Charlotte Hornets coming back now?

[Wilt]

In my opinion this is just a drawback of the American Pro League system. A team cannot legally go on hiatus and rebuild itself in a lower league. Moreover, another club can't just join the pro league by simply moving from a lower one (excluding MLS but they are still in the growing phase). Expansions seem not to be welcome as well because a reasonable limit of teams has already been reached. So the easiest way to get into the league is to buy a franchise on sale and relocate it. Some teams gets erased but we have to accept that this is business after all.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

Beautiful.

[GFB]

Hugo needs to burn.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I sure hope they do change back. I think the NBA is now realizing how horrible it has been to allow all this movement and loss of a connection between a city and its team.

You're overlooking the fact that Sacramento could potentially be losing a team..

Correct but what I meant was I think the NBA is realizing that team names that are near and dear to a city should not be moved. In the Sacramento case, if the sales goes through, the Kings name should not follow the team up to Seattle but rather be on hiatus until Sacramento gets another team.

Sooo...forever? BRILLIANT!

What's with the sarcasm? Not trying to make it personal, but you and IceCap seem to be the most offended by the idea we all agree team histories stay with the cities they were recorded in. I get that it requires we all agree to a little goofiness, but so what? It keeps the people in cities affected by these team moves happy, while only hurting those that want a clean historic record.

I understand why it'd be more legitimate, to trace a team lineage from Rochester to Omaha to Kansas City to Cincinnati to Sacramento to Seattle, but I think that's as dumb as perhaps others think it is to accept Sonics = Sonics, whys and wherefores be damned.

And, on a more functional level, I never took you for an NBA fan, I wonder if there's a disconnect there if you're less familiar with the sport. Yes, the Kings are part of the NBA's history. But really only kind of. They've generally always been a "just-there" franchise, with the exception of a couple of good years last decade. Carrying a banner for the Kings (or Bobcats) for the sake of the historical record overlooks that sports are supposed to be a fun diversion.

I'm not naive enough to overlook that sports franchises are businesses, but they also only really work because they're franchises attached to specific locations. There are so many of us that like our teams based on where we grew up or where we live. When thinking about the historical lineage of sports franchises, I think you have the balance the handful of generally old white guys that own them versus the hundreds of thousands of people that root for them.

[kajeet]

Beautiful.

Not to sound stupid but what's the significance of the crown?

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

Charlotte = 'Queen City'

[rmackman]

This would be fun to see again....

[McCall]

I sure hope they do change back. I think the NBA is now realizing how horrible it has been to allow all this movement and loss of a connection between a city and its team.

You're overlooking the fact that Sacramento could potentially be losing a team..

Correct but what I meant was I think the NBA is realizing that team names that are near and dear to a city should not be moved. In the Sacramento case, if the sales goes through, the Kings name should not follow the team up to Seattle but rather be on hiatus until Sacramento gets another team.

Sooo...forever? BRILLIANT!

What's with the sarcasm? Not trying to make it personal, but you and IceCap seem to be the most offended by the idea we all agree team histories stay with the cities they were recorded in. I get that it requires we all agree to a little goofiness, but so what? It keeps the people in cities affected by these team moves happy, while only hurting those that want a clean historic record.

I understand why it'd be more legitimate, to trace a team lineage from Rochester to Omaha to Kansas City to Cincinnati to Sacramento to Seattle, but I think that's as dumb as perhaps others think it is to accept Sonics = Sonics, whys and wherefores be damned.

And, on a more functional level, I never took you for an NBA fan, I wonder if there's a disconnect there if you're less familiar with the sport. Yes, the Kings are part of the NBA's history. But really only kind of. They've generally always been a "just-there" franchise, with the exception of a couple of good years last decade. Carrying a banner for the Kings (or Bobcats) for the sake of the historical record overlooks that sports are supposed to be a fun diversion.

I'm not naive enough to overlook that sports franchises are businesses, but they also only really work because they're franchises attached to specific locations. There are so many of us that like our teams based on where we grew up or where we live. When thinking about the historical lineage of sports franchises, I think you have the balance the handful of generally old white guys that own them versus the hundreds of thousands of people that root for them.

Holy Mother of G-d... A DGNow post I agree with word-for-word. What the magic of sports can do.

[jstraper]

If "Bringing Back the Buzz" is such an important movement, then I'd much, MUCH rather the team just call themselves the Charlotte Buzz. Fair compromise of old and new -- they can have their old logo if they really, really want, but it at least avoids the "we're the same team and have the same history as the 1988-2002 crew that skipped town".

Or for that matter, go the WNBA route -- Charlotte Sting or Charlotte Monarchs.

[The_Admiral]

I wouldn't besmirch the Hornets name with the Bobcats franchise.

