Lights Out

Charlotte Hornets?

Recommended Posts

This has to be the best Hornets' concept I've seen yet. By a CCSLCer, Jordan Sain. Just swap out the teal with carolina blue. http://dribbble.com/jordansain

Would like to see them go this route. To merely refresh the old NOLA/ old Cha. Hornets logo would be a disappointing regression and entirely too much recycling. It wasn't that great of a logo to begin with.

rebrand.jpg

That looks amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be super, except for the fact that team relocations NEVER worked that way before Cleveland lost original Browns. Sure teams renaming themselves when they moved happened all the time, but the notion that history should stay with the city, and not the team, is a relatively recent development.

No, it's not recent. At the time, the 1961-1971 Washington Senators were considered a continuation of the 1901-1960 Washington Senators.

No, they were not. Baseball has always been clear on the franchise lineages; the expansion Senators never shared a history with the original Senators, not during their existence and not afterwards.

For example, in 1973 Topps put teams' single-season records on the back of the team picture cards. And, here is how they presented the Twins and the Rangers:

topps1973twinssenatorsl.png

topps1973rangerssenator.png

Two separate franchises, the historically correct way to present it.

Furthermore, when the Twins won the World Series in 1987, it was said on the air as the Series was ending that it was the franchise's first world championship since the Senators' 1924 victory.

Reusing nicknames is fine. But messing with the history is not. The Cleveland Browns' return is forever sullied by the horrible precedent that they set with respect to franchise lineages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cesarano: I agree with everything you say except: "...when the Twins won the World Series in 1987, it was said on the air as the Series was ending that it was the franchise's first world championship since the Senators' 1924 victory." If you refer to the national TV coverge, I am pretty sure it said "and for the first time ever, the Minnesota Twins are world champions." Of course, that is also accurate since he did not use "franchise"...it was the first time they'd won as the Twins.

Speaking of the "second" Senators, I am pretty sure they introduced the "curly W" hat...when "Cooperstown Collection" hats became a thing, I used to see those all over the Twin Cities...I think the wearers thought the hat represented the Twins' roots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe we're having this intense of a debate over a poorly worded tweet.

I don't think it's a poorly-worded tweet. I think it's a poorly conceived tweet; the difference being that it came from the standpoint of not totally thinking through the "franchise" aspect of it all. When this broke several months ago an ESPN article headline actually said "Bobcats considering change back to Hornets"...I guess it shows that us rigid "recognize the history" folks are a small minority.

But the point is not that the tweet was poorly worded, but that it was too lazy to think though "oh wait, they never were the Hornets" and that this is prevalent and lends to what some of us dorks have been referring to as "make believe".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reusing nicknames is fine. But messing with the history is not. The Cleveland Browns' return is forever sullied by the horrible precedent that they set with respect to franchise lineages.

A precedent that has yet to be followed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cesarano: I agree with everything you say except: "...when the Twins won the World Series in 1987, it was said on the air as the Series was ending that it was the franchise's first world championship since the Senators' 1924 victory." If you refer to the national TV coverge, I am pretty sure it said "and for the first time ever, the Minnesota Twins are world champions." Of course, that is also accurate since he did not use "franchise"...it was the first time they'd won as the Twins.

Speaking of the "second" Senators, I am pretty sure they introduced the "curly W" hat...when "Cooperstown Collection" hats became a thing, I used to see those all over the Twin Cities...I think the wearers thought the hat represented the Twins' roots.

Agreed. In a sense, the term franchise is misused and inaccurate from a fans point of view. Franchise is a cold, clinical, business word which refers to ownership, even when that team relocates. Of course, everyone else knows what happens in the original city is exclusive to that city. The Atlanta Braves have one World Title, the Indy Colts one Super Bowl Trophy, and the Oklahoma City Thunder haven't won a NBA title yet. It doesn't matter who technically owns the trophies or what the record books say, the accomplishments, moments, and players only performed for the home fans of that particular city. And unless you were 1% of the fans who had a connection from the original city to the new one, it's just a disconnect with 99% of the fans from the new city.

