Jump to content

Charlotte Hornets


camly

Recommended Posts

This may be a dumb question, but why do people seem to be in love with the idea of bringing back the Charlotte Hornets much more than any other defunct or relocated franchise in any other sport? Is it just because of how the name sounds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because sports.

That and I think the Bobcat name was never fully accepted.

Owner has a fan contest to name the team, but decides to name it after himself and the team winds up being terrible on top of it.

Also the Hornet name and image was one of the most popular in the NBA and Charlotte didn't lose the team because of lack of fan support. They lost it because they fed up with the owner and the team was going to go before he was. If had sold the team to someone else, no doubt the Hornets would still be in Charlotte.

I didn't have an issue with the Hornets being in New Orleans. I thought they did a good job building a unique brand image down there separate from what it was in Charlotte. I'm looking more as would I take Pelicans over Bobcats and the answer for me at least is yes. Bobcats is one of those names that just makes no damn sense to me for a team to be in a city like Charlotte. Might as well just call them the Wildcats or the Bulldogs. Makes just as much sense.

My question is why did so many people just flat out hate the idea of it when it being suggested? I could understand not liking it, but there's some people here that had really some unjustified hate towards it. It may have been more of a reflection of the people who supported it, but still. End of the day its a name and to be honest there's not many teams out there who I really feel like have names that are untouchable, especially in the NBA where hardly any franchise is more then 50 years old. (And I'm talking about playing in the same city for 50+ straight years.) Get a real history first before you get to that level of importance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why do people seem to be in love with the idea of bringing back the Charlotte Hornets much more than any other defunct or relocated franchise in any other sport?

Because the Winnipeg Jets had to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THe Charlotte Hornets come from a legendary Revolutionary War fighting unit. It was a great moniker, they had a great color scheme, greta logo, and a great mascot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THe Charlotte Hornets come from a legendary Revolutionary War fighting unit. It was a great moniker, they had a great color scheme, greta logo, and a great mascot.

And the Bobcats aren't that team.

As for the Revolutionary War thing? The city of Charlotte's named after the wife of the King the Americans were rebelling against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THe Charlotte Hornets come from a legendary Revolutionary War fighting unit. It was a great moniker, they had a great color scheme, greta logo, and a great mascot.

And the Bobcats aren't that team.

In this case Bobcats is such a $hitty name for a professional sports franchise that it needs to happen.

I've noticed you get hung up on franchise lineage quite a bit.

Let me ask you a question using a hypothetical - Let's say the Houston Texans had decided to name themselves the Oilers. We all know the Oilers moved to Tennessee and renamed themselves the Titans. So now there's a 2002 expansion team named the Oilers. What's the difference between a footnote in the historical records that says a new team appropriated the Oilers nickname in 2002 and a footnote that a new team named the Texans started play in 2002?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THe Charlotte Hornets come from a legendary Revolutionary War fighting unit. It was a great moniker, they had a great color scheme, greta logo, and a great mascot.

And the Bobcats aren't that team.

I've noticed you get hung up on franchise lineage quite a bit.

Yes. I'm a historian with some training in archiving. I like to see things as they actually happened.

Let me ask you a question using a hypothetical - Let's say the Houston Texans had decided to name themselves the Oilers. We all know the Oilers moved to Tennessee and renamed themselves the Titans. So now there's a 2002 expansion team named the Oilers. What's the difference between a footnote in the historical records that says a new team appropriated the Oilers nickname in 2002 and a footnote that a new team named the Texans started play in 2002?

I've softened on the idea of shared nicknames since the Winnipeg Jets 2.0 set the precedent for doing it right. You can use an old nickname of a team still active elsewhere as long as you don't pretend to be that old team.

If Houston's 2002 expansion team called themselves the Oilers then that would have been fine so long as they didn't claim the history of the original Oilers. For better or worse that history belongs to the Titans. They'd be free to celebrate the original Oilers and their accomplishments, but history should reflect the fact that the team that earned those accomplishments is currently in Tennessee as the Titans. Let the Titans claim the lineage while the 2002 team uses the name.

Same with the Hornicats here. Wear a version of the original Charlotte Hornets' uniforms. Use a version of Hugo as the logo. Go nuts and celebrate Alonzo Mourning and Muggsy Bogues' contributions to Charlotte basketball. Just don't pretend that the team they played for is your team. You're a 2004 expansion team. Bogues and Mourning? They played for the team that's now the New Orleans Pelicans, and the official record books need to reflect that.

In this case Bobcats is such a $hitty name for a professional sports franchise that it needs to happen.

I disagree. The name included the name of the original owner. So what? Owners name teams for personal reasons all the time. It's not like he stuck "Bob" in front of something where it didn't fit. They weren't the Charlotte Bobeagles. "Bobcats" ultimately works because it's the name of an actual species of wild cat, and it's found in the region. We're all ok with teams named the Bears, Eagles, Tigers, and Cardinals. Why not Bobcats? The primary logo was pretty bad, but I didn't mind the two "cat in a basketball" alternates they used. Those were pretty cool. Honestly the Bobcats' brand could have been alright. All the necessary pieces were there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THe Charlotte Hornets come from a legendary Revolutionary War fighting unit. It was a great moniker, they had a great color scheme, greta logo, and a great mascot.

No.

And as explained before, for all that Charlotte plays up Cornwallis comparing the town to being "a nest of hornets" thanks to local Jacobin sentiment, THEY NEVER RENAMED THE TOWN DESPITE BEING NAMED AFTER THE QUEEN OF BRITAIN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell they even call the place the Queen City.

