Charlotte Hornets?

[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.

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.

Well then remove #2 entirely. The players and coaches are going to change no matter what.

[Eye]

When it comes between what's factually correct what's sentimental I'll chose the former over the latter. At the very least it's intellectually honest.

While I always enjoy a good Princess Bride reference I'm afraid you've miss used one here. I'm well aware of the meaning behind the terms I'm using. Let's break it down.

The Charlotte Hornets moved to New Orleans and became the New Orleans Hornets. They've since announced their intentions to rebrand as the New Orleans Pelicans. Same organization, two locations, two names.

The Charlotte Bobcats are a 2000s expansion team. They were never the original Charlotte Hornets and never will be, even if you dress them up like them.

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.

Look, if you want to disagree with me because you value the role sentimentality can play, go ahead. Don't insult me in a backhanded manner though. My terminology was correct and consistent with my argument even if you disagree with it.

I think it would be cool if the Bobcats changed their name to Hornets as long as their keep their 2004-present history and don't claim the Pelicans' 1988-2002 history as the Charlotte Hornets. There wouldn't be an issue in this instance.

[IceCap]

Agreed.

[dbadefense1990]

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.

The whole "cities count more towards championships than individual franchises" argument has been mostly perpetuated by the media in the city, whose attitude toward fanship is along these lines:

"Our fans in this city care for both teams in the sport. When one doesn't perform, our fans will rally to the other. If both teams make it into a playoff or championship series, it's a win-win for everybody because this city will enjoy both teams, and at the end of the day, our city matters more to these sports fans than either of the franchises."

I see these attitudes when our local sports media basically desires a Lakers-Clippers and Kings-Ducks playoff series because "everyone would win and the city would rally around basketball and hockey." These attitudes are mostly catered to the casual person, who only hears of what sports stars do on TMZ or MTV or E!

Diehards would care for an intra-city series, but we definitely wouldn't be all joy-joy for any outcome. I would be all giddy if the Kings and Ducks meet in the playoffs, but at the end of the day, it's Cup or bust for the Kings. And I sure as hell wouldn't care for the Clippers and their adventures when the Lakers are eliminated. I'm sure the same diehard sentiments are felt by the Giants/Jets in New York, or the Cubs/White Sox in Chicago, or any other city or metro area with multiple teams in a single league.

I'll just golf clap and say "well done" when another franchise does good, mostly because it brings league-wide attention to sports regions mostly neglected (Pacific, Northwest, Mountain), but that's the farthest I'll go. If the Clippers do end up being NBA Champions, I'll likely say:

"Congrats on your accomplishment, and for showing the world this is a basketball city in general, not just Lakerville, now the offseason can start."

[DaytonBlue]

The Cleveland deal only works imho if it's done at the time of relocation, like the SJ Earthquakes/Houston Dynamo did. 11 years later, the Bobcats would have to handle it like the Jets did.

[Bravo96]

Really getting excited about this prospect... In case anyone didn't hear, Michael Jordan was asked how he liked the sound of "Charlotte Hornets basketball." He gave a good-natured laugh before responding, "Still working on it. Sounds good. Still working on it."

Video here: http://www.wbtv.com/category/240205/video-landing-page?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8782780

[Wilt]

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.

For me it's not the same kind of devotion:

1. Maybe it's just me but I can never get so much involved in a movie as in a game. I'm too aware that the former was directed from the beginning till the end plus someone can always spoil it for me.

2. One can be a fan of both Star Wars and Star Trek, while you can't support both the Lakers and the Celtics.

3. Considering ticket and apparell prices, supporting a sport team is more financially demanding.

4. Fans can affect the outcome of the game. Just compare the home and road records for most of the teams.

5. It can be linked to a local/national pride and affect the community. After the World Cup game in a European country people are frendlier and more optimistic if their team won last night.

