Lights Out

Charlotte Hornets?

Recommended Posts

I would compare this to the Bucks most recent re-brand. Bringing back the green and red worn by Kareem, Oscar, and all the great teams from the 70s and 80s reinvigorated the fanbase temporarily; and it sure seemed like you couldn't go anywhere in Milwaukee without seeing the new Bucks gear for a good 6 months or so. But once reality set in that this was still the same, crappy post-Ray Allen team that has to scrap and claw its way for even a CHANCE at the 8-seed every year, the city went straight back to not caring.

They had that one good year where they finished 4th or 5th with Jennings being all over the court and Skiles coaching hard, but then Skiles burned out like he always does.

EDIT: "that one good year" was only three years ago. What poor phrasing. Why didn't I just say "2010"?

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.)

I agree with you. I can't speak for baseball but Lakers were the most succesful team in the league upon moving. Thus there was no reason to cut the ties by changing the team name. Even though the financial situation and the poor performance in the final Minneapolis season strongly contibuted to the move, the Hollywood couldn't get any luckier. Moreover, George Mikan has been always acknowledged by the franchise. Warriors were similar to a lower extent: 2 championships and Wilt on the roster.

The recent moves (apart from the Sonics) involved teams without much history so it appears that the fans do not care much about their previous history.

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.)

I agree with you. I can't speak for baseball but Lakers were the most succesful team in the league upon moving. Thus there was no reason to cut the ties by changing the team name. Even though the financial situation and the poor performance in the final Minneapolis season strongly contibuted to the move, the Hollywood couldn't get any luckier. Moreover, George Mikan has been always acknowledged by the franchise. Warriors were similar to a lower extent: 2 championships and Wilt on the roster.

The recent moves (apart from the Sonics) involved teams without much history so it appears that the fans do not care much about their previous history.

The Lakers are a different situation since the NBA was struggling at the time, and the Lakers had the championship history. With the popularity of baseball, there's no doubt the Giants and Dodgers should have changed names, perhaps borrowing the Pacific Coast League nicknames. MLB was destined to succeed on the west coast anyway due to the large population base. In terms of Jackie Robinson, it points out the pain of relocation. Obviously, Brooklyn lost their team, and it doesn't feel right for the Mets to be honoring a player who never played for them. In this specific case, the current version of the Dodgers are clearly doing the right thing, even if Robinson didn't play in LA as like some of his teammates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying a team's history belongs to a city completely disregards fans outside of that city -- and perhaps some in the city -- who continued to follow the team when it left. If an Oilers fan stuck with the Oilers/Titans upon the move to Tennessee, should that history be ripped from his fandom because an expansion team showed up and the Oilers name was available?

IMO, being more parochial about it in the Sunday Ticket era of watch-your-team-anywhere seems more shortsighted and disingenuous than ever. Nicknames are one thing. History is another. Okay, I'm done now.

I like the original Hornets teal and purple better. But anything close (like the last N.O. combo) will give off the right vibe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With the popularity of baseball, there's no doubt the Giants and Dodgers should have changed names, perhaps borrowing the Pacific Coast League nicknames. MLB was destined to succeed on the west coast anyway due to the large population base. In terms of Jackie Robinson, it points out the pain of relocation.

I disagree with that. Changing the name partially erases the memory of the old location...I think the fact that LA is called the Dodgers helps keep the memory of the Brooklyn Dodgers alive more than it would be if they had changed nicknames.

I think the best example is the Cincinnati Royals and Oscar Robertson. I think the Big O's legacy suffers a bit as he's not well associated with a current team (other than his Bucks years.) He really doesn't seem like part of Sacramento Kings history in the way that Mikan is a part of L.A. Lakers history or, say, Deacon Jones is a part of St. Louis Rams history. Or even the way Tiny Archibald is part of Sacramento Kings history. (Jackie Robinson and the Dodgers are bit too high profile to be a good comparison).

The Cincinnati and Rochester Royals feel like they're in the dustbin of history, moreso than franchises that retained names upon moving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

....

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.

