do as they please. Right?

I never disputed the legality of renaming the Bobcats the Hornets. Of course they're free to do it. I just don't think they should do it.

Anyway rams80 and OnWis97 have done great jobs flushing out why I think it's a bad idea to rename the Bobcats the Hornets. I think you, NatsFan2004, have enough material here to piece together why we feel that way. If you're legitimately interested in talking about this further my PM box is always open.

I'd rather not clog the thread up any more then we already have though.

[NatsFan2004]

I'd rather not clog the thread up any more then we already have though.

Fair enough. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this.

[CrazyAnna]

Ice Cap, what are your thoughts on the Tennessee Titans? Do you think there's confusion with the New York Titans history and theirs?

[rams80]

How is it stupid & pointless to bring something back many if not most of the Charlotte fans would want?

They're not doing this because the Charlotte fans want it. They're doing it because they think it might get them a few extra dollars in ticket and merchandise sales. And it may in the short term. However, changing the name does not change the fact that the team is poorly financed, poorly run, talent poor, and incapable of changing any of that even if you gave each member of the Front Office "NBA Champions for Dummies" book. And "the team sucks" is the fundamental problem confronting the Charlotte NBA franchise. Once the good people of Charlotte realize Bogues etc. aren't running onto the court, you're right back to being the Bobcats income-wise. Only maybe slightly worse off because you further confused the brand in a futile money grab.

Ice Cap, what are your thoughts on the Tennessee Titans? Do you think there's confusion with the New York Titans history and theirs?

No, but that's because until very recently the Jets (rightfully) treated the Titans as an "old shame".

[IceCap]

Ice Cap, what are your thoughts on the Tennessee Titans? Do you think there's confusion with the New York Titans history and theirs?

That's an interesting case. Actually in my ideal world the Jets would still be the Titans, because I like the idea of New York's two NFL teams being named the Giants and the Titans. As for the Oilers, I would have liked it if they had kept that identity in Tennessee. I always liked the logo, and I thought the last uniform set they had before becoming the Titans was rather sharp.

Anyway to the question at hand. I would have preferred it if they didn't become the Titans obviously, but it's not AS bad as renaming the Charlotte Bobcats the Charlotte Hornets. The Bobcats/Hornets case you have a new team in an old market pretending to be the old team. With the Titans in Tennessee they aren't trying to be the New York Titans, they're trying to be something entirely original in Tennessee.

Not to mention that before the throwback craze hit critical mass the Jets more or less tried to forget they ever were the New York Titans.

How is it stupid & pointless to bring something back many if not most of the Charlotte fans would want?

They're not doing this because the Charlotte fans want it. They're doing it because they think it might get them a few extra dollars in ticket and merchandise sales. And it may in the short term. However, changing the name does not change the fact that the team is poorly financed, poorly run, talent poor, and incapable of changing any of that even if you gave each member of the Front Office "NBA Champions for Dummies" book. And "the team sucks" is the fundamental problem confronting the Charlotte NBA franchise. Once the good people of Charlotte realize Bogues etc. aren't running onto the court, you're right back to being the Bobcats income-wise. Only maybe slightly worse off because you further confused the brand in a futile money grab.

Indeed. Dressing the Bobcats up in teal and purple pinstripes won't make them not the Bobcats. And fans aren't stupid. Once the nostalgic factor has worn off the re-brand they'll realize the team still sucks.