Charlotte Hornets?

[vman]

I don't see what the big issue is concerning the history retention. This isn't a winning franchise with a long, proud record to protect. Their Charlotte past means next to nothing to the people of New Orleans, and all of the good memories local fans have of the name, team and colours are all thanks to and associated with the city and the sport, not who the owner was at the time. Would it not be odd for the Pelican's to host a throwback/legends night for ex-players that never played a minute of basketball in their city? It make's much more sense the way things are now.

[IceCap]

I don't see what the big issue is concerning the history retention.

It's counter-factual. That's why some take issue with it. You may not think that's a big deal, but it should be easy to "see" why some take issue.

[hawk36]

It's not counter-factual in the slightest. It's history that happened in Charlotte. It's funny, I can't see how anyone can honestly feel that New Orleans has any claim whatsoever to what Charlotte's basketball team did.

Guess this is yet another Red/Blue state thing that will never be won.

[smith03]

it is history that happened in charlotte, by a franchise that relocated to New Orleans along with ok city for a time and renamed itself the pelicans, now part of that franchise history is being cut and pasted onto a franchise that was started in 2004

[Xist2inspire]

I don't see what the big issue is concerning the history retention. This isn't a winning franchise with a long, proud record to protect. Their Charlotte past means next to nothing to the people of New Orleans, and all of the good memories local fans have of the name, team and colours are all thanks to and associated with the city and the sport, not who the owner was at the time. Would it not be odd for the Pelican's to host a throwback/legends night for ex-players that never played a minute of basketball in their city? It make's much more sense the way things are now.

You can correctly honor the legacies of both franchises without rewriting history to make things "easier." I don't want to see the Pelicans wear Charlotte Hornets throwbacks while there's a team currently in Charlotte with the same name (as a matter of fact, I hate when teams wear throwbacks, not fauxbacks, from another city), but I would also like Chris Paul's history as a New Orleans Hornet to be acknowledged without someone saying, "no, you can't do that, the Hornets were always in Charlotte." I'd like to see the Pelicans wear the previous jersey set as throwbacks, and I'd like to see Charlotte wear Bobcats throwbacks. I'd like to have people recognize and appreciate the old Hornets while embracing the new Hornets. It's almost like some people feel that it doesn't mean as much if the Hornets don't lay claim to all Charlotte history, and if that's the case, then what was the point of reclaiming the identity at all?

[rams80]

It's not counter-factual in the slightest. It's history that happened in Charlotte. It's funny, I can't see how anyone can honestly feel that New Orleans has any claim whatsoever to what Charlotte's basketball team did.

But it was done by a completely different organization. It's as if you had a Wendy's claiming sales records from a defunct McDonalds that used to operate in the same place. Organizational continuity matters.

Guess this is yet another Red/Blue state thing that will never be won.

Although I should, I don't graft Italian politics onto the failings of Italian sport. I would appreciate if you didn't do it for the United States.

(PS, I'm from a blue state).

[jakepled]

For the 99% of us who have no issue with the shuffling of history the end result is simple:

The Charlotte Hornets history is from 1988 through now, with a two year hiatus.

The New Orleans Pelicans have existed from 2002.

Well the eight years of New Orleans Hornets basketball kind of screws with the simplicity of that, doesn't it? And the first sentence just floors me. "Shuffling of history" isn't something anyone should be ok with.

I think with historical based logic, but also wanted the original Hornets history to be associated with the team.

That's the thing. They could have been the Hornets and honoured the old team without messing with the record books. At that point it goes from "respecting the city's basketball lineage" to, well, lying.

Cappy, me and you go back to the Panther-Charger Alliance in the Playoffs. I respectfully say, while keeping your background in mind, to kinda chill out and focus on the big news, the reveal of the unis and court in a month. Besides, that's what we are here for right?

It's a much appreciated sentiment, and thank you for providing local insight that didn't include "Charlotte Hornets fans are the best fans ever!" nonsense. Anyway the big thing that bugs me (pardon the unintentional pun) is the re-writing of the record book. I'd be fine with this name change if the original Hornets' records were kept with the New Orleans franchise.

Anyway I'm curious to see what the NBA and Adidas came up with uniform-wise.

Adidas has 0 say in the uniform.

Jordan Brand is designing the uniform. Whitfield said the new uniforms will resemble the new Hugo logo, as in they'll resemble the originals with slight modernizations.