You say "franchise" is a meaningful word, but why are you disregarding the fact that the NFL placed the Cleveland Browns franchise on hiatus and 1995, and created the Baltimore Ravens franchise, with a swap of owners just like you described? You may not like the way it, and the hiatus makes it sloppy, but the NFL is the one who decides how it records its history and manages its franchises. Modell was the one spitting in history's eye, trying to move an iconic franchise in a viable market with rabid fan support, just because of his own business incompetence. If every team with a bad owner were able to do that, we might have complete turnover of team identities every few decades...we could tell our grandkids how the Indianapolis Dragons used to be the New York Yankees and won a lot of championships - but it would be great because it was 'honest', right?

Seattle never retained the franchise identity like Cleveland did, only a 'shared history'. If the Kings moved there it would have been closer to a Thrashers/Jets deal. If Cleveland had gotten the Colts it wouldn't have worked either. As for the San Jose Earthquakes, I guess they did have the same situation, but I wouldn't consider MLS a major league. I would still consider the deal unprecedented in major league sports, and relatively unlikely to be repeated since it can only be done prospectively; it basically requires a promise of an expansion team at the time of the original move.

As scared as everyone acts, a Thrashers/Jets Kings/Sonics replacement could never be a Cleveland deal because it would require retroactive fiddling with franchise histories. PROspective fiddling with franchise histories, to save a historic franchise from a villain like Modell? That's the NFL's prerogative and I am grateful for what they did. Seattle deserved the same, but it's too late now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the last thing I'm going to say about the history nonsense (since this is supposed to be a thread about logos and branding).

Sonics fans don't follow the Thunder. Thunder fans don't give a rip about the Sonics' history.

Sports are supposed to be a matter of civic pride. I'm a Seattle fan, not a fan of the "franchise." I root for a team because it has SEATTLE across its chest. Even if they were the Oklahoma City Sonics, I wouldn't root for them, and I'd be even more disgusted to see them somewhere else. I still root for KD, but I root against the Thunder. This notion that people will still root for a team in a different city is curious to me, but maybe I'm the weird one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With the popularity of baseball, there's no doubt the Giants and Dodgers should have changed names, perhaps borrowing the Pacific Coast League nicknames. MLB was destined to succeed on the west coast anyway due to the large population base. In terms of Jackie Robinson, it points out the pain of relocation.

I disagree with that. Changing the name partially erases the memory of the old location...I think the fact that LA is called the Dodgers helps keep the memory of the Brooklyn Dodgers alive more than it would be if they had changed nicknames.

I think the best example is the Cincinnati Royals and Oscar Robertson. I think the Big O's legacy suffers a bit as he's not well associated with a current team (other than his Bucks years.) He really doesn't seem like part of Sacramento Kings history in the way that Mikan is a part of L.A. Lakers history or, say, Deacon Jones is a part of St. Louis Rams history. Or even the way Tiny Archibald is part of Sacramento Kings history. (Jackie Robinson and the Dodgers are bit too high profile to be a good comparison).

The Cincinnati and Rochester Royals feel like they're in the dustbin of history, moreso than franchises that retained names upon moving.

I totally agree with this (though disagree on what I wish had happened to the Browns in your next post).

For the Giants/Dodgers, one of those teams becomes forgotten forever (presuming the NY Mets would currently carry one of their names). Duke Snider was a Dodger and Christy Mathewson was a Giant...and they are both still tied in with those teams/franchises more than say Walter Johnson with the Twins, since they changed the name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sports are supposed to be a matter of civic pride.

And there's the fallacy in your argument. Well aside from the "history is nonsense" part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sports are supposed to be a matter of civic pride.

And there's the fallacy in your argument. Well aside from the "history is nonsense" part.

tumblr_mgc3xpp2NF1s15sl9o1_400.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sports are supposed to be a matter of civic pride.

Who says that sports are "supposed to be" about civic pride? Civic pride is only one reason to support a team; there are many others.

When I was a kid in the 1970s, the football fans in my school were divided between Viking fans, Raider fans, Steeler fans, and Cowboy fans. There were no Giant fans or Jet fans. You can call this glory-hunting or bandwagon-jumping if you like. But, in my experience, these guys tended to stay fans of their teams even when the teams were experiencing down years.

However, I certainly understand the pull of civic pride, having been a Yankee fan as a kid. And, when I learned that the Giants had been in New York, and that they had a grand history that dated back to the 19th Century, they became my team in the National League.

