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

[CrazyAnna]

Wow, Cavs and Browns on the same page (page 13) in a Charlotte Hornets thread. Is Chief Wahoo coming up next?

[IceCap]

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."

First off it is make-believe. That's pretty clear.

Secondly you're barking up the wrong tree if you want me to take part in the Cleveland pity party.

Now THAT'S an example of group-think.

[Gothamite]

The organization moved, the franchise stayed in place. That seems very clear to me.

And I have no particular love for Cleveland or even the whole state of Ohio.

[dbadefense1990]

Wow, Cavs and Browns on the same page (page 13) in a Charlotte Hornets thread. Is Chief Wahoo coming up next?

CLEVEJACKED!!!

[chakfu]

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."

First off it is make-believe. That's pretty clear.

.

To me, contradicting official NFL history is even more make-believe. Even if the history is far-fetched, "it is what it is."

[IceCap]

No, sorry. I, for one, don't care for Orwellian practices of historical revisionism. Which is what this is.

[NatsFan2004]

No, sorry. I, for one, don't care for Orwellian practices of historical revisionism. Which is what this is.

In your opinion.

[Gothamite]

Not one shared by me.

[CrazyAnna]

I don't see what the big deal is. It's just a team name. If Charlotte wants to be called the Hornets again and that team name is available, then so be it. The next Seattle NBA team will more than likely be called the Supersonics; regardless if it's a brand new team or a team that relocates. People are looking way too deep into this.

[IceCap]

No, sorry. I, for one, don't care for Orwellian practices of historical revisionism. Which is what this is.

In your opinion.

The team moved. That's not an opinion. It's a fact. Yet the NFL says differently to preserve its own internal world view and that of some of its dedicated fans. That, my friend, is a textbook example of historical revisionism.

Not one shared by me.

Goth, I find myself agreeing with you more often then not, but I find the "team not franchise" argument to be an exercise in splitting hairs. And just look at the last couple of pages. I know how to split hairs

Sorry, I don't see a distinction. The entity that was the Cleveland Browns left for Baltimore. The current Browns were established in 1999. Those two statements are facts. Not my opinions. Therefore to pretend that the 1946-1996 Browns and the 1999-present Browns are the same team is, well, make-believe. Regardless of what the NFL's official history says.

Now of course someone will say "well the NFL says it, therefore as far as the NFL's concerned that's what happened so they are the same team!" To which I'd reply, "textbook case of historical revisionism." An entity's version of history isn't true just because they say it is. A historical claim has to be measured against the historical record. The facts, the events that happened, simply don't line up with the NFL's version of events.

[CrazyAnna]

No, sorry. I, for one, don't care for Orwellian practices of historical revisionism. Which is what this is.

In your opinion.

The team moved. That's not an opinion. It's a fact. Yet the NFL says differently to preserve its own internal world view and that of some of its dedicated fans. That, my friend, is a textbook example of historical revisionism.

I thought the employees and equipment moved, but the franchise stayed in that city. If that's the case, then nothing was revised. It was just put on hold.

[IceCap]

No, sorry. I, for one, don't care for Orwellian practices of historical revisionism. Which is what this is.

In your opinion.

The team moved. That's not an opinion. It's a fact. Yet the NFL says differently to preserve its own internal world view and that of some of its dedicated fans. That, my friend, is a textbook example of historical revisionism.

I thought the employees and equipment moved, but the franchise stayed in that city. If that's the case, then nothing was revised. It was just put on hold.

Like I said, the franchise/team distinction is one that I've never put much stock into. For decades the two were interchangeable terms. It's why when the Colts moved to Indy no one thought twice about the team keeping the name. They saw the team move, and of course it was ok that they kept their name. No one tried to get the Colts name left behind in Baltimore, no one tried to bring up the franchise/team distinction. There was no distinction. The team was the franchise, and the franchise was the team. The team moved, the franchised moved.

If the two were separate then the Colts name would have stayed in Baltimore. Even if the franchise certificate was brought with them, the certificate would still have said Baltimore Colts. So yeah, I never bought that the franchise and the team were different.

That notion came about because of the Cleveland Deal. And like most everything about the Cleveland Deal I find it dishonest, an example of mental gymnastics done to try and justify the NFL's revised version of history. What I find grating is that some Cleveland fans feel like to call the whole thing out for what it is, make-believe, is to insult the great city of Cleveland. chakfu claimed I was trying to take away the city's "only victory in 48 years."

