Charlotte Hornets?

[IceCap]

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.

The idea that fans are anything other then spectators is naive, at best. Like rams said, the history being made on the court, field, or ice is essentially being made by mercenaries. They often have little connection to where ever they're playing. And it's been that way, for the most part, longer then most people remember or care to admit.

What I ultimately find troubling about the "fans are part of the team"/"fans are the team" mentality is that it represents either an inability or unwillingness to separate one's self from what should be a momentary escape from reality. Despite what you may think due to my stance on this topic, I do understand and enjoy the joys of being a fan. The emotional connection we're willing to forge with a team is great, and it's part of the experience. That's just it though, it's an experience. Something way pay for. Either by buying tickets, paying the cable bill, or through purchasing merchandise. It's like going to the movies. Over the course of a film, if it's a well made one anyway, you grow connected to the characters, you want them to succeed in whatever their goal is, and you develop a dislike towards the antagonists. Like a sporting event though, that's just an experience you pay for, and if you're level headed enough you leave the theatre, admit you had a good time, and move on. So why do we treat sports differently? We do so many of us assume that because we opt to pay for the experience of fandom we're somehow part of something? Ultimately we're only part of a team so much as we're a part of Coca-Cola every time we order one at a restaurant. We certainly contribute though payment, and we have an emotional attachment, but we're not part of the team. When we leave the arena or turn off the tv after a game we should be able to separate the fun experience we were just a part of from the reality of the situation, that teams are private businesses, and we're the customers. And please, don't you or anyone else try to claim this is me trying to diminish what it means to be a fan. Like I said I'm quite capable of both recognizing this reality and losing myself in that experience. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Finally the teams themselves are entities onto themselves, not expansions of the community. The Charlotte Hornets did not cease to exist because they left their community (in fact poor support in the latter years is part of why they left for New Orleans in the first place). They simply moved to a new base of operations. The records, the history from the Charlotte years most definitely is recognized as being attached to Charlotte, and there's no doubt in my mind that the majority of people who care about those years are from Charlotte. It doesn't change the fact that the team that created those memories is in New Orleans now, though.

Again, if the Bobcats wish to rebrand themselves as the Hornets that's fine. What isn't fine, however, is moving the history. The history should belong to the organization that created it, the one in NOLA. The team in Charlotte, even if they become the Hornets, will never be that old team, and to re-write the history books to make it seem as if they are would be a lie. Simple as that.

[habsfan1]

Again, if the Bobcats wish to rebrand themselves as the Hornets that's fine. What isn't fine, however, is moving the history. The history should belong to the organization that created it, the one in NOLA. The team in Charlotte, even if they become the Hornets, will never be that old team, and to re-write the history books to make it seem as if they are would be a lie. Simple as that.

Not denying your point, but I just want to make one thing clear.

Let's say for example that the Charlotte Hornets 1.0 had won an NBA title in the 90s. If the new Hornets team wins one in 2020, would we have to say that it's their 1st title in franchise history?

[TheOldRoman]

Again, if the Bobcats wish to rebrand themselves as the Hornets that's fine. What isn't fine, however, is moving the history. The history should belong to the organization that created it, the one in NOLA. The team in Charlotte, even if they become the Hornets, will never be that old team, and to re-write the history books to make it seem as if they are would be a lie. Simple as that.

Not denying your point, but I just want to make one thing clear.

Let's say for example that the Charlotte Hornets 1.0 had won an NBA title in the 90s. If the new Hornets team wins one in 2020, would we have to say that it's their 1st title in franchise history?

Yes. First in franchise history, and second for Charlotte. But since the Hornets were merely decent with cool uniforms in that era, the potential transfering of history is even less important.

[OnWis97]

Again, if the Bobcats wish to rebrand themselves as the Hornets that's fine. What isn't fine, however, is moving the history. The history should belong to the organization that created it, the one in NOLA. The team in Charlotte, even if they become the Hornets, will never be that old team, and to re-write the history books to make it seem as if they are would be a lie. Simple as that.

