Charlotte Hornets?

[chakfu]

Here's what they should've done;

The NBA should've took ownership of the Charlotte Hornets from Shinn & created an expansion team in New Orleans. Then give Shinn the new franchise in New Orleans with a new brand & 2002 founded date. The only thing Shinn takes with him from Charlotte is 15 players. Then the NBA should've declared that the Charlotte Hornets were temporarily a league-owned franchise & would resume play in two seasons after new ownership had been selected & established. Then everything is clear & the history is actually true.

New Orleans Pelicans- 2002-present

Charlotte Hornets- 1988-02, 2004-present

That's *exactly* what the Browns / Ravens situation was. So why do so many people still complain about that not being "historically true"?

I would take it a step further - if a city is worthy of a replacement expansion franchise, then the move shouldn't be approved to begin with. Modell should have been allowed to sell the Browns to Lerner in 1999 and to establish an expansion team in Baltimore that same year. I guess the owners wouldn't vote for that in case they want to move their franchise in the future. But the league should value and preserve its brand identity more - a league with the Browns owning 6 NFL championships and playing against the Oilers would have a lot more integrity than one with minor league rebrands like Ravens/Texans/Titans and a miserable Browns reboot. I can't argue with the idea that it "lowered the bar", but at least it is still "historically true" and not to the level of pretending the Winnipeg Jets or Charlotte Hornets are the original franchises.

[IceCap]

Except that the Winnipeg Jets don't pretend that they're the original team. The original Jets' history belongs to the Phoenix Coyotes. It's the Browns and Hornets who are pretending.

[chakfu]

The Browns/Ravens was much cleaner than this. There were no overlapping histories to deal with. What was done there was quite simple by comparison. But it was still historical revision and it set the tone that even allowed us to think of moving around the histories of these teams and just sort of making it up as we go.

How could it have been historical revision when the history hadn't been written yet? In that summer, the Ravens were officially created, and the Browns officially went on hiatus. It may have been messy but there was no revision involved. It's not like someone went back 5 years and decided to put an asterisk in the record book. Sure, in the wake of the protests they suddenly changed the course and nature of the move that had been in motion a few months. But despite the T-shirts, the Baltimore Browns were no more official than St. Petersburg Giants.

Except that the Winnipeg Jets don't pretend that they're the original team. The original Jets' history belongs to the Phoenix Coyotes. It's the Browns and Hornets who are pretending.

It's you and the Hornets who are pretending.

[IceCap]

The Browns/Ravens was much cleaner than this. There were no overlapping histories to deal with. What was done there was quite simple by comparison. But it was still historical revision and it set the tone that even allowed us to think of moving around the histories of these teams and just sort of making it up as we go.

How could it have been historical revision when the history hadn't been written yet? In that summer, the Ravens were officially created, and the Browns officially went on hiatus. It may have been messy but there was no revision involved. It's not like someone went back 5 years and decided to put an asterisk in the record book. Sure, in the wake of the protests they suddenly changed the course and nature of the move that had been in motion a few months. But despite the T-shirts, the Baltimore Browns were no more official than St. Petersburg Giants.

Except that the Winnipeg Jets don't pretend that they're the original team. The original Jets' history belongs to the Phoenix Coyotes. It's the Browns and Hornets who are pretending.

It's you and the Hornets who are pretending.

Yeah. Ok.

[spartacat_12]

Also, why reintroduce teal into the league if you're just going to wear purple on the road? They have a colour that's unique to the NBA but they're going to dress like the Kings and Lakers (and sort of Raptors who are throwing back to the purple, dinosaur unis).

...and the Suns.

I knew I was forgetting someone.

[TaylorMade]

Last night ESPN reported that the Thunder's 35 point loss was their worst loss since a 1978, 35 point loss to the Bullets. Talk about revisionist history. THIS is exactly why histories need to stay with the city. Especially when the team changes their nickname.

They were the Seattle Supersonics in 1978. Until the Sonics return, that history is in OKC for now because what else? The Thunder aren't an expansion team.

[OnWis97]

Last night ESPN reported that the Thunder's 35 point loss was their worst loss since a 1978, 35 point loss to the Bullets. Talk about revisionist history. THIS is exactly why histories need to stay with the city. Especially when the team changes their nickname.

They were the Seattle Supersonics in 1978. Until the Sonics return, that history is in OKC for now because what else? The Thunder aren't an expansion team.

