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

[Chawls]

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.

I liked the way it looked on the Nuggets.

UNPOPULAR OPINION ALERT: This uniform could've been timeless. It wasn't marred by much of the gaudy and poorly-executed design flaws that defined the NBA in the 90s.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

Here be a question. When the Hornets left in 2002, the NBA pretty much instantly approved an expansion team for 2 seasons later right? Why wasn't this an issue then?

It seems like both markets have had 8-10 years to embrace both identities and now, POOF, they're changing.

[B-Rich]

Here be a question. When the Hornets left in 2002, the NBA pretty much instantly approved an expansion team for 2 seasons later right? Why wasn't this an issue then?

It seems like both markets have had 8-10 years to embrace both identities and now, POOF, they're changing.

Changes in ownership. Bob(cat) Johnson is no longer the owner of that franchise, and George Shinn, who owned the Hornets since inception, just sold that team to a local earlier this year. No way he was going to re-name "his baby".

[BlueSky]

IceCap, your posts are starting to dwarf Wikepedia entries.

[IceCap]

IceCap, your posts are starting to dwarf Wikepedia entries.

It is what it is. I could probably stand to cut some of it down, but everything that I said was relevant, I feel.

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

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.

I liked the way it looked on the Nuggets.

UNPOPULAR OPINION ALERT: This uniform could've been timeless. It wasn't marred by much of the gaudy and poorly-executed design flaws that defined the NBA in the 90s.

I'm thinking and hoping the gold will be more of a yellow. And the finished product will look something along the lines of the Cavs alternate from last season (which btw, I love)

[OnWis97]

On 12/6/2012 at 1:57 PM, DC in Da House w/o a Doubt said:

On 12/6/2012 at 1:18 PM, Chawls said:

On 12/6/2012 at 0:24 PM, LEWJ said:

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.

 

I liked the way it looked on the Nuggets.

 

UNPOPULAR OPINION ALERT: This uniform could've been timeless. It wasn't marred by much of the gaudy and poorly-executed design flaws that defined the NBA in the 90s.

 

I'm thinking and hoping the gold will be more of a yellow. And the finished product will look something along the lines of the Cavs alternate from last season (which btw, I love)

 

 

I agree...that would be much better than the Denver set.

[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.

I liked the way it looked on the Nuggets.

UNPOPULAR OPINION ALERT: This uniform could've been timeless. It wasn't marred by much of the gaudy and poorly-executed design flaws that defined the NBA in the 90s.

I loved the Cavs set and i actually like that Nuggets set aside from the wordmark, I just don't want to see a set too similar to something so recent. (Cavs set was all to recent).

[gosioux76]

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).

Also speaking as a Minnesota fan, I couldn't have a more different opinion.

I want nothing more than to see the Wild rebranded as the Minnesota North Stars. I don't care one iota whether the original franchise is in Dallas, having that name back would -- in my opinion -- put my sports world back in order. My opinion wouldn't change had the Wild won a Stanley Cup or two. Minnesota's hockey team should be the North Stars. Never should've left. Simple as that.

My attachment isn't to a franchise, but to a brand. If you're attached to a brand, why should it matter if it doesn't have some unblemished path to its origins?

I felt the same about the Jets' return to Winnipeg. The franchise in Phoenix is the Coyotes, not the Jets. I don't give a damn about the historical lineage.

I've never heard fans in Cleveland whine that their team isn't the same that was an NFL powerhouse so many generations ago. They're just glad to be cheering for the Browns.

I'm certain this is a sentiment shared by those fans in Charlotte clamoring to see the Hornets return. I hope they get what they want.

[CS85]

Conrad's concept made deadspin.

[TornadoGTS]

For those who missed Conrad's earlier post.....

sorry to mislead, gentleman, but the logo i posted is from Scott Greci at Guru Design in New Orleans. and like Goth pointed out, it won't be used because it's already out there and they would never pay the guy who made it.

it's some sweet action though. top-shelf work.

[CS85]

My mistake, got lost in the fold.

[Rockstar Matt]

FACT: They would still be the "Charlotte Hornets" had the team not royally f***ed THIS up.

They didn't. Kobe and his agent forced their way to the Lakers.

The REAL royal -up in terms of Charlotte basketball identities was Bob Johnson shamelessly naming the next team after himself.

Kobe didn't "force" his way to the Lakers. Charlotte never wanted Kobe. They only selected him because of the trade they had already made with the Lakers.

[OnWis97]

On 12/6/2012 at 3:28 PM, Rockstar Matt said:

On 12/5/2012 at 2:35 AM, Lights Out said:

On 12/5/2012 at 1:23 AM, Cujo said:

FACT: They would still be the "Charlotte Hornets" had the team not royally f***ed THIS up.

They didn't. Kobe and his agent forced their way to the Lakers.

The REAL royal -up in terms of Charlotte basketball identities was Bob Johnson shamelessly naming the next team after himself.

 

Kobe didn't "force" his way to the Lakers. Charlotte never wanted Kobe. They only selected him because of the trade they had already made with the Lakers.