No, I'm not. First off, I don't have some magical authority to bend the NFL to my will on this, or any other matter. So while I'm expressing my opinion I'm not actually trying to take anything away. Secondly I didn't take this position to spite Cleveland. I've got nothing against the city (besides their taste in baseball logos). I just don't like something this contrary to clear as day facts.

[NatsFan2004]

That notion came about because of the Cleveland Deal. And like most everything about the Cleveland Deal I find it dishonest, an example of mental gymnastics done to try and justify the NFL's revised version of history.

I thought we were going to stop derailing the thread...like 2 pages ago. No?

[CrazyAnna]

That notion came about because of the Cleveland Deal. And like most everything about the Cleveland Deal I find it dishonest, an example of mental gymnastics done to try and justify the NFL's revised version of history.

I thought we were going to stop derailing the thread...like 2 pages ago. No?

Actually, that may have been my fault. I am fascinated by this whole sports team versus their actual franchise rights. Doesn't seem like this was ever an issue until the Browns left and moved to Baltimore. I was curious to hear Cap's take.

[Awesome Sports Logos]

Seems like the Hornets are getting more publicity off the court with this potential change rather than their on the court play. I'll give them credit for this. At least the team name Pelicans goes back to a few basics of what sports logos are supposed to be about and that's some kind of local trademark. Whether the logo itself comes out good or bad, at least it has some kind of meaning in the New Orleans area. Personally, I think they should have gone with the New Orleans Curse. With the success locally of the New Orleans Voodoo logo and the popularity and history of Voodoo in this city, I think the Curse is a perfect fit. Here's our Curse logo with a Voodoo doll going up for a dunk with pins sticking out. I love the colors of this logo. In my opinion, Pelicans is a step in the right direction and hopefully logos will go back to regional meaning but we wish they would have chosen the Curse.

[IceCap]

That notion came about because of the Cleveland Deal. And like most everything about the Cleveland Deal I find it dishonest, an example of mental gymnastics done to try and justify the NFL's revised version of history.

I thought we were going to stop derailing the thread...like 2 pages ago. No?

Well derailment is a strong word

We know the Hornets will become the Pelicans, and that they'll change their colour scheme to red, blue, and gold. We know that this technically leaves the Hornets identity open for the Bobcats to use, and that the Bobcats' owner has said that he'll consider it. Until a New Orleans Pelicans uniform or logo set is released or leaked, or until the Bobcats announce what they plan on doing one way or another, there's not much to talk about in this thread. I mean how many times can we look at those old Denver Nuggets uniforms?

Now I have tried to keep the discussion a bit less wordy, but in my defence I was replying to something you said

Plus I think the discussion of "team" vs "franchise" is an interesting one at the very least. I am, though, more or less willing to call it quits. What more can be said that hasn't been said, right?

[lancealot]

the difference between the Cleveland/baltimore situation and the and the new Orleans/charollett one is, when the browns left they left the name. when the hornets left they took the name and have used that name since. renaming the bobcats once the hornets name is no longer in use for the nostalgia is silly because the badness of the current team will just tarnish the bobcats name.

[TheOldRoman]

Goth, I find myself agreeing with you more often then not, but I find the "team not franchise" argument to be an exercise in splitting hairs. And just look at the last couple of pages. I know how to split hairs

Sorry, I don't see a distinction. The entity that was the Cleveland Browns left for Baltimore. The current Browns were established in 1999. Those two statements are facts. Not my opinions. Therefore to pretend that the 1946-1996 Browns and the 1999-present Browns are the same team is, well, make-believe. Regardless of what the NFL's official history says.

Now of course someone will say "well the NFL says it, therefore as far as the NFL's concerned that's what happened so they are the same team!" To which I'd reply, "textbook case of historical revisionism." An entity's version of history isn't true just because they say it is. A historical claim has to be measured against the historical record. The facts, the events that happened, simply don't line up with the NFL's version of events.

Here's the thing - why does it matter? As I posed before, had the Browns moved away and then came back three years later, would it still "not be the real Browns?" What if they moved back in 1999 as Baltimore got an expansion team named the Ravens? What does lineage matter? It's not like one family owned the Browns since their inception and now own the Ravens to this day. All that's left from the 1995 Browns is the Ravens' GM Ozzie Newsome. They never operated a day as the Baltimore Browns. There was a team called the Cleveland Browns in 1995 and there is one today. To me, it's splitting hairs to say that they shouldn't have been called the Browns or aren't the real Browns.

