Lights Out

Charlotte Hornets?

Recommended Posts

Do those of you who don't want cities to keep their history honestly believe that Tom Benson and New Orleans have more to do with the Charlotte Hornets than the city of Charlotte does? Really?

Yup. The major league sports cabal has been about the owner rather than the spectator for over a hundred years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never for one second believed anything other than this: that the name change to "Pelicans" was done primarily for the purpose of changing the Charlotte franchise's name to the Hornets.

Next, the NBA has to give Charlotte the Hornets history. We will have

CHARLOTTE

  • Hornets: 1988 - 2002. 11 year hiatus. 2013 -
  • Expansion Bobcats: 2004 - 2013. Defunct.

NEW ORLEANS

  • Expansion Hornets: 2020-2013. Defunct
  • Expansion Pelicans: 2013 -

Complete with some staggeringly similar rosters.

This will make everybody happy. Apparently.

This post confirms that watching the Hornets Pelicans will automatically take seven years away from someone's life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do those of you who don't want cities to keep their history honestly believe that Tom Benson and New Orleans have more to do with the Charlotte Hornets than the city of Charlotte does? Really?

Yup. The major league sports cabal has been about the owner rather than the spectator for over a hundred years.

I understand the "legal" stance, I'm just referring to the logical side of understanding where the history was actually made. It makes much more sense to me for Charlotte to claim what happened in their city and for New Orleans to claim what happened in theirs. Especially in this case where New Orleans seems to want to create their own history and doesn't have any interest in Charlotte's history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do those of you who don't want cities to keep their history honestly believe that Tom Benson and New Orleans have more to do with the Charlotte Hornets than the city of Charlotte does? Really?

Yup. The major league sports cabal has been about the owner rather than the spectator for over a hundred years.

I understand the "legal" stance, I'm just referring to the logical side of understanding where the history was actually made. It makes much more sense to me for Charlotte to claim what happened in their city and for New Orleans to claim what happened in theirs. Especially in this case where New Orleans seems to want to create their own history and doesn't have any interest in Charlotte's history.

Thank you for the sensible response. I'm aware of the big history debate, and I'll take whatever I can get. If it's only the name, fine. We'll take it. We've got the memories if not the records. But I believe I speak for the larger part of Charlotte when I say we'd like to have the history, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do those of you who don't want cities to keep their history honestly believe that Tom Benson and New Orleans have more to do with the Charlotte Hornets than the city of Charlotte does? Really?

Yup. The major league sports cabal has been about the owner rather than the spectator for over a hundred years.

I understand the "legal" stance, I'm just referring to the logical side of understanding where the history was actually made. It makes much more sense to me for Charlotte to claim what happened in their city and for New Orleans to claim what happened in theirs. Especially in this case where New Orleans seems to want to create their own history and doesn't have any interest in Charlotte's history.

History was made by the paid mercenaries on the court, not the slobs in the bleachers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do those of you who don't want cities to keep their history honestly believe that Tom Benson and New Orleans have more to do with the Charlotte Hornets than the city of Charlotte does? Really?

Yup. The major league sports cabal has been about the owner rather than the spectator for over a hundred years.

I understand the "legal" stance, I'm just referring to the logical side of understanding where the history was actually made. It makes much more sense to me for Charlotte to claim what happened in their city and for New Orleans to claim what happened in theirs. Especially in this case where New Orleans seems to want to create their own history and doesn't have any interest in Charlotte's history.

To me it makes more sense for history to reflect that if you trace the 2013-2014 Sonics' history backwards, you will run into the Kings championship from (way the heck back when) and if you trace the 1979 Sonics championship forward, the rosters will evolve through Xavier McDaniel, Shawn Kemp, Kevin Durant, into a roster that lands in Oklahoma. It certainly makes no sense to me that the 2013-2014 Sonics say "we won the 1979 title." Did not happen.

I was at the T-Wolves game on Saturday and they hang a banner of MPLS Lakers in the Hall of Fame. That's fine because they are not creating ambiguity; they are acknowledging it as another franchise. Score one for not using the same name: We don't think George Mikan played for the T-Wolves.

I agree with the posters that reference the Jets. The Winnipeg fans got back a name that means something to them, but they've still distanced themselves from the franchise that, like it or not, resides in Phoenix.

But Cleveland Deals are dishonest and do a disservice to the history of the sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Cleveland Deals are dishonest and do a disservice to the history of the sport.

