Charlotte Hornets?

[frosty06306]

I don't think anyone is willfully ignoring reality lmao

Nah, they are. By re-writing the record books they're ignoring what actually happened.

I really think you're reading too much into this. Fans there are more familiar with what actually happened than anyone across the country. Take a breather and relax.

If you still feel the same later, theres just a difference of opinions and thats ok with me.

[IceCap]

I don't think anyone is willfully ignoring reality lmao

Nah, they are. By re-writing the record books they're ignoring what actually happened.

I really think you're reading too much into this. Fans there are more familiar with what actually happened than anyone across the country. Take a breather and relax.

Oh stop with the internet tough guy act. Trust me sparky, I'm fine.

I'm not sure how hard this is to grasp. Use the old Hornets name to appeal to the sentiments of those fans who remember the original team but let the records stay where they belong. There's no reason to re-write the record books when simply using the old name and colours is enough. It's that re-writing of the record books that makes this whole thing ridiculous.

[Saturn]

Unpopular opinion: I don't mind the historical revisionism.

Me neither. For example, I'd rather the Ravens not acknowledge all the history about the old Browns because I dont care about Cleveland. Everyone knows technically the Ravens are a continuation of them but who actually cares about that or the history in question? The fans (in Cleveland).

[IceCap]

Unpopular opinion: I don't mind the historical revisionism.

Me neither. For example, I'd rather the Ravens not acknowledge all the history about the old Browns because I dont care about Cleveland. Everyone knows technically the Ravens are a continuation of them but who actually cares? The fans (in Cleveland).

[Xist2inspire]

There really should be a new rule, across all sports, that once a team moves, the identity is dead. The current team has to change its name upon relocation, and the former city cannot reclaim that name should a franchise return there. A bit extreme, yes, but the mess that the Browns deal created has to stop somewhere.

[tron1013]

The NBA is simply doing what they should've done in '02.

They're simply saying when New Orleans relocated they became an entirely new franchise. The old team stays behind.

This is really making people upset.

Good.

Do you know why it's getting people upset? It's because this whole thing is an exercise in massive delusional group think. It's an entire fanbase wilfully ignoring reality. It's bad enough that the actual history of the game is being tampered with. It's made worse by a large group of people collectively closing their eyes and humming really loud, hoping if they do it hard enough history will somehow contort itself into their desired shape.

I don't care about the team reusing the Hornets name, jake. I care about the integrity of the past. Which as been violated so an entire fanbase can play make-believe.

So then the Clippers, who used to be the Celtics until 1978, have 13 NBA titles in their illustrious history, right?

Nah. The franchises and organizations stayed intact even if the personnel changed. Nice try moving the goalposts though.

I grew up close to Charlotte and remember when they came into existence. The notion that there is something sacrosanct about the original Hornets identity is almost as crazy as the acrimony over whether Horncats/Bobnets are or aren't a successor to the original team. In any event, while I am glad the name and colors are being reintroduced in Charlotte I would hope they soft-sell any other connections to the prior Hornets incarnation since it inevitably reminds me of George Shinn, the proto-Sterling mysognist owner.

[The_Admiral]

If we're going to indulge that silly Clippers-Celtics thing, are we also agreeing that the St. Louis Blues folded in 1983 and were replaced by another team called the St. Louis Blues with the same roster and intellectual property as the old one? cuz i'd rather not

[IceCap]

I grew up close to Charlotte and remember when they came into existence. The notion that there is something sacrosanct about the original Hornets identity is almost as crazy as the acrimony over whether Horncats/Bobnets are or aren't a successor to the original team. In any event, while I am glad the name and colors are being reintroduced in Charlotte I would hope they soft-sell any other connections to the prior Hornets incarnation since it inevitably reminds me of George Shinn, the proto-Sterling mysognist owner.

I can agree with that. And again, if they want to use the Hornets name and colour scheme, that's cool. It's the re-writing of history that bothers me.

I also don't get the appeal behind the Hornets name and identity. The Revolutionary War thing always seemed silly because the city's named after British royalty. The team itself never accomplished anything of note. Yeah, the Bobcats sucked wind but the name made sense in that it seemed regionally appropriate and they had a unique look at first. I guess I just don't get the appeal and nostalgia behind the Hornets name. You want to continue the proud tradition of never making it past the second round of the playoffs? At least there's a NBA Championship up for grabs in the Supersonics/Thunder debate...

[hawk36]

KUDOS to the NBA and both franchises for doing the right thing. I've long been in favor of the City and its people claiming what happened in their city. Some call it revisionist history but I'd say trying to claim the players and championships from another city as your own is just as revisionist.

Let the histories remain in the places where the history was actually made.

[IceCap]

KUDOS to the NBA and both franchises for doing the right thing. I've long been in favor of the City and its people claiming what happened in their city. Some call it revisionist history but I'd say trying to claim the players and championships from another city as your own is just as revisionist.