And this is very different from the Hornets/Bobcats situation. The Hornets have operated in another city (technically two others). They have existed for the past ten years in NO, while Charlotte got a new franchise with a different name. I don't think anybody would argue that NOLA should be treated as a expansion team while the Hornets "officially" took a 12 year hiatus. However, the Browns are a different situation. That being said, I still am in favor of the Bobcats being renamed the Hornets. I doesn't matter that it's not the original Hornets. They can be the new Hornets, give recognition to the original Hornets franchise while still not pretending to be the team Larry Johnson played for. The Thashers rightly became the Jets, even though they aren't the original Jets, and our heads didn't explode.

[hjwii]

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

Awww...what's wrong with Seymour?

[bosrs1]

Goth, I find myself agreeing with you more often then not, but I find the "team not franchise" argument to be an exercise in splitting hairs. And just look at the last couple of pages. I know how to split hairs

Sorry, I don't see a distinction. The entity that was the Cleveland Browns left for Baltimore. The current Browns were established in 1999. Those two statements are facts. Not my opinions. Therefore to pretend that the 1946-1996 Browns and the 1999-present Browns are the same team is, well, make-believe. Regardless of what the NFL's official history says.

Now of course someone will say "well the NFL says it, therefore as far as the NFL's concerned that's what happened so they are the same team!" To which I'd reply, "textbook case of historical revisionism." An entity's version of history isn't true just because they say it is. A historical claim has to be measured against the historical record. The facts, the events that happened, simply don't line up with the NFL's version of events.

Here's the thing - why does it matter? As I posed before, had the Browns moved away and then came back three years later, would it still "not be the real Browns?" What if they moved back in 1999 as Baltimore got an expansion team named the Ravens? What does lineage matter? It's not like one family owned the Browns since their inception and now own the Ravens to this day. All that's left from the 1995 Browns is the Ravens' GM Ozzie Newsome. They never operated a day as the Baltimore Browns. There was a team called the Cleveland Browns in 1995 and there is one today. To me, it's splitting hairs to say that they shouldn't have been called the Browns or aren't the real Browns.

And this is very different from the Hornets/Bobcats situation. The Hornets have operated in another city (technically two others). They have existed for the past ten years in NO, while Charlotte got a new franchise with a different name. I don't think anybody would argue that NOLA should be treated as a expansion team while the Hornets "officially" took a 12 year hiatus. However, the Browns are a different situation. That being said, I still am in favor of the Bobcats being renamed the Hornets. I doesn't matter that it's not the original Hornets. They can be the new Hornets, give recognition to the original Hornets franchise while still not pretending to be the team Larry Johnson played for. The Thashers rightly became the Jets, even though they aren't the original Jets, and our heads didn't explode.

Don't know why anyone is worried about a Browns situation anyway. If the Bobcats do rename to Hornets once NOLA gives up the name, it won't be a Browns situation they're looking to replicate. They're not going to be taking the ten years of Hornets history that NOLA made. Rather they'd be looking to do a Thrashers/Jets type rename. Where an existing franchise is given the name of a previously existing franchise. The only difference between this and the Thrashers/Jets/Coyotes thing is that the name change is happening independent of any concurrent team moves. But its effect on the team histories is the same (ie: it won't have any effect on the team histories).

To have a Browns situation you need a very specific set of events, ie: a team moves and leaves the history/name/colors/etc... when they move. And you need an expansion team either announced or alluded to when the move happens or shortly thereafter. We've only had that happen twice in top level pro sports in the US so far. The Browns, and the San Jose Earthquakes in MLS. In both cases the league and departing team made it clear before the next season that they'd left the name/colors/history behind and the league made it clear that the cities would get an expansion team in the coming seasons (which happened in both cases). A Browns situation has never been done when it wasn't pre planned and has never happened when the team taking up the history wasn't and expansion team and had a history of their own. For the Bobcats to have taken the Hornets history it would have needed to have been planned over a decade ago, that ship has sailed. But a Jets type rename is quite doable and has no real impact on the team continuities. And it makes the team far more appealing to the fans of Charlotte. It's a win-win.