« Reply #1411 on: June 19, 2024, 02:07:22 PM »
All of that information is factually accurate, but for me it just proves my point that "franchise" is nothing more than a legal construct that few people beyond lawyers care about. Do OKC fans really care about Sonics stuff? Not that I've heard. Would Angelenos care about the Minneapolis Lakers history if Minny hadn't won any titles? I very much doubt it.
And I don't think that things should hinge on whether a team changes its name. The current Hornets got the original Hornets stuff because they changed from Bobcats to Hornets? So if they'd stayed the Bobcats, they wouldn't have gotten the original Hornets stuff? Just a very weird way to decide the issue, IMO. The NBA should at least be consistent: In every case, either the history follows the "franchise," or it doesn't.
Oh sure, I'm just providing some context around why it's arbitrary and inconsistent - because, as you say, it's entirely arbitrary and inconsistent. The biggest factor appears to be the circumstances surrounding the team's departure from the area (or, more cynically, the continued presence of a fanbase).
Got it. Thanks!

Logged
There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'
You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.
C.S. Lewis