Yet other factors also influenced my emotional attachment to other teams. I became attached to the A's because of their mustaches, their uniforms, and their cantankerous image; and later to the Blue Jays because of their logo and colours.

And, after I retired as a baseball fan and discovered English football, I fell in love with Chelsea because of Jose Mourinho.

The point is that, in an era when we experience the large majority of our games through television, a person's emotional attachment to a team can form for any number of reasons (frequent exposure, favourite player, favourite coach, cool uniforms, identification with the team's image, etc.), not only for reasons of civic pride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so...umm..yea...the hornets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sports are supposed to be a matter of civic pride.

And there's the fallacy in your argument. Well aside from the "history is nonsense" part.

tumblr_mgc3xpp2NF1s15sl9o1_400.gif

Hey, I'm a Chargers fan and I'm not from San Diego. I've never actually lived in the city of Toronto (or Hamilton) either. Post as many funny .gif's you want, you can't square that with your "civic pride" take.

And for the other side of that coin I know illiwauk really does love Millwaukee, but he can't seem to wait until the Bucks leave.

Sure, civic pride feeds into sports fandom, but so do a lot of other factors that may not have any relation to the city in which the team plays. Sports are supposed to be a matter of civic pride? Not at all.

so...umm..yea...the hornets

All we have so far is an announcement that they're going to change their name to the Hornets the season after next and a BuzzCity campaign that's pushing a Carolina blue and purple colour scheme. There's no harm going off topic until something else both newsworthy and on topic is announced or leaked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sports are supposed to be a matter of civic pride.

And there's the fallacy in your argument. Well aside from the "history is nonsense" part.

tumblr_mgc3xpp2NF1s15sl9o1_400.gif

Hey, I'm a Chargers fan and I'm not from San Diego. I've never actually lived in the city of Toronto (or Hamilton) either. Post as many funny .gif's you want, you can't square that with your "civic pride" take.

And for the other side of that coin I know illiwauk really does love Millwaukee, but he can't seem to wait until the Bucks leave.

Sure, civic pride feeds into sports fandom, but so do a lot of other factors that may not have any relation to the city in which the team plays. Sports are supposed to be a matter of civic pride? Not at all.

so...umm..yea...the hornets

All we have so far is an announcement that they're going to change their name to the Hornets the season after next and a BuzzCity campaign that's pushing a Carolina blue and purple colour scheme. There's no harm going off topic until something else both newsworthy and on topic is announced or leaked.

I don;t see carolina blue and purple looking good together. It's gotta be teal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some thoughts...

  • The NOLA Hornets logo, colours and uniforms are vastly superior to Charlotte's (gotta throw some aesthetics talk in here)
  • Sentimentality does not mean you can rewrite history. Imagine trying to use that as an excuse to rewrite non-sports history.
  • I've used this analogy before, but I like it, so I'll use it again. Let's say the name change system is back up. McCall changes his name to Makaio (I use him because I'm looking at his post right now). However, some members are nostalgic for McCall. So I change my name to McCall. Heck, I'll even dress myself up like him via my sig and avatar. I'll have the same name, look the same, and be supported by people's nostalgia. Should I get to claim his 8 000 posts, 200 likes, friends, and PotD ribbon? Of course not. He may operate under a different name and he may look different, but he's still the same member.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully Jordan will lose his input to the colors in a poker game; cuz I don't know if I see him giving up on Carolina blue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • I've used this analogy before, but I like it, so I'll use it again. Let's say the name change system is back up. McCall changes his name to Makaio (I use him because I'm looking at his post right now). However, some members are nostalgic for McCall. So I change my name to McCall. Heck, I'll even dress myself up like him via my sig and avatar. I'll have the same name, look the same, and be supported by people's nostalgia. Should I get to claim his 8 000 posts, 200 likes, friends, and PotD ribbon? Of course not. He may operate under a different name and he may look different, but he's still the same member.

:huh:

I'm definitely gonna make sure my doors are locked tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully Jordan will lose his input to the colors in a poker game; cuz I don't know if I see him giving up on Carolina blue.

Interestingly, the "Buzz City" website was purple and light blue up until a few days ago. Now, it's just purple. No light blue anymore.

Share this post


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