Yet the scenarios you keep inventing require a decade's time warp to even resemble a "Cleveland deal."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Cleveland Deals are dishonest and do a disservice to the history of the sport.

Yet the scenarios you keep inventing require a decade's time warp to even resemble a "Cleveland deal."

If I am wrong, then great.

But I think that's already been the talk of the "new Sonics". I don't think I've heard that for the "new Hornets."

In any case, for recognition of a history or championship to be with the "city" rather than the "franchise", something resembling a Cleveland Deal would need to take place. If the NBA wants to say "this team currently in Charlotte is the same as the team that started in 1988" then some Cleveland Dealing will have to take place. That may not happen, but it is what many on this thread are calling for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You probably couldn't tell by my avi or sigs but I'm a huge proponent of the name change. People tend not to believe and perhaps some of you or all of you won't care, but branding matters. The Charlotte Hornets endured a lot of losing seasons in a row and never ever did well in the playoffs before cutting town due to an arrogant jerk-off of an owner. But they set attendance records (that now completely wrongfully reside in New Orleans, along with the legacy of Muggsy Bogues, Grandmama, and others). They moved merchandise.

I was/am still a Bulls fan but had a Hornets cap, t-shirt and a Muggsy Bogues jersey growing up. The bee was just cool and in the 90s, that was the color scheme to have.

Bogues is my favorite player of all time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand both sides of this issue, but for me, it all boils down to the notion that the fans ARE the team. For example, I had Blackhawks season tickets from 1998-2004 (I moved), and those were some pretty terrible teams. The faces on the ice/court/field change, but the loyalty in the stands does not. I saw and sat by the same people almost every season. When you pump thousands of dollars into a team, or just loyally support your team on TV every night, an argument can be made that you're just as much a "Hornet" or a "Blackhawk" as the players themselves. Players come and go, but fans (real fans) will always be there. Those fans in Charlotte who lost their team should be acknowledged by the "new" Hornets, if that name should be adopted.

As for the topic at hand, like I said, I can see both sides. If the history of the original Charlotte Hornets is to remain in New Orleans, then I also see no issue with hanging banners that celebrate the old Hornets in Charlotte's arena. If nothing else, as nod to the people who supported the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a pretty big Hornets fan (enough to get the Fleur-de-Bee tattooed on me), have been since 1991. I hate to see N.O. move away from the Hornets identity, and I'm not crazy about another team "stealing" the name (and possibly colours, logos and uniforms) that first attracted me to the team, but if it has to happen, then it's only right that the new Hornets should be a continuation of the Bobcats, established in 2004.

By all means celebrate the heritage of the old Hornets - wear the old unis as throwbacks, hell, even retire a few numbers ('cause #s 1 & 30 should have gone up in the rafters a long time ago), but don't try and pretend to be something you're not.

Besides, it's not like the NBA team were the first Charlotte Hornets anyway - an old minor league team & a WFL team used that name too. It has a rich and deep history in that area, and the Bobcats/new Hornets should embrace that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do those of you who don't want cities to keep their history honestly believe that Tom Benson and New Orleans have more to do with the Charlotte Hornets than the city of Charlotte does? Really?

Yup. The major league sports cabal has been about the owner rather than the spectator for over a hundred years.

I understand the "legal" stance, I'm just referring to the logical side of understanding where the history was actually made. It makes much more sense to me for Charlotte to claim what happened in their city and for New Orleans to claim what happened in theirs. Especially in this case where New Orleans seems to want to create their own history and doesn't have any interest in Charlotte's history.

To me it makes more sense for history to reflect that if you trace the 2013-2014 Sonics' history backwards, you will run into the Kings championship from (way the heck back when) and if you trace the 1979 Sonics championship forward, the rosters will evolve through Xavier McDaniel, Shawn Kemp, Kevin Durant, into a roster that lands in Oklahoma. It certainly makes no sense to me that the 2013-2014 Sonics say "we won the 1979 title." Did not happen.

I was at the T-Wolves game on Saturday and they hang a banner of MPLS Lakers in the Hall of Fame. That's fine because they are not creating ambiguity; they are acknowledging it as another franchise. Score one for not using the same name: We don't think George Mikan played for the T-Wolves.

I agree with the posters that reference the Jets. The Winnipeg fans got back a name that means something to them, but they've still distanced themselves from the franchise that, like it or not, resides in Phoenix.

But Cleveland Deals are dishonest and do a disservice to the history of the sport.