Put another way, you never hear news about sports put this way: "The New York/San Francisco Giants beat the Philadelphia/KC/Oakland A's 3-2". Nicknames are used because they are shorter, but everyone knows where the home city is, and we are reminded of this constantly in uniforms as well. That said, the accomplishments and memories from the prior cities shouldn't be forgotten, but they should play a secondary role in the current city. It's a matter of perspective, I would hope Washington never builds a Gary Carter or Andre Dawson statue, but save that space for a Bryce Harper(if he becomes a HOF player).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So did the Bobcats muddle up their color scheme and switch to those horrible 'Cats uniforms to make the people of Charlotte hate them even more so they will be even more excited (as if they needed more reason) for when this name change happens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cesarano: I agree with everything you say except: "...when the Twins won the World Series in 1987, it was said on the air as the Series was ending that it was the franchise's first world championship since the Senators' 1924 victory." If you refer to the national TV coverge, I am pretty sure it said "and for the first time ever, the Minnesota Twins are world champions." Of course, that is also accurate since he did not use "franchise"...it was the first time they'd won as the Twins.

I shouldn't have said that as I did, which implied that the Washington thing was said as the last out was being made. I'm sure you're right about the comment you quoted.

I should have said that a reference was made, late in the final game, to the fact that the Twins' victory would be the franchise's first since 1924. The full television broadcast is online; so I can check whether my memory is playing tricks on me. I suppose that it's possible that I heard the comment on the radio broadcast; but I surely heard it somewhere during that game.

In a sense, the term franchise is misused and inaccurate from a fans point of view. Franchise is a cold, clinical, business word which refers to ownership, even when that team relocates.

You couldn't be more wrong. "Franchise" is not a cold, clinical word that refers to ownership; it's a profound, meaningful word that refers to the continuous entity, regardless of owner. The Baltimore Colts and L.A. Rams once swapped owners; but the franchises stayed in place.

Watch this clip from the 1972 World Series, which has the opening of the NBC telecast and the player intros from Game 1 at Oakland.:

Check out what happens at 11:10 -- Lefty Grove throws out the first ball. Grove is introduced with a reference to 1931, which, as the stadium announcer says, is the last year before 1972 that the A's were in the World Series.

It's not that the fans in the old city stop caring about the championships won there. The Milwaukee Braves' championship is part of Milwaukee history. But it's part of Braves franchise history also; and the historically-minded fans of the Atlanta Braves are as interested in the Milwaukee Braves of the late 1950s as I, as a kid in the 1970s, was in the Murderers' Row Yankees, who were part of my team's history from before I was born.

Franchise continuity is real; it's part of the emotional connection that a fan has to his/her team. If you're a fan of a team, you identify with its entire history. Up until the expansion Browns' crime against history, this was obvious. So much so that, as mentioned, even the expansion Senators, who shared the same nickname, never thought to claim the records of the original Senators.

Reusing nicknames is fine. But messing with the history is not. The Cleveland Browns' return is forever sullied by the horrible precedent that they set with respect to franchise lineages.

A precedent that has yet to be followed.

It has been followed, by the expansion San Jose Earthquakes of MLS, who adopted the history of the original Earthquakes after the original team moved to Houston to become the Dynamo.

And it would have been followed if the Sacramento Kings had moved to Seattle. There will surely be more examples.

It's sad that there is even a debate about this. The only reason that some people now think it's OK to disregard the facts is because of the expansion Browns' act of spitting in the eye of history. The NFL and the Browns have left a toxic mess in their wake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe we're having this intense of a debate over a poorly worded tweet.

I don't think it's a poorly-worded tweet. I think it's a poorly conceived tweet...

Okay, now we've jumped the sharknado.

If the Cubs move to Rosemont, I'd still be a Cubs fan. If the Cubs moved to Vegas, I'd still be a Cubs fan.

When the Cowboys moved from Irving to Arlington, did all of those championships stay in Irving? Is that who they really belong to? At what distance does it no longer count, if the Philly-KC-Oakland-San Jose A's, Boston-Milwaukee-Atlanta Braves, Brooklyn-LA Dodgers and NY-San Francisco Giants can manage? That pretty much covers the whole country.

The Bobcats can be the new Hornets, but they can't be the old Hornets. As long as the NBA keeps that clear... no big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bobcats can be the new Hornets, but they can't be the old Hornets. As long as the NBA keeps that clear... no big deal.