I also think that keeping the records clean issue is exaggerated. Nowadays game recaps are full of "XY was the first Aquarius from Kentucky who scored 20 pts, 4 rebs, 2 as, 2 threes and missed 5 FT coming off the bench for less than 22 mins on a rainy March Tuesday west of Minneapolis since 1984". Mining data is so easy nowadays that it won't be a problem to keep double records. The media will choose the numbers that are just more impressive on a given day.

[habsfan1]

Diehards would care for an intra-city series, but we definitely wouldn't be all joy-joy for any outcome. I would be all giddy if the Kings and Ducks meet in the playoffs, but at the end of the day, it's Cup or bust for the Kings. And I sure as hell wouldn't care for the Clippers and their adventures when the Lakers are eliminated. I'm sure the same diehard sentiments are felt by the Giants/Jets in New York, or the Cubs/White Sox in Chicago, or any other city or metro area with multiple teams in a single league.

I'll just golf clap and say "well done" when another franchise does good, mostly because it brings league-wide attention to sports regions mostly neglected (Pacific, Northwest, Mountain), but that's the farthest I'll go. If the Clippers do end up being NBA Champions, I'll likely say:

"Congrats on your accomplishment, and for showing the world this is a basketball city in general, not just Lakerville, now the offseason can start."

At least the whole Chicago area had the chance to experience a World Series parade thanks to the White Sox. If I were a Cubs fan, I'd say 100+ years is too damn long, I'm fed up so I'll just enjoy this one instead. Better than nothing.

[Discogod]

At least the whole Chicago area had the chance to experience a World Series parade thanks to the White Sox. If I were a Cubs fan, I'd say 100+ years is too damn long, I'm fed up so I'll just enjoy this one instead. Better than nothing.

Oh, hell no. I'm a life-long Manchester City supporter. In 30 years, the club never won anything meaningful, whilst our neighbours in Stretford won title after title, cup after cup. There's no way in hell I'd ever celebrate anything those red bastards won, no matter how long City's drought lasted, just because they're representing the same city - if anything, it just filled me with more hate and bitterness towards them.

I'd imagine most residents of New York/Chicago/anywhere 2 teams play the same sport feel the same.

[Kramerica Industries]

The White Sox were also on a very lengthy World Series skid as well. They had last won 1917, and they only made it back in 1919 and 1959, before finally winning in 2005.

Really, outside of the Bulls in the '90s, Chicago is not exactly a sports town filled to the brim with championships. In the other three major sports, with four teams, they've only won three championships in the last 50 or so years.

[sorcerer77]

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.

It's a confusing issue to be sure, but we just can't escape the fact the memories of the Charlotte Hornets happened in Charlotte, and fans in New Orleans today can't be expected to appreciate it, because it didn't happen in their city. Sports will always be unique in this regard, and that's what separates it from other business ventures. This connection goes way beyond the bottom line, so when a team relocates, it's like a divorce. And it's much worse when the team has a long, storied history like the Cleveland Browns.

NFL Films had a documentary about the 1995 Browns, and the players and staff were very emotional after the last game. The fans took it the hardest, of course, but this was so much more than a corporation leaving town. Now the Hornets are on the opposite side of this issue, a short history in Charlotte, but some good memories nonetheless. I have no problem at all, as confusing as it is, to let Charlotte reclaim the Hornets name. New Orleans can have the records, but players like Larry Johnson just don't mean anything to the City of New Orleans.

The horrible terrorist attacks in Boston, and the reaction of the sports teams(and visitors), is one of many examples of how a sports team is so much more than a business. It's a generational bond, and can help begin the healing process for a city devastated by this tragedy.

[DaytonBlue]

If the Bobcats do change to the Hornets, maybe they can do a Charlotte NBA Hall of Fame or something. The Rams have a St. Louis Football Ring of Fame which honors LA Rams, St. Louis Football Cardinals, and St. Louis Rams

[OnWis97]

If the Bobcats do change to the Hornets, maybe they can do a Charlotte NBA Hall of Fame or something. The Rams have a St. Louis Football Ring of Fame which honors LA Rams, St. Louis Football Cardinals, and St. Louis Rams

This is a decent direction. The "old" hornets don't have a ton of banners to hang, but if they want to honor LJ, etc. they can. There is some confusion if they adopt the same look as the "old" hornets, but it can be done without making too much of a false claim. Maybe anything hanging in honor of the "current" franchise can say "Charlotte Hornets" and anything in honor of the "old" franchise can say "Charlotte Basketball" or simply "Charlotte."