I don't care for the logos but I think the uniforms are gonna be awesome. Jordan Brand knows how to design :censored:.

[jakepled]

I don't see what the big issue is concerning the history retention. This isn't a winning franchise with a long, proud record to protect. Their Charlotte past means next to nothing to the people of New Orleans, and all of the good memories local fans have of the name, team and colours are all thanks to and associated with the city and the sport, not who the owner was at the time. Would it not be odd for the Pelican's to host a throwback/legends night for ex-players that never played a minute of basketball in their city? It make's much more sense the way things are now.

You can correctly honor the legacies of both franchises without rewriting history to make things "easier." I don't want to see the Pelicans wear Charlotte Hornets throwbacks while there's a team currently in Charlotte with the same name (as a matter of fact, I hate when teams wear throwbacks, not fauxbacks, from another city), but I would also like Chris Paul's history as a New Orleans Hornet to be acknowledged without someone saying, "no, you can't do that, the Hornets were always in Charlotte." I'd like to see the Pelicans wear the previous jersey set as throwbacks, and I'd like to see Charlotte wear Bobcats throwbacks. I'd like to have people recognize and appreciate the old Hornets while embracing the new Hornets. It's almost like some people feel that it doesn't mean as much if the Hornets don't lay claim to all Charlotte history, and if that's the case, then what was the point of reclaiming the identity at all?

Chris Paul never played in Charlotte. His stats remain in New Orleans.

[SFGiants58]

In the vain hope of getting this thread towards talking about the uniforms, do you guys think the primary road uniforms will be teal or purple? While teal would appeal more to the history of Charlotte basketball (playing it safe here), the brand is incredibly focused towards purple in the logos.

[IceCap]

It's going to be teal.

[Xist2inspire]

I don't see what the big issue is concerning the history retention. This isn't a winning franchise with a long, proud record to protect. Their Charlotte past means next to nothing to the people of New Orleans, and all of the good memories local fans have of the name, team and colours are all thanks to and associated with the city and the sport, not who the owner was at the time. Would it not be odd for the Pelican's to host a throwback/legends night for ex-players that never played a minute of basketball in their city? It make's much more sense the way things are now.

You can correctly honor the legacies of both franchises without rewriting history to make things "easier." I don't want to see the Pelicans wear Charlotte Hornets throwbacks while there's a team currently in Charlotte with the same name (as a matter of fact, I hate when teams wear throwbacks, not fauxbacks, from another city), but I would also like Chris Paul's history as a New Orleans Hornet to be acknowledged without someone saying, "no, you can't do that, the Hornets were always in Charlotte." I'd like to see the Pelicans wear the previous jersey set as throwbacks, and I'd like to see Charlotte wear Bobcats throwbacks. I'd like to have people recognize and appreciate the old Hornets while embracing the new Hornets. It's almost like some people feel that it doesn't mean as much if the Hornets don't lay claim to all Charlotte history, and if that's the case, then what was the point of reclaiming the identity at all?

Chris Paul never played in Charlotte. His stats remain in New Orleans.

But he never played for the Pelicans either, though he did play for the original Hornets franchise. You can't just pick and choose what parts of a team's history to graft onto another completely different franchise. And what of guys like Jamal Mashburn and Baron Davis, etc? Who gets to recognize them, Charlotte or New Orleans? The history books say New Orleans, but your "everything Charlotte belongs to Charlotte only" mentality says Charlotte.

In the vain hope of getting this thread towards talking about the uniforms, do you guys think the primary road uniforms will be teal or purple? While teal would appeal more to the history of Charlotte basketball (playing it safe here), the brand is incredibly focused towards purple in the logos.

I think the use of purple in the logos confirms that teal will most likely be the primary road color, if for no other reason than logos primarily focused on purple won't look too good on a purple background. I wouldn't put it past them to go with purple roads and a teal sleeved alternate for extra cash.

[jakepled]

I don't see what the big issue is concerning the history retention. This isn't a winning franchise with a long, proud record to protect. Their Charlotte past means next to nothing to the people of New Orleans, and all of the good memories local fans have of the name, team and colours are all thanks to and associated with the city and the sport, not who the owner was at the time. Would it not be odd for the Pelican's to host a throwback/legends night for ex-players that never played a minute of basketball in their city? It make's much more sense the way things are now.