And everybody agrees with that. For Charlotteans (?) though, this is going back to the Hornets, for the Bobcats franchise it's not.

I think Icecap's contention is that the media keeps describing this as a return to the Hornets for the Bobcats franchise when it isn't. Mostly I think that's just them saying one thing when they really mean another and people shouldn't read too much into it.

They're not going to get the "Cleveland deal", but the new Hornets will probably host old Hornets greats, show highlights of old Hornets moments, etc. I don't see the harm in that as long as the record books maintain the difference in franchise lineage and I'm sure they will. The one year buffer in between New Orleans and Charlotte will help further separate the two franchises histories from one another.

Now whether or not the management running the team is competent enough to make the most of this name change and put a good team on the court (they probably aren't) is irrelevant. You have to give them credit for at least this one smart business decision. The Bobcats brand never landed with the community (and is a dumb name with a bad logo and colors that are already in use by a more prestigious team). The Hornets brand did. To continue to operate under a name and look that has never been embraced while the name that was beloved by the community is available would be foolish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MJ's brother is director of player personnel. That's all you really need to know about how their FO works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, I don't understand the opposition who's opposed to this name change strictly because it makes for messy history. It's worked fine with the Jets-Coyotes-Thrashers-Jets.

And I don't understand the difference between a line in the history books that says, "Charlotte Hornets moved to New Orleans and became the New Orleans Hornets in 2002. In 2004 Charlotte was granted a new franchise, the Bobcats. In 2013 the New Orleans Hornets renamed themselves the New Orleans Pelicans. In 2014 the Charlotte Bobcats renamed themselves the Charlotte Hornets"

versus

"Charlotte Hornets moved to New Orleans and became the New Orleans Hornets in 2002. In 2004 Charlotte was granted a new franchise, the Bobcats. In 2013 the New Orleans Hornets renamed themselves the New Orleans Pelicans."

It's one extra line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bobcats can be the new Hornets, but they can't be the old Hornets. As long as the NBA keeps that clear... no big deal.

And everybody agrees with that. For Charlotteans (?) though, this is going back to the Hornets, for the Bobcats franchise it's not.

I think Icecap's contention is that the media keeps describing this as a return to the Hornets for the Bobcats franchise when it isn't. Mostly I think that's just them saying one thing when they really mean another and people shouldn't read too much into it.

They're not going to get the "Cleveland deal", but the new Hornets will probably host old Hornets greats, show highlights of old Hornets moments, etc. I don't see the harm in that as long as the record books maintain the difference in franchise lineage and I'm sure they will. The one year buffer in between New Orleans and Charlotte will help further separate the two franchises histories from one another.

Now whether or not the management running the team is competent enough to make the most of this name change and put a good team on the court (they probably aren't) is irrelevant. You have to give them credit for at least this one smart business decision. The Bobcats brand never landed with the community (and is a dumb name with a bad logo and colors that are already in use by a more prestigious team). The Hornets brand did. To continue to operate under a name and look that has never been embraced while the name that was beloved by the community is available would be foolish.

Agree with this, and the fact Charlotte is not an old NBA city plays a role in this move. This case is a great example of what I was talking about before in terms of the memories staying with a community, and in this case, a nickname as well. I think we must also look at the relocation issue in terms of the vast majority of fans in a particular region, or have a strong connection from the past as opposed to the causal fan. No doubt, a small number of Braves fans can look at the old video, mementos, and records, and try to identify and learn with what happened in Milwaukee. But that was nearly 50 years ago, so there can't be any emotional connection, barring the few Milwaukee linked fans from that era who relocated in the 1960s. Hank Aaron was the major crossover star, but Atlanta only experienced a fading Eddie Matthews, and the great Warren Spahn never pitched a day in Atlanta.

It's always nice when teams honor the past, like when Lefty Grove threw out that first pitch in that World Series game. Teams like these events, call it "Tradition for Tradition's Sake" if you will. But even back in the 70s, the Oakland fans applauding Grove were being more polite than anything else. His career ended decades earlier in another city, and that makes a huge difference. The emotional connection was made by those Philadelphia A's fans, and there was a reduced number of those fans even in the 70s.