It is crystal clear that the team's fans want the name. And to the point that it may even improve attendance and merch sales (at least in the short term). So I guess it has to be done. But I really, really hope that no sport ever provides a "Cleveland Deal" again. Current Browns should not be listed in "franchise rushing leaders" behind Jim Brown. Current Ravens should.

And I know I harp on it a lot and it looks like Charlotte will not be given Cleveland treatment in the history books (as it would be much harder in this circumstance vs. the clean break that the Browns/Ravens had), but I do think (and have I misread?) that there's been some rumbling of just that for the Sonics, thereby pretending that the long-time Kings franchise went defunct, the Sonics took a break, and the Thunder were an expansion team. And I know, the Kings did not have such a glorious history, but neither did East Germany and we don't re-write history to pretend that Germany remained united the entire time.

Anyhow, I agree with this idea: acknowledge (City) history. Even muddy up the lineage on your banners. But don't re-write (or force dishonesty into) history books.

[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.

For me it's not the same kind of devotion:

For you, maybe not. It certainly is for some people though, whether you get it or not.

1. Maybe it's just me but I can never get so much involved in a movie as in a game. I'm too aware that the former was directed from the beginning till the end plus someone can always spoil it for me.

True story. The day before Star Wars Episode III came out a friend of mine won free tickets to see a per-release screening and he invited me along. We saw everything you'd expect to see. Fans dressed up, unable to contain themselves as they waited for the film to start. In fact two guys dressed up as Jedi Knights started a lightsabre fight up in front as we were waiting for the show to start. Now here's the kicker. This was the third movie of the prequel trilogy. This wasn't Episode I where people still honestly believed it was impossible to screw up a Star Wars movie. This wasn't Episode II where fans were desperately hoping it would be good to wash away the disappointed from the first one. This was Episode III. Everyone by this point, even the fans, knew the prequels were terrible. Yet these fans still showed up. They knew the movie would likely suck, and they knew what would happen at the end. Yet they couldn't wait because they loved Star Wars that much. Sounds an awful lot like some of us who have stuck with teams through extended periods of futility, doesn't it?

2. One can be a fan of both Star Wars and Star Trek, while you can't support both the Lakers and the Celtics.

I've seen fans of both claim you can't be a fan of the other

Anyway yeah. You can be a fan of both Star Wars and Star Trek and not be a fan of the Lakers and Celtics, but you can be a fan of the Lakers and Dodgers, which is a more apt comparison.

3. Considering ticket and apparell prices, supporting a sport team is more financially demanding.

I'm sure some fans of some movie franchises with extensive apparel collections would debate that statement.

4. Fans can affect the outcome of the game. Just compare the home and road records for most of the teams.

Truly good teams won't let the home team's crowd dictate the flow of the game. The idea that crowds can will home teams to victory is both a marketing ploy and an excuse.

Also worth noting is the fact that a good crowd can make a mediocre movie seem better then it is. The first Trasformers movie is merely an ok summer popcorn flick, but it seems like an awesome epic if you see it for the first time in a theatre full of Transformers fans and genuinely excited movie goers.

5. It can be linked to a local/national pride and affect the community. After the World Cup game in a European country people are frendlier and more optimistic if their team won last night.

Anyone who lets the outcome of game dictate their mood for more then a few moments after the game is over doesn't have their head on completely straight. Further the accomplishments of a sports team are not as tied to local accomplishment as you would think. The Maple Leafs last won the Stanley Cup in 1967, but it wasn't until the 1970s that Toronto truly came into its own as a great city and the financial capital of an entire country. Sure, the city would have loved a Leafs Cup victory or two between 1967 and today, but the lack of success of the city's most popular team didn't doom the city to perpetual misery.

