Charlotte Hornets coming back now?

[McCall]

The argument has basically comedown to they're right and we're wrong when in actuality it's what's technically/official and what we view the situation is as fans. Neither is wrong.

[IceCap]

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.

Sorry Goth, I don't buy it. Teams, the vast, vast majority of them at least, that moved took their history with them. Even if they changed their name upon relocating it was generally accepted by everyone that the team's history in the old location still belonged to them. The New Jersey Devils never go out of their way to honour their past as the Kansas City Scouts or the Colorado Rockies, but those two teams' records and histories are officially recognized as belonging to the Devils in the official record books.

The idea that the organization and the franchise were distinct was only really brought up to justify the Orwellification of the record books once the original Browns bolted for Baltimore. It was, as I see it, something cooked up to justify their compromise. And that compromise, that the Browns' identity and history remain in Cleveland, was born purely out of an emotional attachment, not a logical argument.

On the other hand the idea that you can trace the lineage of a franchise through who played on the same team with who through the years, ie "continuity of personnel," is entirely logical to me, and not an emotional argument in the slightest.

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

There's certainly a compromise. The Kings becoming the Sonics wouldn't be so bad if they followed the Winnipeg Jets 2.0 model. They'll be the Sonics and dress like the Sonics, but all of their records reflect the fact that they're the Royals/Kings while the original Sonics' records remain in Oklahoma City. The Sonics 2.0 can honour the original team and their accomplishments, but they don't pretend to be a continuation of that team.

I think something like that, a Cleveland Deal without rewriting the history books, is the best all-around compromise.

[OnWis97]

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.

I take it personally; I feel I've done enough whining to be on your "offended" list.

I am also neither a historian or a librarian, though I do have OCD.

Anyhow, I fail to see how the importance (or lack thereof) of the the Kings is relevant. Whether this was the Celtics or the Kings, the issue is not "maintaining the importance of a model franchise" but recognizing and staying true to the history of what has occurred. And while the emotions would be more stirred up if it was the Celtics; history remains equal important regardless. I think we've hit a point where this argument won't be productive, but I'll throw this in...

I am very thankful that the NFL did not do "Cleveland Browns" deals from way back. The Rams (and all their history) would be dead (for now with a lie coming sometime in the future), We'd have "expansion" Titans, "hiatus" Oilers, "expansion" (Indianapolis), "hiatus" Colts. "Hiatus" Chicago Cardinals...waiting for a second team to come. The Arizona Cacti. And St. Louis would be a mess. They'd have some name from the Cardinals move (when the league "expanded" to St. Louis), and they'd currently be playing after a "hiatus" and in jeopardy of going on another "hiatus". It would be a mess, impossible to follow the true history and oozing with intellectual dishonesty. But at least if a second team ever came to Chicago, they could have their Cardinals back!

Actually, the Cardinals are probably the most analogous NFL team to the NBA's Royals/Kings. Long-time franchise. Some moves. Almost no success. I find it fun to tell fans that were unaware that it's one of the oldest franchises in the league. That it dates back not only to St. Louis, but Chicago too. So it's not only more "true", but also more interesting than "expansion team in the late 1980s."