This is where I disagree. I see it from the point of view that the team wouldn't exist without the fans, and the fans should retain that "ownership" of what happened under their support. If I were a Baltimore fan in 1995, I would have wanted the Colts back, of course. That was impossible, so that option was eliminated. My next choice certainly would not have been to have the Baltimore Browns come to town with a bunch of records in that were compiled and history that was earned in Cleveland. Short of getting my old team back, I would have wanted a fresh start, a new team and a clean slate, which is what they got, and I think it was perfectly fair since "their" team decided to take its name with it.

I can understand both sides of this issue, but for me, it all boils down to the notion that the fans ARE the team. For example, I had Blackhawks season tickets from 1998-2004 (I moved), and those were some pretty terrible teams. The faces on the ice/court/field change, but the loyalty in the stands does not. I saw and sat by the same people almost every season. When you pump thousands of dollars into a team, or just loyally support your team on TV every night, an argument can be made that you're just as much a "Hornet" or a "Blackhawk" as the players themselves. Players come and go, but fans (real fans) will always be there. Those fans in Charlotte who lost their team should be acknowledged by the "new" Hornets, if that name should be adopted.

As for the topic at hand, like I said, I can see both sides. If the history of the original Charlotte Hornets is to remain in New Orleans, then I also see no issue with hanging banners that celebrate the old Hornets in Charlotte's arena. If nothing else, as nod to the people who supported the team.

There we go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand both sides of this issue, but for me, it all boils down to the notion that the fans ARE the team. For example, I had Blackhawks season tickets from 1998-2004 (I moved), and those were some pretty terrible teams. The faces on the ice/court/field change, but the loyalty in the stands does not. I saw and sat by the same people almost every season. When you pump thousands of dollars into a team, or just loyally support your team on TV every night, an argument can be made that you're just as much a "Hornet" or a "Blackhawk" as the players themselves. Players come and go, but fans (real fans) will always be there. Those fans in Charlotte who lost their team should be acknowledged by the "new" Hornets, if that name should be adopted.

As for the topic at hand, like I said, I can see both sides. If the history of the original Charlotte Hornets is to remain in New Orleans, then I also see no issue with hanging banners that celebrate the old Hornets in Charlotte's arena. If nothing else, as nod to the people who supported the team.

Perfectly said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, these are nicknames we are talking about. There isn't really any harm if Charlotte wants to change to a beloved name that is no longer in use. Nobody is "pretending" that this team is the same one one from the 90s. They just would rather cheer for a team called the hornets. I pretty certain people are smart enough to realize it's not the same team. I fail to see why changing back is such a negative idea. The Jets seem to be doing a very similar thing quite well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jordan lost the rights to use "Hornets" in a whist game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand both sides of this issue, but for me, it all boils down to the notion that the fans ARE the team

No, they're not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand both sides of this issue, but for me, it all boils down to the notion that the fans ARE the team

No, they're not.

Look, Beflour, I agree that there is a strong connection between the city, its team, and its fans. I myself use "we" to describe my sports teams. However, I don't for a second think that I'm actually a part of the team and own its history.

If any one of my beloved sports teams left, I'd be crushed. I'd still retain the memories of them - memories, not history. If my team continued operations elsewhere and a new organization came to town some years later, I wouldn't for a second think that they were the same team, and that my memories about star players and playoff runs would magically change the lineage of players ans season-by-season history of a sports organization.

At the end of the day, fans are just along for the ride. A team can capture the hearts of loyal fans and be an integral part of the city, but if the team moves, it's gone, and it takes its past with it. No amount of love for a team can somehow change the historical timeline of a sports franchise. Memories and history are not the same thing.

This is where I disagree. I see it from the point of view that the team wouldn't exist without the fans, and the fans should retain that "ownership" of what happened under their support.

The team wouldn't exist is someone didn't found the franchise and run the organization. Fans are the fuel that run the organization's business engine (and the team's motivation engine).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Icey is looking at this in only absolutes. Yes, obviously the fans do not own the team or have any ownership rights. I think everyone understands that and gets it. But the fans without a doubt have a deeply rooted connection with a team and that should count for something. It's about loyaly. If the fans and residents of Charlotte want to change the team name to the Hornets and reuse a logo that they once had, then they have every single right to do so. Same applies to my, yes I said my, Supersonics. They are mine in the sense that I am deeply connected to them. I am not saying they are mine in the ownership since. So yes, the fans ARE the team in one way of looking at it.

Share this post


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