You can correctly honor the legacies of both franchises without rewriting history to make things "easier." I don't want to see the Pelicans wear Charlotte Hornets throwbacks while there's a team currently in Charlotte with the same name (as a matter of fact, I hate when teams wear throwbacks, not fauxbacks, from another city), but I would also like Chris Paul's history as a New Orleans Hornet to be acknowledged without someone saying, "no, you can't do that, the Hornets were always in Charlotte." I'd like to see the Pelicans wear the previous jersey set as throwbacks, and I'd like to see Charlotte wear Bobcats throwbacks. I'd like to have people recognize and appreciate the old Hornets while embracing the new Hornets. It's almost like some people feel that it doesn't mean as much if the Hornets don't lay claim to all Charlotte history, and if that's the case, then what was the point of reclaiming the identity at all?

Chris Paul never played in Charlotte. His stats remain in New Orleans.

But he never played for the Pelicans either, though he did play for the original Hornets franchise. You can't just pick and choose what parts of a team's history to graft onto another completely different franchise. And what of guys like Jamal Mashburn and Baron Davis, etc? Who gets to recognize them, Charlotte or New Orleans? The history books say New Orleans, but your "everything Charlotte belongs to Charlotte only" mentality says Charlotte.

In the vain hope of getting this thread towards talking about the uniforms, do you guys think the primary road uniforms will be teal or purple? While teal would appeal more to the history of Charlotte basketball (playing it safe here), the brand is incredibly focused towards purple in the logos.

I think the use of purple in the logos confirms that teal will most likely be the primary road color, if for no other reason than logos primarily focused on purple won't look too good on a purple background. I wouldn't put it past them to go with purple roads and a teal sleeved alternate for extra cash.

Yes, he did play for the Pelicans. He played in New Orleans, they were just called the Hornets at the time.

Saying Chris Paul didn't play for the Pelicans is like saying Moses Malone didn't play for the Washington Wizards.

What's so hard to comprehend? New Orleans history is the years played in New Orleans, regardless of name. Charlotte history is all years played in Charlotte, regardless of name.

[jakepled]

Home- solid white, pinstripes, "Charlotte"

Road- solid teal, pinstripes, "Charlotte"

Alt- purple, completely different, "Buzz City"

That's my guess. I think the home/away will be very similar to the originals and the alternate will be a purple with a unique design, no pinstripes, & "Buzz City" across the chest. Similar to Portland's Rip City. I think they can only have two uniforms this year, though.

[guest23]

This whole thing reeks of a desperate need to feel relevant and gin up some excitement on part of management and the fans.

[Lights Out]

How mentally challenged are some of you?

You seem to take the cake, champ.

The history isn't that murky. It's quite simple, actually.

Not really.

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?

Do you know who the city of Charlotte is named after? Queen Charlotte, beloved wife of George III, the king the American revolutionaries were revolting against. The city even calls itself "the Queen City" in reference to Queen Charlotte. Your "rah rah Revolutionary War reference rah rah" argument would hold more water if your city didn't keep the name of the wife of the guy the Revolution was waged against.

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?

It should hang in New Orleans because it's the New Orleans franchise that achieved that record.

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?

Again, because the franchise Bobby Phills played for now resides in New Orleans. He may have played for them while they were located in Charlotte, but the franchise's history should stay with the organization. Which means it should say in New Orleans.

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

Actually, it was New Orleans' name. For eight years.

I get it, the new "Hornets" are not the OLD "Hornets". But the history of basketball in Charlotte deserves to stay there.

Anyone who thinks the old Hornets history belongs with the Pelicans has their priorities out of whack.

I don't mean for this to sound insulting, but here's why I disagree. Facts mean things.

Fact is the first Charlotte Hornets franchise moved to New Orleans in 2002, where they currently reside under the name "New Orleans Pelicans." The new Charlotte basketball team can use the old Hornets name. That's fine. Actually re-writing history and ignoring the facts of what happened? Orwellian historical revisionism and blatant disregard to the factual historical record.

According to the NBA, they are the exact same franchise. Period.

And that's what's so bothersome. They're not the same franchise. It's obvious. The NBA is simply re-writing history to say they are. And that's not cool.

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

http://offthedribble.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/freaky-friday-n-b-a-style-when-the-clippers-were-the-celtics/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977%E2%80%9378_Boston_Celtics_season

Correct.