[illwauk]

Here's what I don't understand, though. What is so special about the Hornets? They were not around that long. They did not have the success of the Magic or Heat (more success than the T-Wolves but that's by default). I just don't quite understand. Also, if the team remains this dismal, will it really matter? Would the Bobcats really not be embraced if they were, um, adequate? I tend to doubt it.

I think there's something to be said for how they were the first major pro franchise in North Carolina to last longer than five years and the first one in that state from the "Big Four."

Except that the Bobcats are terrible not because of their name but because they're terrible run as a professional basketball organization.

No, they're terrible because of their name, too. While changing the name to the Hornets won't make the team competitive or take Jordan out of power, at least it will be replacing the worst team name in American pro sports with a very good one, and replacing horrible logos, color schemes and uniforms with great ones. The team's going to suck for a good long time, but they might as well look good while doing it.

This. Minor league baseball teams do these types of things all the time... does anyone in Buffalo really care that the current Bisons franchise isn't the same one from the 19th century?

Granted, you could argue that minor league sensibilities shouldn't be part of a major pro sports enterprise like the NBA... but then maybe the NBA should've had the foresight to get rid of scumbag owners like George Shinn to assure they didn't put themselves in a position where it became necessary to adopt such sensibilities in the first place.

[rams80]

And, on a more functional level, I never took you for an NBA fan, I wonder if there's a disconnect there if you're less familiar with the sport. Yes, the Kings are part of the NBA's history. But really only kind of. They've generally always been a "just-there" franchise, with the exception of a couple of good years last decade. Carrying a banner for the Kings (or Bobcats) for the sake of the historical record overlooks that sports are supposed to be a fun diversion.

For me its the fact that as long as there has been an NBA, there has been a "Royal" team. It's been a part of the league as long as the Knicks, Celtics, Lakers, and Pistons, just to name a few. They may have always been "just-there" but because they have always been there is why I'm loathe to let the identity go away for any period of time. I think the league and its history would be legitimately diminished by losing this identity, even if it is to "right another wrong".

[spillpronecanvas]

Brilliant Hugo cleanup. I would love to see this (Red Goat did this right?), but with the ball being grasped better (Hugo's left hand). Orange could be officially part of team colors so it ties in the Bobcats, but I'm partial to Charlotte using the green that was in their pinstripes along with Teal and Purple. Charlotte needs to get this rebrand in motion asap.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

For me its the fact that as long as there has been an NBA, there has been a "Royal" team. It's been a part of the league as long as the Knicks, Celtics, Lakers, and Pistons, just to name a few. They may have always been "just-there" but because they have always been there is why I'm loathe to let the identity go away for any period of time. I think the league and its history would be legitimately diminished by losing this identity, even if it is to "right another wrong".

I think we're on opposite sides of sentimentality versus logic here. And -- I mean this in the best way -- I wonder if you're an NBA fan. Sonics/Hornets are simply a bigger part of the league's history (regardless of time in) than Kings/Bobcats.

[Mr. Bojangles]

As a former Bobcats (or CATS) season ticket holder, I want to see the Hornets name back where it belongs in Charlotte. It should have never left but Shinn took the name and history with them to New Orleans. The Hornets name has historical significance here dating back to Revolutionary War.

This is just righting a wrong that should have never happened. MJ tried to buy the Hornets from Shinn before they left town. BobCat Johnson came in and made some horrendous business decisions that set the franchise back from the get go. I gave them a chance, but once word came out that the Hornets name might become available, I was all for it.

The Bobcats have ruined the Bobcats brand anyways in recent years. They had a unique color with the orange unis, but they barely use it now ,and adopted baby blue like every other NBA team out there. Now they have just Cats on their unis.

Changing the name back wouldn't improve the product on the court but it would be a huge step in the right direction as far as marketing and getting the community behind them. I would probably get my season tickets back.

[IceCap]

I sure hope they do change back. I think the NBA is now realizing how horrible it has been to allow all this movement and loss of a connection between a city and its team.

You're overlooking the fact that Sacramento could potentially be losing a team..

Correct but what I meant was I think the NBA is realizing that team names that are near and dear to a city should not be moved. In the Sacramento case, if the sales goes through, the Kings name should not follow the team up to Seattle but rather be on hiatus until Sacramento gets another team.

Sooo...forever? BRILLIANT!

What's with the sarcasm? Not trying to make it personal, but you and IceCap seem to be the most offended by the idea we all agree team histories stay with the cities they were recorded in.

rams already provided a solid answer. Here's my go-around.

I'm "offended" by it (offended isn't really the right word, but whatever) because it is, at the end of the day, dishonest. It's dishonest to say that Jim Brown played for the current Cleveland Browns. He didn't. No matter what Orwellian practices you employ, the team in Cleveland will not be the team that Brown played for. That team is in Baltimore. It's not an anti-Cleveland sentiment, it's a pro-"hey that's what actually happened" sentiment.