I get that the local Hornets name has meaning because the original basketball team was the first to wear teal and purple and they used that to catch the imagination of kids who grew up during the 90s (I'm one of them, for whatever it's worth) despite being a slightly above average team that never advanced past the second round of the playoffs.

If you want to champion the Hornets name just be honest about it. They had a fresh-for-the-time identity and they were a fun team to watch. That's all you need to do.

Don't drag up the Revolutionary War thing though, when the city's still proud of being named after the wife of the guy your country was rebelling against!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. The name included the name of the original owner. So what? Owners name teams for personal reasons all the time. It's not like he stuck "Bob" in front of something where it didn't fit. They weren't the Charlotte Bobeagles. "Bobcats" ultimately works because it's the name of an actual species of wild cat, and it's found in the region. We're all ok with teams named the Bears, Eagles, Tigers, and Cardinals. Why not Bobcats? The primary logo was pretty bad, but I didn't mind the two "cat in a basketball" alternates they used. Those were pretty cool. Honestly the Bobcats' brand could have been alright. All the necessary pieces were there.

I've always wondered this too. I don't feel that there is anything wrong with the name. Recent expansion names include Panthers (x2) and Jaguars. The "how" they got to that name is a bit cheesy but if that's the only issue, who cares? I'll tell you this...it beats Heat, Magic, Wild, Avalanche, etc. The uniforms/logos were definitley not great, I'll give you that.

Ultimately I think what is at play is not the "bad Bobcats" quite as much as this attachment to the Hornets to a degree that I never appreciated. I agree with Ice Cap (as I always do on the franchise/history issue) that a Jets-like approach would be best. However, I think the fervor here is probably calling for, essentially, a carbon copy. I hope they do just enough to make it distinguishable. Some de-90s-ing may achieve that.

I think the concerns of the historically-minded among us are legit. When the story broke, the headlines usually read something like "Bobcats reverting back to Hornets." I think the masses have already forgotten that the new Hornets (which are over a year from debuting) are not the old Hornets. So I guess all I can hope for is they don't try to go "Cleveland Deal" (which I don't think they will as this does not have the clean break that the Browns/Ravens had).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Cleveland-Dealing this would be troublesome. We had the New Orleans Hornets for ten years. If they Cleveland Deal this who gets that history? The Pelicans because it happened in New Orleans? Or the Hornets because of the name? And what happens to the nine year Bobcats history, as woefully underwhelming as it was? It's not as clean as Browns/Ravens was. The best way to deal with it would be to Winnipeg Jets 2.0 it. Charlotte Hornets 2.0- Est. 2004.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THe Charlotte Hornets come from a legendary Revolutionary War fighting unit. It was a great moniker, they had a great color scheme, greta logo, and a great mascot.

And the Bobcats aren't that team.

I've noticed you get hung up on franchise lineage quite a bit.

Yes. I'm a historian with some training in archiving. I like to see things as they actually happened.

Let me ask you a question using a hypothetical - Let's say the Houston Texans had decided to name themselves the Oilers. We all know the Oilers moved to Tennessee and renamed themselves the Titans. So now there's a 2002 expansion team named the Oilers. What's the difference between a footnote in the historical records that says a new team appropriated the Oilers nickname in 2002 and a footnote that a new team named the Texans started play in 2002?

I've softened on the idea of shared nicknames since the Winnipeg Jets 2.0 set the precedent for doing it right. You can use an old nickname of a team still active elsewhere as long as you don't pretend to be that old team.

If Houston's 2002 expansion team called themselves the Oilers then that would have been fine so long as they didn't claim the history of the original Oilers. For better or worse that history belongs to the Titans. They'd be free to celebrate the original Oilers and their accomplishments, but history should reflect the fact that the team that earned those accomplishments is currently in Tennessee as the Titans. Let the Titans claim the lineage while the 2002 team uses the name.

Same with the Hornicats here. Wear a version of the original Charlotte Hornets' uniforms. Use a version of Hugo as the logo. Go nuts and celebrate Alonzo Mourning and Muggsy Bogues' contributions to Charlotte basketball. Just don't pretend that the team they played for is your team. You're a 2004 expansion team. Bogues and Mourning? They played for the team that's now the New Orleans Pelicans, and the official record books need to reflect that.

I agree with you completely. The fans of the Hornets may treat this like a homecoming, but it should just be in name and appearance only. The NBA records should and probably will mark their history as the Bobcats/Hornets2.

In this case Bobcats is such a $hitty name for a professional sports franchise that it needs to happen.

I disagree. The name included the name of the original owner. So what? Owners name teams for personal reasons all the time. It's not like he stuck "Bob" in front of something where it didn't fit. They weren't the Charlotte Bobeagles. "Bobcats" ultimately works because it's the name of an actual species of wild cat, and it's found in the region. We're all ok with teams named the Bears, Eagles, Tigers, and Cardinals. Why not Bobcats? The primary logo was pretty bad, but I didn't mind the two "cat in a basketball" alternates they used. Those were pretty cool. Honestly the Bobcats' brand could have been alright. All the necessary pieces were there.

Hey, my alma-mater's nickname is the Bobcats. I love the nickname, but it didn't fit a professional team that started in 2004. Bears, Eagles, Tigers, and Cardinals have been around for generations. We can agree it would've been odd if they named themselves the Eagles?

It always felt super generic. It's like something you'd see a travel team full of 12 years old from any city wearing. The horrible amateur logo that I still can't believe they used doesn't dispel that feeling for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely get the "sounds like a rec team" argument. "Wildcats" pretty much did the name in before they played a game.

I liked it though, and I liked most of their logos (the primary was garbage, no argument there). Honestly I might order a hoodie or a t-shirt from them with the cat-in-ball logo. Just for the sake of having one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.