Sorry, no. You're using the word wrong.

[Saturn]

I also don't get the appeal behind the Hornets name and identity.

90s nostalgia to a time when the NBA was very popular here (NC). I cant speak for everybody but once the Hornets left interest in pro ball fell off and no one was interested in supporting a team named after some guy. The Bobcats might as well have not existed.

[IceCap]

Yeah, but they never accomplished anything. It's like if Atlanta got another NHL team and they desperate fought for the rights to the Atlanta Thrashers' identity and records.

[hawk36]

There really should be a new rule, across all sports, that once a team moves, the identity is dead. The current team has to change its name upon relocation, and the former city cannot reclaim that name should a franchise return there. A bit extreme, yes, but the mess that the Browns deal created has to stop somewhere.

In the MLS I believe the San Jose Earthquakes, Portland Timbers, Seattle Sounders and Vancouver Whitecaps all acknowledge and embrace their histories even though all have operated as several different franchises in several different leagues since the 70s. Makes sense since many of the same fans that were cheering and crying with the Sounders in '74 are still cheering and crying with them in 2014.

[BShaw20]

I guess the NBA should give the New Orleans Jazz history to the Pelicans then. Even though the name is different, it's the accomplishment in the city that matters. I'm also for the Lakers losing 5 titles and the Wolves gaining 5. That would place them below the Bulls lol.

[rams80]

The history isn't that murky. It's quite simple, actually. The New Orleans history is 2003-present. The Charlotte history is 1988-present and includes all teams that played in Charlotte.

The city of Charlotte led the entire NBA in attendance in '88, '90, '91, '92, '93, '94, '95, '96, as well as finishing 2nd in '88, '97. The Hornets finished 20-62 their inaugural season, but still sold out every single game and led the NBA in attendance. A banner was made that read "Charlotte Hornets 1988-89 NBA Attendance Champion 950,064". They set it up during the summer and allowed season ticket holders to sign it. Then on opening night they honored the fans of Charlotte for their support and raised the banner to the rafters. Why should that banner be hanging in the New Orleans rafters instead of the Charlotte rafters?

The purple/teal Hornets that featured Muggsy, LJ, & Zo never played in New Orleans. The brand that is so popular was exclusive to Charlotte. When they moved to New Orleans the colors were changed to blue & yellow, & they later completely revamped the old logo. Why should purple/teal snapbacks & Larry Johnson jerseys be sold in the New Orleans team store instead of the Charlotte team store?

Bobby Phills died while playing in Charlotte. The next season the team held a special ceremony with his family and hung his jersey in the rafters, permanently retiring his jersey number. He died while playing and living in Charlotte, where his family resides to this day. Why should his banner hang in the New Orleans rafters instead of the Charlotte rafters?

The name "Hornets" has ties to Charlotte dating back to the Revolutionary War in 1780, when a General called Charlotte "a hornets nest of rebellion." From 1892-1936 there was a minor league baseball team in Charlotte nicknamed the Hornets. Why should the Hornets brand be locked away by a franchise that didn't want it in New Orleans instead of returning to a city that truly loves it and has a deep history of meaning with it?

Even the mascot is named after a hurricane that tore thru Charlotte in 1989, during the start of the team's 2nd season. Hugo the Hornet was created and named after history involving Charlotte. Why should that mascot be locked away and unused by New Orleans instead of returning home to Charlotte?

The history being taken from the New Orleans franchise and given to the new Charlotte franchise seems really stupid on the surface. However, when you look at the big picture and everything it means the change makes absolutely perfect sense. It has nothing to do with the actual statistical numbers and records. It is everything else. In order to get all that other stuff that is so deeply tied to Charlotte the stats have to be included in the transfer.

New Orleans fans can keep crying and saying Charlotte stole their name. Sorry folks, it was never your name to begin with.

Well, then. If the Hornets Mistaken don't sell out in a similar fashion, can we call the whole thing off?

[Saturn]

Yeah, but they never accomplished anything. It's like if Atlanta got another NHL team and they desperate fought for the rights to the Atlanta Thrashers' identity and records.

Speaking of that, did the Winnipeg Jets ever acomplish something? I'm not too familiar with the whole process of getting them back but I would guess that this is a similar situation.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

There really should be a new rule, across all sports, that once a team moves, the identity is dead. The current team has to change its name upon relocation, and the former city cannot reclaim that name should a franchise return there. A bit extreme, yes, but the mess that the Browns deal created has to stop somewhere.

There's nothing wrong with taking the name, as the expansion Washington Senators and the new Winnipeg Jets have shown. Taking an old nickname doesn't necessarily equate to spitting on history.

Even the NFL did this right once. The Baltimore Colts franchise that was created in 1953 and that today plays in Indianapolis took the name of the Baltimore Colts team which had joined the NFL from the AAFC (along with the Browns and the 49ers) but which folded in 1950. This new Colts team didn't assume the history of the old Colts team.