 

Yeah he did. He said he'd only play in a big market. The trade may have been pre-arranged at this point, but it needed to be made because of Kobe's demands. I suppose had he not made the statement, that a different small market team may have grabbed him (nullifying the notion that he killed the Hornets), but one way or the other he forced it. Lesson learned to the next superstar: make the demand early and you'll be forgiven; beats playing in a small market for seven years only to be villanized.

[TheOldRoman]

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.

I disagree with this argument. Whether he knows it or not, I imagine part of the "not feeling like the old Browns" is due to the Browns disappearing for three years and then being one of the worst teams in football over the past 14 years. The Browns had a rich football tradition and had been mostly competitive. The new Browns have been a bumbling mess riddled with ill-advised uniform changes and poor ownership. I think that has much more to do with it than the fact that Ozzie Newsome is the GM in Baltimore (and the only link left from the 1995 Browns). The players are all gone. The owner is gone. Nothing about the current Ravens are the old Browns.

I really think the existence of the Ravens doesn't impact the team not feeling like the Browns, even though fans might think it does. The Browns left, and a few years later the Browns came back. The Ravens started play in 1996 and still play. It may be intellectually dishonest, but whatever. A team exists called the Cleveland Browns, as it did in 1995, with the only difference being the existence of the Baltimore Ravens. Hypothetically, had the Browns moved to Baltimore for three years and then moved back to Cleveland in 1999, I doubt anybody would say it didn't feel like the old Browns and things are different now. Likewise, had the new Browns done like the Jaguars and immediately started fielding contending teams, I doubt anyone would say it didn't feel like the old Browns.

Ultimately, fans care less about convoluted lineage than they do about the team they root for. People who watched the Cleveland Browns play their entire lives (sans three years) are still doing so. In most instances, using a name of a former team that was embraced by a city is the best way to go. Sure, it might seem silly to some that the original Senators moved to Minnesota and the next year a new Senators team played, but so what? The name worked (and should have been used by today's Nationals). Many teams over the past century have used names or defunct or moved teams. Paraphrasing something Admiral said about the Winnipeg Jets, had teams been deadset against using old franchise names, Jim Palmer and Brooks Robinson would have won championships playing on the Maryland Crab or something.

[Lights Out]

Yeah he did. He said he'd only play in a big market. The trade may have been pre-arranged at this point, but it needed to be made because of Kobe's demands. I suppose had he not made the statement, that a different small market team may have grabbed him (nullifying the notion that he killed the Hornets)

This. IIRC, the Nets were going to draft him earlier but he threatened to go to Europe if they picked him.

[Rockstar Matt]

FACT: They would still be the "Charlotte Hornets" had the team not royally f***ed THIS up.

They didn't. Kobe and his agent forced their way to the Lakers.

The REAL royal -up in terms of Charlotte basketball identities was Bob Johnson shamelessly naming the next team after himself.

Kobe didn't "force" his way to the Lakers. Charlotte never wanted Kobe. They only selected him because of the trade they had already made with the Lakers.

Yeah he did. He said he'd only play in a big market. The trade may have been pre-arranged at this point, but it needed to be made because of Kobe's demands. I suppose had he not made the statement, that a different small market team may have grabbed him (nullifying the notion that he killed the Hornets), but one way or the other he forced it. Lesson learned to the next superstar: make the demand early and you'll be forgiven; beats playing in a small market for seven years only to be villanized.

Yeah, I know Kobe only wanted to play for the Lakers. All I was trying to say was that Kobe didn't force his way out of Charlotte, Charlotte never had any intention on drafting him if it weren't for that pre-arranged trade they made with the Lakers.

We all know Kobe is a big a**hole. I just don't want people thinking he forced his way out of Charlotte in particular.

He forced his way to the Lakers, yes. No denying that. But he didn't do so through the Hornets.

[dfwabel]

They just need to leave Seymour D. Fair (from Expo '84) out entirely.

[chakfu]

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.

I disagree with this argument. Whether he knows it or not, I imagine part of the "not feeling like the old Browns" is due to the Browns disappearing for three years and then being one of the worst teams in football over the past 14 years. The Browns had a rich football tradition and had been mostly competitive. The new Browns have been a bumbling mess riddled with ill-advised uniform changes and poor ownership.

I really think the existence of the Ravens doesn't impact the team not feeling like the Browns, even though fans might think it does. The Browns left, and a few years later the Browns came back. The Ravens started play in 1996 and still play. It may be intellectually dishonest, but whatever.

Clevejacked for real.

It may be a bit of a stretch, but it's not too intellectually dishonest because the whole Browns hiatus was done prospectively - the Ravens were created and got the Browns players/front office, but no one ever had to go back in time and create any revisionist history. Since they came back as an expansion team, there's no messy Atlanta Thrashers history to forget.

And I don't think anyone but a uniform nerd would call their minor tweaks ill-advised uniform changes.

[chakfu]

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.

Again...nobody is going to go back and retroactively forget the Bobcats identity or Thrashers identity. Since the Bobcats were an expansion team, a Browns arrangement COULD have been achieved - but that chance passed when the Hornets identity moved to New Orleans - in the way Browns identity did NOT move to Baltimore.

Keeping the Browns identity is basically the only Cleveland sports victory in 48 years. I think that's why we get irritated when people try to take that away and dismiss official NFL history as "make-believe."