Both this banner and ESPN's statement can be true. It's very true that the Thunder were established in 2008, just as the Twins were in 1961. But both teams had franchises dating to previous cities. Bert Blyleven may be the best pitcher in Twins history but Walter Johnson is the best pitcher in franchise history. He is certainly not the best pitcher in the history of the current Nationals franchise.

I did not hear how ESPN phrased its stat about the 1978 loss but usually when they do that, they say (for example) "since 1978, when the franchise was known as the Seattle Supersonics." Failing that, I'd guess they said "it was the franchise's worst loss since 1978." If they did simply say it was "the Thunder's worst loss since 1978" then I'd suggest that they should probably should have been more thorough in that statement. It was "the truth" but not really "the whole truth."

[OnWis97]

The Browns/Ravens was much cleaner than this. There were no overlapping histories to deal with. What was done there was quite simple by comparison. But it was still historical revision and it set the tone that even allowed us to think of moving around the histories of these teams and just sort of making it up as we go.

How could it have been historical revision when the history hadn't been written yet? In that summer, the Ravens were officially created, and the Browns officially went on hiatus. It may have been messy but there was no revision involved. It's not like someone went back 5 years and decided to put an asterisk in the record book. Sure, in the wake of the protests they suddenly changed the course and nature of the move that had been in motion a few months. But despite the T-shirts, the Baltimore Browns were no more official than St. Petersburg Giants.

The "Baltimore Browns" may never have existed, but the "official history" of the NFL is as follows:

• The Browns suspended play for three years
• The expansion Ravens started during year 1 of Browns hiatus. Coincidentally, the Ravens ended up with most of the players the Browns had the previous year. I guess that makes sense though, since their old team suspended operations and there was a new team with no players just begging for players to come.

The revision is that we are pretending that there is any linear connecting between "these" Browns and "those" Browns. And that there is no connection between the Ravens and "those" Browns.

We love to talk about "one franchise players" like Robin Yount, Tony Gwynn, John Stockton, etc. So suppose the following two events happen:

• The Minnesota Timberwolves move to Seattle, become the Sonics, and absorb the Sonics history.
• Kevin Durant retires as a member of the Thunder

Is Kevin Durant considered a "one team" or "one franchise" player? I know in the grand scheme of things it's not that important, but we do tend to revere those guys (I wanted to use a Browns/Ravens example but Orlando Brown was about the best player I could find who played for both teams and no other teams).

Anyhow, as a Minnesotan, I have no interest in the NBA telling me that some of the Laker titles belong to the Timberwolves. The history books (correctly) show that they were won by the Lakers, who currently reside in LA. They also correctly tell us that the first titles were won in Minnesota. People can read that and determine for themselves what that means; it's kinda fun. (sticking with my Minnesota bias) No Twins fan I know claims Walter Johnson or the 1924 World Series win. It's true; we don't care about that. But these are still things that happened to this franchise and not to the current Nats.

The T-Wolves have a banner hanging from the rafters acknowledging Minneapolis Lakers that are in the Hall of Fame. It's a part of Minnesota basketball history, but not a part of Timberwolves history. If they wanted to acknowledge titles won in Minnesota, that would be OK too, so long as they (and particularly the league) do not "officially" tell us that the T-Wolves won them before their 28-year hiatus and name change.

(One last Minnesota thing) As a North Stars fan (who will never quite feel the same about the Wild) I am glad that Dallas kept the name (the portion that made any sense, anyway). I am glad that the Stars acknowledge the MN part of their history. I am glad they retired Neal Broten's number (he played in Dallas, but it was retired primarily for what he accomplished in Minnesota) and continued to recognize the two numbers that the North Stars had already retired. This is exactly how I want it handled...The North Stars will not totally be forgotten. What I don't want is for us to pretend that Neal Broten played for the Wild before the WildStars shut down operations and he went to the expansion Dallas club.

NHL and MLB are (so far) doing it right. I hope they don't follow the newer model that started because Cleveland had the best, most lunch box-carrying fans around.

I think with this I'll shut up on this thread unless I have an opinion on the the uniforms/logos (I do, but I am too tired now)

[truepg]

I'm really wondering, why they didn't put the wordmark from the logo on the jerseys, as it has more character. The jersey wordmark is more generic-looking.

[_RH_]

I'm going to change my name to Michael Jackson. I suspended operations in 2009, but am now back and ready to receive royalties.

[BBTV]

so does the all-time winning percentage of the Pelicans now change? Did they go from hundreds of wins to fewer than 100?