Not denying your point, but I just want to make one thing clear.

Let's say for example that the Charlotte Hornets 1.0 had won an NBA title in the 90s. If the new Hornets team wins one in 2020, would we have to say that it's their 1st title in franchise history?

Absolutely. Much like if the Washington Nationals win the World Series this year, it will be their first. They did not win one in 1924.

[hugevolsfan]

Once again history was made in Charlotte so the history made in Charlotte stays with the City.

In the examples posted throughout this thread sports are different than private businesses because they choose to keep the city as a part of their name & are connected to that city not just the people but the city.

McCall said it best their is actual history & their is the ownership of that history.

For example the owner can say I owned the Charlotte Hornets & the New Orleans Hornets & can claim the ownership of the history but the actual history of the Charlotte Hornets ended when they moved & the New Orleans Hornets history began.

[IceCap]

Again, if the Bobcats wish to rebrand themselves as the Hornets that's fine. What isn't fine, however, is moving the history. The history should belong to the organization that created it, the one in NOLA. The team in Charlotte, even if they become the Hornets, will never be that old team, and to re-write the history books to make it seem as if they are would be a lie. Simple as that.

Not denying your point, but I just want to make one thing clear.

Let's say for example that the Charlotte Hornets 1.0 had won an NBA title in the 90s. If the new Hornets team wins one in 2020, would we have to say that it's their 1st title in franchise history?

Yep. Had the original Hornets won an NBA title that championship would belong to the soon to be New Orleans Pelicans. They would have been the organization that won it.

If this name change does happen I'd like it to be done Winnipeg Jets style and not Cleveland Browns style. The Jets 2.0 share the name of the old team and they honour the old team's accomplishments in the city, but they don't claim to be a continuation of that team. Their site's franchise history makes it very clear that when it comes to the record books this team is the former Atlanta Thrashers, not the original Jets.

Now for another point that's been lost in this discussion. Renaming the team won't make a bit of difference in the long term. The Bobcats have had trouble cultivating support because they've been terrible. They're a bad team run by idiots. Well changing the name to Hornets won't change the makeup of the team or change who owns and runs them. The newly re-branded Hornets, at most, will be able ride the nostalgia wave for a season before the fans in the area realize they're still the same crappy team without a future and they abandon them again.

If anything you Hornets supporters should want to keep that name as far away from Michael Jordan's pro basketball clusterf*** as possible. As uneventful as the Hornets were in their time in Charlotte at least they had a couple fun seasons and a few entertaining playoff appearances. The Bobcats assuming the Hornets name will only sully that brand in the long term. And long term is what it's all about, because the name change just won't help them in it.

Also keep in mind that the original Hornets left town partly because of lacklustre fan support. So the Hornets brand is no guarantee of fan loyalty.

Once again history was made in Charlotte so the history made in Charlotte stays with the City.

I'm just going to say this.

I went from "a team shouldn't be able to use the name of an old team from their city if the old team is still kicking around somewhere" to "a team can use the name of an old team from their city, but leave the records and history with the original team." I think that's a fair compromise on this issue.

[Kramerica Industries]

Capper's points in this thread are making me realize why it's wise to just listen to BASS instead.

Everything I'm reading is stuff I heard last night.

---

I do have to disagree on one point, however (and please correct me if I'm wrong; this is all memory here, no research). While North Carolina in general is much more of a college basketball hot bed than it ever will be an NBA one, I don't seem to remember fan support being the problem for the Charlotte Hornets. The problems were that George Shinn was (and is) a prickly little scumbag who did countless stupid things to piss off the fanbase, and the Charlotte Coliseum was also rapidly obsolete after less than 15 years. The Coliseum had a very long sellout streak at one point in its history and the Hornets had some very good teams during the '90s, but, as with many franchises and markets, wreckless ownership will eventually begin to tune people out.

I don't imagine fan support will ever be much of a problem in North Carolina. Basketball is king there, as far as sports goes. But just because it's basketball doesn't mean they are immune to revolting against dumbasses like George Shinn.