[BShaw20]

"Saying Chris Paul didn't play for the Pelicans is like saying Moses Malone didn't play for the Washington Wizards."

I don't understand. Was the Bullets history not combined with the Wizards or are they treated the same?

[Sport]

Home- solid white, pinstripes, "Charlotte"

Road- solid teal, pinstripes, "Charlotte"

Alt- purple, completely different, "Buzz City"

That's my guess. I think the home/away will be very similar to the originals and the alternate will be a purple with a unique design, no pinstripes, & "Buzz City" across the chest. Similar to Portland's Rip City. I think they can only have two uniforms this year, though.

If that happens I will never stop making fun of the NBA.

These are bad enough.

[hawk36]

Although I should, I don't graft Italian politics onto the failings of Italian sport. I would appreciate if you didn't do it for the United States.

(PS, I'm from a blue state).

Couldn't tell if you were serious here. If so, what I meant was this issue of who gets the history, the original city and its fans or the new city and its fans, is a hotly debated issue on these boards and both sides are stead fast and can not be swayed. Much like the USA and its politics, 2 very different sides that can not agree. Agree to disagree.

[Xist2inspire]

I don't see what the big issue is concerning the history retention. This isn't a winning franchise with a long, proud record to protect. Their Charlotte past means next to nothing to the people of New Orleans, and all of the good memories local fans have of the name, team and colours are all thanks to and associated with the city and the sport, not who the owner was at the time. Would it not be odd for the Pelican's to host a throwback/legends night for ex-players that never played a minute of basketball in their city? It make's much more sense the way things are now.

You can correctly honor the legacies of both franchises without rewriting history to make things "easier." I don't want to see the Pelicans wear Charlotte Hornets throwbacks while there's a team currently in Charlotte with the same name (as a matter of fact, I hate when teams wear throwbacks, not fauxbacks, from another city), but I would also like Chris Paul's history as a New Orleans Hornet to be acknowledged without someone saying, "no, you can't do that, the Hornets were always in Charlotte." I'd like to see the Pelicans wear the previous jersey set as throwbacks, and I'd like to see Charlotte wear Bobcats throwbacks. I'd like to have people recognize and appreciate the old Hornets while embracing the new Hornets. It's almost like some people feel that it doesn't mean as much if the Hornets don't lay claim to all Charlotte history, and if that's the case, then what was the point of reclaiming the identity at all?

Chris Paul never played in Charlotte. His stats remain in New Orleans.

But he never played for the Pelicans either, though he did play for the original Hornets franchise. You can't just pick and choose what parts of a team's history to graft onto another completely different franchise. And what of guys like Jamal Mashburn and Baron Davis, etc? Who gets to recognize them, Charlotte or New Orleans? The history books say New Orleans, but your "everything Charlotte belongs to Charlotte only" mentality says Charlotte.

Yes, he did play for the Pelicans. He played in New Orleans, they were just called the Hornets at the time.

Saying Chris Paul didn't play for the Pelicans is like saying Moses Malone didn't play for the Washington Wizards.

What's so hard to comprehend? New Orleans history is the years played in New Orleans, regardless of name. Charlotte history is all years played in Charlotte, regardless of name.

And saying Larry Johnson didn't play for the franchise now called the Pelicans is the same thing. You actually just made my point for me, which is why I brought up CP3. Chopping the NO Pelicans and NO Hornets history is silly...just like chopping up the Charlotte Hornets/NO Hornets/NO Pelicans history is. They're the same team. The former Hornets (now Pelicans) and the former Bobcats (now Hornets) are two different franchises, not one. The history of one does not belong to the other. You still haven't addressed that.

I hope they don't do a "Buzz City" alt, because I've never heard that term ever used for Charlotte until now. "Motor City" makes sense, Detroit's been known as that for years. But "Buzz City?" Ummm........no.

[hawk36]

It's not counter-factual in the slightest. It's history that happened in Charlotte. It's funny, I can't see how anyone can honestly feel that New Orleans has any claim whatsoever to what Charlotte's basketball team did.

But it was done by a completely different organization. It's as if you had a Wendy's claiming sales records from a defunct McDonalds that used to operate in the same place. Organizational continuity matters.

But it is all part of the same organization (NBA). So in your analogy it would be like a new Wendy's being built on the old site of a once famous Wendy's location and then honoring the records and history that Wendy's made. I don't think anyone would consider that odd.