If the NO franchise leader in scoring played for both the Cha and NO versions of the team, could he now no longer be the leader since his stats are now split?

Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid.

[Sport]

so does the all-time winning percentage of the Pelicans now change? Did they go from hundreds of wins to fewer than 100?

If the NO franchise leader in scoring played for both the Cha and NO versions of the team, could he now no longer be the leader since his stats are now split?

Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid.

This is the best way to illustrate how dumb this is.

Another example: Let's use Baron Davis. He was a Charlotte Hornet and a New Orleans Hornet. With this adopting of the Hornets history by the Bobcats his stats just changed from one franchise to another without having ever truly played for one of those franchises.

[jakepled]

It pleases me that this pisses off so many people.

[Mr. Bojangles]

Last night ESPN reported that the Thunder's 35 point loss was their worst loss since a 1978, 35 point loss to the Bullets. Talk about revisionist history. THIS is exactly why histories need to stay with the city. Especially when the team changes their nickname.

They were the Seattle Supersonics in 1978. Until the Sonics return, that history is in OKC for now because what else? The Thunder aren't an expansion team.

What about the Pelicans? They are an expansion team that never had to go through an expansion draft!

They just drafted all Charlotte Hornets players.

I am torn on the splitting of the franchise history. As a Charlotte Hornets fan, I am glad that the NBA is trying to right a wrong that happened over a decade ago, but they may have gone too far. I am thrilled that the current Charlotte franchise now has the rights to all the throwbacks, logos, alumni, Phills retired jersey, etc, but am uneasy about all the stats coming to the new franchise. They have said that the only way to get the rights, they had to take on the entire history. Who knows if this is really the case, or just what is being said.

I am just glad the name and colors are back. I grew up on the Hornets, and really tried to get into the Bobcats. Even had season tickets for a year, but just couldn't embrace the name/ brand. The combination of the team making the playoffs and the name change have this city more pumped about the NBA than it has been in a very long time. Keep that product on the court moving in the right direction and we could have something special here.

[Conrad.]

I'm really wondering, why they didn't put the wordmark from the logo on the jerseys, as it has more character. The jersey wordmark is more generic-looking.

agreed. they shoulda done that, and of course had a "CHARLOTTE" away uni in the same styling.

kinda like this: http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/90303-bringin-the-buzz-back-to-charlotte-new-unis-court/page-2#entry2141872

[jakepled]

I'm really wondering, why they didn't put the wordmark from the logo on the jerseys, as it has more character. The jersey wordmark is more generic-looking.

agreed. they shoulda done that, and of course had a "CHARLOTTE" away uni in the same styling.

kinda like this: http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/90303-bringin-the-buzz-back-to-charlotte-new-unis-court/page-2#entry2141872

Phills wore 13.... not 14

[BBTV]

The Pellicans are probably happy to be able to purge the pleated shorts from their history. I'm sure that's one part of this that Charlotte doesn't want back.

[Conrad.]

I'm really wondering, why they didn't put the wordmark from the logo on the jerseys, as it has more character. The jersey wordmark is more generic-looking.

agreed. they shoulda done that, and of course had a "CHARLOTTE" away uni in the same styling.

kinda like this: http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/90303-bringin-the-buzz-back-to-charlotte-new-unis-court/page-2#entry2141872

Phills wore 13.... not 14

lol. meh, the team's coming in 2014, and i wanted to honor Bobby. they don't have anybody cool who wore #14.

[Shadojoker]

Didnt see this posted but according to Conrad via the sportslogos main site. the new unis WILL have pinstripes

Conrad is usually on point with this. Example: Pelicans wordmarks from last year was right on the money.

Conrad is indeed on point with most everything, but we've known pinstripes will be on the jerseys ever since the color palette was unveiled months ago.

Obviously you haven't been reading or hearing about how pinstripes MIGHT NOT be on the unis. I for one was part of the believers when the NEWS FIRST BROKE that multicolored pinstripes were in.

That post was clearly debunking those "no pinstripes" rumors. Thanks though WSU

[truepg]

I'm really wondering, why they didn't put the wordmark from the logo on the jerseys, as it has more character. The jersey wordmark is more generic-looking.

agreed. they shoulda done that, and of course had a "CHARLOTTE" away uni in the same styling.

kinda like this: http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/90303-bringin-the-buzz-back-to-charlotte-new-unis-court/page-2#entry2141872

I can understand, though, why they have the nickname on the away uni instead of the city name, since "Charlotte" can still invoke associations of the Bobcats.