[hugevolsfan]

Ice_Cap

Hey I appreciate the debate you are an obvious historian which I like I can see all points of view on this one but still feel what McCall said was right on the money but I have been wrong before once... maybe twice...

[IceCap]

Ice_Cap

Hey I appreciate the debate you are an obvious historian which I like I can see all points of view on this one but still feel what McCall said was right on the money but I have been wrong before once... maybe twice...

We're all a bit wonky to care about this to this extent one way or the other, I think

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

If they do indeed change, since they have to wait another 2 seasons, they wouldn't official announce it until the close to the end of the season before (similar to what New Orleans did). They wouldn't sell much Bobcats merch in the meantime.

[hawk36]

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.

History is made by a combo of: 1) Ownership/Management, 2) Players/Coaches, 3) Fans/CIty. New Orleans has none of those 3 in regards to the Charlotte Hornets.

[rams80]

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.

History is made by a combo of: 1) Ownership/Management, 2) Players/Coaches, 3) Fans/CIty. New Orleans has none of those 3 in regards to the Charlotte Hornets.

Umm...there was continuity in 1 and 2 when the Hornets moved.

[OnWis97]

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.

History is made by a combo of: 1) Ownership/Management, 2) Players/Coaches, 3) Fans/CIty. New Orleans has none of those 3 in regards to the Charlotte Hornets.

By that logic the 1965 AL pennant, won by the Twins, is on shaky ground. New ownership. Far different players. Same City (and fans in the right age group). 1 of 3.

History is made by: the events that occur. The franchise has history created by events. That history includes moving to New Orleans, where they retained the name "Hornets" up until now. It will also include the events of the Pelicans. Should Anthony Davis flourish for the team, it is he and not Kemba Walker, who will try to overtake LJ and 'Zo for franchise marks. At least I hope so.

That all said, I think we are at a stalemate...it's like a debate on abortion.

[Jamikel]

This is not an opinion. It's not an interpretation of a series of events, they are the events, simply stated as they happened. To recognize that as the reality, that's intellectually honest, my friend. To dress the Bobcats up as the Hornets and pretend they are the Hornets of days past because that's what the fanbase wished had happened (ie sentimentality)? That's a lie.

If we're being intellectually honest, then pretending that professional basketball matters at all is a lie. Sentimentality and self-deception are the very lifeblood of professional athletics.

[Buster]

Again, if the Bobcats wish to rebrand themselves as the Hornets that's fine. What isn't fine, however, is moving the history. The history should belong to the organization that created it, the one in NOLA. The team in Charlotte, even if they become the Hornets, will never be that old team, and to re-write the history books to make it seem as if they are would be a lie. Simple as that.

Not denying your point, but I just want to make one thing clear.

Let's say for example that the Charlotte Hornets 1.0 had won an NBA title in the 90s. If the new Hornets team wins one in 2020, would we have to say that it's their 1st title in franchise history?

Absolutely. Much like if the Washington Nationals win the World Series this year, it will be their first. They did not win one in 1924.

Correct. If we combined the titles by location instead of individual francchises, the Yankees could hang up some 1969 and 1986 banners since they were won by New York. They could take credit for all Dodgers/Giants NY rings too.

The Colts have won two Super Bowls. Indianapolis has one Super Bowl win. Baltimore has three, but only two by their current team, the Ravens, a franchise who also won 4 NFL Championships in Cleveland. The new expansion Cleveland Browns have never won anything and never will.

The Senators won 1. The Nationals will win 1. Washington as a city will have 2.

I think the same following SHOULD follow the "new" Sonics in Seattle but it won't. They're take credit for 1979 and pretend the old Sonics franchise never moved to OKC. If they win another, they'll boast it as their second title when really, it's this franchise's FIRST...unless the Kings won something.

It's confusing but I think the championships follow the franchise if they move. If the CITY wants to boast they've won # championships...fine, but give credit to the seperate franchises who earned them.