It's so saddening that some people cannot see the historical crime being committed here by the NBA and the new Hornets. Enjoy the name; but don't mess with the facts of history. What they're doing is just foul.

[rams80]

The history isn't that murky. It's quite simple, actually. The New Orleans history is 2003-present. The Charlotte history is 1988-present and includes all teams that played in Charlotte.

The city of Charlotte led the entire NBA in attendance in '88, '90, '91, '92, '93, '94, '95, '96, as well as finishing 2nd in '88, '97. The Hornets finished 20-62 their inaugural season, but still sold out every single game and led the NBA in attendance. A banner was made that read "Charlotte Hornets 1988-89 NBA Attendance Champion 950,064". They set it up during the summer and allowed season ticket holders to sign it. Then on opening night they honored the fans of Charlotte for their support and raised the banner to the rafters. Why should that banner be hanging in the New Orleans rafters instead of the Charlotte rafters?

The purple/teal Hornets that featured Muggsy, LJ, & Zo never played in New Orleans. The brand that is so popular was exclusive to Charlotte. When they moved to New Orleans the colors were changed to blue & yellow, & they later completely revamped the old logo. Why should purple/teal snapbacks & Larry Johnson jerseys be sold in the New Orleans team store instead of the Charlotte team store?

Bobby Phills died while playing in Charlotte. The next season the team held a special ceremony with his family and hung his jersey in the rafters, permanently retiring his jersey number. He died while playing and living in Charlotte, where his family resides to this day. Why should his banner hang in the New Orleans rafters instead of the Charlotte rafters?

The name "Hornets" has ties to Charlotte dating back to the Revolutionary War in 1780, when a General called Charlotte "a hornets nest of rebellion." From 1892-1936 there was a minor league baseball team in Charlotte nicknamed the Hornets. Why should the Hornets brand be locked away by a franchise that didn't want it in New Orleans instead of returning to a city that truly loves it and has a deep history of meaning with it?

Even the mascot is named after a hurricane that tore thru Charlotte in 1989, during the start of the team's 2nd season. Hugo the Hornet was created and named after history involving Charlotte. Why should that mascot be locked away and unused by New Orleans instead of returning home to Charlotte?

The history being taken from the New Orleans franchise and given to the new Charlotte franchise seems really stupid on the surface. However, when you look at the big picture and everything it means the change makes absolutely perfect sense. It has nothing to do with the actual statistical numbers and records. It is everything else. In order to get all that other stuff that is so deeply tied to Charlotte the stats have to be included in the transfer.

New Orleans fans can keep crying and saying Charlotte stole their name. Sorry folks, it was never your name to begin with.

That's all well and good, except for one simple fact: they're not the same team, period. The original Charlotte Hornets are the Pelicans. The new Hornets are an expansion team. Bobby Phills has no legitimate ties to the former Bobcats. Neither do Muggsy, LJ, and Zo. They have ties to the city, to the memories of the people living there, but as for an actual, concrete connection, there's nothing valid there. Memories are fine, so is nostalgia, so is honoring a legacy. That's what the reclaiming the Hornets name was supposed to be. But twisting and reshaping history to fit the memories and nostalgia of the people? That's wrong and dishonest, plain and simple.

It amazes me how a citizenry can become so emotionally attached to a for profit business. There's nothing inherently wrong with being a fan, but some of these explanations of a civic attachment to a short lived expansion franchise seems absolutely nuts. The fact of the matter is that no degree of rebranding is going to recreate some flash in the pan 1990's nostalgia if they don't win.

Super-Fans need to separate themselves from their franchises a bit. 99% of these instances the ownership only cares about making money and having taxpayers subsidizing their business. If the team packs up and leaves move on. If a new franchise sets up shop, support it or don't, whichever you choose. To think that there's some history or ownership embedded within the city is just foolish. The only exception that's ever made sense is the Browns as that was a total screw over because there was no decent excuse to leave.

Charlotte's franchise can never be relocated.

It did once before and if you jokers don't come now it will again.

[rams80]

There really should be a new rule, across all sports, that once a team moves, the identity is dead. The current team has to change its name upon relocation, and the former city cannot reclaim that name should a franchise return there. A bit extreme, yes, but the mess that the Browns deal created has to stop somewhere.

I like being a Rams fan, so no, lets not do that.

[IceCap]

Yeah, but they never accomplished anything. It's like if Atlanta got another NHL team and they desperate fought for the rights to the Atlanta Thrashers' identity and records.

Speaking of that, did the Winnipeg Jets ever acomplish something? I'm not too familiar with the whole process of getting them back but I would guess that this is a similar situation.

Well the original Winnipeg Jets won a bunch of WHA titles. That's besides the point anyway. The current Jets use the name of the old Jets, but they use a different logo set and they don't claim the original team's history. The original Jets' history is held by the Phoenix Coyotes.