Part of the issue here is the "franchise" concept, and the NBA's own inconsistency in defining that concept.
Not long ago, the NBA "awarded" the new Charlotte Hornets all of the history, stats, and records of the old Charlotte Hornets, who are now the New Orleans Pelicans, so now "the history of the Hornets" actually comprises TWO franchises. And I wonder, would the NBA have done that if the old Hornets (the current Pelicans) had won a title? Because in that case, the new Hornets could say that their franchise had a title, AND the Pelicans could say that their franchise had a title.
Also, if a team in City X goes defunct (something that used to happen fairly often in all major sports), but then a few years later the people who owned the defunct team are awarded an expansion team in City Y, that would technically be two franchises, yet having the same ownership would make them functionally the same team/franchise.
Quote from: Roy H. on Today at 03:49:45 AM
Same ownership, same management, same players? Then yes, itís the same franchise, and accordingly, those titles belong to that franchise. The city of LA doesnít own those titles, but the Lakers franchise does.
So then, by this logic, fans of the Los Angeles
Lakers shouldn't be saying that they're the 16-time (soon-to-be 17-time) NBA champs. Yet they do.
Quote from: gift on: Today at 06:15:03 AM
The franchise certainly owns those titles. Modern Lakers fans probably can't really celebrate them though.
Oh, but they do. In their minds, their upcoming title will make "their team" equal to "our team," even though "their team" (the Los Angeles
Lakers) will still trail the Celtics by 5 titles.