[IceCap]

This is not an opinion. It's not an interpretation of a series of events, they are the events, simply stated as they happened. To recognize that as the reality, that's intellectually honest, my friend. To dress the Bobcats up as the Hornets and pretend they are the Hornets of days past because that's what the fanbase wished had happened (ie sentimentality)? That's a lie.

If we're being intellectually honest, then pretending that professional basketball matters at all is a lie. Sentimentality and self-deception are the very lifeblood of professional athletics.

And that's the first real argument I've heard in favour of this history swapping nonsense. I don't agree with your final conclusions, but at least you're not peddling the "fans are the team!" nonsense.

[Wilt]

I think the same following SHOULD follow the "new" Sonics in Seattle but it won't. They're take credit for 1979 and pretend the old Sonics franchise never moved to OKC. If they win another, they'll boast it as their second title when really, it's this franchise's FIRST...unless the Kings won something.

They did so no matter what happens it will be a 2nd championship.

The whole discussion can be summed up in the words.

This is how do it in America so Cleveland deal was against the rules. I don't agree with underestimating fan role though. Watching a game can't be directly compared to watching a movie.

[IceCap]

Watching a game can't be directly compared to watching a movie.

Why not? I've seen fans of movie franchises just as invested in those movie franchises as any one of us are in our favourite teams.

Capper's points in this thread are making me realize why it's wise to just listen to BASS instead.

Everything I'm reading is stuff I heard last night.

---

I do have to disagree on one point, however (and please correct me if I'm wrong; this is all memory here, no research). While North Carolina in general is much more of a college basketball hot bed than it ever will be an NBA one, I don't seem to remember fan support being the problem for the Charlotte Hornets. The problems were that George Shinn was (and is) a prickly little scumbag who did countless stupid things to piss off the fanbase, and the Charlotte Coliseum was also rapidly obsolete after less than 15 years. The Coliseum had a very long sellout streak at one point in its history and the Hornets had some very good teams during the '90s, but, as with many franchises and markets, wreckless ownership will eventually begin to tune people out.

I don't imagine fan support will ever be much of a problem in North Carolina. Basketball is king there, as far as sports goes. But just because it's basketball doesn't mean they are immune to revolting against dumbasses like George Shinn.

I could be wrong, but while the Hornets had great fan support for most of their run in Charlotte it did drop off dramatically near the end. That may have entirely been because of Shin, but that's just further evidence against the Bobcats becoming the Hornets. The Hornets brand wasn't enough to keep the fanbase around in the face of crappy ownership and sub-par teams on the court. Well Michael Jordan is a crappy owner and the Bobcats are the epitome of suck. So I don't see the rename doing much beyond an initial nostalgic-fuelled boost that will soon fade as soon as people realize it's still the Bobcats beneath the teal, purple, and pinstripes.

[guest23]

This is not an opinion. It's not an interpretation of a series of events, they are the events, simply stated as they happened. To recognize that as the reality, that's intellectually honest, my friend. To dress the Bobcats up as the Hornets and pretend they are the Hornets of days past because that's what the fanbase wished had happened (ie sentimentality)? That's a lie.

If we're being intellectually honest, then pretending that professional basketball matters at all is a lie. Sentimentality and self-deception are the very lifeblood of professional athletics.

ah yes the two main ingredients for extracting your hard earned income and tax dollars.

[hawk36]

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.

History is made by a combo of: 1) Ownership/Management, 2) Players/Coaches, 3) Fans/CIty. New Orleans has none of those 3 in regards to the Charlotte Hornets.

By that logic the 1965 AL pennant, won by the Twins, is on shaky ground. New ownership. Far different players. Same City (and fans in the right age group). 1 of 3.

No shaky ground at all. They still have 1 of the 3 and that was my point. If you have at least 1 of the 3 you can have a claim. If you have 0 of the 3 (like New Orleans), seems there is a good argument to allow the history to go back to the place where it was created. Especially if that city gets it's old name back.