As I mentioned before, it's not like the accomplishments in old cities don't count, and fans are definitely free to continue following a club no matter where they reside. Yes, under the technical, formal, definition of a franchise, these events are bunched together in terms of convenience. But the bond between a city and a sports team is always cemented with the events which happen while that team is playing in that city/region. The Braves didn't begin in 1966, the Atlanta Braves were born on that date. So the new city/fans just can't claim what happened in the old city any more than the previous city/fans could claim what happened in the new city. Sports is also generational activity, and even with a number of New York Giants fans living in the west coast back when they relocated, today's San Francisco fans have little recollection of those days. Not because they aren't good fans, but that was so long ago, and the New York Giants died when they moved and created a new set of memories in their new city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All relocations should be treated as if it were a contraction/expansion situation but with the same players/FO/etc. All the past accomplishments of Team A go into the history books and Team B starts a new chapter.

But it's never going to happen that way, so I don't know why we keep arguing about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't all that relevant to the latest iteration of this discussion, but I thought I'd post a comparison of the original Hornets primary logo against the last version of the New Orleans Hornets primary logo:

CharlotteHornets_PMK0101a_2002_SCC_SRGB.png

NewOrleansHornets_PMK0101a_2009_SCC_SRGB.png

I just think it's interesting to see the changes side-by-side...I'll bet a lot of you weren't aware how much that primary color changed as well (Teal to Creole Blue)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't all that relevant to the latest iteration of this discussion, but I thought I'd post a comparison of the original Hornets primary logo against the last version of the New Orleans Hornets primary logo:

CharlotteHornets_PMK0101a_2002_SCC_SRGB.png

NewOrleansHornets_PMK0101a_2009_SCC_SRGB.png

I just think it's interesting to see the changes side-by-side...I'll bet a lot of you weren't aware how much that primary color changed as well (Teal to Creole Blue)...

I'd still like to see the purple and teal used, but brighten up the teal a bit like the concept posted above. That shade of original teal was rather dull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't all that relevant to the latest iteration of this discussion, but I thought I'd post a comparison of the original Hornets primary logo against the last version of the New Orleans Hornets primary logo:

CharlotteHornets_PMK0101a_2002_SCC_SRGB.png

NewOrleansHornets_PMK0101a_2009_SCC_SRGB.png

I just think it's interesting to see the changes side-by-side...I'll bet a lot of you weren't aware how much that primary color changed as well (Teal to Creole Blue)...

I'd still like to see the purple and teal used, but brighten up the teal a bit like the concept posted above. That shade of original teal was rather dull.

Maybe so, but teal itself sure is more interesting. How does Creole blue compare to Carolina blue? It sure seems kind of similar; there's a decision to be made between Carolina blue has continuity with the Bobcats (for whatever continuity with a non-entity of a brand is worth), local relevance to the state and Jordan, and maybe even some false continuity with the former New Orleans Hornets' creole blue. Teal seems more interesting and has more continuity with the old Charlotte Hornets; I'd go with teal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. In a sense, the term franchise is misused and inaccurate from a fans point of view. Franchise is a cold, clinical, business word which refers to ownership, even when that team relocates. Of course, everyone else knows what happens in the original city is exclusive to that city. The Atlanta Braves have one World Title, the Indy Colts one Super Bowl Trophy, and the Oklahoma City Thunder haven't won a NBA title yet. It doesn't matter who technically owns the trophies or what the record books say, the accomplishments, moments, and players only performed for the home fans of that particular city. And unless you were 1% of the fans who had a connection from the original city to the new one, it's just a disconnect with 99% of the fans from the new city.

Don't tell Lakers' fans that. But to be fair, maybe the Lakers handle that properly with one token Minneapolis banner. And I don't entirely agree with the idea; LA Dodgers honoring Jackie Robinson makes more sense than, say, the Mets. I would consider the Dodgers and Giants (and maybe even Lakers) as somewhat different cases, being inevitable westward expansion rather than willy-nilly moneygrabs that should be blocked (and in an official and literal sense was blocked in the Browns/Ravens case. Which is what makes that situation unprecedented, unrepeated, and a relatively poor comparison in this topic.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.