The current Browns began play in 1999. If the fans and team want to honour the previous Browns team, that's fine. Actually re-writing history is, however, a step to far.

I get that it requires we all agree to a little goofiness, but so what? It keeps the people in cities affected by these team moves happy, while only hurting those that want a clean historic record.

Relocation sucks. Yes, sports are a business, but part of the fun is being able to invest emotionally in something that doesn't matter. Still though, emotional investment is emotional investment. I get that it's an unpleasant experience. That being said, it does happen. And I'd like to think we're all emotionally level-headed enough to deal with it when it does happen without playing make-believe and going all Ingsoc on the record books.

I understand why it'd be more legitimate, to trace a team lineage from Rochester to Omaha to Kansas City to Cincinnati to Sacramento to Seattle, but I think that's as dumb as perhaps others think it is to accept Sonics = Sonics, whys and wherefores be damned.

See, I disagree entirely. To me it's entirely legitimate and logical to trace the lineage from Rochester to Cincinnati to Omaha to Kansas City to Sacramento to Seattle (provided the sale actually happens) as being the story of one franchise. What's dumb (to steal a phrase) to me is to say "none of that matters anymore, they have an entirely different history now."

And, on a more functional level, I never took you for an NBA fan, I wonder if there's a disconnect there if you're less familiar with the sport. Yes, the Kings are part of the NBA's history. But really only kind of. They've generally always been a "just-there" franchise, with the exception of a couple of good years last decade. Carrying a banner for the Kings (or Bobcats) for the sake of the historical record overlooks that sports are supposed to be a fun diversion.

Like rams I'm probably not the biggest NBA fan, but honestly it doesn't factor into how I see this. I feel the same away about this sort of franchise lineage swapping nonsense in leagues I follow more closely.

As for the Kings not amounting to much, well I've answered why. History is the story of what happened. Not the story of the big monumental things that happened. Illustrious or not, the Kings history is there, and it ought to be honoured.

Sonics/Hornets are simply a bigger part of the league's history (regardless of time in) than Kings/Bobcats.

I see the Kings as a sort of relic of pro basketball's age of infancy, and I think they're worthy of being preserved because of that.

Now here's an observation. rams80 is a librarian, and I'm a historian. We both have experience with achieving, record keeping, and the sanctity of the historical record. That probably factors into it.

[rams80]

For me its the fact that as long as there has been an NBA, there has been a "Royal" team. It's been a part of the league as long as the Knicks, Celtics, Lakers, and Pistons, just to name a few. They may have always been "just-there" but because they have always been there is why I'm loathe to let the identity go away for any period of time. I think the league and its history would be legitimately diminished by losing this identity, even if it is to "right another wrong".

I think we're on opposite sides of sentimentality versus logic here. And -- I mean this in the best way -- I wonder if you're an NBA fan. Sonics/Hornets are simply a bigger part of the league's history (regardless of time in) than Kings/Bobcats.

Maybe. Maybe not (at least in the case of the former.) If you want an interesting thought exercise, though, there's this. The reason that the Royals/Kings franchise only has one title heavily rests upon the fact that they were in the same division as George Mikan's Lakers. Mikan came to the Lakers through effectively random chance because the NBL team he played for folded and the players were dispersed equally throughout the rest of the NBL. Rochester was also an NBL team at the time and thus had the same chance of landing him that the Lakers did. It would certainly be interesting to speculate how this franchise would be viewed retrospectively if it, and not the Lakers, were the NBA's first dynasty.

Even more interesting, this doesn't necessarily "butterfly" away the Royals' move to Cincinnati and subsequent drafting of Oscar Robertson.

(Note, none of this is relevant to why I feel the way I do, just an interesting exploration into how teams and franchises are remembered and what could prompt those opinions out of others.)

[rams80]

Now here's an observation. rams80 is a librarian, and I'm a historian. We both have experience with achieving, record keeping, and the sanctity of the historical record. That probably factors into it.

Worse than that, I'm an archivist. My entire professional life revolves around maintaining proper chain of custody and provenance. So, yeah, there might be something instinctual there.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I like the sentimentality versus logic argument. Both sides can be right.

[Gothamite]

True enough, except I see the Browns situation as a sentimentality versus logic debate in the other direction.

It seems logical that the franchise itself (the right to operate a specifically-named team in the NFL) might be left behind when an organization relocates. Heck, franchises used to be represented by physical certificates that teams had to be able to produce on demand; when Curly Lambeau was fired from the Packers, there was a momentary panic that he had physical possession of the franchise certificate, without which the team wasn't actually allowed to compete. The only way to make that argument is to appeal to logic over sentimentality.

The arguments I hear in return, especially continuity of personnel - but player x from 1998 played with player y in 1992 who played with player z in 1984! - seem much more emotional to me.

No judgment calls either way, but that's my perception of the two arguments.