[Formo]

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. It's nice to sugarcoat history and pretend that the Hornets were popular because teal and purple was the 90's penultimate color combo and they were popular because of that, but at it's heart, the city of Charlotte really loved our Bugs. Then slimeball George Shinn raped a woman, didn't get exactly what he wanted out of the city council, so he cut ties and ran away to Nola. The Bobcats were greeted with middling excitement that quickly turned into apathy and never once came anywhere close to matching the apex of the Hornets hysteria in Buzz City, due in no small part to the name being a direct reference to the original and second worst owner in Charlotte sports history, Bob Johnson. The name is an egotistical reference to him, that's why the 'Cats have been downplaying the "Bob" part of their name in recent years. I mean, it's pretty challenging to think of a less professional nickname for a top-level sports team than the "Cats," but the alienation of fans has driven it to that point. In print and online, some people refuse to refer to them as anything but the B**cats. Rebranding as the Hornets, even if it's not the "original ones," doesn't matter, because it's the original Hornets in our hearts. Grandmama, Muggsy, even Mourning and Glenn Rice, those are our memories and our achievements, regardless of what "official record" says. That being said, Crown Town as a whole is seeing an economic boost just from an upstart combining of two separate grassroots movements dedicated to what was once the longshot of getting the team name back. Now that it's a reality, these profits are just the tip of the iceberg. I'm not sure where to go for such numbers, but I'd be willing to bet a princely sum that retro Charlotte Hornets merchandise, merch for a team that DOESN'T EVEN EXIST ANYMORE, easily outsold Bobcats merchandise in each of the past two years. Imagine what a return to the living could do for such a storied, if under-achieving franchise. The thing is, not everyone understands that it's more than a logo. Charlotte was referred to as "a veritable hornet's nest of rebellion" by Charles Cornwallis during the Revolutionary War. That's something Charlotteans and North Carolinians take a great deal of pride in. Hornet's nests adorn the CLT/Mecklenburg Police seal, and the Hornets weren't even the first Charlotte sports team to be named such. In short, it's not just a team, a set of colors, or a logo. It's not even merely a far superior identity. First and foremost, it's history, pride, and 100% Charlotte. That's what the city needs: a team it can get behind. So far, the Bobcats have not been that team. The Hornets can be.

Well said. I'm a Wolves fan (among other MN sports teams) but I recall growing up in Northern Minnesota and Northern Wisconsin seeing a LOT of Charlotte Hornets gear. Remember the Starter jackets? Yeah, I think half of them in both locals were Charlotte Hornet jackets.

I would LOVE to see this happen.

[Bravo96]

Well said. I'm a Wolves fan (among other MN sports teams) but I recall growing up in Northern Minnesota and Northern Wisconsin seeing a LOT of Charlotte Hornets gear. Remember the Starter jackets? Yeah, I think half of them in both locals were Charlotte Hornet jackets.

I would LOVE to see this happen.

They'd be impossible to forget. Still have mine, along with the Champion replica Larry Johnson jersey.

Good times. Thanks for your support! For anyone who's reading this and truly would like to see the change, click my top banner where you can sign a petition on change.org to change the name back. Every signature sends an email to the Bobcats offices. It surpassed 11,000 this morning.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

^Awesome. I grew up in the NBA Jam era (early 90s), where every kid just liked the best team. The Pistons' success was over, and everyone was on the Bulls bandwagon. I LOVED the Hornets. I had a starter snapback, a jacket, tons of shirts.

[Formo]

Well said. I'm a Wolves fan (among other MN sports teams) but I recall growing up in Northern Minnesota and Northern Wisconsin seeing a LOT of Charlotte Hornets gear. Remember the Starter jackets? Yeah, I think half of them in both locals were Charlotte Hornet jackets.

I would LOVE to see this happen.

They'd be impossible to forget. Still have mine, along with the Champion replica Larry Johnson jersey.

Good times. Thanks for your support! For anyone who's reading this and truly would like to see the change, click my top banner where you can sign a petition on change.org to change the name back. Every signature sends an email to the Bobcats offices. It surpassed 11,000 this morning.

Done. Would love to see a piece of my childhood come back. Even if it's just for cosmetics.

[Wilt]

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.

For me it's not the same kind of devotion:

For you, maybe not. It certainly is for some people though, whether you get it or not.

1. Maybe it's just me but I can never get so much involved in a movie as in a game. I'm too aware that the former was directed from the beginning till the end plus someone can always spoil it for me.

True story. The day before Star Wars Episode III came out a friend of mine won free tickets to see a per-release screening and he invited me along. We saw everything you'd expect to see. Fans dressed up, unable to contain themselves as they waited for the film to start. In fact two guys dressed up as Jedi Knights started a lightsabre fight up in front as we were waiting for the show to start. Now here's the kicker. This was the third movie of the prequel trilogy. This wasn't Episode I where people still honestly believed it was impossible to screw up a Star Wars movie. This wasn't Episode II where fans were desperately hoping it would be good to wash away the disappointed from the first one. This was Episode III. Everyone by this point, even the fans, knew the prequels were terrible. Yet these fans still showed up. They new the movie would likely suck, and they new what would happen at the end. Yet they couldn't wait because they loved Star Wars that much. Sounds an awful lot like some of us who have stuck with teams through extended periods of futility, doesn't it?

2. One can be a fan of both Star Wars and Star Trek, while you can't support both the Lakers and the Celtics.

I've seen fans of both claim you can't be a fan of the other

Anyway yeah. You can be a fan of both Star Wars and Star Trek and not be a fan of the Lakers and Celtics, but you can be a fan of the Lakers and Dodgers, which is a more apt comparison.

3. Considering ticket and apparell prices, supporting a sport team is more financially demanding.

I'm sure some fans of some movie franchises with extensive apparel collections would debate that statement.

4. Fans can affect the outcome of the game. Just compare the home and road records for most of the teams.

Truly good teams won't let the home team's crowd dictate the flow of the game. The idea that crowds can will home teams to victory is both a marketing ploy and an excuse.

Also worth noting is the fact that a good crowd can make a mediocre movie seem better then it is. The first Trasformers movie is merely an ok summer popcorn flick, but it seems like an awesome epic if you see it for the first time in a theatre full of Transformers fans and genuinely excited movie goers.

5. It can be linked to a local/national pride and affect the community. After the World Cup game in a European country people are frendlier and more optimistic if their team won last night.

Anyone who lets the outcome of game dictate their mood for more then a few moments after the game is over doesn't have their head on completely straight. Further the accomplishments of a sports team are not as tied to local accomplishment as you would think. The Maple Leafs last won the Stanley Cup in 1967, but it wasn't until the 1970s that Toronto truly came into its own as a great city and the financial capital of an entire country. Sure, the city would have loved a Leafs Cup victory or two between 1967 and today, but the lack of success of the city's most popular team didn't doom the city to perpetual misery.

1. People showed up to THREE movies. Blazers sold out all 2011-12 season games despite the fact that they eventually finished with a 28-38 record.

2. I don't get the comparison between basketball and baseball. For me is like mixing apples and oranges.

3. I understand that limited edition lightsabers might be expensive but the average season ticket prices are around 2.5 K. You can get under 1K for most of the teams but you have to sit under the roof where you see hardly anything. And this is not the cost of dressing up for the Comic-Con but just watching the games. I suppose you get much better cinema seats for such price.

4. Then explain to me how come only 3 teams managed to win in Denver. There is not a single team in the NBA that would have a better road than home record. Marketing ploy?

5. I suppose you have to be a supporter yourself to get my last point.

[uk-owns-iu]

Aren't the Charlotte Knights changing names? Bobcats become Hornets, Knights become Bobcats, Knights name is saved for a future team in SC.